When to honk at a bicyclist

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
23 Oct 2004 05:44:48 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

Your bigoted rage
keeps you from seeing straight. Spin all you want, it doesn't
change the facts.

I care spit about your domestic configuration or your stinky toys.

I guess that's why you been foaming at the mouth for the last
week!

The fact is you're spreading myths because you're unable to accept
cagers act like scum whenever they figure they can get away with it,
scum.

No, the fact is you're as bigoted towards cagers as some of them are
towards cyclists, bigot.

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
23 Oct 2004 06:02:38 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:


No I don't. I had a witty retort for his often used "whackadoos" and he
had to go and throw "loon" in there.

How about you just stick to addressing the issue? That is, your
attachment to fear has infected you so now you're propagating the
vengeful boogie-man myth.

The issue has been addressed. Another poster provided an example and
you refuse to accept it because it flies in the face of your bigoted,
one track mind.

"R.White" wrote in message
om...
Zoot Katz wrote in message
...
23 Oct 2004 06:02:38 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:


No I don't. I had a witty retort for his often used "whackadoos" and he
had to go and throw "loon" in there.

How about you just stick to addressing the issue? That is, your
attachment to fear has infected you so now you're propagating the
vengeful boogie-man myth.

The issue has been addressed. Another poster provided an example and
you refuse to accept it because it flies in the face of your bigoted,
one track mind.
When did he get an upgrade to a one-track mind? In fact,
when did he get a mind at all?

Tom Keats wrote in part:

Makes me consider another problem with the keep-right law:
say, a cyclist is comfortably sharing an unobstructed 14'
wide lane. Then the lane widens a further 2' on his right.
Should he scootch rightward 2 feet? I don't think so --
everything is already fine where he is, which is where
drivers are better able to see him. But the keep-right law
says otherwise.


That's a good point. But it's academic. If the lane is
that wide, and the car and bike are comfortably
sharing it, there will be no conflict when the lane gets
even wider--unless the motorist or the cyclist decide
they WANT a conflict and throw up a "contrived
hindrance."

The ride-to-the-right rule exists because some
cyclists simply refuse to share the lane, no matter
how wide it is.

Robert

R15757 wrote:

I think we can thank Forester and his (pardon me)
sniveling minions...

No pardon granted. If you're going to go out of your way to be
insulting, you should have the guts to do it without a sniveling "pardon
me."

for a lot of the comforts enjoyed by
today's urban cyclists--in large part Forester is
responsible for AASHTO wide curb lanes, bike lanes
painted to the left of right turn lanes, and smooth
concrete MUPs that flow underneath major streets.

I'd say the most important thing Forester is responsible for is the wide
acceptance of cyclists' rights to the roads. He began fiercely fighting
for cyclists' rights to the roads back when they were _not_ well
accepted, and at risk. He also began promoting the education of
cyclists, and explaining the best way to ride among other traffic.

His example and his writing, and the example and writing of those who
learned from him, gave many cyclists the confidence to use their bikes
on the roads, not just on MUPs.

There are always people clamoring for oddball or defective facilities;
there are always politicians and (sadly) incompetent traffic engineers
willing to give them these facilities. But blaming Forester for that is
like blaming Galileo for astrology books.

Forget about the ride-to-the-right law and its
byzantine asterisks and permutations. Nobody knows
it anyway.

The byzantine asterisks are generally an attempt to codify what we
already know: that a cyclist has a legal right to the road, but should
cooperate with others and not needlessly impede them. FWIW, Forester
has never (to my knowledge) used such a law's text to describe how a
person should ride; instead, he explains it in terms of fundamental
principles.

Thinking about laws while out riding in
traffic is pointless, at best it's secondary to the task
at hand.

There are plenty of laws that _must_ be "thought about." Let's not
confuse fundamental questions like "Should cyclists obey red lights?"
with details contained in obscure asterisks.

Obey the laws. If you disobey the laws, you'd better have a much better
excuse than "Hey, I know what I'm doing, and I'm late delivering this
package."

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

24 Oct 2004 06:26:35 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

How about you just stick to addressing the issue? That is, your
attachment to fear has infected you so now you're propagating the
vengeful boogie-man myth.

The issue has been addressed. Another poster provided an example and
you refuse to accept it because it flies in the face of your bigoted,
one track mind.

It's an anecdote is all. BFD. I've met vigilante type and menacing
scud jockeys too so I'm not denying there are assholes and whackadoos
in cages. I'm saying they're not going to assault you for what I do,
fukwit. If they assault anyone it's because they think they can get
away with it. And they do all too frequently.

You're emotionally attached to the myth because you think it excuses
those drivers' deplorable behaviour.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:
24 Oct 2004 06:26:35 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

How about you just stick to addressing the issue? That is, your
attachment to fear has infected you so now you're propagating the
vengeful boogie-man myth.

The issue has been addressed. Another poster provided an example and
you refuse to accept it because it flies in the face of your bigoted,
one track mind.

It's an anecdote is all. BFD. I've met vigilante type and menacing
scud jockeys too so I'm not denying there are assholes and whackadoos
in cages. I'm saying they're not going to assault you for what I do,
fukwit. If they assault anyone it's because they think they can get
away with it. And they do all too frequently.

