Cyclist at war!

KingOfTheApes wrote:
On Oct 18, 11:07 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
KingOfTheApes aka anti-cycling troll wrote:



On Oct 17, 9:29 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
Tim McNamara writes:
Then why do I keep meeting smarter people riding bicycles than riding
motorcycles?
Because we bicyclists have to read the minds of the
motor vehicle operators around us. We often
have to do their thinking for them. We know what
they're gonna do before they know what they're
gonna do. Because what they're gonna do is gonna
be the most detrimental thing to us if we aren't
heads-up about their brainless movements.
And besides, bicycles are often a more intelligent
choice of vehicle.
cheers,
Tom
You contradict your claim to being smart when you refuse to bring here
the bike facilities that work elsewhere. But it ain't so much that you
are stupid, it's simply that you are elitist and are selfish as
such...
If you actually rode a bicycle, you would understand why "bicycle lanes"
are separate and unequal facilities.

I quote here from someone who have figured out that your kind should
shut up and mind your own business..
"First thing I would do would be to purge snobbish/elitist advocates
from leadership or policy making positions at any publicly funded
bicycling advocacy/educational organization; i.e. the clubby
enthusiast type who believes cycling skill (or advocacy goals) is
defined by being a racer (like himself) or a cyclist (like himself)
who moves consistently at speeds greater than 12mph."
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...=1#post7688868
Yes, let us put the cyclists in a ghetto bike lane to keep them out of
the way of the superior motorists!

Please Honor The Signature Separator.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've said BIKE LANES, TAME TRAFFIC, OR GO TO HOLLAND, but you are just
picking up on the first one.

Bicycle lanes are separate and unequal facilities.

Taming traffic just requires education and enforcement.

The Netherlands are tempting, but they do not just offer citizenship to
anyone that asks.

Do you think they ever will tame traffic in America? Not without a
revolution, right? Then what are left with if you don't want to give
up on the country and leave it to the SUVs? Make bike facilities
including bike lanes, right? Well, that won't happen either without a
revolution...

So let's seek political assylum in Holland, I guess.

Are you retarded, by any chance?

No, I am someone who has ridden a bicycle many miles in traffic, with no
issues other than harassment by motorists who believe that bicycles do
not belong on the road - like the guy who kept shouting and pointing at
the "bike path" on the sidewalk that could not be ridden safely at more
than 10 mph and required crossing every street as a pedestrian - a
second class bicycle ghetto facility.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate.

KingOfTheApes aka anti-cyclist troll wrote:
On Oct 18, 11:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

The commuters and other practical cyclists and the elite cyclists are
two different animal species.
Dude, the transportational cyclists ARE the elite (in the best sense of
the word) cyclists.

No they are not, stupid.

The troll called me stupid. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

The elite wear lycra, ride big buck bikes,
and never do anthing practical with them. And then they only associate
with their own kind. Not with slow going practical bikers commuting or
going to the supermarket.

Banana Boy is confused here.

I'm afraid is the latter that want to block any effort to make bike
lanes and other bike facilities. They ride fairly fast and almost go
as fast as slow traffic, so they feel safer. But once in a while are
wiped out too by reckless drivers too.
Of course, everyone is at risk, including motorcyclists. Different
medal for them, though.
The commuters are hampered by the "bicycle lanes" that get them "right
hooked" by motorists and put them in more danger when needing to make a
left turn.

OK, then tame the f**ing traffic, and make the cyclist TAKE THE LANE
and end of the problem, comprende?

Dude, you are not making sense.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate.

In article ,
KingOfTheApes writes:

Maybe the sheep are not smart enough to follow the ape.

You prefer the wolf in the sheep's clothing.

You called? Your pathetic "revolution" is less well thought than a
greek communist revolution. ALL will bow down to their superiors the
motorcyclists...Join the club now and get 40% off your club jacket
today (club colours cost extra, prices may vary due to jurisdictions)

--
Keith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Well, that the motorcyclists seem to be smarter than those cyclists
who deny bike facilities, don't make them superior, comrade. Just that
the cyclists are plain stupid.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The evil anti-cyclist fool who pretends to be pro-cyclist
shows his true colours.

The truth will always out.

Squirm, worm, squirm.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

KingOfTheApes aka anti-cyclist troll wrote:
On Oct 18, 11:30 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Twibil ? wrote:
On Oct 17, 5:32 pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
(A) Why should the huge majority of taxpaying motorists have to give
up any of their lanes for you, much less pay their taxes to build new
ones just for you to use?
You want new lanes, pay for 'em yourselves.
Dude, like most cyclists I pay an assload of taxes that fund the roads
already. Taxes on my house, taxes on my income, taxes on the car that
sits in front of my house when I'm riding my bike. No different than
most everybody else.
That's right: "No different than most anybody else". So why do you
expect special treatment in the form of lanes dedicated only to *your*
usage?
Dude, real bicycles do NOT want bicycle ghetto lanes. "BananaApe Boy"
does NOT speak for cyclists.

