To [email protected]

Pat said:

You aren't the "victim" in your driving scenario. All of your
"justifications" point to you thinking that a lone cyclist has made you a
victim. You aren't.

To recoup:
The cyclist has the right to be on the road.

And is required "By law" to move off the road if more than 5 vehicles
are piled up behind them, just like in a car.

Quoted message said:

The cyclist does not have to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder.

No, but it is a better option than pissing off dozens or hundreds of
motorists each day.

Quoted message said:

You were not being obstructed even though you may have had to go slower than
you preferred.

Correct, as long as it was only for a block or two, then it gets old in
a hurry.

Quoted message said:

You are not concerned with his safety, only with your possible delay. it
shows.

Could have been running late to work, that shows too, with the boss.

Quoted message said:

Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.

Tell that to the line of cars behind a cyclist on a 45 MPH road.

Quoted message said:

Stop honking at cyclists. period. It is an arrogant thing to do.

A quick toot from far behind is better than nothing. A long blast close
up is cause for confrontation. Cars don't have "Ding, ding" cycle bells.

Quoted message said:

You have the right to pass when it is safe for both you and the vehicle in
the lane.

It has already been mentioned that it was rush hour and the left lane
was full of cars, probably caused by that cyclist who obnoxiously took
the lane and caused a traffic jam behind him.

Quoted message said:

You should get out of the lane when you pass a vehicle--and a bicycle is a
vehicle.

A damn slow vehicle compared to a car.

Quoted message said:

It does not matter what time of day this occurs.

Mostly true.

Quoted message said:

I hope I haven't left anything out.

I have been pulled over for impeding traffic in a car that blew a head
gasket and he told me to get off the road. That applies to bikes too.

Quoted message said:

Pat in TX

Bill wrote,
Pat,
Quit trying to be a cycling Nazi.

"Bill" wrote: I have been pulled over for impeding traffic in a car that
blew a head gasket and he told me to get off the road. That applies to
bikes too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll remember that the next time my bike blows a head gasket.

Bill said:

Pat said:

You aren't the "victim" in your driving scenario. All of your
"justifications" point to you thinking that a lone cyclist has made you a
victim. You aren't.

Quoted message said:

To recoup:
The cyclist has the right to be on the road.

And is required "By law" to move off the road if more than 5 vehicles
are piled up behind them, just like in a car.

If it may endanger the cyclist? BTW what law are you talking about.
This is an international forum. Traffic laws in Canada may not match
traffic laws in the USA or South Africa. I have never seen the 5
vehicle law in the ON or QC codes

Quoted message said:

The cyclist does not have to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder.

No, but it is a better option than pissing off dozens or hundreds of
motorists each day.

Why? They are already [censored] because they're in an automotive
traffic jam.

Quoted message said:

You were not being obstructed even though you may have had to go slower than

Quoted message said:

you preferred.

Correct, as long as it was only for a block or two, then it gets old in
a hurry.

So who cares? I try to be very courtious to motor vehicles but I
don't see any reason to be subservent and go around saying "Yes massa,
yes massa" just because I delaly a motorist for a few moments because
I feel my safety is in jeprody.

Quoted message said:

You are not concerned with his safety, only with your possible delay. it

Quoted message said:

shows.

Could have been running late to work, that shows too, with the boss.> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.

Tell that to the line of cars behind a cyclist on a 45 MPH road.

I have 🙂 Of course in rush hour I am usually passing a few hundred
stopped cars on the 45 mph road. You may have missed the point that
the cyclist caught up to the OP at the next red light.

Quoted message said:

Stop honking at cyclists. period. It is an arrogant thing to do.

A quick toot from far behind is better than nothing. A long blast close
up is cause for confrontation.

You're right in that a short "I;m here " toot is not all that bad but
since 99.9% of cyclists already know that even if the idiot driver
does not the toot is still startling and may be misintepreted

Quoted message said:

Cars don't have "Ding, ding" cycle bells.

They are normally more than noisey enough. A horn is all to easily
seen as a threat. Most cars in my expereince don't honk when they
approach another motor vehicle.

Quoted message said:

You have the right to pass when it is safe for both you and the vehicle in

Quoted message said:

the lane.

