Forester says...

On Feb 3, 12:36*pm, Wes Newell wrote:

Oh, I could have stopped, but still, it was irritating.

You poor, poor man! Imagine having to put up with [gasp!] irritation
while sitting in your cushy car seat!

When _will_ they remove all irritation and delay from your driving
existence, so you can get on with all your valuable contributions to
society?

- Frank Krygowski

On 2/3/2011 1:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 3, 11:39 am, Duane wrote:

He said that when the limit is above 35 mph he will only ride on the
road if there's a shoulder. Doesn't seem unreasonable depending on the
traffic.

Are you serious? Do you really avoid all shoulderless two-lane roads
in the country? Do you recommend others do that?

Of course not. Depending on the traffic. Do you ride on all
shoulderless two-lane roads in the country with traffic rolling at 90
k/h or more without taking the shoulder?

Hardly what I'd call cowering in the gutter. Are you
recommending that he rides 30 k/h in the lane in that circumstance? If
so, how about at 40 mph limit? 50? When is it Ok to ride on the
shoulder?

This is a road that I take often to get to Oka park where we play in the
hills:http://tinyurl.com/4u464ox

Looks fine.

In the picture there's no traffic. I knew when I posted that you would
respond with something like that.

Speed limit is 80 k/h around turns and steep grades but 100 k/h when
straight. Traffic is usually a bit heavier as this is a truck bypass
route as well. Would you suggest staying off the shoulder?

If people want to use an available shoulder, fine, provided it's good
enough to ride.

That was the point. Why accuse them of skulking in the gutter?

But if there were no shoulder, would you really never
ride there? And what do you do if the shoulder has a spot that's too
rough, or too covered with gravel?

Would I never ride on a highway with a speed limit of 90k/h that had
traffic if there was no way to get out of the lane? Are you serious?

Anyway, I was asking Phil if he called that skulking in the gutter. I
already know your opinion.

It's beginning to sound like you couldn't ride in most of the places I
enjoy riding!

Couldn't? That's right Frank. I'm too busy cowering in the frigging
gutter to be capable of riding anywhere that you would.

FIND ANOTHER FRED.

On 2/3/2011 4:05 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
snip
This is a road that I take often to get to Oka park where we play in the
hills:
http://tinyurl.com/4u464ox

Speed limit is 80 k/h around turns and steep grades but 100 k/h when
straight. Traffic is usually a bit heavier as this is a truck bypass
route as well. Would you suggest staying off the shoulder?

What about the case described, where there isn't a shoulder?
Or where the shoulder is unfit to ride on, because of debris, poor
surface, uncleared snow or ice, obstructions, etc?

Well he says that he won't ride on a road with a limit 35mph that
doesn't have one. That's his choice.

I was questioning your referring to riding on the shoulder as skulking
in the gutter. If there is enough traffic going fast enough, I'll ride
on the shoulder as I guess that most people would. I don't consider
myself skulking in the gutter. To me, riding in the gutter means riding
next to the curb on a street with a curb and a gutter when I should be a
couple of feet out. Not riding on a shoulder on a highway with a lot of
fast moving cars.

Phil W Lee wrote:

That is a major reason for the "safety in numbers" effect - the more
cyclists that are encountered by motorists, the more they come to
expect (and respect) them.

Or resent them, at least until there is some critical mass perhaps...

I live at the foothills of Mt Dandenong. A small extinct volcano about
35 km east of Melbourne,

It is riddled with roads. Like a rabbit warren above ground.

Over the past 5 - 10 years there has been a steady increase in the
number of cyclists riding Mt D., yet the behavior of the motorists has
steadily got worse, AFAICT.

Maybe there are more motorists as well. I guess there are.

We used to ride up there two abreast, single file when cars approach
from behind to let them pass. There was rarely if ever a problem I can
recall.

Now the Victorian roads authority has seen fit to install signs to
indicate cyclists should ride single file all the time, though this is
not required by law.

The cyclists often don't know their rights.

The motorists think they know that cyclists should be single file, and
if cyclists are found two abreast, they are considered in the wrong and
liable to cop abuse.

Coupled with this the impatience of some that overtake over double white
lines on approach to blind corners leaves me astounded there are not
more accidents. (Is it an _accident_ when someone willfully does
something so stupid and causes a smash?)

I've also heard from a cyclist who lives on top of the mountain that a
cafe shop owner doesn't like cyclists at the shop because they are a
nuisance on the road and take up seats at the cafe that tourists and
other people could be using.

What kinda screwed logic is that! Some people think a cyclists money
isn't as good as someone elses, because cyclists are a *nuisance* on the
road!

Sheesh.

JS.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:05:26 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

You seem to have misread the OP of this subthread. This is a situation
where there is no shoulder. Where the hell did the idiot expect them to
be riding - levitating above the surrounding countryside?

I expected them to follow the law and ride single file close to the right
side of the road. I'm the idiot? They would have been the ones dead
except for my avoiding them. Cyclist are hit and killed all the time
around here. And most of the time it isn't their fault. Even then,
nothing usually happens to the driver unless he's committed some
violation. Point being, dead is still dead, right or wrong.

