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,

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?

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?

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!

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).

Yes

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...

"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

"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

(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.