stop all bike paths etc please!!

On Nov 19, 5:46 pm, "Papa Tom" wrote:


I'm not sure what that means, but it seemed worth repeating.

I just meant to applaud your efforts at bicycling advocacy, while
noting that my cruder efforts -- as would be apparent from my vitriol
when talking about such matters -- complement yours in the "bigger
picture" sense of things.

Anyway, I understand your frustration and anger. However, I don't think we
can overlook cyclists' responsibilities if we're going to trash auto drivers
that way.

I was also obliquely questioning what "responsibilities" we truly
have. Not to cause accidents, sure, but simply being on the road --
even a highway, for whatever reason -- is not irresponsible of us as
bicyclists. I know that's a radical notion, and I'm not saying that
bicycles should be on highways, but to me it's the kind of violation
that's like jaywalking: no big deal.

Basically, aside from doing what we can to ensure our own safety as
cyclists, I think the onus should be on motorists to exercise the vast
majority of any responsibility involved in safety issues...they're the
ones with the power, as measured by horse-engine, and with greater
power goes greater responsibility, naturally....

I see plenty of cyclists causing situations where they - and
other people on the road - can get seriously hurt because of stupid,
irresponsible behavior.

I'm not sure what irresponsible behavior you might be referring to.
Cycling the wrong way, or on the wrong side of the road? Come on!
That's no big deal; not a crime at all -- the whole point of using a
bicycle for getting around, in fact: freedom!

If you mean sudden turns and swerves, well, motorists do that too --
but motorists should be driving so fast that they can't brake for a
sudden turn or stop. If the rider was a driver in a car, it would
still be the same thing; there's nothing particular to a bicycle or
being a bicyclist involved here.

Frankly, I just don't see how a bicyclist could ever be a fault. I
know it sounds really radical, but my attitude is the road belongs to
pedestrians -- and then bicyclists and skaters -- first and foremost.
Cars are -- should be -- an after-thought. Unfortunately, everything
is organized around cars -- whole neighborhoods are demolished for the
sake of cars being able to speed along on a highway -- such that we
can imagine such a ridiculous notion as "bicyclist responsibility."

The only responsibility a cyclist has is to pedestrians and him or
herself (and other cyclists). Motorists ought to be the ones on the
look-out. The same way most traffic laws assign a much greater
responsibility, if not total responsibility outright, to the motorist
on the "driver's side of an accident," so too should motorists bear
the vast majority of the burden for traffic safety all-around!

If we look at this issue as one that can only be
black or white, things will just go on the same way forever, and cyclists
and peds will continue to lose.

I don't see that we're continuing to lose at all. Indeed, bike paths
are all the rage in urban planning! Drivers are certainly much more
aware of us, and it seems that more and more people are actually
bicycling in the cities. There are many reasons for all these happy
developments, but I don't think being a "radical bicyclist" has hurt
the cause at all. Again, a fighter fights with both arms: the
radicals like me make the respectable get-along types like you seem a
bargain to deal with.

Have you noticed that those Critical Mass things never accomplish anything?

I don't know how you measure their actions. It took Al Gore many
years before he got his Oscar and Nobel, after all.

Meanwhile, fewer and fewer people here are allowing their kids to even
own
bicycles, let alone ride them anywhere. And I understand why. As an
experienced cyclist who has ridden the same roads on a regular basis for
the
past 35-40 years, I find I'm constantly in life-threatening situations
when
I get out on the road. So more and more, I'm packing my bike into the
car
and driving to bike paths in Westchester, in New Jersey, and right here
on
Long Island. A lot of other Long Islanders are doing the same. For me,
sometimes it's either that - or leave the bike in the garage and go eat
a
sandwich.

