Wrong way dude

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

Quoted message said:

I freely admit I assess relative degrees of danger. I also, like all of
us,
break "little" laws. In other words, I will go through a stop sign if I
deem it safe.

Arrogance AND hypocrisy. It's OK for you obey only the laws you choose, but
if someone else does the same they're subject to your safety lecture?

Leo Lichtman said:

I don't understand "wrong way" on a sidewalk. Don't pedestrians, joggers,
wheelchairs, strollers, and all others go both ways on both sides of the
street on sidewalks (and crosswalks?)

Yeah, and cyclists too, with no problem, as long
as they understand the special issues involved with
doing it.

Just because someone is riding wrong way on
the sidewalk doesn't mean they don't know what they're
doing.

Physician, heal thyself and all that.

Robert

"Raoul Duke" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I freely admit I assess relative degrees of danger. I also, like all
of us,
break "little" laws. In other words, I will go through a stop sign if
I deem it safe.

Arrogance AND hypocrisy. It's OK for you obey only the laws you
choose, but if someone else does the same they're subject to your
safety lecture?

I'll repeat myself for your benefit: I think wrong way cycling is the
single most dangerous thing you can do on a bike, excluding stunts. It is
an order of magnitude more dangerous than going through a stop sign when
there is no traffic. In fact, the legal argument against wrong way cycling
is the weakest.

Zoot Katz said:

Leo Lichtman said:

According to what I see on the news, the medical profession has just
discovered a "road rage gene" in some people. If that is what caused the
excessive reaction to Claire's encounter, it makes me think that it may be
unwise to try to reform strangers on the road.

Serotonin my butt!

Cars suck and car culture itself fosters the sickness.

That one sounds like the most lame of all excuses if it's going to
give those asswipes carte blanche to behave violently. It's already
become epidemic in a sick society. I hope further research de-bunks
it before it infects every idiot cager.

Myself, I'll hold to the "de individuation" theory. (the process that
prevents us relating to the other driver as a person)

Cars are widely regarded as the measure of a person's worth. Too bad
that view is promoted by the media because it's profitable for them.

Zoot,
Do you own anything so large it won't fit on a bike? Do you sleep on a
bed or the floor, because a bed requires either a large car or a truck
to deliver. Are you claiming to be so saintly that you own nothing
delivered by way of a gasoline powered vehicle?
Not likely.
I own 3 cars and one is a 1960's muscle car, IE: 8 MPG, but when I do
drive it I have fun between gas stations. The other 2 are econo-Asian
boxes but I need cars to go to work and for hauling stuff. There is also
no way in Hell that I am going to try to take my family on vacation to
Yosemite or Yellowstone on a bike.
Get real.
Bicycles are an option with benefits but cars are absolutely needed by
some of us.
When it is 105 degrees will I take the car with A/C to a business
meeting or ride up all sweaty on a bike?
No brainer.
Bill Baka

Zoot Katz said:

Claire Petersky said:

Quoted message said:

I don't understand "wrong way" on a sidewalk. Don't pedestrians, joggers,
wheelchairs, strollers, and all others go both ways on both sides of the
street on sidewalks (and crosswalks?)

Yup. Pedestrians belong on the sidewlk, and they can go both ways on it
without the same level of endangerment.

Where that becomes a PITA is on the bridges that require cyclists to
use the sidewalk. I dislike meeting other bikes head-on while
crossing the Knight St. bridge. They had to ride counterflow to get
there and the sidewalk is too narrow for bikes to pass each other
above a walking pace.

Zoot,
What planet do you live on?
There are 2 bridges out of 4 where I have to ride on the sidewalk or get
creamed, plain, simple, true, and unavoidable. You come to my town and
ride on the road and take the lane and I promise to put flowers on your
grave.
R.I.P. Zoot, DEAD right.
Bill Baka

Bob said:

Kevan Smith said:

As I originally mentioned, I don't do it in a confrontational manner.
Essentially, I'm very polite, and I make two points: 1) wrong way riding
is illegal and 2) wrong way riding is extremely dangerous. I'm not The
Punisher or anything. I have been ignored, cursed and thanked, but I
haven't been assaulted.

I didn't say you were confrontational. I said I suspected you were
possibly exaggerating how often you stop total strangers to lecture
them and added that you were arrogant to ever do so but I didn't accuse
you of being confrontational. Recalling your many past posts I don't
think you have a confrontational bone in your body. ISTR that in some
of those past posts you mentioned rolling through stop signs. That's
also illegal and dangerous. Would you welcome a stranger stopping you
on the street to lecture you about that?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob,
You just hit a nerve, sort of, with the rolling through stop signs
thing. Regardless of how I ride it is cars rolling through at 5 to 10
MPH that I have to watch out for. I have been legally crossing and
almost wiped by cars totally ignoring stop signs twice in the last 2
years. Wrong way or right way, you have to look out for yourself,
because nobody else is.
Bill Baka

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eWBhg.4808

Quoted message said:

All things considered, I'd find a different route! :-P

All the streets out of Chinatown to Dearborn are like this. And there's no
way to Dearborn except through Chinatown. Dearborn is the prefered route
because it runs through the cleft between First Hill and Beacon Hill, so
there's only one climb on the way to the Bike Tunnel that runs under the Mt.
Baker neighborhood.

