Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)

On 04/07/12 17:39, Dan O wrote:

Camo truck pulls up alongside and hangs there. I hear him yelling
something about pick the sidewalk or the road and stay there idiot
obey the law. I don't think I violated any laws (not that I'm above
violating some laws if the right opportunity presents ;-), nor have I
impeded, endangered, or hurt anyone in any way - just having a blast.
But this guy is steaming (I guess maybe 'cause the inferior bicyclist
beat him across and out of town) - I've offended his sensibility.

So I finally look over and he's holding up traffic and foaming at the
mouth. So I raise a finger and keep riding. "Vroom" ahead... (I know
what's coming next... ) brake lights and right hook pinching off to
the curb. I throw my bike hard left - swear the lean angle put my
front wheel *under* his rear bumper as I *just* cleared him on the
left.

A couple of nights ago I was passed by a tradie ute a bit closer than
I'd like. I said nothing and didn't react in any way. I don't believe
I was holding up traffic.

The road narrowed and I merged in behind.

At the next set of lights, as I rolled up behind, the driver pulled hard
left in an attempt to prevent me from passing. I had no intention of
passing, but did move over to the right a little in case the driver
actually wanted to turn left.

I could see down the side of his vehicle and noticed the drivers side
window go down. Next thing he's showering me with a torrent of abuse
and yelling at me than I'm gonna be effing dead and effing squashed on
the road and effing this, that and the other.

He paused, I guess to take a breath before continuing, at which point I
replied, "I haven't got a clue what you're on about, Mate."

Lights changed to green. Situation over.

--
JS.

On 05/07/12 03:40, Dan O wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:54 am, Frank wrote:

Thanks, Dan. You can also try going to music concerts and singing
different songs in a loud voice during the performance. Or watching a
movie while standing in front of the people seated behind you. Or
barging your way into the front of a line of people waiting to buy ice
cream.

Heck, the possibilities for your kind of fun are endless!


didn't read your post - stopped at "how many seconds did you save...
", skipped to "possibilites for fun" - because, yeah - that's where
it's at :-)

(I knew my post would stir you up, though ;-)


Aw, I was hoping for a "F... you." ;-)

--
JS.

On 05/07/12 04:22, Dan O wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:54 am, Frank wrote:
Dan O wrote:

But this guy is steaming (I guess maybe 'cause the inferior bicyclist
beat him across and out of town) - I've offended his sensibility.

Thanks, Dan. You've generated another series of "Those f****ng
bicyclists..." tales for the rest of us to fight past.


Unreasonable. I didn't sign up as Ambassador. **** your submissive
PR bull****.



So I finally look over and he's holding up traffic and foaming at the
mouth. So I raise a finger and keep riding.

Classy. :-/


Smug, supercilious :-/

(And a virtual finger to you, too ;-)

snip

Ah, that's better

--
JS.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 20:32:08 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Not so.
Even motorists are capable of learning.

Driving a motor vehicle does strange things to peoples minds. There's
an immediate 10 point drop in IQ. After an hour in heavy traffic, the
anger threshold level drops to about half of normal. After a hard
days work, reaction time and logical thinking are both severely
impaired. The motorist is certainly able to learn, but without
compensating for the aformentioned deteriorations in the thought
processes, such learning is of little value.

I've tried it but stopped when a local bus driver gave me
a hassle over dragging two tool boxes with me on his crowded bus. To
some, travel is more about moving hardware around, than about moving
just people. Unless I want to get a trailer, bicycles won't work.

So get a trailer.

Actually, I had a baby trailer for a while. It worked, but failed
badly when I tried to haul a fairly large server. I think I might
have fashioned a suitable heavy duty trailer, but ran into another
problem. The trailer was loaded with my tools and documents. At the
time, most of my customers were in office buildings. There was a
place to secure the bicycle with a U-Lock, but the trailer was wide
open to thieves. The bicycle was also transportable on the bus, but
not the trailer.

Or a cargo bike.

I'll admit that can probably be made to work. However, I've been
considering an oversized panniers design. I no longer drag big
servers around and can probably survive with a smaller cargo area.

