You sound like Ted Kennedy boozed up trying to get Mary Jo Kopechne across
the Chappaquiddick bridge.
http://www.ytedk.com/ Natural Selection is Natures way of eliminating
the losers, and looks like you are next.


"Patrick Goetz" wrote in message
...
venting by: Patrick Goetz 07:38 PDT


On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Mike Dahmus wrote:
You started out fine, but right here you lost me, since from experience
in the past, I know that both you and MBJ occasionally run stop signs and
lights for no reason other than convenience. There is no safety benefit
here; only a convenience benefit (for you); and as I've pointed out, if
everybody did the same thing, you'd be dead long ago, since not everybody
has the skills to always know when it's safe to ignore the big red sign
or big red light.

That is correct. If there is no traffic in the perpendicular right of
way, then I will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs.
Please explain to me how this is a safety problem.

For political reasons (i.e. in order not to give motorists an excuse to
hate bicyclists), if there are cars waiting behind me or opposite me I
usually don't run red lights even when there is no traffic, despite the
fact that this really inconveniences them by not having me out of their
way long before the light turns green. This is what I call "willful
stupidity" brought about by the fact that other people can't quite grok,
perhaps due to poor blood circulation to the brain as a result of lack of
exercise.

Trust me, most motorists would jump at the chance to treat stop signs and
red lights as optional. And trust me again: as a bicyclist, you don't
want to live in a world where they _do_.


Mike, this might come as a big shock to you, but *I* *don't* *care* if a
motorist runs a red light or stop sign when I'm not there to be hit. To
be more specific, I am perfectly comfortable with motorists treating red
lights and stop signs as yield signs; in fact, if all motorists drove the
way I bike, biking in Austin WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN IT IS NOW. It's all
about paying attention to what you are doing, trying to anticipate what
other road users are going to do, and MINDFULLY trying to prevent
accidents.

Traffic laws which create the illusion that one can tool around without
paying much attention to the matter at hand ARE A SAFETY PROBLEM. We'd be
a lot better off if everyone had to pay careful attention to the road
because they have no idea what might happen. For example and in point of
fact, traffic lights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with safety and
everything to do with allowing cars to drive faster than they would
otherwise be able to do in a situation where there might be contention for
right of way. Traffic lights ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
happen, as we all know from either personal experience or reading the
paper. Ditto for 4-way stops, although these are considerably less likely
to result in fatalities than traffic lights. Did anyone else notice that
Deborah Prokoff got killed at 44th and Ave G. AFTER THEY ADDED THE
"TRAFFIC CALMING" 4-WAY STOP SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION?

This is a perfect example of just how stupid mindlessly following rules
actually is. An intersection with absolutely no right of way indications
(but with a huge sign indicating this) is probably much safer than ANY
alternative (save for something like a roundabout or traffic circle).
Why? Because everyone has to pay attention to what they are doing and
even though someone might space out or be drunk or ignore the sign, you
can bet that in almost all cases, at least one of 2 contending parties is
doing just that. Accident prevention. Before, users of the 44th and Ave.
G intersection had to be more careful, since one side clearly had the
right of way. Adding a 4-way stop was almost certainly directly
responsible for the death of a bicyclist.

This is why I'm firmly convinced that Fred Meredith, John Forrester, and
all the other "effective cycling" advocates are actually secretly OPPOSED
to increasing the number of bicyclists on the road. Their half-baked
preaching is directly responsible for increasing the number of bicycling
fatalities (lots of examples right here in Austin - Ben Clough, Deborah
Prokoff, etc. - check MBJ's web page). The more bicycle fatalities there
are, the more people are afraid to ride bikes because it's not safe. The
result: fewer bicyclists on the road. This is what these losers want:
They want to feel special, and every additional commuter bicyclist makes
them less so, so best to try to reduce the numbers of those pesky hangers
on (like me, for example), who ride bikes around without making a big deal
out of it. One way to do this is feeding them nonsense (always mindlessly
follow traffic rules being the primary example) which is GOING TO GET THEM
KILLED.

Pardon me if I don't have any respect for this attitude, in part because
it directly and negatively affects my own safety. The fact that honest
bicyclists get killed by listening to these idiots is kind of sad, but
it's also part of that evolutionary march towards better genes, hence
can't really be avoided. They should have been reading MBJ's bicycle
safety tips instead - they'd probably still be alive right now. And THAT
is the true irony of this whole ridiculous thread.