Just to remind me of the options, the other morning I rode part-way up
Beacon Hill, to where the Amazon headquarters are, then took the bridge that
runs far, far above Dearborn, and carries you part way up First Hill, and
then came down through Chinatown east/west, rather than north-south. That's
OK, but you've got another climb, so it takes longer. And on the PM commute,
you've got all cars streaming out of Amazon, which is No Fun.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Kevan said:

I freely admit I assess relative degrees of danger. I also, like all of us,
break "little" laws. In other words, I will go through a stop sign if I
deem it safe. I will stop if there is traffic. Also, I always stop at
traffic lights on city roads. I have had one person lecture me about
running stop signs on my bike. I thanked them.

However, wrong way cycling is something I deem so dangerous, that I feel
compelled to make an attempt to correct it. Fortunately, I only see about
two or three wrong way wilburs a year. You might call it arrogance, but I
think it helps. Frankly, in the two points I mention, I realize that "it's
against the law" is the weakest of the two reasons.

Riding against the flow of traffic is dangerous for precisely the same
reason disobeying stop signs is dangerous. Both are unexpected
behavior. Insofar as you believing that your lectures are at all
productive, I'd point out that the lecture you say you thanked someone
for hasn't stopped you from running any more stop signs. Face it, Kev.
When you stop those wrong way riders to scold them you aren't being
helpful, just an arrogant busybody.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S.- You only see two or three wrong way riders *annually*? You must
never leave your cave. I see at least that many every day that the temp
is above 50 deg F or so.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

Riding against the flow of traffic is dangerous for precisely the same
reason disobeying stop signs is dangerous. Both are unexpected
behavior. Insofar as you believing that your lectures are at all
productive, I'd point out that the lecture you say you thanked someone
for hasn't stopped you from running any more stop signs. Face it, Kev.
When you stop those wrong way riders to scold them you aren't being
helpful, just an arrogant busybody.

Except I don't scold them. There's no rancor or anger involved. I just
lay out two propositions: riding the wrong way is against the law and
it's also dangerous. These are facts. I totally leave the rest up to
them. That's no scold.

--
fneep

Kevan Smith said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

Riding against the flow of traffic is dangerous for precisely the same
reason disobeying stop signs is dangerous. Both are unexpected
behavior. Insofar as you believing that your lectures are at all
productive, I'd point out that the lecture you say you thanked someone
for hasn't stopped you from running any more stop signs. Face it, Kev.
When you stop those wrong way riders to scold them you aren't being
helpful, just an arrogant busybody.

Except I don't scold them. There's no rancor or anger involved. I just
lay out two propositions: riding the wrong way is against the law and
it's also dangerous. These are facts. I totally leave the rest up to
them. That's no scold.

I wish one of you was a California politician. When they put in the
bicycle lanes on the highways around here they only put them on one side
of the road, so using the lane one way is correct but coming back it is
technically wrong, but safer (no driveways or side roads). Planning in
my area just isn't up to par. I ride in the orchards on most of that
road coming back.
Bill Baka

Bill Baka said:

Kevan Smith said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote:

-------------------[remarks snipped for brevity's
sake]-----------------

Quoted message said:

I wish one of you was a California politician. When they put in the
bicycle lanes on the highways around here they only put them on one side
of the road, so using the lane one way is correct but coming back it is
technically wrong, but safer (no driveways or side roads). Planning in
my area just isn't up to par. I ride in the orchards on most of that
road coming back.

That would have to be Kevan since he continues to exhibit a total lack
of comprehension that while he's entitled to his opinion (wrong way
cycling is far more dangerous than running stop signs) it's not okay
for him to interfere with others so he can lecture them about it. He
remains oblivious to the arrogance involved. That's a politician's
trait.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

That would have to be Kevan since he continues to exhibit a total lack
of comprehension that while he's entitled to his opinion (wrong way
cycling is far more dangerous than running stop signs) it's not okay
for him to interfere with others so he can lecture them about it. He
remains oblivious to the arrogance involved. That's a politician's
trait.

Would you stop someone operating a chainsaw in a manner that they run a
real risk of losing a limb? Would you stop someone about to stick a fork
in an electrical socket?

--
fneep

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

Quoted message said:

I'll repeat myself for your benefit: I think wrong way cycling is the
single most dangerous thing you can do on a bike, excluding stunts. It is
an order of magnitude more dangerous than going through a stop sign when
there is no traffic. In fact, the legal argument against wrong way cycling
is the weakest.