Wes Newell wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:05:26 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

You seem to have misread the OP of this subthread. This is a situation
where there is no shoulder. Where the hell did the idiot expect them to
be riding - levitating above the surrounding countryside?

I expected them to follow the law and ride single file close to the right
side of the road. I'm the idiot? They would have been the ones dead
except for my avoiding them. Cyclist are hit and killed all the time
around here. And most of the time it isn't their fault. Even then,
nothing usually happens to the driver unless he's committed some
violation. Point being, dead is still dead, right or wrong.

Is it really the law for cyclists to be riding single file where you
are? It's not in Victoria, Australia, though many cyclists and
motorists here don't know the law in this regard.

Where is here for you, Wes?

On second thoughts, better not say. Frank will undoubtedly dig up some
stats to try to prove you wrong and label you a gutter skulking, fear
mongering coward. But don't let that worry you. He's renowned for it.

JS.

?Just use common sense and take personal responsibility, Shermie.

Bill "problem solved; off you go" S.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:21:51 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

Wes Newell considered Thu, 3 Feb 2011
17:50:46 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:
I accept facts. A person on bike is no match for a 3000lb vehicle and
that's why I try my hardest to stay the hell out of their way.

Better get rid of the car then - it's no match for a 40,000lb semi, and
you wouldn't want to risk getting in their way.

No where close to the same. My car isn't going 10mph in front of the
semi. You can be sure of one thing though. I never drive beside a semi on
multi lane roads except to pass. I try and stay out of their way too for
the same reason. My little car is no match against them in a collision.
Right or wrong, I'll be the one dead first.

How do you ever manage to get out of bed?

Carefully.:-)

I look at it like this. When riding, I'm just
another bump in the road to someone driving a 3000 lb vehicle, and I
stay way the heck out of their way. Having the right of way doesn't
mean crap when you're dead or in the hospital. if you want to live to
my age (64) or older, I'd suggest you not worry to much about the
rules and stay the hell out of their way. People these days have
little respect for anyone, much less cyclist.

And you think you'll gain any respect by cowering in the gutter?

Yes. It's called common courtesy.

No, it's called stupid.

So, I should just ignore the law and ride in the middle of the lane? Now
that's what I'd call stupid. Deadly stupid.

It builds false expectations among motorists that nothing will ever be
in their way, and they can recklessly charge around blind bends without
consideration of what may be there. When everyone acts as you do, the
motorists start thinking they have some kind of RIGHT to be criminally
negligent morons - just the attitude you seem to be demonstrating. That
is a major reason for the "safety in numbers" effect - the more cyclists
that are encountered by motorists, the more they come to expect (and
respect) them.

They do have the right to the roadway. They pay for it with license fees
and gas taxes. Cyclist don't pay for it. We are just allowed to use it.
There are way too many drivers that don't pay attention to what they're
doing for me to challenge them by getting in their way. I've put 1500
miles on my bike in the last 8 months. The one time I decided to take a 2
lane road out of the neighborhood to get to a parts store I came very
close to being a bug on the front of a truck. And that road actually had
a 35mph speed limit. Now I'm not a shy person, and I've had my more than
fair share of fights, but that's one a cyclist of any size can't win.
Call it what you want.

The roads were built for automobiles
that can go a lot faster than I can on a bike.

You really should study some history.

This is 2011, not 1890.

I give them the right of
way because it doesn't bother me to do so, and I stay safer because of
it. Recently, I woman jogging on a hiking trail was killed in Dallas
when a cyclist ran into her. She had the right of way too for all the
good it did her.

Good reason not to ride in areas where you can expect pedestrians. Stick
to the roads, which were built for vehicles - including bicycles.

Just pointing out that cyclist can be just as unsafe as drivers.

On 2/3/2011 5:59 PM, Bill Sornson wrote:
?Just use common sense and take personal responsibility, Shermie.

Bill "problem solved; off you go" S.

Context?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2/3/2011 1:09 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:25:37 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Anything unpredictable and violating traffic regulations by cyclists
will irritate motorists.

What irritates me is how stupid a lot of them are. I came around a curve
doing about 60mph on a 2 lane highway with no shoulder and came up on a
group of riders riding 3 and 4 abreast and they didn't move over. If
another car had been coming the other way, guess who would have died? It
wouldn't have been me, but some of them. Now that's what irritates
motorist.

What if there had been a slow-moving end-loader and oncoming traffic?
Then you would have been the one in deep doo-doo. It is highly
irresponsible for your braking distance to exceed your sight line on
public roads.

I just started riding about 8 months ago, and I can assure you,
I won't ride on any road with a speed limit over 35mph that doesn't have
a shoulder to ride on.

You are missing out on a lot of nice rural roads then; some of which
only have few motor vehicles per hour.

I look at it like this. When riding, I'm just
another bump in the road to someone driving a 3000 lb vehicle, and I stay
way the heck out of their way.

Getting killed by a homicidal driver is like getting hit by lightning.
It could happen, but is *exceedingly* rare.

Having the right of way doesn't mean crap
when you're dead or in the hospital. if you want to live to my age (64)
or older, I'd suggest you not worry to much about the rules and stay the
hell out of their way. People these days have little respect for anyone,
much less cyclist.

D A N G E R !

D A N G E R !

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.