You're emotionally attached to the myth because you think it excuses
those drivers' deplorable behaviour.

Zoot,

I've found sagacity in much that you've said, admired many somewhat
'extreme' positions that you have taken, benefitted from much information
that you have imparted on this NG (haven't had a 1wk grape-only bender yet,
but....), and enjoyed your style, but I'm confused.

How is your position any less 'anecdotal' than the anecdote that I presented
(on your request)? You asked for an example, I gave an example (knowing
full well, btw, that you would summarily dismiss it). Can you not allow
that people are influenced by prior bad acts, occasionally taking that
animus out on apparently similar people, perfectly innocent of those bad
acts?

Have you considered the plight of the middle easterners in N.America after
the Iran hostage crisis or the 9/11 attacks? Have you forgotten how all
middle easterners were summarily painted with such a broad brush (likely
terrorist) by sooo many, and gratuitously attacked by some? Shall I draw
the same analogy, but instead invoke Jews, African-Americans, [insert
ethnicity here]?

I'm very perplexed by your apparent unwillingness to allow that multitudes
are not as evolved as you, do not compartmentalize as well as you do, and do
not allow past experiences to prejudice their assumptions about others.

Because it has not happened to you, it does not happen? Isn't that a touch
solipsistic?

Can you explain?

Thanks,

Reid Fleming

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:37:04 GMT,
,
"neil0502" wrote, in part:

How is your position any less 'anecdotal' than the anecdote that I presented

Because it's not happened with enough regularity to scare me into
spreading myths. Most scud jockeys don't even register my presence any
more than I register theirs. It's not practical to ride constantly
fearing the vengeful whackadoos. They're an anomaly.

Can you not allow
that people are influenced by prior bad acts, occasionally taking that
animus out on apparently similar people, perfectly innocent of those bad
acts?

The cagers who attack others generally come up with some lame excuse
for their actions and it's usually related to immediately preceding
events. "Nobody gives me the finger". "What was I supposed to do, they
cut me off". "She stole my parking place". "He dissed us."
I don't doubt there's festering pus sacks, like your horsie jerk, who
will try justifying their assaults with a blanket condemnation of
cyclists. There's nothing you can do to prevent that because you can't
control how others ride their bikes anymore than you can control how
cager scum behave in traffic.

That there are assaults on cyclists can't be blamed on cyclists except
that they were convenient targets or they were actively engaged in an
incident.

I got buzzed by an asshole I'd passed and re-passed several times in
five kilometers of rush hour parking. I was riding legally. He just
had a hissy fit. Whose fault was that? Yours?
I know why I was buzzed and he knew he was wrong for doing it because
he panicked when he saw I'd caught him again.
They're scum.

Have you forgotten how all
middle easterners were summarily painted with such a broad brush (likely
terrorist) by sooo many, and gratuitously attacked by some?

*Some*. They're scum too and thankfully also an anomaly.

I'm as likely to be hit by a meteor as by a truck aimed at you.
--
zk

Frank Kryowski wrote in part:

No pardon granted. If you're going to go out of your way to be
insulting, you should have the guts to do it without a sniveling "pardon
me."

OK, I take back the pardon me part.

I'd say the most important thing Forester is responsible for is the wide
acceptance of cyclists' rights to the roads. He began fiercely fighting
for cyclists' rights to the roads back when they were _not_ well
accepted, and at risk. He also began promoting the education of
cyclists, and explaining the best way to ride among other traffic. ...

Best way? That's up for debate. It is certainly better
than many alternatives, and might be the best way for
beginners.

There are always people clamoring for oddball or defective facilities;
there are always politicians and (sadly) incompetent traffic engineers
willing to give them these facilities. But blaming Forester for that is
like blaming Galileo for astrology books.

As I said, I think we have Forester (and his sniveling
minions) to thank that things aren't much worse, in
terms of facilities and rules. On the other hand, I
believe that some militant vehicularists' complete
inabiliy to play nice in traffic won't help matters.

The byzantine asterisks are generally an attempt to codify what we
already know: that a cyclist has a legal right to the road, but should
cooperate with others and not needlessly impede them. ...

Agreed--the law is almost an expression of common
sense.

There are plenty of laws that _must_ be "thought about." Let's not
confuse fundamental questions like "Should cyclists obey red lights?"
with details contained in obscure asterisks.

Obey the laws. If you disobey the laws, you'd better have a much better
excuse than "Hey, I know what I'm doing, and I'm late delivering this
package."

Not sure what you're getting at here, please
elaborate.

Robert

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:44:46 -0700, Zoot Katz
wrote:

I got buzzed by an asshole I'd passed and re-passed several times in
five kilometers of rush hour parking. I was riding legally. He just
had a hissy fit

These are just, and I use this non-PC comment for comedic value only:
....Girly Men!

I'm serious! lol.

I had one guy today pull up at a threeway stop. I was going North, he
south. Met at nearly same time. Within a second.

He does a rolling stop at like 3mph.

I do a slight rolling stop, but to like _2_ mph, and when I see he has
already started forward, I release the brakes and stomp over the crest of
the hill, and heading down hill, accelerate. He has his window down.

Guess what he yells... ;-) [*)

-B
[*][Him: 'why didn't you stop?']