Weekly Observations

Mark Hickey said:

Don Boring said:

Also, during the day, a certain contingent, mostly beautiful
young asian women from the nearby community college ALWAYS
ride their bikes AGAINST traffic and act like I am doing something
wrong by riding my bike on the RIGHT side of the street. Pisses
me off. Argh!

Here in Arizona the bike lanes have helpful arrows pointing the
correct direction. I suppose otherwise there are those who'd think
they should ride against traffic, upside down (at which time the
international cyclist symbol would be correctly oriented for them).

But in general - college students are among the most dangerous
"cyclists" out there... I'm not sure if it's ingnorance, stupidity or
"individualism", but an awful lot of 'em will ride on the wrong side
for no apparent reason. I suppose it's actually a good thing, as
they'll likely help purify the gene pool by doing so. ;-)

More and more I see collge students riding wrong-way WHILE talking on
a cell phone. I see massive SUVs in their future.

Funny, I was at the University of Toronto yesterday, and there are bike
lanes along college and St George streets, and both were being used
properly, is that because Canadians are smarter?????

W

Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:21:31 -0400,
<[email hidden]>, The Wogster

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

More and more I see collge students riding wrong-way WHILE talking on
a cell phone. I see massive SUVs in their future.

Funny, I was at the University of Toronto yesterday, and there are bike
lanes along college and St George streets, and both were being used
properly, is that because Canadians are smarter?????

They're just better educated.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:31:01 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, "Sock Puppet"

Quoted message said:

These conditions discourage commuter cycling, since the chance of getting
run over from behind is much greater than it would be in more civilized
areas such as the urban downtown.

How much greater? You got studies, statistics or anything other than
your fearful guessing to back it up?

The opportunities for conflicting crossing moves (left cross, right
hook, pull outs from parking and driveways) are greater in the
downtown core and they're the most frequent types of collisions.

There are so few cyclists on these roads that it would be difficult to
impossible to get a reasonable sample size.

However, there are relatively frequent rear end accidents involving stalled
and/or slow moving motor vehicles, since most "drivers" do not allow
adequate following distances or pay much attention to where they are going.
The survival/non-permanent injury rate of cyclist hit from behind by a light
truck or automobile traveling in excess of 50 mph can be assumed to be low
with confidence.

Overtaking cyclists with an automobile also presents a quandary. As an
example, if I am overtaking a cyclist on a 4 lane road and that is riding in
the right lane, the obvious first reaction is to switch to the left lane
well in advance so as to pass the cyclist with plenty of clearance (no to
mention eliminating the potential for running the cyclist over if he/she
loses balance). However, if one does this, some moron in an automobile or
light truck will likely cut to right to pass me without noticing the
cyclist.

Another scenario occurred on a two lane road in a no passing zone. As there
was no room to pass safely, so I slowed to the speed of the cyclist and
stayed about 100 feet back (both to avoid annoying the cyclist by tailgating
and as mentioned above, to have adequate stopping distance if the cyclist
lost balance). The impatient idiot following me in an expensive imported
luxury sedan decided he could not wait and passed me, and then swung back in
to avoid a head on collision with oncoming traffic. The cyclist was forced
to exit at speed to the unimproved shoulder to avoid being run down, but
fortunately was able to maintain control of the bicycle and stay upright.

Based on the volume and average speed of the traffic and the lack of
attention and judgment by many of the drivers, I do not feel these streets
are safe for cycling during normal commuting hours. Apparently others feel
the same way, since sighting cyclists riding on the road is rare enough to
be noteworthy. (I can not provide a good estimate on how many
automobiles/light trucks I see, other than there are usually 100+ waiting at
each red light.)

I am sure that Zoot Katz will find some pro-automobile, anti-cyclist content
in the above post.

--
Sock Puppet

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Zoot Katz said:

Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:21:31 -0400,
<[email hidden]>, The Wogster

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

More and more I see collge students riding wrong-way WHILE talking on
a cell phone. I see massive SUVs in their future.

Funny, I was at the University of Toronto yesterday, and there are bike
lanes along college and St George streets, and both were being used
properly, is that because Canadians are smarter?????

They're just better educated.