You just ain't trying

True. I'm getting older and feeling rather mortal. Risks that I
would have taken without much thought 20 years ago are no longer
viable.

Video, prosecute, ban driver.
Next time (after he gets his license back) he'll remember.

I'll have "He had the right of way" inscribed on my tomb stone. Let's
just say that the cost/benefit ratio for risking my life in order to
make a statement is unfavorable.

I suspect that the local planners are into expediency. Give the
bicyclists an alternative route, and they will come.

The same applies to taming the motons.

Fine. We'll leave Mission Street solely to the bicyclists and for the
drivers into alternate peripheral routes. That will fail miserably
before the transportation commission, but it does make a good
demonstrations for a cyclists right to the road.

That's also probably the only point in this discussion of any
importance. The traffic planners are assuming that if they give the
bicyclists an alternate safer place to ride, they will voluntarily use
the alternate route. When that proves to not be the case, the
planners justifiably question why they're spending time and money on
bicyclists who fail to appreciate the planners efforts on their
behalf. Failure to appreciate is a capital crime.

Why should cyclists be forced to take long diversions because of a few
dangerous drivers?

That's easy. To keep cyclists from getting mangled by the traffic.
You're begging the question by assuming that only the few dangerous
drivers are capable of being a threat to bicyclists. Even the safest
driver can precipitate an accident through a moment of inattention.
While leaving the market parking lot last weekend, I nearly hit a
drunk as he staggered out of the bushes and into my path. I dread to
think of the paperwork had I hit him.

Better to teach the dangerous drivers to play nice, or take away their
driving privilege.

It's been tried many times. In the late 1960's, there was quite a bit
of money spent on driver education, road illumination, lane marking,
and safety features. None of them really worked. It was eventually
discovered that many cars were inherently unsafe (Corvair), and many
road designs tended to create hazards (no place to pull over to change
a tire). In the past 50 years, cars have become much safer, roads
have been redesigned, and safety has become a major concern among
automobile buyers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5Fx_pgxzH8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlNS6MZ-JBE

There is also a fairly standard driving skool ordeal required for
first time traffic violators. From casual observation, I don't see
much of an effect on drunk drivers.

Meanwhile, the bicycle has morphed into various bizarre frame
configurations, none of which add anything in the way of safety.
Bicycle safety classes are lightly subscribed and optional. Helmets
are a point of contention. Nobody wears knee and elbow pads. Most
casual cyclists (like me) would not recognize a dangerous traffic
situation until it runs them over.

Perhaps teaching the bicyclists to stay out of trouble might be more
productive than yet another useless round of automobile driver
education.

But the cars and trucks can easily go the long way round without it
seriously affecting their journey time or the viability of their trip.

Not in heavy traffic. During rush hour, both the main and alternate
vehicle routes are equally congested. In the Peoples Republic of
Santa Cruz, the traffic planners took a step in your favored
direction. Instead of adding more parallel routes for vehicle
traffic, they installed stop signs, one way signs, speed bumps, slalom
pylons, and concrete planter circles in the middle of the alternate
route to discourage and slow down vehicle traffic, while not affecting
bicycle traffic. They were willing to create even more congestion on
Mission St in order to give the bicyclists an almost clear roadway.

However, there was a problem. Of course, the drivers complained
loudly. There was an increase in single car vehicle accidents due to
these obstructions. Eventually, most of these obstruction were
removed, but not because of driver complaints. It was because someone
counted the number of bicycles that actually used the alternate routes
and decided that they weren't worth the hassle. Failure to appreciate
is a capital crime.

Yes, of course, the Netherlands cannot exist, and is a fantasy in the
mind of deranged cyclists.
That's why the whole of Europe is strenuously trying to emulate them.

The average bicycle trip in the Netherlands is how far?
The average bicycle trip in the USA is how far?
As I understand it, the Netherlands is fairly flat. Not so where I
live which is full of hills and mountains.

I don't know the answers, but I can offer my numbers. I drive 12
miles from home to my palatial office. On a typical day, I'll drive
an additional 15 miles doing service calls. In the distant past, my
service calls went over the hill to San Jose, for an additional 50
miles per day.

