|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Keats" wrote
To be fair, I should mention that I draw a distinction between being courteous (going above & beyond what's required to keep the traffic flowing), and not being discourteous (just smoothly going with the flow). Ok. I'm thinking of traffic courtesies as simple, passive ones (not taking the lane just to chat with ol' Bob for the entire ride....) I get to see lots of fellow riders every day, and I rarely see any deliberate discourtesy on their parts. [snip] Cyclists simply can't afford to be deliberately discourteous, and I think complaints about discourteous cyclists are generally overblown. Again, I don't think a cyclist's motivation (malevolence, carelessness, dementia) necessarily enters a motorist's mind. What matters is the effect of the cyclist's actions on that motorist: having to swerve, delaying their travel, necessitating a delayed and dangerous pass on a double-yellow stretch, etc., etc. The post that spawned this whole subthread describes how 4 riders (briefly?) hogged 2 lanes of road until the leftmost 2 relinquished the passing lane. Okay, maybe that /was/ discourteous. Or maybe they just assumed there wasn't any other traffic around and were startled when they discovered there was a car coming up behind them. I suppose the case could be made that inattentiveness is discourtesy. BINGO! At any rate, the poster/driver was able to pass them, and planet earth is still rotating on its axis as per usual. And therein lies yet another discourtesy. When did we become a protected class? When did we decide that we wanted the same rights, but were not bound by the same responsibilities? Put another way, when cyclists are riding two abreast, slowing traffic, and the 22yr old passenger blasts a marine air horn at the cyclists at point blank range . . . the planet still rotates on its axis per usual, as well. As for courtesy: sure, courtesy is fine when road/street users can be individuals not affecting other traffic. But in the long run I figure there are no individuals in traffic (except emergency response vehicles en-route to calls.) So my approach is to do what I can & should to keep the whole traffic (including myself) flowing, rather than cherry-picking individuals on whom to bestow random acts of kindness. I'm certainly not advocating "random acts of kindness" in this context. Again, courtesy--in the context of the OP--is likely to have been /not/ taking the lane when the need did /not/ exist, or--at the least--being very aware of an approaching car in order to move over as quickly as possible. IOW, I'm using 'courtesy' to describe an awareness, as cyclists, that we are sharing the road with fossil fuel guzzlers, and an awareness, as motorists, that we are sharing the road with cyclists. Sounds contrite . . . but I'd say we're quite a ways off. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
neil0502 wrote:
I'm certainly not advocating "random acts of kindness" in this context. Again, courtesy--in the context of the OP--is likely to have been /not/ taking the lane when the need did /not/ exist, or--at the least--being very aware of an approaching car in order to move over as quickly as possible. Bicyclists do not and should not have to worry about causing overtaking motorists to have to slow down, whether there is a "need" to purposefully do so or not. And there is no need to be aware of approaching motor vehicles. All the bicyclist must do is be predictable and hold a consistent line. In other words, one can be deaf and still drive a bike, as one can be deaf and drive a motor vehicle. The burden of overtaking is on the overtaker. IOW, I'm using 'courtesy' to describe an awareness, as cyclists, that we are sharing the road with fossil fuel guzzlers, and an awareness, as motorists, that we are sharing the road with cyclists. Sounds contrite . . . but I'd say we're quite a ways off. I'm OK with "sharing the road." But a cyclist "sharing the road" is letting a motorist into the cyclist's space. A motorist "sharing the road" is what, being courteous to the bicylist when using the bicyclist's space? Wayne |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"neil0502" writes: "Tom Keats" wrote To be fair, I should mention that I draw a distinction between being courteous (going above & beyond what's required to keep the traffic flowing), and not being discourteous (just smoothly going with the flow). Ok. I'm thinking of traffic courtesies as simple, passive ones (not taking the lane just to chat with ol' Bob for the entire ride....) Yeah, terminology can sometimes get tricky, what with connotation and all. Maybe 'cooperation' is a better word than 'courtesy' to describe getting along in and with traffic? Speaking of which, I can attest that Zoot is as cooperative in traffic as anyone -- contrary to some of the conclusions that have been jumped-to by others in this discussion. I