|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel intimidated by Traffic? Ole!
Roger Zoul wrote:
Raptor wrote: The vast majority of motor :: vehicle versus cyclist (as opposed to "person on a bike") are due to :: errors in judgment or inattention, almost always on the part of the :: driver. I wonder about the veracity of that last statement. What precentage of the time is the error due to errors in judgment or inattention on the part of the cyclist? Having no statistics - there probably being no statistics about such things - my statement means exactly what I say it means. One doesn't make the transformation from "person on a bike" to "cyclist" without accruing some good judgment. But mistakes happen: I've struck two vehicles on my bike, which is as many as have struck me. I'm holding 'em to a draw, so far! -- Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999, |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel intimidated by Traffic? Ole!
Jack May wrote: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... I wonder about the veracity of that last statement. What precentage of the time is the error due to errors in judgment or inattention on the part of the cyclist? You didn't know that cyclist are perfect human beings with no faults and make no mistakes as they always loudly proclaim :-) That is why cyclist are inherently allowed to violate all traffic laws and blame any problems on those evil other vehicles that are required to follow the laws, just because they are evil. Let me see. The polluting SUV crowd is the Religious Right (judging by their godly bumper stickers) and the frugal cyclists are the evil people. Pollution is good and nature and peace are bad. Isn't that Republican language what Orwell called "Newspeak" or something to that effect? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel intimidated by Traffic? Ole!
Chuck Anderson wrote: Edward Dolan wrote: "Raptor" wrote in message ... [newsgroups trimmed] Not sufficiently! Who are all you monkeys with keyboards? [...] Read the rec.bicycles FAQ, do what it says, and pick the ONE newsgroup your "discussion" belongs in. Why don't you tell us where it does NOT belong? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel intimidated by Traffic? Ole!
Raptor wrote: I wonder about the veracity of that last statement. What precentage of the time is the error due to errors in judgment or inattention on the part of the cyclist? Having no statistics - there probably being no statistics about such things - my statement means exactly what I say it means. One doesn't make the transformation from "person on a bike" to "cyclist" without accruing some good judgment. But mistakes happen: I've struck two vehicles on my bike, which is as many as have struck me. I'm holding 'em to a draw, so far! So the bullfighter has punched the bull in the head and the bull was dead then and there. I'm still more concerned about the cars and SUVs hitting me! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel intimidated by Traffic? Ole!
Raptor wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Raptor wrote: :: The vast majority of motor ::::: vehicle versus cyclist (as opposed to "person on a bike") are due ::::: to errors in judgment or inattention, almost always on the part ::::: of the driver. ::: ::: I wonder about the veracity of that last statement. What ::: precentage of the time is the error due to errors in judgment or ::: inattention on the part of the cyclist? :: :: Having no statistics - there probably being no statistics about such :: things - my statement means exactly what I say it means. One :: doesn't make the transformation from "person on a bike" to "cyclist" :: without accruing some good judgment. Right...those that don't make the transformation (person-on-a-bike) don't because they get flattened by a vehicle first (poor judgment). Those that make it, are the ones called "cyclists" (good judgment). |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Do you get nauseated every time you see a stupid troll post from that **** for brains donkey hotay 1954? Ole!
Yes
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Do you get nauseated every time you see a stupid troll post from that **** for brains donkey hotay 1954? Ole!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:40:54 -0400, necromancer
wrote: donquijote1954 said in rec.autos.driving: bitch slap double bitch slap on the donkey jerk-otee... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel intimidated by Traffic? Ole!
"Chuck Anderson" wrote in message . .. Edward Dolan wrote: "Raptor" wrote in message ... [newsgroups trimmed] Not sufficiently! Who are all you monkeys with keyboards? [...] Read the rec.bicycles FAQ, do what it says, and pick the ONE newsgroup your "discussion" belongs in. Chuck, the message I posted had to do with safety issues in connection with cycling. Therefore, it can be on all the cycling newsgroups where riding your bike on the streets and roads applies. However, I do agree with you that we should not engage in too much cross posting as every newsgroup has its own culture which differs from the others. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel intimidated by Traffic? Ole!
"Raptor" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: [...] A cyclist should always prefer traffic free streets. Even if it means you have to go slower, you will likely live longer. A cyclist who likes to mix with traffic is not long for this world. That's the theory, at least. I've been mixing it up with traffic in a few locales for two decades without a major incident. You will always be much safer on a street with little or no traffic than you will be on a street with lots of traffic. Elementary, my dear Watson! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
THE BICYCLE BULLY
(I'm quoting from Dahon commuting forum)
"I'm not actually against the idea of separate bike lanes, but I have my doubts about them. A few points to consider. Bike lanes which keep cyclists all the way to the right (or left for our British friends) are useless when you need to make a left turn (right turn in the UK ). Cars are still going to make turns through the bike lanes, or try to use them to edge around other cars waiting to make left turns. Simply marking the lanes won't help much if you don't have good police enforcement of the laws concerning them. Trash is still going to get swept to the side, louts are still going to throw glass bottles out of car windows toward the side, the side of the road is still going to be where the storm drains are. The difference is that, when a bicyclist moves out of the bike lane to get around such obstructions, he may now be breaking the law. He will certainly be doing something that motorists don't expect, and may not be prepared for. The roads in many places, like my part of Connecticut, are too narrow to mark off a substantial portion as a separate lane. Cars and bikes can co-exist as things are by exhibiting a little courtesy and consideration, but making a new lane will involve widening the road. Don't kid yourself that tax funds will be diverted from other, less worthy, projects. Your taxes will go up. By the way, concerning my remark about courtesy and consideration, I find that most motorists are easy enough to get along with, even if they have some strange ideas of how bicyclists "should" act. Unfortunately, there is a large minority of ignorant &*%!!s, who shouldn't be on the road. Okay, I'll add this note. Some bicyclists are ignorant &*%!!s too, but they're not quite as dangerous to others." Howdy! I agree there are problems with bike lanes, but they would have an advantage far greater than its minuses: BRINGING PEOPLE OUT. All the reports I've seeing cite SAFETY IN NUMBERS since those drivers holding A LICENSE TO KILL (too many of those) then would be looking out for THE LITTLE ONES (aka the cyclists). The current DARWINIAN ROADS we got though are very intimidating for the little ones of the jungle. Other than that we could do something like TAKING THE LANE, but it would require some cooperation among the little ones. Like in the movie... THE ANT BULLY In The Ant Bully, ants are like people - except better. I mean, given the chance, most humans would execute or at least lock up a genocidal maniac. But the ant queen merely makes Lucas hang out with the animals he used to kill on a daily basis. The ants have a complex society, religion and court of law. Their sense of shared purpose and selflessness point to higher civilisation, even if they love to eat caterpillar poop. But people are ruthless and destroy them for no apparent reason. There is a moral about teamwork in there somewhere... http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/guide/s...111416,00.html PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO DRAW A MORAL OF THE STORY: THE BICYCLE BULLY IS NO GOOD, AND IT MUST BE SHRANK TO SIZE. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do you feel intimidated by Traffic? Ole! | donquijote1954 | General | 23 | August 16th 06 03:50 PM |
a traffic dilemma | recycled-one | General | 19 | June 5th 06 04:15 AM |
This is What You Might Read If American Society Wasn't Sick | Raphae | Social Issues | 0 | July 4th 05 02:16 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Hasty generalizations of the day | Kerry Nikolaisen | General | 16 | October 6th 03 12:39 PM |