I heard you the first time. It's not about whether wrong way cycling is
dangerous or not. It's about the arrogance and hypocrisy of someone who
would pick and choose which laws he would obey and yet chastise others for
doing the same.

"Raoul Duke" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'll repeat myself for your benefit: I think wrong way cycling is the
single most dangerous thing you can do on a bike, excluding stunts.
It is an order of magnitude more dangerous than going through a stop
sign when there is no traffic. In fact, the legal argument against
wrong way cycling is the weakest.

I heard you the first time. It's not about whether wrong way cycling
is dangerous or not. It's about the arrogance and hypocrisy of
someone who would pick and choose which laws he would obey and yet
chastise others for doing the same.

You're missing it. I'm not "chastising" anyone. Chastise means "1) To
punish, as by beating. See Synonyms at punish. 2) To criticize severely;
rebuke." What I do in no way fits that definition.

Kevan Smith said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

That would have to be Kevan since he continues to exhibit a total lack
of comprehension that while he's entitled to his opinion (wrong way
cycling is far more dangerous than running stop signs) it's not okay
for him to interfere with others so he can lecture them about it. He
remains oblivious to the arrogance involved. That's a politician's
trait.

Would you stop someone operating a chainsaw in a manner that they run a
real risk of losing a limb? Would you stop someone about to stick a fork
in an electrical socket?

Now I'm *sure* that you have that politician's gene because you're
attempting to confuse the issue. I agree that riding against the flow
of traffic increases the risk to the person doing it but I don't know
anyone that would rate it as being as risky as juggling chainsaws.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

Now I'm *sure* that you have that politician's gene because you're
attempting to confuse the issue. I agree that riding against the flow
of traffic increases the risk to the person doing it but I don't know
anyone that would rate it as being as risky as juggling chainsaws.

Yeah, I don't think it is quite that verifiably dangerous. My general
point is that I think wrong way cycling is something that actively
endangers life and limb. Apparently, some here disagree. I can't come
around to that point of view.

--
fneep

Kevan Smith said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

Now I'm *sure* that you have that politician's gene because you're
attempting to confuse the issue. I agree that riding against the flow
of traffic increases the risk to the person doing it but I don't know
anyone that would rate it as being as risky as juggling chainsaws.

Yeah, I don't think it is quite that verifiably dangerous. My general
point is that I think wrong way cycling is something that actively
endangers life and limb. Apparently, some here disagree. I can't come
around to that point of view.

Even if you are 100% in the right, I doubt that very many people will
appreciate your well intentioned attempt to be helpful. More likely,
they will think of you as being a busybody.

catzz66 <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Even if you are 100% in the right, I doubt that very many people will
appreciate your well intentioned attempt to be helpful. More likely,
they will think of you as being a busybody.

Yeah, well I'm fine if you want to eat pop rocks and drink Coke.

Kevan Smith said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

That would have to be Kevan since he continues to exhibit a total lack
of comprehension that while he's entitled to his opinion (wrong way
cycling is far more dangerous than running stop signs) it's not okay
for him to interfere with others so he can lecture them about it. He
remains oblivious to the arrogance involved. That's a politician's
trait.

Would you stop someone operating a chainsaw in a manner that they run a
real risk of losing a limb? Would you stop someone about to stick a fork
in an electrical socket?

I knew this was coming. Why would I stick to the letter of the law when
the law was made for the safety of motorists and with total disregard
for the safety of bicyclists.
Remember, you can be "Dead right", emphasis on DEAD.
I try to follow the law, except when it puts me in danger to do so, and
on the road I am talking about there are convoys of semi's coming and
going to a gravel pit.
With no bike lane the first one can see me and will pull over (usually).
The next 4 or 5 don't have time to react and since the second trailer is
usually swinging in the breeze, if the cab and driver don't get me the
second trailer just might. I have been almost hit too many times trying
to ride legally and since there is no other road to get me into the
mountains for climbing practice I have to take it.
Life requires adjusting to things around you, not just blind faith.
I would not stand in a crosswalk and think that "I have the right of
way, so they HAVE to stop.", because while correct legally, that does
not mean they WILL stop.
Follow the law whenever possible but not to the point of self extinction.
Bill Baka

Kevan Smith said:

Yeah, I don't think it is quite that verifiably dangerous. My general
point is that I think wrong way cycling is something that actively
endangers life and limb. Apparently, some here disagree. I can't come
around to that point of view.

I'll try one last time and then give it up as hopeless.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with you that, generally speaking,
riding against the flow of traffic increases the likelihood of
colliding with motor vehicles. Where some like myself disagree with you
is on the question of whether or not it is desirable, productive, or
even polite to *stop* wrong way riders to explain- calmly or otherwise-
that they are increasing their risk level by acting in such an
unexpected fashion.
If you want to give them a friendly wave and call out something like,
"Ride on the right" as they *pass by*, that's cool. *Stopping* them to
explain all the arguments against their behavior OTOH is ill-advised
and arrogant regardless of how pure your motives are.

Regards,
Bob Hunt