|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
On Feb 28, 7:49 pm, Ed Pirrero wrote:
On Feb 28, 4:36 pm, wrote: On Feb 28, 5:35 pm, "Leo Lichtman" wrote: But let's get practical, Leo. The fact is, the very normal generator headlamp, taillamp, LED blinky, and reflectors I use on my bike ... You consider this normal, huh? I'm sorry, Ed. I meant "normal" as in "equipment which satisfies the law, but does not greatly exceed the laws requirements." I was trying to make the point that my equipment is not extremely high powered, yet is quite sufficient. If you read back in the thread, you'll see that I have already stated that I believe cyclists should meet the lighting requirements of the laws. And when responding to Leo, I made it quite clear that IF one meets the requirements of laws, the color of clothing makes no significant difference. If you didn't understand that, go back and read it all again. Perhaps while taking careful notes. - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
On Feb 28, 7:54 pm, N8N wrote:
Again, you miss my point. when you have NO lights, NO reflectors, NO light colored clothing, you lose the right to expect anyone to see you after dark. I agree with your point that two good lights should really be all that is required, but how many cyclists have them? Very few. Then, despite ourselves, we've reached agreement. It sounds like the only bone of contention is this minor one: Why even worry about clothing, when they should be using lights? Just make them use lights, and don't distract from that issue. It sounds like you might be the kind of cyclist that I wouldn't give a second glance, because you'd be one of the tiny minority that actually displays some common sense. My riding, as well as my lighting, has gotten compliments. - Frank Krygowski |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
On Feb 28, 5:58 pm, N8N wrote:
[snipped claims that speed limits are routinely violated and are set too low] 85th percentile is a good place to start. Adjust from there if there are non-obvious hazards. So, should stop signs also be adjusted to match the 85th percentile of compliance? What's next? Tax laws? |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
On Feb 28, 7:55 pm, (Brent P)
wrote: Now that's just over the top Frank... really... motorists compliment? lol. I ride to the letter of the vehicle code. I signal. I used to ride with a rather bright generator light on older bicycles and have an even brighter battery powered one on my current bicycle... number of compliments I've gotten from motorists.... zero. Day or night. I've had them scream at me as they passed me on the left for blocking the road while I was signaling a left turn, but a compliment... come on.... that's just beyond belief. Unless maybe you're describing something that happened a number of decades ago. The first lighting-related compliment would have been in about 1977, when I was first getting into night commuting. It wasn't spontaneous; I had my wife and (then) young son drive by me a few times in various conditions, evaluating what my bike and lights looked like. My wife drove, my son took notes. Those included things like "VERY bright" and noted no deficiencies. Next one I recall was probably in the mid-to-late1980s. A friend drove past me in my neighborhood, then stopped down the road to talk to me, to ask what was the "really bright light down by my rear axle?" (It was a reflector.) He was very impressed. Sometime in the late 1990s, I had the car driver make the "half mile back" compliment, and again I think in the early 2000s, on the same road, I had a Harley rider say something similar. I initiated the conversation with the motorcyclist at a traffic light, to tell him that one of his side marker lights on his saddlebags was loose, hanging from a wire. That got him talking about my lights. Both of those were on my night ride home from work, on an inner-city arterial. Last couple compliments I remember weren't from motorists, and one wasn't even my own bike. First, a few years ago I was testing out a new generator headlight. My son was in town visiting, so I had him look at it as I rode toward him on our residential street; then we traded places. We both agreed it was impossible to miss. The other was using the bike of a woman who showed up for one of the night rides I led for our bike club. I took her bike, with its smallish battery-powered headlight, and rode it down the road, then back toward her so she could see what her own headlight looked like. She was surprised and pleased by how prominent it really was at night. I do recommend that cyclists test out their own lights and reflectors, as I did with the help of my wife. I've organized similar things as events for our bike club. They're informative and fun. - Frank Krygowski |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
On Feb 28, 7:55 pm, N8N wrote:
On Feb 28, 7:08 pm, wrote: On Feb 28, 1:59 pm, Ed Pirrero wrote: For adults, the real result is that speed humps are ineffective at their primary duty - slowing down traffic. Thus, they are not indicated in any situation. Odd. The neighborhood folks about 3 or 4 miles from here that had them put in is, according to what I read, very satisfied with them. They claim they've made a big improvement. I can't say firsthand, since I don't live there. It's over the border in a different municipality. But I don't see why the residents would be mistaken. - Frank Krygowski Probably because if there is a parallel road without them, through traffic is now simply diverted onto the other road. They didn't slow anyone down, they just made them move to another road. I see that effect every morning on my commute - the obvious road for me to take has four or five of those gawdaful things on them, but I can avoid all but one by cutting through a neighborhood. I'll bet the people that live in the neighborhood just LOVE the increased traffic. It's possible. The neighborhood in question gets used as a shortcut between a couple arterials, by people trying to avoid traffic lights. Most such shortcut drivers feel that saving a minute is more important than the people who actually live on the streets they use as cut- throughs. But in my view, if that's how the speed humps work for them, that's fine. I'm not a fan of cut-through drivers in any case. Neighborhoods should be for neighbors, not for cut-throughs. - Frank Krygowski |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
Brian Huntley wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:58 pm, N8N wrote: [snipped claims that speed limits are routinely violated and are set too low] 85th percentile is a good place to start. Adjust from there if there are non-obvious hazards. So, should stop signs also be adjusted to match the 85th percentile of compliance? Completely irrelevant. Stop signs serve a valuable purpose and are non-negotiable. Speed limits... well, really, if you assume that most people are responsible, you shouldn't need them at all. (yes, I know, that's a bit of a stretch, so I'm not going to seriously suggest that. Even in Germany there are speed limits on all but a few stretches of highway.) What's next? Tax laws? Well, it would be a good time to reform our tax system. When the average person spends several hundred dollars a year just paying a professional to figure out their tax return, there's something wrong. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:49:49 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
regurgitated the SOS: \ *Motorists already have assumed too much privilege. The laws of physics already grant a lot of privilege. It may not be fair, but it's true. Yeah, "might makes right". Hollywood and Madison Ave. has driven that image straight into the pea sized brains of too many pinheaded scud jockeys. Unfortunately, post-crash survival has become the definition of driving safety today. Protecting you idiots from yourselves has been a great disservice to the species. *We don't need them to impose dress regulations on the rest of us. Who is asking for dress regulations, Frank? Straw man, anyone? uhhh, the premise of this thread is that an "intelligent bicyclist" dresses like a flag person so you stunned fux don't "accidently" run us down. The fact is you stunned fux regularly run down flag persons. Personally, I'm usually burning a head light during the day too (hub generators are great) and wearing a dayglo fluorescent hot pink jacket or wind front jersey. Lane position contributes more to my visibility and situational awareness contributes most to my safety. I'm not counting on the jacket or lights to make much difference in your behaviour but a judge might give me the benefit of doubt in court if one of you stunned fux claims, "I didn't see him. He came out of nowhere." You stunned fux are predictable in both your tired justifications for your obnoxious public behaviour and your presumed exclusive domain of those same public places. As a tax paying bicyclist I'm getting tired of subsidising you stunned fux. I'm also tired of entertaining your same old r.a.d. crap in another grid locked clusterfuk scud jockeys create for their own enjoyment. I'm going lateral. Shove your logical fallacy and straw man BS. -- zk |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Saw an intelligent cager today
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DANGER and Intelligent Unicyclists | ivan | Unicycling | 14 | November 11th 07 10:23 PM |
What - Intelligent Thought? | Joe Cipale | Racing | 291 | February 28th 07 04:16 AM |
What - Intelligent Thought? | ST | Racing | 0 | February 20th 07 12:28 AM |
Intelligent comment | Mikefule | Unicycling | 25 | July 21st 05 03:05 AM |
more intelligent computers | Miles | General | 7 | December 8th 04 12:52 AM |