It has already been mentioned that it was rush hour and the left lane
was full of cars, probably caused by that cyclist who obnoxiously took
the lane and caused a traffic jam behind him.

Bull [censored] and you know it.

Quoted message said:

You should get out of the lane when you pass a vehicle--and a bicycle is a

Quoted message said:

vehicle.

A damn slow vehicle compared to a car.

Some times.

Quoted message said:

It does not matter what time of day this occurs.
Mostly true.

Quoted message said:

I hope I haven't left anything out.

I have been pulled over for impeding traffic in a car that blew a head
gasket and he told me to get off the road. That applies to bikes too.

Quoted message said:

Pat in TX

Bill wrote,
Pat,
Quit trying to be a cycling Nazi.

Of course in rush hour I am usually passing a few hundred
stopped cars on the 45 mph road. You may have missed the point that
the cyclist caught up to the OP at the next red light.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

1. If it is rush hour it may not be 45mph traffic.
2. They ought to slow down and save gas and the air.
3. Drivers cut me off constantly and they purposefully act like they
do not see me coming and all they are going to do is sit in traffic anyway.
That is why I would rather be on my own, going alot faster, than with them
hanging
over my head all the way stinking up the highway and the scenery with their
ugly faces.
Albeit residential has its own dangers I am talking larger parallel
arterials but with less traffic.

the 80 ton double trailer semi that almost mowed be down twice had to sit in
traffic behind another 30 cars turning left. He said I was in his way.
Whoosh.

Quoted message said:

the 80 ton double trailer semi that almost mowed be down twice had to sit
in traffic behind another 30 cars turning left. He said I was in his
way. Whoosh.

I think he needed a gun pointed to his head to feel what it was like with a
couple rounds aimed over his bow. He should damn well go the jail for
threatening my life also.
Why do drivers get away with that. That is not how things are done
democratically.
No one likes getting taught a lesson. Nobody learns like that on the road.
Go to your mla and cry for wider streets for the bikers so you can drive
your 80 ton semi whatevers where you please. Donot go driving like a maniac
like so many do.
If a train was headed for a person down the track, they could not hear you
and you could not warn them, and you could stop it from hitting them by
jumping in front of the train yourself would you?
Well, scaring me off the street where I have never ridden before BTW, is not
going to solve the probem which is the mismanagement of traffic by the
gov'ts.

Pat said:

The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.

I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:

1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply

It seems the cycling nazis fall mostly into the most primitive
category 1 type of citizens. I.e, because the law says so then it is
correct in every gazillion situation. The absurdity of this can be
seen by looking at how quickly bike laws differ from state to state.
I dont see anything different about the roads and drivers between
most states, so why should the laws be different? So if you are the
type who blindly follows laws then you will be totally unprepared for
handling unique situations.

It seems the only voice of reason is Bill on this forum . He has
obviously internalized the meanings of the laws and knows in what
situations it is correct to obey/disobey him. He is someone who would
have no problem cycling in any state because he understands how to
apply experience and common sense to bike in any situation.

Leo Lichtman said:

"Bill" wrote: I have been pulled over for impeding traffic in a car that
blew a head gasket and he told me to get off the road. That applies to
bikes too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll remember that the next time my bike blows a head gasket.

Wow,
Must be some kinda cool bike.
Bill

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pat said:

The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.

I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:

1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply

YOU are the driver who is trying you disobey laws when they DO apply.

4) Obey laws because they are the thin line between order and anarchy.

In the end, Veggie, you reveal yourself to be just another "entitled" driver
who thinks the laws don't apply to him because he's so special. When you sit
there in a traffic jam with all the other caged animals, because some other
special person up ahead was too special to stop at a red light and got
t-boned, or was too special to find a parking space and is blocking an
entire lane while he runs in to get his dry-cleaning, think about how
special you are now. Meanwhile, the guy on the bike is home by now.

Here's an exercise for the simple-minded: make a list, and every time you
get stopped in traffic for more than two minutes, add the cause to the list.
Pretty soon you'll get tired of makin a list that consists entirely of
traffic jams caused by TOO MANY CARS, with not a single one caused by a
cyclist anywhere on there.