Motorcyclist lane-split; we don't expect anybody to build special
lanes just for us.
"Bicycle lane" promoters are either misguided or anti-cyclist. The real
purpose of "bicycle lanes" is to ghettoize cyclists out of the way of
motorists.

PLEASE HONOR THE SIGNATURE SEPARATOR.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know what they call the place where cyclists ride bikes in Holland
or Denmark?

Er streets? Last time I was in Denmark, most of the cyclists were riding
on the street, not in separate bicycle lanes. Only the major arterials
have lanes. I do not imagine that all cyclists can get to their
destinations exclusively using bicycle lanes.

Right, they are called BIKE LANES and it works for them.

But YOU are too smart and you consider them the problem. So what's the
solution "wiseman"?

Cycling on the streets in the US is already a quite safe activity, so
only incremental improvements are needed.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate.

In article ,
KingOfTheApes writes:

But it ain't so much that you
are stupid, it's simply that you are elitist and are selfish as
such...

And yet I'm not out to plant fear into the minds of people,
while you /are/!

I quote here from someone who have figured out that your kind should
shut up and mind your own business..
"First thing I would do would be to purge snobbish/elitist advocates
from leadership or policy making positions at any publicly funded
bicycling advocacy/educational organization; i.e. the clubby
enthusiast type who believes cycling skill (or advocacy goals) is
defined by being a racer (like himself) or a cyclist (like himself)
who moves consistently at speeds greater than 12mph."
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...=1#post7688868

My "kind," eh?

Strike one.

Snobbish/elitist advocate, eh?

Strike two.

Shall we go on to your strike 85?

You're evilly anti-human, and I'm
calling you on it. *You hate bicycling
because it gets in your way as a driver,
and it sticks in your throat like a fishbone.
You're not out to promote bicycling; you're
out to restrict it.

"By their fruits shall ye know them."

Your fruits are distasteful and highly,
bitterly spit-out-able.

And you are despicable for it.

It is /you/ who is not only the elitist snob,
but the greedy pig doing everything you can to
force everybody else out of your way as you
muscle into what you perceive as the free-for-all
traffic trough in which you believe non-drivers
don't belong.

I don't hate you. *I don't pity you. *It's not mine
to harbour either of those sentiments. *I just work
around you, you odious obstacle.

Just as you work against people.
No fear. I'm stating it's a jungle

It's not a jungle, it's Society. If
you can't hack it, that's your prob.

You are indeed a loathesome fearmongerer
with an agendum.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
KingOfTheApes writes:
On Oct 18, 12:48 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

Biologically, humans /are/ Great Apes, along with
chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans.
So, since our "lyric" revolutionary/Pied Piper
claims to be king of us all, he presents himself
as someone suffering some sort of messiach complex.

You are not an ape, you have the brain of a lesser monkey. Now dance a
little bit, stupid monkey...

Whatever I am, I'm glad to be me and not you.
After all, I'm a /real/ bike rider, and not a
phony who's out to prevent would-be bike riders
from hitting the streets.

I find it notable that my acknowledgement of your
delusions has drawn such ire from you. I wish
you luck in dealing with your issues.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Oct 20, 11:15*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * KingOfTheApes writes:





But it ain't so much that you
are stupid, it's simply that you are elitist and are selfish as
such...

And yet I'm not out to plant fear into the minds of people,
while you /are/!

I quote here from someone who have figured out that your kind should
shut up and mind your own business..
"First thing I would do would be to purge snobbish/elitist advocates
from leadership or policy making positions at any publicly funded
bicycling advocacy/educational organization; i.e. the clubby
enthusiast type who believes cycling skill (or advocacy goals) is
defined by being a racer (like himself) or a cyclist (like himself)
who moves consistently at speeds greater than 12mph."
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...=1#post7688868

My "kind," eh?

Strike one.

Snobbish/elitist advocate, eh?

Strike two.

Shall we go on to your strike 85?

You're evilly anti-human, and I'm
calling you on it. *You hate bicycling
because it gets in your way as a driver,
and it sticks in your throat like a fishbone.
You're not out to promote bicycling; you're
out to restrict it.

"By their fruits shall ye know them."

Your fruits are distasteful and highly,
bitterly spit-out-able.

And you are despicable for it.

It is /you/ who is not only the elitist snob,
but the greedy pig doing everything you can to
force everybody else out of your way as you
muscle into what you perceive as the free-for-all
traffic trough in which you believe non-drivers
don't belong.

I don't hate you. *I don't pity you. *It's not mine
to harbour either of those sentiments. *I just work
around you, you odious obstacle.

Just as you work against people.
No fear. I'm stating it's a jungle

It's not a jungle, it's Society. *If
you can't hack it, that's your prob.

You are indeed a loathesome fearmongerer
with an agendum.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And how do you know, if you don't live near LA, Chicago, NY, or Miami?

It's NOT a jungle in Key West (and some other islands of peace), but
everything else IS a jungle

Beware of the big predators, you fool.