Maybe they're just more docile. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:54:57 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, "Sock Puppet"

Quoted message said:

The survival/non-permanent injury rate of cyclist hit from behind by a light
truck or automobile traveling in excess of 50 mph can be assumed to be low
with confidence.

The survival rate of a collision from any quarter decreases
exponentially with increased speed.

Collision speed % pedestrians killed
32 km/h 5
48 km/h 45
64 km/h 85

Quoted message said:

Overtaking cyclists with an automobile also presents a quandary. As an
example, if I am overtaking a cyclist on a 4 lane road and that is riding in
the right lane, the obvious first reaction is to switch to the left lane
well in advance so as to pass the cyclist with plenty of clearance (no to
mention eliminating the potential for running the cyclist over if he/she
loses balance). However, if one does this, some moron in an automobile or
light truck will likely cut to right to pass me without noticing the
cyclist.

You admittedly have little experience negotiating with bicyclists so
that's why your technique is lousy. Simply mirror and shoulder check,
signal and then move left a few feet into an interval space until
you've safely passed the cyclist by leaving them a meter of wobble
room. Very seldom am I passed by cars that have moved completely into
the other lane. When I am it's usually an exaggerated "contrived
hinderance" routine like you pantomimed. A meter is sufficient space
that I don't feel crowded or threatened.

http://rjs.org/faq/social.html
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/motorist.htm

Quoted message said:

Another scenario occurred on a two lane road in a no passing zone. As there
was no room to pass safely, so I slowed to the speed of the cyclist and
stayed about 100 feet back (both to avoid annoying the cyclist by tailgating
and as mentioned above, to have adequate stopping distance if the cyclist
lost balance). The impatient idiot following me in an expensive imported
luxury sedan decided he could not wait and passed me, and then swung back in
to avoid a head on collision with oncoming traffic. The cyclist was forced
to exit at speed to the unimproved shoulder to avoid being run down, but
fortunately was able to maintain control of the bicycle and stay upright.

Since the cyclist wasn't taking the lane as they perhaps should've
been. (I wasn't there) You could have just signalled and slightly
straddled the centre line after checking that opposing traffic has
sufficient room to move to its right. IOW, no pedestrians, cyclists,
road workers, parked vehicles or temporary signs on their side and no
wide vehicles coming at you. They'll move to avoid a head-on collision
with you. Works for me.

Quoted message said:

Based on the volume and average speed of the traffic and the lack of
attention and judgment by many of the drivers, I do not feel these streets
are safe for cycling during normal commuting hours. Apparently others feel
the same way, since sighting cyclists riding on the road is rare enough to
be noteworthy. (I can not provide a good estimate on how many
automobiles/light trucks I see, other than there are usually 100+ waiting at
each red light.)

I am sure that Zoot Katz will find some pro-automobile, anti-cyclist content
in the above post.

As far as "pro-automobile" content is concerned you've provided
evidence that you're no pro when it come to driving automobiles. If
you like playing in your cage that much, take an evasive driving
course. It will make us both more comfortable on the road.
--
zk

Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:45:27 -0700,
<[email hidden]>, Mark Hickey

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They're just better educated.

Maybe they're just more docile. ;-)

As in "law abiding" or "polite"?
--
zk

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

Quoted message said:

The impatient idiot following me in an expensive imported

luxury sedan decided he could not wait and passed me, and then swung back in
to avoid a head on collision with oncoming traffic. The cyclist was forced
to exit at speed to the unimproved shoulder to avoid being run down, but
fortunately was able to maintain control of the bicycle and stay upright.

Something similar happened to me recently, but I was the cyclist. I kept
control, but my 2-week-old Bontrager folder on my rear wheel got a nice
slice in it from road debris and my ride was pretty much over.

Zoot Katz said:

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:54:57 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, "Sock Puppet"

Quoted message said:

The survival/non-permanent injury rate of cyclist hit from behind by a
light
truck or automobile traveling in excess of 50 mph can be assumed to be
low
with confidence.

The survival rate of a collision from any quarter decreases
exponentially with increased speed.