What on earth gives you the idea that taxes on motor vehicles even
mitigate their cost to society, never mind paying enough to fund
infrastructure for others?

Could you be a bit more specific as to what you mean by "cost to
society"? As I see it, the car is a necessary evil. We can probably
go back to horse and buggy transport, but I suspect the loss in time
and accessibility would be far more expensive than any "cost to
society".

Even in the UK, motoring taxes only cover about 1/3rd of the cost of
motoring - the remainder has to be subsidised out of general taxation.
And we pay more in motoring taxes than in the US (check our fuel
prices sometime).

I don't know how much of the state and federal gas and road
(registration) taxes are used to pay for the roadways in the US. It's
an interesting topic, but too much of a diversion from the original
"take the lane" topic. Another time please.

For your entertainment, California drivers can get a refund on their
gasoline taxes if the vehicle was used off the public roadway, such as
at golf courses:
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_gas_tax.html

Note that the bicycle map was produced with the involvement of the
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission’s Bicycle
Advisory Committee, which I presume approves of the note suggesting an
alternative route to Mission St.

Is there any evidence that any of this committee actually cycle?
(other than in parks, on cycling promotion events, of course).

I don't know, but suspect that most are cyclists or at least know
something about cycling:
http://sccrtc.org/about/committee-rosters/bicycle-committee/
I know two of the alternates. One is a bicycle shop owner. The other
is a well known bicycling book author. I don't attend meetings but
I'll try to find out. Googling... photo of the committee in action:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/tags/sccrtc/
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/rss/ci_20359320/cyclists-decry-plan-rumble-strips-dozens-turn-out
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2012/santa-cruz-oppose-rumble-strips/


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:30:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Is there any evidence that any of this committee actually cycle?
(other than in parks, on cycling promotion events, of course).

I don't know, but suspect that most are cyclists or at least know
something about cycling:
http://sccrtc.org/about/committee-rosters/bicycle-committee/
I know two of the alternates. One is a bicycle shop owner. The other
is a well known bicycling book author. (...)

Minutes of the last meeting, which offers some detail as to what the
advisory committee does:
http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/05-15-2012-bike-agenda.pdf

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:30:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

I don't know how much of the state and federal gas and road
(registration) taxes are used to pay for the roadways in the US. It's
an interesting topic, but too much of a diversion from the original
"take the lane" topic. Another time please.

I blundered across this PDF which shows how transportation funding
works in Santa Cruz, California.
http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Overview-Chart2012.pdf
This may take some time to decode. I won't pretend to understand any
of it.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jul 4, 9:43*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

raamman is absolutely right - avoiding confrontation is the best
policy. *Road rage is very upsetting and risky biusiness. *Yes, I
could keep their hostility to a low simmer by righteously submitting
to the ways of a "legitimate road vehicle", instead of blowing their
minds (and the lids off their resentment pots) with outlandish - but
functionally harmless - hijinks. *I won't "grow up" WRT to Ride Bike!
(suppress / repress the inner child), but I should have suppressed /
sublimated the cynical adult and given camo truck guy a smile and
friendly wave instead of the finger (he still might have tried to kill
me, though).

Your negotiated settlement with the camo truck driver obviously
failed. *Lacking tolerance, apparently by both parties, your options
are to either escalate the confrontation by adding ordinance and
armament to your bicycle, or getting the hell out of there before the
hostile camo truck driver uses his superior mass to your detriment.
Appeals to a higher authority are only useful for cleaning up the mess
after the damage is done. *Discretion really is the better part of
valor. *Calculate the odds of success. *If they are too low, run.


Ordinance? I guess that's more civil than ordnance, although I suppose
either could involve substantial legal fees.
DR

On 7/4/2012 6:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 20:32:08 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Not so.
Even motorists are capable of learning.

Driving a motor vehicle does strange things to peoples minds. There's
an immediate 10 point drop in IQ. After an hour in heavy traffic, the
anger threshold level drops to about half of normal. After a hard
days work, reaction time and logical thinking are both severely
impaired. The motorist is certainly able to learn, but without
compensating for the aformentioned deteriorations in the thought
processes, such learning is of little value.