I sympathise with your post.
We ranters must stick together.
A few years ago I flew into Orlando airport to trike around Florida camping.
After 400 miles I gave up and got a rental car.
My experience of triking on the roads and paths was stressfull and
dangerous-to me.
You should move over to Europe or holiday here especially in Holland or
Germany--East Germany has lots of space and brand new cycle facilities.
Ive triked in
Spain-France-Luxemburg-Switzerland-Belgium-Denmark-Holland-Poland-the Canary
Islands and dangerous Crete.
Only Crete is on a level with Florida.
Tam

On Nov 19, 4:46 pm, "Papa Tom" wrote:
Folks like you will go on with your official appeals, all reasonable and
polite, while folks like me will continue to **** show our ass to the
motorists honking behind us; both arms need to be used in a fight.

I'm not sure what that means, but it seemed worth repeating.

Anyway, I understand your frustration and anger. However, I don't think we
can overlook cyclists' responsibilities if we're going to trash auto drivers
that way. I see plenty of cyclists causing situations where they - and
other people on the road - can get seriously hurt because of stupid,
irresponsible behavior. If we look at this issue as one that can only be
black or white, things will just go on the same way forever, and cyclists
and peds will continue to lose.

Have you noticed that those Critical Mass things never accomplish anything?

Sure they do: Critical Mass gets motorist hostility toward cyclists
really ramped up. They take it out on you (all cyclists) later, when
you're riding solo.

I'm getting the impression that you're just trolling now, dude. Have I been
had?


"Prisoner at War" wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 5:46 pm, "Papa Tom" wrote:


I'm not sure what that means, but it seemed worth repeating.

I just meant to applaud your efforts at bicycling advocacy, while
noting that my cruder efforts -- as would be apparent from my vitriol
when talking about such matters -- complement yours in the "bigger
picture" sense of things.

Anyway, I understand your frustration and anger. However, I don't think
we
can overlook cyclists' responsibilities if we're going to trash auto
drivers
that way.

I was also obliquely questioning what "responsibilities" we truly
have. Not to cause accidents, sure, but simply being on the road --
even a highway, for whatever reason -- is not irresponsible of us as
bicyclists. I know that's a radical notion, and I'm not saying that
bicycles should be on highways, but to me it's the kind of violation
that's like jaywalking: no big deal.

Basically, aside from doing what we can to ensure our own safety as
cyclists, I think the onus should be on motorists to exercise the vast
majority of any responsibility involved in safety issues...they're the
ones with the power, as measured by horse-engine, and with greater
power goes greater responsibility, naturally....

I see plenty of cyclists causing situations where they - and
other people on the road - can get seriously hurt because of stupid,
irresponsible behavior.

I'm not sure what irresponsible behavior you might be referring to.
Cycling the wrong way, or on the wrong side of the road? Come on!
That's no big deal; not a crime at all -- the whole point of using a
bicycle for getting around, in fact: freedom!

If you mean sudden turns and swerves, well, motorists do that too --
but motorists should be driving so fast that they can't brake for a
sudden turn or stop. If the rider was a driver in a car, it would
still be the same thing; there's nothing particular to a bicycle or
being a bicyclist involved here.

Frankly, I just don't see how a bicyclist could ever be a fault. I
know it sounds really radical, but my attitude is the road belongs to
pedestrians -- and then bicyclists and skaters -- first and foremost.
Cars are -- should be -- an after-thought. Unfortunately, everything
is organized around cars -- whole neighborhoods are demolished for the
sake of cars being able to speed along on a highway -- such that we
can imagine such a ridiculous notion as "bicyclist responsibility."

The only responsibility a cyclist has is to pedestrians and him or
herself (and other cyclists). Motorists ought to be the ones on the
look-out. The same way most traffic laws assign a much greater
responsibility, if not total responsibility outright, to the motorist
on the "driver's side of an accident," so too should motorists bear
the vast majority of the burden for traffic safety all-around!

If we look at this issue as one that can only be
black or white, things will just go on the same way forever, and cyclists
and peds will continue to lose.

I don't see that we're continuing to lose at all. Indeed, bike paths
are all the rage in urban planning! Drivers are certainly much more
aware of us, and it seems that more and more people are actually
bicycling in the cities. There are many reasons for all these happy
developments, but I don't think being a "radical bicyclist" has hurt
the cause at all. Again, a fighter fights with both arms: the
radicals like me make the respectable get-along types like you seem a
bargain to deal with.