Collision speed % pedestrians killed
32 km/h 5
48 km/h 45
64 km/h 85

Quoted message said:

Overtaking cyclists with an automobile also presents a quandary. As an
example, if I am overtaking a cyclist on a 4 lane road and that is riding
in
the right lane, the obvious first reaction is to switch to the left lane
well in advance so as to pass the cyclist with plenty of clearance (no to
mention eliminating the potential for running the cyclist over if he/she
loses balance). However, if one does this, some moron in an automobile or
light truck will likely cut to right to pass me without noticing the
cyclist.

You admittedly have little experience negotiating with bicyclists so
that's why your technique is lousy. Simply mirror and shoulder check,
signal and then move left a few feet into an interval space until
you've safely passed the cyclist by leaving them a meter of wobble
room. Very seldom am I passed by cars that have moved completely into
the other lane. When I am it's usually an exaggerated "contrived
hinderance" routine like you pantomimed. A meter is sufficient space
that I don't feel crowded or threatened.

http://rjs.org/faq/social.html
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/motorist.htm

If your left crank broke while pedaling, how far would you fall to the left?
I have also seen cyclists wobble close to meter while riding - I prefer more
margin for error. I am sure you would blame the motorist if he/she left only
1 meter clearance and the cyclist traveled into that path.

If I straddled the lane like you suggest, the following vehicle would still
try to pass me on the right if I leave 2/3 the lane open. Passing on the
shoulders, through the left turn lane at intersection, or in the right turn
only lane (then cutting back into traffic) are all regular behaviors in
suburban US traffic. You don't drive where I do, so stuff your "expert" act.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Another scenario occurred on a two lane road in a no passing zone. As
there
was no room to pass safely, so I slowed to the speed of the cyclist and
stayed about 100 feet back (both to avoid annoying the cyclist by
tailgating
and as mentioned above, to have adequate stopping distance if the cyclist
lost balance). The impatient idiot following me in an expensive imported
luxury sedan decided he could not wait and passed me, and then swung back
in
to avoid a head on collision with oncoming traffic. The cyclist was
forced
to exit at speed to the unimproved shoulder to avoid being run down, but
fortunately was able to maintain control of the bicycle and stay upright.

Since the cyclist wasn't taking the lane as they perhaps should've
been. (I wasn't there) You could have just signalled and slightly
straddled the centre line after checking that opposing traffic has
sufficient room to move to its right. IOW, no pedestrians, cyclists,
road workers, parked vehicles or temporary signs on their side and no
wide vehicles coming at you. They'll move to avoid a head-on collision
with you. Works for me.

So you normally drive over the center line on 2 lane roads? That is a great
way to risk a collision with an oncoming vehicle. Besides, it is not my
responsibility to compensate for the extreme stupidity of others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Based on the volume and average speed of the traffic and the lack of
attention and judgment by many of the drivers, I do not feel these
streets
are safe for cycling during normal commuting hours. Apparently others
feel
the same way, since sighting cyclists riding on the road is rare enough
to
be noteworthy. (I can not provide a good estimate on how many
automobiles/light trucks I see, other than there are usually 100+ waiting
at
each red light.)

I am sure that Zoot Katz will find some pro-automobile, anti-cyclist
content
in the above post.

As far as "pro-automobile" content is concerned you've provided
evidence that you're no pro when it come to driving automobiles. If
you like playing in your cage that much, take an evasive driving
course. It will make us both more comfortable on the road.

Take a course in civil human behavior. It will benefit all on rbm.

--
Sock Puppet

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Zoot Katz said:

Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:45:27 -0700,
<[email hidden]>, Mark Hickey

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They're just better educated.

Maybe they're just more docile. ;-)

As in "law abiding" or "polite"?

Yeah, but I didn't want to say that and insult them (you know how
college students are...).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Zoot Katz said:

Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:21:31 -0400,
<[email hidden]>, The Wogster

Quoted message said:

>More and more I see collge students riding wrong-way WHILE talking on
>a cell phone. I see massive SUVs in their future.
>

Funny, I was at the University of Toronto yesterday, and there are bike
lanes along college and St George streets, and both were being used
properly, is that because Canadians are smarter?????

They're just better educated.

