When to honk at a bicyclist

Badger_South wrote in message . ..

Bring me back to the summer of '69!! Peace love and all that other
crap to all.

Uh, Peace? And you're apparently planning to prowl the streets shooting
people? This is clearly the most hostile post I've seen on the ng in quite
a while.

If not that, what would you propose that you would be doing with this
Walmart gun? Go hunting wabbits?

-B

I would never shoot a WABBIT!!!!!!! I luv Wabbits. The only gun I
would ever buy is a Water gun. The big one. The one with the double
barrels. Great fun shooting my labrador retriver. Forgive my
hostility, I lost my head for a moment. Don't bar me from posting.
You can invite me to a bar, but don't bar me from posting. I am a
mother of three adults...I need some pleasure in my life. ;-)

Badger_South wrote in message . ..

Are you sure this newbie, who mentions buying a gun, knows what a
'killfile' is, Bill. LOL

-B
virtually, virtually!

No this newbie does not know what a killfile is.....and I have a funny
feeling I don't want to know.
Peace and Stuff..... :-)

28 Oct 2004 07:13:27 -0700,
,
(Maggie) wrote:

I just recently purchased a bike to ride in my nice, little, safe town
in suburban New Jersey. Many parks, safe suburban streets, very little
crime etc. I thought it would be a nice relaxing hobby and good
exercise. I also thought it would be nice to write to other people who
ride bicycles.....(this is how I ended up reading this very
informative thread) :-)
After reading it, I think I will take my bike back to Walmart and buy
a gun instead.

If not back to Walmart for a refund then, for your own well being, at
least to a bicycle shop and have it gone over to be sure its assembled
properly.

This group is notoriously hard on *mart bikes and you don't even ever
never even wanna think about starting a gun thread out of season. I
think we're finished with dogs for awhile. Thank you for not
mentioning hats. Please don't.

Riding a bike seems much too hostile and dangerous. I
think a gun is less threatening. I COULD BE WRONG!!! But based on
this thread, I am not quite sure. Mucho hostility going on here.
Peace from an old hippie looking for the simple pleasures. Thought it
could be found on a bicycle.

Don't let the ranting of this unabashed car basher dissuade you from
your quest. That some otherwise nice people will do monstrously stupid
things whilst caged has nothing to do with bicycling.
That was my point.

For the most part we don't mention those who aren't jerks any more
than drivers remember the cyclists they don't see.

Cycling is a safe, beneficial and joyous endeavour. It's as much fun
now as when you were ten. Conduct yourself as vehicular traffic when
you ride in the streets. Enjoy the extra bonuses of being able to use
parks and paths and in some cases, sidewalks, tunnels and overpasses
designed or specified for recreation. Use your bike and think of them
as short-cuts to get to real destinations.

Bring me back to the summer of '69!! Peace love and all that other
crap to all.

Back in the autumn of 1969 I was twenty and riding a resurrected three
speed to work. I bought my first ten-speed in 1970.

I've been living car-free since again ~1997. I bought a kick scooter
in early 2000. By late summer that year I'd finished rebuilding both
of my old road bikes which had been ridden until they were stored in
Dec.1986.

The majority of people I meet on bicycles are under forty with most of
them being younger than thirty. There's always a few other old hippys
at the critical mass rides and alternative type bicycle social events.

I sorta planned on being an active "old guy" way back when I built my
first pro bike. I figure I'm still training.
--
zk

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:19:13 -0700, Zoot Katz
wrote:

28 Oct 2004 07:13:27 -0700,
,
(Maggie) wrote:

I just recently purchased a bike to ride in my nice, little, safe town
in suburban New Jersey. Many parks, safe suburban streets, very little
crime etc. I thought it would be a nice relaxing hobby and good
exercise. I also thought it would be nice to write to other people who
ride bicycles.....(this is how I ended up reading this very
informative thread) :-)
After reading it, I think I will take my bike back to Walmart and buy
a gun instead.

If not back to Walmart for a refund then, for your own well being, at
least to a bicycle shop and have it gone over to be sure its assembled
properly.

This group is notoriously hard on *mart bikes and you don't even ever
never even wanna think about starting a gun thread out of season. I
think we're finished with dogs for awhile. Thank you for not
mentioning hats. Please don't.

Riding a bike seems much too hostile and dangerous. I
think a gun is less threatening. I COULD BE WRONG!!! But based on
this thread, I am not quite sure. Mucho hostility going on here.
Peace from an old hippie looking for the simple pleasures. Thought it
could be found on a bicycle.

