|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
Per "Tom $herman (-_-)"
": Here in the US, some of the worst aggressive tailgaters are company vans. Although why people getting paid by the hour are in such a seeming hurry is a mystery. I think it's something to do with the driver's position and the lack of a hood. I've noticed at least one co-worker that tailgates mercilessly driving a full-sized van but drives normally in an automobile. -- Pete Cresswell |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:09:27 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)" " wrote: About 1% of the population is sociopaths. However, due to the way that corporate and political advancement is achieved, the percentage of national level politicians and corporate executives that are sociopaths is likely well over 90%, to judge from their behavior. Well, let's see how well you do. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder In order to qualify as a genuine sociopath, you need to exhibit 3 of the following 6 characteristics: 1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others. Yep. You never seem to miss taking a pot shot at me and never have any sympathy for my point of view. 2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. Yep. The norm in the newsgroup is to discuss bicycling, not politics and personalities. A responsible person would at least mention bicycling occasionally. 3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them. None of my business, so you get off free on this one. 4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence. Dunno, but I suspect you have an effigy of me and the flag of Israel on the wall, at which you throw darts to vent your suppressed aggression. 5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment. Yep. You never seem to agree with me, even though you know I'm always right. Despite my instructions to you on righteous behavior and correct thinking, I've obviously failed to make an impression. 6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society. Yep. By disagreeing with me, your logic and reasoning are automatically labeled as rationalizations. That's at least 4 out 6, which qualified you as a sociopath. Congratulations. Bingo! A description of the Monkey. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On 7/7/2012 6:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:48:06 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)" " wrote: On 7/4/2012 6:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: 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.[...] That is why when I need to get somewhere quickly, and the roads are snow/ice free, I *ride* a motor vehicle instead of drive one. No you don't. Try this simple experiment. Take a stick and try to "feel" something with it. You'll find that the stick becomes and extension of your hand, and that you "feel" with the end of the stick. It works because man has been carrying sticks for a few million years. Today, when you get into a car, you become one with the machine, just like with the stick. You "feel" the road through the body. Every bump and pothole is felt by your body directly (as transferred through the body of the vehicle). It's much the same as riding on a bike. You "feel" the road. You don't get quite the same sensation when you "ride" a bus or a train. Although you might be in a similar seating position, because you're not controlling the direction of travel and speed, you're not really closely integrated with the bus or train. You feel the bumps, but not as intimately as when you're driving and in control. There's also the psychology wrapped around the feeling of power when controlling so much horsepower. You can either be afraid of the power, as some people are, or you can use it to your advantage, as most people do. Very few treat driving as a passive experience. Those that do, I consider somewhat dangerous as they're not really paying attention to their driving. Uh, no. I believe you misunderstand. Here is what I mostly ride to get places within the urban area more quickly than a bicycle will go. With all of 8.9 SAE net horsepower (which means about 7 HP or so at the rear wheel) going to my head. Handling is almost bicycle quick, and cornering is not bad when I put my feet back (by the PGM-FI logo) and hang off the side. Much more involving than driving a cage. https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/406927_2725085617821_1278153523_n.jpg If you're in a hurry to get somewhere, you're much more likely to push the limits of your control over the horsepower, than to passively "ride" the machine. This will bite hard (98 HP or so at the rear wheel) if ridden fast with the same lack of skill and attention that most cagers give to their vehicles. https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/393618_2463600040845_1402575716_n.jpg -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 00:13:24 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
Cruiser Philosopher" wrote: On Jul 7, 10:05*pm, John B. wrote: On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: (...) That's at least 4 out 6, which qualified you as a sociopath. Congratulations. Bingo! A description of the Monkey. I only hate people who hate people. So I'm off the hook. I don't hate people, primarily because I've never tried eating people. That also applies to the eating habits of most readers of this newsgroup. That suggests that you hate everyone that reads this newsgroup simply because they don't like eating people. Therefore, you're a sociopath. Do you hate yourself? If so, you also qualify. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