Maybe they're just more docile. ;-)

Nope, we are more polite, generally less haried, more law abiding (the
exception seems to be car drivers), better educated about things (name
the last three Canadian Prime Ministers -- I can name the last 3 US
Presidents -- Bush, Clinton, Bush). Clue, the latest guy has been in
for a little over a year.....

W

Just zis Guy said:

I submit that on or about Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:01:06 GMT, the person
known to the court as "Sock Puppet" <[email hidden]>
made a statement (<[email hidden]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

This week, in over 600 miles of driving my fossil fueled, toxin spewing,
steel cage scud of death (all work related) I saw a total of 2 people riding
bicycles. Both sightings occurred after dusk, but neither bicycle had a
front light or red rear reflector (as required by law).

Incredible, isn't it, how reliably drivers see unlit cyclists? Maybe
that's one reason why there is no real evidence showing that lights
make any difference to safety: unlit cyclists are not actually
invisible after all.

Over here lights are compulsory as well as reflectors. You still see
a lot of unlit cyclists, especially in big cities. In fact, the
cyclists who get hit always seem to be the ones with lights and
reflective clothing! The usual excuse is "Sorry, mate, I didn't see
you" - popularly abbreviated to SMIDSY, which has become the term for
collisions of the looked-but-did-not-see variety.

I spend a fortune on lights, I'd love to find some good solid evidence
that this actually increases my safety. Anyone who knows of some, do
please let me know.

Guy

Speaking of which, has anyone seen the ad for Passat, where the roadie
is out on a ride at night on a dark country road? Of course, i don't
know many roadies who would ride on a dark country road at night. But it
was to make a point about the passat and its lights, etc. All for effect.

Sock Puppet said:

Zoot Katz said:

Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:01:06 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, nobody, the "Suck Puppet"

Quoted message said:

This week, in over 600 miles of driving my fossil fueled, toxin spewing,
steel cage scud of death (all work related) I saw a total of 2 people
riding
bicycles. Both sightings occurred after dusk, but neither bicycle had a
front light or red rear reflector (as required by law). One cyclist had a
full plastic shopping bag in one hand (another violation of vehicle code
in
the jurisdiction) while the other went through a 4-way stop without
slowing
down (of course, a violation).

How many didn't you see, asswipe?

Gee, I am supposed to report on all the cyclists I didn't see - how logical.

The roads I drive are typical of US suburbia. When traffic is light, most
cars and trucks move in the 50-70 mph range, which means they close rather
rapidly on even a fast cyclist. Heavier traffic stacks up at controlled
intersections, but still generally exceeds 50 mph between intersections
(controlled intersections are often 1/2-mile or more apart). The outer lanes
are generally only 12 feet wide, and there is a curb (and no parking). Due
to the subdivision layout, the only streets in a grid pattern are the widely
spaced major arterials, so there are no alternate, low traffic routes for
cyclists (unless one rides a MTB across private property and carries it over
fences).

These conditions discourage commuter cycling, since the chance of getting
run over from behind is much greater than it would be in more civilized
areas such as the urban downtown. Most of the people WITH bicycles I see are
pedestrians, waiting to walk their bikes across the crosswalk once the light
changes, or riding on the sidewalk (where available, which is less than 1/3
of the roads), which is not a way to average a reasonable commuting speed.

That sounds like a horrible place to live.

Scott

In article <[email hidden]>,

The Wogster said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But in general - college students are among the most dangerous
"cyclists" out there

[...]

Quoted message said:

Funny, I was at the University of Toronto yesterday, and there are bike
lanes along college and St George streets, and both were being used
properly, is that because Canadians are smarter?????

Maybe in your part of Canada. I haven't noticed it much here, and I'm
walking distance from two universities.
I've had to dodge wrong-way cyclists in bike lanes, had cyclists ride
through crosswalks in front of me against a don't-walk signal when I'm
proceeding through an intersection with a green light, seen cyclists
riding in the middle of the wrong-way lane... at least once I've seen
all of these in a single ride (though that's exceptionally bad; at the
normal density of seeing suicidal students on bikes any ride long enough
to see more than one or two instances will usually take me far enough
from the universities to get away from it).

dave
(and don't get me started on sharing the sidewalk with them when I'm
walking...)