get to see lots of fellow riders every day, and I rarely see any deliberate discourtesy on their parts. [snip] Cyclists simply can't afford to be deliberately discourteous, and I think complaints about discourteous cyclists are generally overblown. Again, I don't think a cyclist's motivation (malevolence, carelessness, dementia) necessarily enters a motorist's mind. What matters is the effect of the cyclist's actions on that motorist: having to swerve, delaying their travel, Motorists do that to each other as a matter of course; i.e: waiting for opposing traffic, to make a lawful left turn off an arterial onto a side street. When a driver does it, it's no big deal. But when a cyclist does it, [s]he's somehow being an intolerable obstacle. necessitating a delayed and dangerous pass on a double-yellow stretch, etc., etc. That's a /choice/ the driver makes. If a cyclist is taking the lane in such circumstances, more likely than not it's for valid reasons of personal safety, and the cyclist would prefer not having to do so in the first place, and would want to get it over with and back to lane sharing or onto good shoulder pavement ASAP. I don't know of any riders who actually enjoy having irate drivers on their 6. [snip] I'm certainly not advocating "random acts of kindness" in this context. Again, courtesy--in the context of the OP--is likely to have been /not/ taking the lane when the need did /not/ exist, or--at the least--being very aware of an approaching car in order to move over as quickly as possible. Yeah, I too would have to say the riders in this case screwed up. Four abreast across two lanes is ... flagrant. But it's perhaps understandable if not excusable, if there was only one car on the road at the time. IOW, I'm using 'courtesy' to describe an awareness, as cyclists, that we are sharing the road with fossil fuel guzzlers, and an awareness, as motorists, that we are sharing the road with cyclists. Sounds contrite . . . but I'd say we're quite a ways off. Well, I guess we agree there. I'll just submit that I think most surviving cyclists by dint of our vulnerability have more of that road-sharing awareness than drivers. And too many drivers just don't know how to deal with bicycles. Heck, a lot of 'em don't even seem to understand that steep hills slow us down. cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Wayne Pein" wrote
neil0502 wrote: I'm certainly not advocating "random acts of kindness" in this context. Again, courtesy--in the context of the OP--is likely to have been /not/ taking the lane when the need did /not/ exist, or--at the least--being very aware of an approaching car in order to move over as quickly as possible. Bicyclists do not and should not have to worry about causing overtaking motorists to have to slow down, whether there is a "need" to purposefully do so or not. And there is no need to be aware of approaching motor vehicles. All the bicyclist must do is be predictable and hold a consistent line. In other words, one can be deaf and still drive a bike, as one can be deaf and drive a motor vehicle. The burden of overtaking is on the overtaker. I'm confused, Wayne. Are you saying that--on a road with a clean, clear, designated bike lane, cyclists should not hesitate to ride in the vehicular traffic lane if they choose to, rather than stay within the designated bike lane? If so, are you further saying that those bicyclists in the traffic lane have no obligation to return to the bike lane, or to be aware of approaching cars behind them, but rather should only hold their course (and speed)? If so . . . then best of luck to you and those who agree with that position. That will never be my approach. Also, at least here in California, what (I think) you're advocating is against the law (see section 21202 in: http://snipurl.com/9xiu). (Also, the burden is on the deaf motorist/cyclist to be vigilant in checking their mirrors, or otherwise being aware of their surroundings.) IOW, I'm using 'courtesy' to describe an awareness, as cyclists, that we are sharing the road with fossil fuel guzzlers, and an awareness, as motorists, that we are sharing the road with cyclists. Sounds contrite . . . but I'd say we're quite a ways off. I'm OK with "sharing the road." But a cyclist "sharing the road" is letting a motorist into the cyclist's space. A motorist "sharing the road" is what, being courteous to the bicylist when using the bicyclist's space? Your definitions, not mine. Sharing the road is common sense, common courtesy, and--I would say--not taking the lane /without reason/ for one's own convenience, especially when one's stated belief is that one is not obligated to be aware of motorists who may be affected by such actions. Sorry . . . it's /raining buckets/ in San Diego . . . and a thread like this could amuse me for hours ;-) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:45:03 GMT,