I've tried it but stopped when a local bus driver gave me
a hassle over dragging two tool boxes with me on his crowded bus. To
some, travel is more about moving hardware around, than about moving
just people. Unless I want to get a trailer, bicycles won't work.

So get a trailer.

Actually, I had a baby trailer for a while. It worked, but failed
badly when I tried to haul a fairly large server. I think I might
have fashioned a suitable heavy duty trailer, but ran into another
problem. The trailer was loaded with my tools and documents. At the
time, most of my customers were in office buildings. There was a
place to secure the bicycle with a U-Lock, but the trailer was wide
open to thieves. The bicycle was also transportable on the bus, but
not the trailer.

Or a cargo bike.

I'll admit that can probably be made to work. However, I've been
considering an oversized panniers design. I no longer drag big
servers around and can probably survive with a smaller cargo area.

You just ain't trying

True. I'm getting older and feeling rather mortal. Risks that I
would have taken without much thought 20 years ago are no longer
viable.

Video, prosecute, ban driver.
Next time (after he gets his license back) he'll remember.

I'll have "He had the right of way" inscribed on my tomb stone. Let's
just say that the cost/benefit ratio for risking my life in order to
make a statement is unfavorable.

I suspect that the local planners are into expediency. Give the
bicyclists an alternative route, and they will come.

The same applies to taming the motons.

Fine. We'll leave Mission Street solely to the bicyclists and for the
drivers into alternate peripheral routes. That will fail miserably
before the transportation commission, but it does make a good
demonstrations for a cyclists right to the road.

That's also probably the only point in this discussion of any
importance. The traffic planners are assuming that if they give the
bicyclists an alternate safer place to ride, they will voluntarily use
the alternate route. When that proves to not be the case, the
planners justifiably question why they're spending time and money on
bicyclists who fail to appreciate the planners efforts on their
behalf. Failure to appreciate is a capital crime.

Why should cyclists be forced to take long diversions because of a few
dangerous drivers?

That's easy. To keep cyclists from getting mangled by the traffic.
You're begging the question by assuming that only the few dangerous
drivers are capable of being a threat to bicyclists. Even the safest
driver can precipitate an accident through a moment of inattention.
While leaving the market parking lot last weekend, I nearly hit a
drunk as he staggered out of the bushes and into my path. I dread to
think of the paperwork had I hit him.

Better to teach the dangerous drivers to play nice, or take away their
driving privilege.

It's been tried many times. In the late 1960's, there was quite a bit
of money spent on driver education, road illumination, lane marking,
and safety features. None of them really worked. It was eventually
discovered that many cars were inherently unsafe (Corvair), and many
road designs tended to create hazards (no place to pull over to change
a tire). In the past 50 years, cars have become much safer, roads
have been redesigned, and safety has become a major concern among
automobile buyers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5Fx_pgxzH8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlNS6MZ-JBE

There is also a fairly standard driving skool ordeal required for
first time traffic violators. From casual observation, I don't see
much of an effect on drunk drivers.

Meanwhile, the bicycle has morphed into various bizarre frame
configurations, none of which add anything in the way of safety.
Bicycle safety classes are lightly subscribed and optional. Helmets
are a point of contention. Nobody wears knee and elbow pads. Most
casual cyclists (like me) would not recognize a dangerous traffic
situation until it runs them over.

Perhaps teaching the bicyclists to stay out of trouble might be more
productive than yet another useless round of automobile driver
education.

But the cars and trucks can easily go the long way round without it
seriously affecting their journey time or the viability of their trip.

Not in heavy traffic. During rush hour, both the main and alternate
vehicle routes are equally congested. In the Peoples Republic of
Santa Cruz, the traffic planners took a step in your favored
direction. Instead of adding more parallel routes for vehicle
traffic, they installed stop signs, one way signs, speed bumps, slalom
pylons, and concrete planter circles in the middle of the alternate
route to discourage and slow down vehicle traffic, while not affecting
bicycle traffic. They were willing to create even more congestion on
Mission St in order to give the bicyclists an almost clear roadway.