--
Dave Vandervies [email hidden]
If I have to protect my daughter after she grows up[0], then I didn't raise
her right. --Anthony de Boer in the scary devil monastery
[0] beyond the mutual-respect watching-each-other's-backs sense.

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:29:42 -0700,
<[email hidden]>, Mark Hickey

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz said:

Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:45:27 -0700,
<[email hidden]>, Mark Hickey

Quoted message said:

>They're just better educated.

Maybe they're just more docile. ;-)

As in "law abiding" or "polite"?

Yeah, but I didn't want to say that and insult them (you know how
college students are...).

Just don't call them Conservatives and they'll probably be alright.
--
zk

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:50:47 -0400,
<[email hidden]>, The Wogster

Quoted message said:

better educated about things (name
the last three Canadian Prime Ministers -- I can name the last 3 US
Presidents

Brian Mulroney was the best Canadian Prime Minister the United States
ever had.
--
zk

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:46:10 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, "Sock Puppet"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://rjs.org/faq/social.html
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/motorist.htm

If your left crank broke while pedaling, how far would you fall to the left?

Probably fall the way back to Kansas where Auntie Em will have a nice
glass of warm milk and home baked cookies waiting for me.

Quoted message said:

I have also seen cyclists wobble close to meter while riding - I prefer more
margin for error. I am sure you would blame the motorist if he/she left only
1 meter clearance and the cyclist traveled into that path.

Your statements clearly show that you don't know how to ride a bike or
drive a car. Did you read the links?

Quoted message said:

So you normally drive over the center line on 2 lane roads?

I wasn't there but I do know there are "no-passing" zones where one
does have good visibility and the traffic is moving slowly enough to
safely execute the move as described. I obviously would not try it in
situations where the conditions wouldn't permit like on blind curves
and hills with narrow lanes and no shoulder.
--
zk

In article <[email hidden]>,

Zoot Katz said:

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:50:47 -0400,
<[email hidden]>, The Wogster

Quoted message said:

better educated about things (name
the last three Canadian Prime Ministers -- I can name the last 3 US
Presidents

Brian Mulroney was the best Canadian Prime Minister the United States
ever had.

Wasn't one of the last three, though, unless I'm greatly mistaken.
(Of course, given how long the antepenultimate one actually held the
office, he might as well have been.)

dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email hidden]

Oh, imagine a psychotic implementor (the best kind) ...
--Peter Seebach in comp.lang.c

In article <[email hidden]>,
The Wogster <[email hidden]> wrote:

[Canadians are]

Quoted message said:

better educated about things (name
the last three Canadian Prime Ministers -- I can name the last 3 US
Presidents -- Bush, Clinton, Bush). Clue, the latest guy has been in
for a little over a year.....

Is that a trick question? I doubt most of the Canadians I know would
get it right on their first or second try either.

dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email hidden]

Oh, imagine a psychotic implementor (the best kind) ...
--Peter Seebach in comp.lang.c

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:03:50 +0000 (UTC),
<[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Dave Vandervies) said:

Quoted message said:

Brian Mulroney was the best Canadian Prime Minister the United States
ever had.

Wasn't one of the last three, though, unless I'm greatly mistaken.
(Of course, given how long the antepenultimate one actually held the
office, he might as well have been.)

True. I wasn't forgetting Kim Campbell. She just kind of gets slotted
in with John Turner and other ephemeral notions of leadershit.
Byron Muldoon, OTOH was probably the most hated PM in recent history.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:03:50 +0000 (UTC),
<[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Dave Vandervies) said:

Quoted message said:

Brian Mulroney was the best Canadian Prime Minister the United States
ever had.

Wasn't one of the last three, though, unless I'm greatly mistaken.
(Of course, given how long the antepenultimate one actually held the
office, he might as well have been.)

True. I wasn't forgetting Kim Campbell. She just kind of gets slotted
in with John Turner and other ephemeral notions of leadershit.
Byron Muldoon, OTOH was probably the most hated PM in recent history.

Dear ZuutCats;

I deeply resent your commentary...

(Always preferred to think of meself as
'FearlessHandsomeBrilliantLeaderShit'😉

y'r pal;
John Turner(jmt)