So be as self righteous as like. You won't fix your problem as long as you
and everybody like you keeps driving, and if every cyclist on the planet
stopped riding their bikes, your problem would just get that much worse.

Any way you look at it, your position is self-defeating.

R

John Kane said:

Bill said:

Pat said:

You aren't the "victim" in your driving scenario. All of your
"justifications" point to you thinking that a lone cyclist has made you a
victim. You aren't.
To recoup:
The cyclist has the right to be on the road.

And is required "By law" to move off the road if more than 5 vehicles
are piled up behind them, just like in a car.

If it may endanger the cyclist? BTW what law are you talking about.
This is an international forum. Traffic laws in Canada may not match
traffic laws in the USA or South Africa. I have never seen the 5
vehicle law in the ON or QC codes

USA, California.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The cyclist does not have to ride in the gutter or on the shoulder.

No, but it is a better option than pissing off dozens or hundreds of
motorists each day.

Why? They are already [censored] because they're in an automotive
traffic jam.

Yeah, and if you get enough of them [censored] to be honking at the lead
driver because they don't see you, he might try to pass or maybe rear
end you. He would probably get off and the other motorists cheering him.
Ride to stay healthy, not [censored] as many motorists as possible.
I rode today on a country road, legal side even, close to the stripe,
and got a few beeps for warning, and even a few waves and beeps from
traffic on the other side. Have a good attitude and not a me versus them
train of thought and it can be quite nice.
BTW, I got passed by a hybrid of some sort today, and didn't hear it
coming behind me. They are too quiet.
Also Harleys passing you can blast your ears. They apparently don't like
us slow bicycle riders.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You were not being obstructed even though you may have had to go slower than

Quoted message said:

you preferred.

Correct, as long as it was only for a block or two, then it gets old in
a hurry.

So who cares? I try to be very courtious to motor vehicles but I
don't see any reason to be subservent and go around saying "Yes massa,
yes massa" just because I delaly a motorist for a few moments because
I feel my safety is in jeprody.

As someone just said above, after a block or two it gets old, and
holding someone up for more than that is being an [censored]. That just
means the car driver won't give you more respect, but contempt.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are not concerned with his safety, only with your possible delay. it

Quoted message said:

shows.

Could have been running late to work, that shows too, with the boss.> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.

Tell that to the line of cars behind a cyclist on a 45 MPH road.

I have 🙂 Of course in rush hour I am usually passing a few hundred
stopped cars on the 45 mph road. You may have missed the point that
the cyclist caught up to the OP at the next red light.

Quoted message said:

Stop honking at cyclists. period. It is an arrogant thing to do.

A quick toot from far behind is better than nothing. A long blast close
up is cause for confrontation.

You're right in that a short "I;m here " toot is not all that bad but
since 99.9% of cyclists already know that even if the idiot driver
does not the toot is still startling and may be misintepreted

I actually got the toot..toot from a few hundred yards behind twice
today and they both crossed over a double yellow line to pass me. That
is a no pass sign here in California and a trooper might see it as an
excuse for a ticket. An oncoming car, other lane, laid on the horn for
about 15 seconds until he was past. OK, horn works, but driver may not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cars don't have "Ding, ding" cycle bells.

They are normally more than noisey enough. A horn is all to easily
seen as a threat. Most cars in my expereince don't honk when they
approach another motor vehicle.

Quoted message said:

You have the right to pass when it is safe for both you and the vehicle in

Quoted message said:

the lane.

It has already been mentioned that it was rush hour and the left lane
was full of cars, probably caused by that cyclist who obnoxiously took
the lane and caused a traffic jam behind him.

Bull [censored] and you know it.

We need a picture.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You should get out of the lane when you pass a vehicle--and a bicycle is a

Quoted message said:

vehicle.

A damn slow vehicle compared to a car.

Some times.

Quoted message said:

It does not matter what time of day this occurs.
Mostly true.

Quoted message said:

I hope I haven't left anything out.

I have been pulled over for impeding traffic in a car that blew a head
gasket and he told me to get off the road. That applies to bikes too.

Quoted message said:

Pat in TX

Bill wrote,
Pat,
Quit trying to be a cycling Nazi.