Don't let the ranting of this unabashed car basher dissuade you from
your quest. That some otherwise nice people will do monstrously stupid
things whilst caged has nothing to do with bicycling.
That was my point.

For the most part we don't mention those who aren't jerks any more
than drivers remember the cyclists they don't see.

Cycling is a safe, beneficial and joyous endeavour. It's as much fun
now as when you were ten. Conduct yourself as vehicular traffic when
you ride in the streets. Enjoy the extra bonuses of being able to use
parks and paths and in some cases, sidewalks, tunnels and overpasses
designed or specified for recreation. Use your bike and think of them
as short-cuts to get to real destinations.

Bring me back to the summer of '69!! Peace love and all that other
crap to all.

Back in the autumn of 1969 I was twenty and riding a resurrected three
speed to work. I bought my first ten-speed in 1970.

I've been living car-free since again ~1997. I bought a kick scooter
in early 2000. By late summer that year I'd finished rebuilding both
of my old road bikes which had been ridden until they were stored in
Dec.1986.

The majority of people I meet on bicycles are under forty with most of
them being younger than thirty. There's always a few other old hippys
at the critical mass rides and alternative type bicycle social events.

I sorta planned on being an active "old guy" way back when I built my
first pro bike. I figure I'm still training.

You tell 'em Zoot. I got me 2 o dem dere x-mart bikes what works good.
Bill (not serious tonight) Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Wayne Pein

wrote in part:

I don't know what you mean by "everybody" gets to decide....

--- remainder snipped ---

Wayne,

If you want to engage someone in an argument you'll have to find someone else.
I was answering Tom K's question. If you had read what I wrote that- and who
gets to decide how we *all* use the roads- should have been clear.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe wrote:

Wayne Pein


wrote in part:


If I am riding down the center of a lane, then that is the practicable
location for me at the time and traffic conditions then existing. If a
police officer believes otherwise, and they have on 3 occasions, I
challenge their authority. The 3 outcomes? I continued on my merry way
and the officers were better informed of my rights.


An alternative explanation would be that those three police officers decided to
allow you to continue on your merry way not because you were right but simply
because your violation wasn't worth the headache.

I had just one incident where an officer (Idaho State Highway Patrol)
stopped me and my traveling companions and very rudely told us we were
not allowed to obstruct traffic by taking the lane when necessary, and
that I was violating the law by riding two abreast.

He actually shouted that we had to ride on the shoulder. When one of us
said "But there _is_ no shoulder!" he shouted "The shoulder is painted
white!!" (i.e. the fog line, painted two inches from gravel.) He was
deliberately very nasty.

We entered into a long, very careful discussion with him, in which I
asked to see the text of the laws, etc. He pulled out his traffic code
book and read certain passages, and I was able to correct him on several
points (such as "not _more_ than two abreast"). The discussion lasted
half an hour. In the end, to my astonishment, we were able to convince
him that what we were doing was correct and safe. He actually left us
in a good humor - and a bit better educated.

That was lousy, lousy police work, though.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

R15757 wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:


In common parlance and in countless court decisions, the right to the
lane is decided based on "first come, first served." That is, the
person already moving in it has the right to expect to keep using it. A
person driving the speed limit, an old lady driving 10 mph under the
limit, a slow truck creeping up a steep hill, a farm tractor or a
cyclist isn't normally expected to give up that right just because
someone else would prefer to go faster.


No, the bicyclist IS expected to give up his/her "right"
to the lane unless certain specific conditions exist.

Again: The cyclist isn't normally expected to give up his right "JUST
because someone would prefer to go faster." If someone prefers to go
faster AND it is reasonable (practicable) for the cyclist to do so, he
is expected to share.

Some states give a partial list of conditions that exempt the cyclist
from sharing. AFAIK, most states (perhaps no states) give an exhaustive
list; IOW, they allow that there may be conditions not listed which also
allow the cyclist to retain control of the lane. And practically
speaking, it's up to the judgement of the cyclist. Prosecution would
occur only in situations where the cyclists blatantly abuses the situation.


Even the slow-moving tractor is expected to move
over as far as possible, onto the shoulder even...

Sorry, Robert, but that's not always true.


, and
the old lady may be legally obligated to travel at some
minimum speed.

Ditto.


When I'm chugging up I-70 in my old
truck, 40 mph, I am not allowed to clog the left lane
just because I was there first, I am obligated to move
over.

