Canada's most dangerous city for cyclists

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...141704036.html

Cheers

On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that
really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that
bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many
bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it
pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...141704036.html


Yup. We get that a lot.

I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups
http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/ because although their goal is
admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is
really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say
it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.

Their "solution" to getting people to ride is to actively campaign for
and promote bike lanes and shared paths, even though most, if not all
the bike lanes are not designed to improve safety - but to make novices
*feel* safe - until they collect an opening car door for example.

They are steadfast in their belief that with enough bike lanes there
will be enough bikes on the road to cause a cultural shift, and reject
any idea of educating the moron (subset of) motorists that bicycles are
legal and legitimate road users, that roads are paid for out of general
revenue tax, and that motor vehicle registration is mandatory insurance
because motor vehicle operators are far more likely to kill or severely
injure other road users. You get the picture.

I keep applying pressure.

--
JS

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that

really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that

bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many

bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it

pleases tthem.



http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...141704036.html





Yup. We get that a lot.



I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/ because although their goal is

admirable, their methods are highly questionable.



They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is

really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say

it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.

It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult, and not tried."

- Frank Krygowski

On May 2, 8:15*pm, wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that

really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that

bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many

bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it

pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli....

Yup. *We get that a lot.

I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/because although their goal is

admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is

really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say

it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.

It's been said: *"It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried and found to be difficult. *It's that it's been assumed difficult, and not tried."


It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"

On 03/05/13 13:55, Dan O wrote:
On May 2, 8:15 pm, wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it
that

really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think
that

bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how
many

bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever
it

pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...



Yup. We get that a lot.

I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/because although their goal is

admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which
is

really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness,
and say

it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by
many here.

It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried
and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult,
and not tried."


It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"

Aw, c'mon now, Dan. While that made me giggle a little, it wasn't
really called for just there, was it?

I think those of us who regularly mix it with the fossil fuel burners
have learned to ride defensively, which is a lot of what VC is about.

I'm no practitioner of strict VC. I have to say quite a few hail Eddy's
whenever I go to the VC priest for confession, but I do a lot of what
the Godfather of the "one true way" prescribes, though it was learned
from experience.

I suggest that although you take alternate routes, you do some VC stuff
without realising it. I know I do.

--
JS.

On May 2, 10:08 pm, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 13:55, Dan O wrote:

On May 2, 8:15 pm, wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it
that

really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think
that

bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how
many

bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever
it

pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...

Yup. We get that a lot.





I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/becausealthough their goal is

admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which
is

really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness,
and say

it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by
many here.

It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried
and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult,
and not tried."

It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"

Aw, c'mon now, Dan. While that made me giggle a little, it wasn't
really called for just there, was it?

I think those of us who regularly mix it with the fossil fuel burners
have learned to ride defensively, which is a lot of what VC is about.

I'm no practitioner of strict VC. I have to say quite a few hail Eddy's
whenever I go to the VC priest for confession, but I do a lot of what
the Godfather of the "one true way" prescribes, though it was learned
from experience.

I suggest that although you take alternate routes, you do some VC stuff
without realising it. I know I do.


Not without realizing it. I absolutely *do* realize it. Moreover, I
well realize that I could *easily* do it quite completely if I wanted
to (but then my riding experience would *suck*) - references available
in the archive.

What irritates me so is Frank's superciliousness about it -
"competency" and all that. In fact I would venture to say that my way
is far more difficult ("don't try this at home, kids"), but I don't go
around criticizing anybody else's way (until they start to berate me
and mine for no good reason but to make themselves feel superior).

Oh, and the derogatory phrase abive is a ~quote from the archives -
something that's "been said" by someone else (the all lowercase is a
hint). It's a bit of a play on the value of "It's been said... "

On 5/3/2013 12:08 AM, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 13:55, Dan O wrote:
On May 2, 8:15 pm, wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it
that

really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think
that

bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how
many

bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever
it

pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...




Yup. We get that a lot.

I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/because although their goal is

admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which
is

really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness,
and say

it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by
many here.

It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried
and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult,
and not tried."


It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"

Aw, c'mon now, Dan. While that made me giggle a little, it wasn't
really called for just there, was it?

I think those of us who regularly mix it with the fossil fuel burners
have learned to ride defensively, which is a lot of what VC is about.

I'm no practitioner of strict VC. I have to say quite a few hail Eddy's
whenever I go to the VC priest for confession, but I do a lot of what
the Godfather of the "one true way" prescribes, though it was learned
from experience.

I suggest that although you take alternate routes, you do some VC stuff
without realising it. I know I do.

Why is no one advocating The Hezbollah riding technique, i.e. being able
to accurately fire a RPG while riding a mountain bike? According to
internal IDF reports, it is quite effective.

--
T0m $herm@n

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:55:52 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On May 2, 8:15*pm, wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:

On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:



Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that



really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that



bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many



bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it



pleases tthem.



http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...



Yup. *We get that a lot.



I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups



http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/because although their goal is



admirable, their methods are highly questionable.



They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is



really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say



it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.



It's been said: *"It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried and found to be difficult. *It's that it's been assumed difficult, and not tried."





It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"

And you're still behaving like a drunken teenager, in your riding style, your garbage language, your anti-societal attitudes, your mini-minded posts, and probably in other ways we haven't heard about.

Too bad you're not really 15 years old. There would at least be hope of good sense arriving with maturity.

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, May 3, 2013 5:06:45 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:55:52 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:

On May 2, 8:15*pm, wrote:



On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:



On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:







Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that







really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that







bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many







bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it







pleases tthem.







http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...







Yup. *We get that a lot.







I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups







http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/because although their goal is







admirable, their methods are highly questionable.







They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is







really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say







it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.







It's been said: *"It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried and found to be difficult. *It's that it's been assumed difficult, and not tried."











It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"



And you're still behaving like a drunken teenager, in your riding style, your garbage language, your anti-societal attitudes, your mini-minded posts, and probably in other ways we haven't heard about.



Too bad you're not really 15 years old. There would at least be hope of good sense arriving with maturity.



- Frank Krygowski

Aw, Franki-boy, I was just getting ready to feel sorry for you and say something calming to Dan, when you get on your high horse and stick your snot-nozzle in the air. You're your own worst enemy, man.

Andre Jute
"Andre is only as brutal as he has to be." -- Nelson Mandela

On May 3, 9:06 am, wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:55:52 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On May 2, 8:15 pm, wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:

On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that

really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that

bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many

bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it

pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...

Yup. We get that a lot.

I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/becausealthough their goal is

admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is

really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say

it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.

It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult, and not tried."

It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"

And you're still behaving like a drunken teenager, in your riding style, your garbage language, your anti-societal attitudes, your mini-minded posts, and probably in other ways we haven't heard about.

Too bad you're not really 15 years old. There would at least be hope of good sense arriving with maturity.


Such sheer contemptuous disdain. Is it any wonder...