Another never ending debate.
At least it was a nice riding day today.
Sigh, again.
Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Pat said:

The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.

I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
ok, then it is 'right'.

So you have this wrong-headed, firm belief that cyclists have no
right to be on the road, despite what the Law says. Okay. Now
we know where we stand.

Quoted message said:

There are three ways to understand law:

Sure, Judge Veg, Your Worship.

By extension you could also rationalize that because the law
says it is /wrong/, doesn't necessarily mean it's not ok --
like you, creating a disturbance/disturbing the peace with
your unnecessary horn-honking.

I guess the Law is only right when it's in your favour.
And when it isn't, it's a ass.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

nash said:

Quoted message said:

the 80 ton double trailer semi that almost mowed be down twice had to sit
in traffic behind another 30 cars turning left. He said I was in his
way. Whoosh.

80 tons in the US is about double the limit. Here it is more like
80,000 pounds for everything. 80 tons is an oversize load and requires
warning cars to accompany them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think he needed a gun pointed to his head to feel what it was like with a
couple rounds aimed over his bow. He should damn well go the jail for
threatening my life also.
Why do drivers get away with that. That is not how things are done
democratically.

Driving is Democratic?

Quoted message said:

No one likes getting taught a lesson. Nobody learns like that on the road.
Go to your mla and cry for wider streets for the bikers so you can drive
your 80 ton semi whatevers where you please. Donot go driving like a maniac
like so many do.

We had an 80 ton semi overturn here in California just south of
Sacramento, and it was an oversize load with a warning car. The driver
was "not paying attention" (CHP conclusion) and went off the right side
of the road. He then tried to correct this and lost it and overturned.
About 500 gallons of brake fluid was leaked onto the road.
Would have been better to use 2 semis, or a better driver.
[censored] happens.

Quoted message said:

If a train was headed for a person down the track, they could not hear you
and you could not warn them, and you could stop it from hitting them by
jumping in front of the train yourself would you?

Some body with an I-pod or cell phone got Darwined out here a few months
back. Body slam to get him out of the way I would consider, but not
sacrifice myself for him.

Quoted message said:

Well, scaring me off the street where I have never ridden before BTW, is not
going to solve the probem which is the mismanagement of traffic by the
gov'ts.

Nobody here will argue about that, ever.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pat said:

The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.

I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:

1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply

It seems the cycling nazis fall mostly into the most primitive
category 1 type of citizens. I.e, because the law says so then it is
correct in every gazillion situation. The absurdity of this can be
seen by looking at how quickly bike laws differ from state to state.
I dont see anything different about the roads and drivers between
most states, so why should the laws be different? So if you are the
type who blindly follows laws then you will be totally unprepared for
handling unique situations.

It seems the only voice of reason is Bill on this forum . He has
obviously internalized the meanings of the laws and knows in what
situations it is correct to obey/disobey him. He is someone who would
have no problem cycling in any state because he understands how to
apply experience and common sense to bike in any situation.

If you mean I am still alive and bending the law for my own safety, that
I understand. Today I went for a 4.5 hour ride and followed all laws
since the semi plague seems to have taken the day off. I did have some
good interactions with car drivers today, maybe because there was no
hurry and none of those damned double dump semis.
Some people just don't get it and will damn and double damn me for not
living by their standards.
I seem to be the odd duck on this group for defensive riding.
Happys to yah.
Bill Baka

Rich Clark said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pat said:

The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.

I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:

1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply

YOU are the driver who is trying you disobey laws when they DO apply.

4) Obey laws because they are the thin line between order and anarchy.

What's this anarchy [censored]? Some traffic laws are written really bad by
legislators who 'think' they know what to do.
Politicians write the laws and us mere mortals are supposed to follow
them, good, bad, or just plain wrong.

Quoted message said:

In the end, Veggie, you reveal yourself to be just another "entitled" driver
who thinks the laws don't apply to him because he's so special. When you sit
there in a traffic jam with all the other caged animals, because some other
special person up ahead was too special to stop at a red light and got
t-boned, or was too special to find a parking space and is blocking an
entire lane while he runs in to get his dry-cleaning, think about how
special you are now. Meanwhile, the guy on the bike is home by now.

