Forester says...

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:46:49 -0800, Chalo wrote:

It's going to take prolonged separation from his car to break the spell.

I drove the car yesterday for the first time in several months. So I
wonder what period you consider prolonged separation. A person that jumps
to conclusions usually jumps to the wrong one.

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:41:45 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

Get a copy of CycleCraft, by John Franklin. It will teach you methods to
ride on those roads that you are currently too afraid to ride on, and
with a high degree of safety.

There's a lot of difference between the UK and the US. Drivers here are a
bunch of morons when it comes to encountering cyclist on road simply
because there aren't that many. It's not even safe for a motorcycle here.
And I've got the scars to prove it. But on a motorcycle, I didn't have to
worry about being hit from the rear as much.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:01:32 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

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

Not around here. They die about 50% of the time. The rest are just
maimed. Now I'd probably feel safe if I were in a part of the world where
there's a lot of riders. There just isn't that many around here. Maybe
one for every 1000 cars.

Wes Newell wrote:

Chalo wrote:

It's going to take prolonged separation from his car to break the spell..

I drove the car yesterday for the first time in several months. So I
wonder what period you consider prolonged separation. A person that jumps
to conclusions *usually jumps to the wrong one.

Ah, then you're not a deranged unethical motorist; you're just
deranged and unethical. Congratulations. What the hell is wrong with
you?

On 2/3/2011 8:20 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/3/2011 6:00 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:21:51 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:
[...]
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.[...]

B U L L S H I T !

Local roads are paid for almost entirely by property taxes; and license
fees and fuel taxes do *not* cover the externalities of motor vehicle
use. Cycling is a *right*, motor vehicle use is a *privilege*.



Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio
guarantees his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places
beside Ohio do as well but not any that I've lived in.

That said, motorists aren't normally homicidal maniacs. If they are
accustomed to cyclists most will learn to coexist, albeit grudgingly in
some cases. I agree that the more cyclists, the safer for the cyclists.
Don't know where Wes is from. Maybe it's another place where
motorists see one bicycle per day...

Wes Newell wrote:

Yes. It's called common courtesy. The roads were built for automobiles
that can go a lot faster than I can on a bike. 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.

Well there's certainly nothing wrong with "common courtesy" except that
it appears to be not so common now days.

You know it is not just people on foot or on bicycles that had the right
of way, and ended up dead at the hands of someone who should have given
way to another. It happens even to motorists as well, yet I believe
very few of them give up their automobiles because of such dangers.

I generally try to keep as far right *as is safe to do so*. A lot of
persons new to bicycle as transport interpret this as a legal, or
self-preservation, requirement. This is not always the case.

Keeping way off to the right sometimes will encourage a motorist to zip
by you with mere millimeters to spare, whereas if one was more "out in
the lane", it would have dawned on even the most dense of drivers, that
slowing and swinging left was going to be required. (This is a legal
requirement BTW; bicycles are road vehicles and have the right to as
much of the road as they need for safe travel. Even side-by-side
bicycle riding isn't always illegal. Bicyclists are not required to
ride the gutters.)

It's a good idea not to irritate motorists if you can help it. In most
cases in my experience, this is not difficult to do. Most motorists
are really not psychopathic killers. They want to get along and they
don't really mind losing a few seconds to get by a bicyclist in a safe
manner. In most cases, they lose no time in doing so.

But of course there are those who take it as an afront to their dignity
and they simply won't give way for mere bicyclist.

However I've seen such motorists perform the very same rude, dangerous
behavior towards other motorists after they've passed me on my bike
with mere inches to spare.

I could very well end up squished on the side of the road tomorrow
(and you could slip in the shower to meet your end just as well), but
I'm not getting off the road because of a very few idiots, who by some
means have been legally declared competent to operate a motor vehicle,
but in practice, aren't.


SMH

On 2/4/2011 8:59 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Wes considered Fri, 4 Feb 2011
08:38:19 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:41:45 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

Get a copy of CycleCraft, by John Franklin. It will teach you methods to
ride on those roads that you are currently too afraid to ride on, and
with a high degree of safety.

There's a lot of difference between the UK and the US. Drivers here are a
bunch of morons when it comes to encountering cyclist on road simply
because there aren't that many. It's not even safe for a motorcycle here.
And I've got the scars to prove it. But on a motorcycle, I didn't have to
worry about being hit from the rear as much.

There is an edition of CycleCraft appropriate for North America.
And I have driven in the US, as well as the UK.
The main differences I saw were the much wider roads and generally
lower speed limits.

Depends on where you are. I find the south to have more space for roads
and the northeast to be more cramped. Probably due to the older cities
in the north and the higher population densities but I don't know for
sure. As for speed limits, I think they vary greatly from place to place.

On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

On 2/4/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

Can you ride a bike on 128?

I'm not saying it's some vindictive state conspiracy but they can
prevent your access if they choose. I'm not aware of any case where
cycling is prohibited without cause and I don't expect it to be anytime
soon but that's not to say that it's a right.

Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it. I don't have
a right to ride on the road in that case. I have a choice to take a
different road and usually do if the bike lane is not safe. Similar laws
existed in Albany NY when I lived there. I don't remember many lanes in
Boston (1987 - 1993)

Bikes don't usually need to be licensed nor do cyclists so it's less so
than motor vehicles but it's still not a right to ride a bike IMO.

On Feb 4, 3:30*am, Wes Newell wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:46:49 -0800, Chalo wrote:
It's going to take prolonged separation from his car to break the spell..

I drove the car yesterday for the first time in several months. So I
wonder what period you consider prolonged separation.

In your case, several months was obviously not enough. You still
suffer from delusions of privilege, you seem unable to comprehend
written laws, you have grossly inflated ideas on the minimal risks of
bicycling, you're ignorant of infrastructure funding, and your
attitude needs improvement. You have a LOT to learn.

I suggest giving up your car for two solid years, and spending that
time a) riding a bike, and b) trying to learn.

- Frank Krygowski