On Oct 20, 11:35*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * KingOfTheApes writes:

On Oct 18, 12:48 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

Biologically, humans /are/ Great Apes, along with
chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans.
So, since our "lyric" revolutionary/Pied Piper
claims to be king of us all, he presents himself
as someone suffering some sort of messiach complex.

You are not an ape, you have the brain of a lesser monkey. Now dance a
little bit, stupid monkey...

Whatever I am, I'm glad to be me and not you.
After all, I'm a /real/ bike rider, and not a
phony who's out to prevent would-be bike riders
from hitting the streets.

That you are a soldier who's survived so many wars doesn't prove war
is safe.

Actually, the situation could quite different if you looked what's
going in the rest of the world, including the UK, one of the groups
posted to.

And it could be even better...

Here are some aspects of the problem for those who don't believe they
know everything and there's nothing to change...

Alternative approaches
For most of the 20th Century, many road authorities believed that
traffic should be separated and controlled by class (pedestrian,
bicyclist, and motor vehicle driver) in order to combine high speed
use of motor vehicles with good traffic safety.[7] Acceptance of this
view by the authorities has led to the widespread use of traffic
lights, Belisha beacons, pedestrian crossings, and, in some
jurisdictions, cycle lanes.

Alternatives to this approach have been suggested, such as those
offered by J. S. Dean, a former chairman of the UK Pedestrians'
Association: Better roads, better sight lines, fewer bends and blind
corners, less traffic, better lighting, better visibility, better
weather conditions – all these that are supposed to make for greater
safety, in fact, make for greater danger ... because every
"nonrestrictive" safety measure, however admirable in itself, is
treated by the drivers as an opportunity for more speeding, so that
the net amount of danger is increased and the latter state is worse
than the first.[8]

In the latter part of the 20th Century, alternative design approaches
such as those pioneered in woonerven became more popular. These
approaches, recognising that higher traffic speeds made collisions
more likely and injuries more severe, sought to reduce traffic speeds
in community and housing zones by the use of lower speed limits
enforced by the use of special signage and road markings, the
introduction of traffic calming measures, and by giving pedestrians
priority over motorists.

....

Criticisms

Non-motorised lobby
Pedestrians' advocates, environmental groups and related organisations
such as RoadPeace have been strongly critical of what they see as
moves to solve the problem of danger posed to vulnerable road users by
motor traffic through increasing restrictions on vulnerable road
users, an approach which they believe both blames the victim and fails
to address the problem at source. This is discussed in detail by Dr
Robert Davis in the book Death on the Streets: Cars and the mythology
of road safety, and the core problem is also addressed in books by
Professor John Adams, Mayer Hillman and others.

It is argued by some that the problem of road safety is largely being
stated in the wrong terms because most road safety measures are
designed to increase the safety of drivers, but many road traffic
casualties are not drivers (in the UK only 40% of casualties are
drivers), and those measures which increase driver safety may,
perversely, increase the risk to these others, through risk
compensation.

castitlivevideo.com/play.php?vid=567

On Oct 20, 8:57 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:01 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
S'mee wrote:
On Oct 18, 9:30 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Elitest scum.
Context man!

Take that mass what ever the hell you call yourselves and go eat a
spoke sideways.
I have never participated in a Critical Mass ride and have no plans to.
Judging all bicyclists by Critical Mass is like judging all
motorcyclists by the handful of anti-social criminal gang members.

You said you were a collaborator so you don't need to say you are NOT
a rebel.

So what's your viewpoint, dude? Go with the flow? Baaah!

Vehicular cycling and vigorous prosecution of motorists who threaten,
harass and/or strike lawfully riding cyclists. Mandatory education of
motorists on the rights of cyclists.

If we want cycling facilities, build extra wide right lanes.

Yeah sure. That's the way the dealt with it in Europe where streets
are narrower than an American SUV, right?

That would only lead to ever wider SUVs, dummy.

I think even the lesser monkeys are smarter than you.


Sharrows are fine, as long as they are far enough from the curb and/or
parking lane.

Bicycle lanes just lead to motorists believing that cyclists do NOT
belong anywhere else on the road.

Yeah sure. It also leads them to believe that traffic lanes are for
motorized traffic only.

They just don't consider the mundane bicycles traffic, comprende,
lesser monkey?

On Oct 20, 9:03 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

I've said BIKE LANES, TAME TRAFFIC, OR GO TO HOLLAND, but you are just
picking up on the first one.

Bicycle lanes are separate and unequal facilities.

Why unequal, dummy? Just separate but equal.

This IS true discrimination...

"There's no doubt that car drivers need to clean up their act. Taking
speed limits down to 20mph in built-up areas will make the roads safer
for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Enforcing the ban on
mobile phone use will help drivers become more attentive. And applying
the Highway Code more strictly will make many people think twice about
engaging in the current bully-boy hierarchy of bigger is better.
....

Now, saying that motor vehicles should have the same rights as
pedestrians or cyclists is like saying that water skiers should be
allowed on all waters in front of a popular beach. The Highway Code by
instigating this non-sensical equality status, that inevitably leads
to the law of the jungle, is bunk. It has the same moral standing as
the South African Pbutt Law."

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote91