|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs
You sound like Ted Kennedy boozed up trying to get Mary Jo Kopechne across
the Chappaquiddick bridge. http://www.ytedk.com/ Natural Selection is Natures way of eliminating the losers, and looks like you are next. "Patrick Goetz" wrote in message ... venting by: Patrick Goetz 07:38 PDT On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Mike Dahmus wrote: You started out fine, but right here you lost me, since from experience in the past, I know that both you and MBJ occasionally run stop signs and lights for no reason other than convenience. There is no safety benefit here; only a convenience benefit (for you); and as I've pointed out, if everybody did the same thing, you'd be dead long ago, since not everybody has the skills to always know when it's safe to ignore the big red sign or big red light. That is correct. If there is no traffic in the perpendicular right of way, then I will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs. Please explain to me how this is a safety problem. For political reasons (i.e. in order not to give motorists an excuse to hate bicyclists), if there are cars waiting behind me or opposite me I usually don't run red lights even when there is no traffic, despite the fact that this really inconveniences them by not having me out of their way long before the light turns green. This is what I call "willful stupidity" brought about by the fact that other people can't quite grok, perhaps due to poor blood circulation to the brain as a result of lack of exercise. Trust me, most motorists would jump at the chance to treat stop signs and red lights as optional. And trust me again: as a bicyclist, you don't want to live in a world where they _do_. Mike, this might come as a big shock to you, but *I* *don't* *care* if a motorist runs a red light or stop sign when I'm not there to be hit. To be more specific, I am perfectly comfortable with motorists treating red lights and stop signs as yield signs; in fact, if all motorists drove the way I bike, biking in Austin WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN IT IS NOW. It's all about paying attention to what you are doing, trying to anticipate what other road users are going to do, and MINDFULLY trying to prevent accidents. Traffic laws which create the illusion that one can tool around without paying much attention to the matter at hand ARE A SAFETY PROBLEM. We'd be a lot better off if everyone had to pay careful attention to the road because they have no idea what might happen. For example and in point of fact, traffic lights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with safety and everything to do with allowing cars to drive faster than they would otherwise be able to do in a situation where there might be contention for right of way. Traffic lights ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to happen, as we all know from either personal experience or reading the paper. Ditto for 4-way stops, although these are considerably less likely to result in fatalities than traffic lights. Did anyone else notice that Deborah Prokoff got killed at 44th and Ave G. AFTER THEY ADDED THE "TRAFFIC CALMING" 4-WAY STOP SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION? This is a perfect example of just how stupid mindlessly following rules actually is. An intersection with absolutely no right of way indications (but with a huge sign indicating this) is probably much safer than ANY alternative (save for something like a roundabout or traffic circle). Why? Because everyone has to pay attention to what they are doing and even though someone might space out or be drunk or ignore the sign, you can bet that in almost all cases, at least one of 2 contending parties is doing just that. Accident prevention. Before, users of the 44th and Ave. G intersection had to be more careful, since one side clearly had the right of way. Adding a 4-way stop was almost certainly directly responsible for the death of a bicyclist. This is why I'm firmly convinced that Fred Meredith, John Forrester, and all the other "effective cycling" advocates are actually secretly OPPOSED to increasing the number of bicyclists on the road. Their half-baked preaching is directly responsible for increasing the number of bicycling fatalities (lots of examples right here in Austin - Ben Clough, Deborah Prokoff, etc. - check MBJ's web page). The more bicycle fatalities there are, the more people are afraid to ride bikes because it's not safe. The result: fewer bicyclists on the road. This is what these losers want: They want to feel special, and every additional commuter bicyclist makes them less so, so best to try to reduce the numbers of those pesky hangers on (like me, for example), who ride bikes around without making a big deal out of it. One way to do this is feeding them nonsense (always mindlessly follow traffic rules being the primary example) which is GOING TO GET THEM KILLED. Pardon me if I don't have any respect for this attitude, in part because it directly and negatively affects my own safety. The fact that honest bicyclists get killed by listening to these idiots is kind of sad, but it's also part of that evolutionary march towards better genes, hence can't really be avoided. They should have been reading MBJ's bicycle safety tips instead - they'd probably still be alive right now. And THAT is the true irony of this whole ridiculous thread. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why I dont stop at red lights or stop signs | Tom Keats | Social Issues | 5 | August 4th 04 07:55 AM |
Why I dont stop at red lights or stop signs | Pete | Racing | 1 | August 3rd 04 06:13 AM |
Aren't bicycles suposed to stop at stop signs? | Ken | General | 85 | September 22nd 03 11:22 PM |