"Keep right except to pass" on a four lane is quite different than what
we're discussing. Bikes are not allowed to take a left lane under
normal (straight riding, clear right lane) circumstances either.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

We entered into a long, very careful discussion with him, in which I
asked to see the text of the laws, etc. He pulled out his traffic code
book and read certain passages, and I was able to correct him on several
points (such as "not _more_ than two abreast"). The discussion lasted
half an hour. In the end, to my astonishment,--

He handed you his gun and begged you to shoot him?

-- we were able to convince
him that what we were doing was correct and safe. He actually left us
in a good humor - and a bit better educated.

Oh.

That was lousy, lousy police work, though.

Coulda been worse. It seems remarkable that he would
stand there and have a discussion about it.

If we've established one thing in this thread it's that
many police officers and cyclists don't understand the
single law that is meant to cover every moment of the
cyclist's traveling existence.

I haven't had a sour incident with the po-lice for about
ten years now. Very young cop pulled me over to yell
about filtering between cars and the curb at a light. I
decided later he was technically right but way out of
line to pull up onto the sidewalk and screech to a halt
like TJ Hooker.

But I had an incident that made up for all my negative
encounters, when I got hit the cop on the scene was a
real pro when I needed a real pro. He knew the traffic
laws and made sure I got medical attention. So I can't
get too far down on the po because they came through
when I needed them, and could need them again. There
sure are a lot more important things to worry about
out there than what the hell practicable means.

Robert

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

R15757 wrote: No, the bicyclist IS expected to give up his/her "right"
to the lane unless certain specific conditions exist.

Again: The cyclist isn't normally expected to give up his right "JUST
because someone would prefer to go faster." If someone prefers to go
faster AND it is reasonable (practicable) for the cyclist to do so, he
is expected to share.

I think I just said that.

... And practically
speaking, it's up to the judgement of the cyclist. Prosecution would
occur only in situations where the cyclists blatantly abuses the situation.

It's not about getting a ticket or getting harassed by
clueless cops. It's about liability. If you get hit and
injured while riding in the lane, and the officer at the
scene writes in his report that you were riding
improperly, good luck. That police report is the holy
Word. On the road it's up to a cyclist to interpret
these laws--but if something happens, the judgment on
that incident will not be up to the cyclist. Good to
remember that.

"Keep right except to pass" on a four lane is quite different than what
we're discussing. Bikes are not allowed to take a left lane under
normal (straight riding, clear right lane) circumstances either.

But a motorcyclist can. Why?

The answer is not complicated.

Robert

Frank Krygowski

wrote:
Hunrobe wrote:

Wayne Pein


wrote in part:


If I am riding down the center of a lane, then that is the practicable
location for me at the time and traffic conditions then existing. If a
police officer believes otherwise, and they have on 3 occasions, I
challenge their authority. The 3 outcomes? I continued on my merry way
and the officers were better informed of my rights.


An alternative explanation would be that those three police officers
decided to
allow you to continue on your merry way not because you were right but
simply
because your violation wasn't worth the headache.

I had just one incident where an officer (Idaho State Highway Patrol)
stopped me and my traveling companions and very rudely told us we were
not allowed to obstruct traffic by taking the lane when necessary, and
that I was violating the law by riding two abreast.

He actually shouted that we had to ride on the shoulder. When one of us
said "But there _is_ no shoulder!" he shouted "The shoulder is painted
white!!" (i.e. the fog line, painted two inches from gravel.) He was
deliberately very nasty.

We entered into a long, very careful discussion with him, in which I
asked to see the text of the laws, etc. He pulled out his traffic code
book and read certain passages, and I was able to correct him on several
points (such as "not _more_ than two abreast"). The discussion lasted
half an hour. In the end, to my astonishment, we were able to convince
him that what we were doing was correct and safe. He actually left us
in a good humor - and a bit better educated.

That was lousy, lousy police work, though.

Since I was merely offering an alternative explanation of why Wayne may have
been "allowed to go on his merry way" even though he may have been wrong (he
supplied insufficient details to form any opinion) I'm not sure why you replied
with the above. My only point was that not being ticketed is not proof that he
was right. It's rather like conflicts here in the NG. Just because a Red Cloud
post may go unchallenged for instance doesn't mean it's an accurate, factual,
reasonable, or even sane post.
BTW, I can't recall ever saying that police officers never make mistakes
anymore than I can recall you saying that cyclists never make mistakes. Now
that I think of it though, if either of those unexpressed opinions were true
I'd be perfect. g

Regards,
Bob Hunt