wrote: snip But some of this... is real and some imaginary. There's one of those odd moments of semi-lucidity. snip |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On Monday, July 2, 2012 2:21:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:13:07 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach > Cruiser > ; wrote: > >> Even in enlightened California, where I live and cycle, police >> interpretation of the law often differs from that of cyclists. In >> Santa Cruz a couple of weeks ago, the police chief told cyclists at a >> recent meeting that they would cite cyclists for impeding traffic if >> they take the lane on Mission Street, which has 11 foot lanes, and if >> the cyclist disagrees with that interpretation he invited them to take >> it to court for the judges to decide. > > Sheesh. That story was from May, 2008. Evolution does seem to be > slow for you. As usual, this has nothing to do with bicycling tech. > > I live in Santa Crude and know something about the situation. Mission > St is about 1.5 miles long and 3 lanes wide, with a center turn lane > in places. I don't know the lane width but I know its sub-standard. > It does have bike lanes in places, but not over the entire length. For > cyclists, there are several parallel residential streets that are far > safer than mixing with the cement trucks, buses, and tourists. > Actually, I don't have much trouble riding on Mission St because the > traffic is almost always bumper to bumper moving at about 10 mph. When > it finally clears at night, it speeds up and becomes much more > dangerous. > > There is one messy intersection, where Hwy 1 turns into Mission St, > that requires cyclists to mix with traffic for about 20ft. There is > an pedestrian overpass and a bike lane at this point, which leads to a > parallel routes up King St or Bay St to the university. In other > words, there's no good reason to "take the lane" unless you don't know > about the alternate routes. > > If you look at the Google Maps of Mission St, you'll see that it's > mostly State Hwy #1 for most of its length. > <http://goo.gl/maps/7Vd8> > Note that it's NOT designates as a suitable bicycle route. > > Along Mission St is Mission Hill middle skool, with a substantial > bicycle population. Standing orders to the kids is to not ride on > Mission Street. > > The city seems to have the attitude that since it spends considerable > effort and expense on bike lanes and traffic management, then one > would expect cyclists to favor these safer routes. However, if > cyclists prefer to ignore these efforts on their behalf, the city > could easily find better use for the money. While this is not an > official position, I've heard at mentioned unofficially at a meeting > by a former city council member. > > <http://sccrtc.org/services/bike/> I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A cyclist should have a right to the road, period. And if we rode only what Google liked, we couldn't get to 90% of the places we might need to ride. -- - Frank Krygowski I agree completely with Frank. It's time that we start changing the laws to give bicycles the same rights to the road as an automobile. Though perhaps with "be polite" parts to it. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On Jul 4, 7:10 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:32 pm, Phil W Lee wrote: Jeff Liebermann considered Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:27:20 -0700 the perfect time to write: snip I suspect that the local planners are into expediency. Give the bicyclists an alternative route, and they will come. snip Unfortunately, there are a few recalcitrants that prefer to live dangerously. You can lead a bicyclist to water, but you have to practically drown them before they'll learn to drink nicely. Why should cyclists be forced to take long diversions because of a few dangerous drivers? Absolutely shouldn't. It should be purely a personal choice. I ride some wicked stretches of hostile cagerland because it's the most direct route, with plenty of miles and hours to ride already. Really don't like it, and try to minimize it, but because of the city layout with large tracts closed off and high security, a lot of potential alternate routes nearby are difficult and even risky to explore. Whoa! Stop the presses! *Never* stop exploring alternate routes... even where you have already tried. The city in question has punched a new road through that large closed off tract previously inaccessible for public travel - a wide, smooth, road with gentle rolling slopes and curves and (so far in the several times I've taken it) almost no traffic (I think it's primary purpose is alternate access to a big institution, so I imagine most traffic is work shift changes). This new route segment is very direct for my destinations, pleasant and enjoyable, and opens up a world of connections newly feasible to explore. Most places aren't like that, though, and by being curious and exploring possibilites with an open mind, not taking things like "Dead End" road signs literally (until verified personally), I have found many great alternate routes that not only avoid nearly all traffic, but are often considerably *more* direct, *shorter* routes than the busy streets, and/or more fun. Alternate route "segments" inside the city inevitably come to cagerland - at least to cross - and *sometimes* I even choose to ride portions of cagerland because I get off on flying unimpeded through and around their crazy stop-and-go saturated capacity cluster*&^$. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|