, "neil0502" wrote: What matters is the effect of the cyclist's actions on that motorist: having to swerve, delaying their travel, necessitating a delayed and dangerous pass on a double-yellow stretch, etc., etc. Fukem. They'll not cop an attitude about flat-bed trucks spilling their load and halting traffic 3 hours while it's cleared. Or, they'll sit waiting patiently while another incompetent struggles berthing its scud. But they'll snivel or threaten cyclists for a twenty second delay. Cagers are scum. -- zk |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:24:25 GMT,
, "neil0502" concluded: He might have been primed and ready _anyway_, but somebody else set him off . . . and we had to pay for it. I'm sure, he'd met jerks on bikes before and you're likely to meet more jerks on horses too. You met a whackadoo. Luck of the draw. Again, _no_ downside to operating (horses, bikes, and cars) courteously. On the streets, I extend what courtesies I get, and as a rule, always give idiots the benefit of doubt. -- zk |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
19 Oct 2004 13:32:34 -0700, , (R.White) wrote: Wrong answer. I don't ride with any fear of the sort. If I did, show me where. I also never claimed anyone would be assualting anybody with a car, that was something you dreamed up do to your being unable to control your anger at cagers. It could be a bottle thrown, spit upon or any number of things. Point is a$$hole cyclists make it bad for all. Period. No, flat-fizzed. Cagers learn their crappy attitudes from other cagers, not from cyclists. They learn their crappy attutudes towards cyclists from cyclists. I don't have to filter forward for you to catch a beer bottle. The ****flake who threw it doesn't need an excuse. Its a ****flake. Keep believing that. When I listen to a driver spout about some cyclists he encountered earlier, I know otherwise. We could all be sweet and pleasant and the caged scum would still assault us merely because they can. The small chance of their being caught or their crime (assault) being taken seriously by a prejudicial car-centric society are more plausible factors determining their actions than whether they've a particular hard-on against cyclists. You cannot even form a sentence without resorting to something like "caged scum". You behave just like them and continue to prove my point. Keep up the good work. We're targets simply because they're ****flakes. Always have been and always will be. What I notice most frequently that could remotely be associated to fallout from scofflaw cycling, is that some drivers are more cautious around cyclists at intersections not knowing whether or not we'll stop for the sign. And the time you run one and get hit you'll say it was their fault! You don't know how I ride, so STFU. That's funny coming from a guy who accused me of being "ready to excuse murderous drivers assaulting cyclists" along with my "deplorable habits". You don't know what I drive, when I drive, or if I even own a car. HYPOCRITE. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
19 Oct 2004 13:36:06 -0700, , (R.White) wrote: You know it as well as I do and you know they feel that way because of the actions of a few. Those few affect most of us eventually. I'm insisting that you prove to me how you're directly affected. Otherwise, you're making up boogie man stories. And I'll insist that you prove your selfish, unsafe actions never caused a cager to show ill feeling and actions towards another cyclist. With all due respect, **** OFF, loon. Waaaa! Just what I expected your answer would be. It was your premise that you're getting static for what I do. I say you're FOS with your boogie man myth. Yeah, It was a myth until Neil told of his encounter with the horse riders. Now what's your excuse? Why can't you accept that caged scum will always be scum regardless of how you or I ride? I will when you accept that being a scofflaw affects others. So, take responsiblity for your own actions and quit looking for a scapegoat, whiner. Scofflaw. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
20 Oct 2004 12:08:39 -0700,
, apologist butt-kisser (R.White) wrote: You don't know what I drive, when I drive, or if I even own a car. HYPOCRITE. You're in love with your ****-box Ford. Go suck its tailpipe. -- zk |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Zoot Katz writes: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:24:25 GMT, , "neil0502" concluded: He might have been primed and ready _anyway_, but somebody else set him off . . . and we had to pay for it. I'm sure, he'd met jerks on bikes before and you're likely to meet more jerks on horses too. You met a whackadoo. Luck of the draw. The angry horsie guy reminded me of the comix character: Reid Fleming, Toughest Milkman in the World. cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle police officer on bicycle hit | [email protected] | General | 121 | February 6th 04 03:44 PM |