Home or cyclist pate on the road.

Quoted message said:

Here's an exercise for the simple-minded: make a list, and every time you
get stopped in traffic for more than two minutes, add the cause to the list.
Pretty soon you'll get tired of makin a list that consists entirely of
traffic jams caused by TOO MANY CARS, with not a single one caused by a
cyclist anywhere on there.

Welcome to modern life. For the simple minded, more people every year is
going to mean more cars and more traffic jams. When you find a way to
stop the over-population that is the root cause hurry up and call Bush.
I'm sure Mr. president will appoint you to a cushy study position.

Quoted message said:

So be as self righteous as like. You won't fix your problem as long as you
and everybody like you keeps driving, and if every cyclist on the planet
stopped riding their bikes, your problem would just get that much worse.

Any way you look at it, your position is self-defeating.

Life is self defeating. Has anybody won the game of life and been
granted not ever getting old? After a few hundred years living in this
mess might get old.

Quoted message said:

R

Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

It seems the only voice of reason is Bill on this forum .

Yes.

We worship The Great Bill. He is our Oracle.

Without The Great Bill we'd all be aimlessly
riding in all directions with nowhere really
to go. The Great Bill is all-knowing about
everything.

He's also just another pro-car/anti-bicycle
idiot, but <shrug> who isn't?

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Clark said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pat said:

The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.

I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:

1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply

YOU are the driver who is trying you disobey laws when they DO apply.

We're not supposed to consider that. It complicates things,
and drivers like things to be stupid-simple.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

"nash" wrote: Of course in rush hour I am usually passing a few hundred
stopped cars on the 45 mph road. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm going to jump to the other (unpopular)side of the argument now. I can
picture the road with both lanes filled with stopped cars. Where do you
ride while you are passing them? Not the shoulder, surely--we have already
established that that would be unsafe. Or, are you trying to have it both
ways?

"Leo Lichtman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"nash" wrote: Of course in rush hour I am usually passing a few hundred
stopped cars on the 45 mph road. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm going to jump to the other (unpopular)side of the argument now. I can
picture the road with both lanes filled with stopped cars. Where do you
ride while you are passing them? Not the shoulder, surely--we have
already established that that would be unsafe. Or, are you trying to have
it both ways?

If I said that I am not sure but I would mean the space they are suppose to
leave you between them and the curb. When they are slow you can predict
they are not going to cut you off every 10 seconds so the ride is perfect.
You can also get to the left turn lane easier. They cannot pretend they do
not see you or that my speed angle made them [censored] themselves.
Taking the lane is something I do sometimes where there is a sign saying
pedestrians and bicycles crossing adjacent to the cross Surrey 8 foot wide
trail. Cars ignore that and when I am in a hurry that is what I will do
since I can wait 4 lights before I get across.
Going to the intersection is an option buy why should I when the sign says
people like me will be crossing there. What will they say to the cop when
they hit me?

Anyway, I hope that helps.

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

It seems the only voice of reason is Bill on this forum .

Yes.

We worship The Great Bill. He is our Oracle.

Without The Great Bill we'd all be aimlessly
riding in all directions with nowhere really
to go.

[censored], moron.
The Great Bill is all-knowing about

Quoted message said:

everything.

He's also just another pro-car/anti-bicycle
idiot, but <shrug> who isn't?

Wow,
Are you screwed up or what? I didn't even renew my driver's license last
year so I have been a non-driver for about 7 months now.

Quoted message said:

Bill Baka

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Clark said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pat wrote:
> The cyclist has the right to be on the road.
> Car drivers do not have more rights than bicycle riders.
I am sorry, I dont buy this argument that because the law says it is
ok, then it is 'right'. There are three ways to understand law:

1) Obey laws because of fear of the punishment
2) Obey laws because someone you respect and trust obeys them
3) Obey laws because you have internalized their meaning and know
when NOT to obey them when situations arise where they do not apply

YOU are the driver who is trying you disobey laws when they DO apply.

We're not supposed to consider that. It complicates things,
and drivers like things to be stupid-simple.

So that makes you and your bike a genius compared to motorists??
Yeah, right.

Quoted message said:

cheers,
Tom

Life isn't simple.
Bill Baka