However, there was a problem. Of course, the drivers complained
loudly. There was an increase in single car vehicle accidents due to
these obstructions. Eventually, most of these obstruction were
removed, but not because of driver complaints. It was because someone
counted the number of bicycles that actually used the alternate routes
and decided that they weren't worth the hassle. Failure to appreciate
is a capital crime.

Yes, of course, the Netherlands cannot exist, and is a fantasy in the
mind of deranged cyclists.
That's why the whole of Europe is strenuously trying to emulate them.

The average bicycle trip in the Netherlands is how far?
The average bicycle trip in the USA is how far?
As I understand it, the Netherlands is fairly flat. Not so where I
live which is full of hills and mountains.

I don't know the answers, but I can offer my numbers. I drive 12
miles from home to my palatial office. On a typical day, I'll drive
an additional 15 miles doing service calls. In the distant past, my
service calls went over the hill to San Jose, for an additional 50
miles per day.

What on earth gives you the idea that taxes on motor vehicles even
mitigate their cost to society, never mind paying enough to fund
infrastructure for others?

Could you be a bit more specific as to what you mean by "cost to
society"? As I see it, the car is a necessary evil. We can probably
go back to horse and buggy transport, but I suspect the loss in time
and accessibility would be far more expensive than any "cost to
society".

Even in the UK, motoring taxes only cover about 1/3rd of the cost of
motoring - the remainder has to be subsidised out of general taxation.
And we pay more in motoring taxes than in the US (check our fuel
prices sometime).

I don't know how much of the state and federal gas and road
(registration) taxes are used to pay for the roadways in the US. It's
an interesting topic, but too much of a diversion from the original
"take the lane" topic. Another time please.

For your entertainment, California drivers can get a refund on their
gasoline taxes if the vehicle was used off the public roadway, such as
at golf courses:
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_gas_tax.html

Note that the bicycle map was produced with the involvement of the
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission’s Bicycle
Advisory Committee, which I presume approves of the note suggesting an
alternative route to Mission St.

Is there any evidence that any of this committee actually cycle?
(other than in parks, on cycling promotion events, of course).

I don't know, but suspect that most are cyclists or at least know
something about cycling:
http://sccrtc.org/about/committee-rosters/bicycle-committee/
I know two of the alternates. One is a bicycle shop owner. The other
is a well known bicycling book author. I don't attend meetings but
I'll try to find out. Googling... photo of the committee in action:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/tags/sccrtc/
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/rss/ci_20359320/cyclists-decry-plan-rumble-strips-dozens-turn-out
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2012/santa-cruz-oppose-rumble-strips/



Hey, pal, I was with you until you dissed my car:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...trend-heater/2

Despite St Ralph's attempted mugging, the design flourishes
still.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SxRP1J5OL0

I certainly plan to drive my Corvair to his funeral.


To your point about chronic pilot error, today's paper:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...161287125.html

As with so many "save the world" crusades, the net effect is
toughly zero.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 07-04-2012 11:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Thanks, Dan. You've generated another series of "Those f****ng
bicyclists..." tales for the rest of us to fight past.

Seem clear that this particular 'evil idiot' had that attitude
before Dan even knew he was there.

--
Wes Groleau

“Ideas are more powerful than guns,
We would not let our enemies have guns;
why should we let them have ideas?�
— Jozef Stalin

On 07-04-2012 03:39, Dan O wrote:
(suppress / repress the inner child), but I should have suppressed /
sublimated the cynical adult and given camo truck guy a smile and
friendly wave instead of the finger (he still might have tried to kill
me, though).

I have a brochure that summarizes rights and responsibilities for
operators of wheeled vehicles of both types in our state law. I am
hoping I can calmly hand it to the next dingbat that screams at me about
not being on the sidewalk.

--
Wes Groleau

Guidelines for judging others:
1. Don't attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
can be adequately explained by ignorance.
3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
can be adequately explained by alcohol.