Have you noticed that those Critical Mass things never accomplish
anything?

I don't know how you measure their actions. It took Al Gore many
years before he got his Oscar and Nobel, after all.

On Nov 20, 12:08 pm, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:


Sure they do: Critical Mass gets motorist hostility toward cyclists
really ramped up. They take it out on you (all cyclists) later, when
you're riding solo.


Hey, any excuse will serve a tyrant.

Who the **** cares about why drivers do what they do. They're
assholes, which is why it's so important to them to drive at 90 miles
an hour on city streets.

You morons don't realize that nothing was ever won through dialog
alone...your ****ing paid holidays, your paid sick days, your paid
maternity leave, your ****ing eight-hour workdays, your health
benefits, everything you can think of someone at some point paid for
with more than just talk at a table.

Same thing with your bike paths and city-produced bike maps...somebody
had to agitate for it.

Because talk is cheap.

On Nov 20, 11:48 am, Prisoner at War
wrote:
On Nov 20, 12:08 pm, Ozark Bicycle

wrote:

Sure they do: Critical Mass gets motorist hostility toward cyclists
really ramped up. They take it out on you (all cyclists) later, when
you're riding solo.

Hey, any excuse will serve a tyrant.

Who the **** cares about why drivers do what they do. They're
assholes, which is why it's so important to them to drive at 90 miles
an hour on city streets.

You morons don't realize that nothing was ever won through dialog
alone...your ****ing paid holidays, your paid sick days, your paid
maternity leave, your ****ing eight-hour workdays, your health
benefits, everything you can think of someone at some point paid for
with more than just talk at a table.

Same thing with your bike paths and city-produced bike maps...somebody
had to agitate for it.

There is a difference between agitating/advocating/organizing and
*antagonizing*. That's what the stupid, pointless Critical Ass BS
does: antagonize to no good purpose. If you need to lower yer tension
levels, try a girly mag, AstroGlide and a quiet room.

Because talk is cheap.

On Nov 20, 12:16 pm, "Papa Tom" wrote:
I'm getting the impression that you're just trolling now, dude. Have I been
had?


I am not responsible for your feelings, only my own thoughts.

On Nov 20, 1:38 pm, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:


There is a difference between agitating/advocating/organizing and
*antagonizing*.

Yeah, the same difference between being thrift and being cheap -- all
in the eye of the beholder.

There's never been a call for change which did not antagonize someone
somewhere.

That's what the stupid, pointless Critical Ass BS
does: antagonize to no good purpose.

It puts the issue out in the public consciousness. Remember, there's
no such thing as bad publicity.

And, being that none of you people here seem to have ever clenched a
fist in anger, much less thrown it and made contact, I reiterate again
that one needs to fight with both arms: a country needs both diplomats
and soldiers, and any social movement you can think of has had its
"respectable" media-friendly talking-head types and its front-line
activists who agitate wherever they are needed to do so.

If you need to lower yer tension
levels, try a girly mag, AstroGlide and a quiet room.

You have some weird hobbies. Guess I know what your mom is getting
you for X-Mas!

Prisoner at War wrote:
...
You morons don't realize that nothing was ever won through dialog
alone...your ****ing paid holidays, your paid sick days, your paid
maternity leave, your ****ing eight-hour workdays, your health
benefits, everything you can think of someone at some point paid for
with more than just talk at a table....

How many jobs in the US have all of the above (or any of the above) now?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Prisoner at War wrote:
...
You morons don't realize that nothing was ever won through dialog
alone...your ****ing paid holidays, your paid sick days, your paid
maternity leave, your ****ing eight-hour workdays, your health
benefits, everything you can think of someone at some point paid for
with more than just talk at a table....

How many jobs in the US have all of the above (or any of the above) now?

Jeez, I don't know about any of the above. Isn't that what Congress is for -
to sit at a table and talk about these things? I think they even hold
thousands of hearings in order to get the best possible information before
they decide what to do. The main thing is that we do not want assholes like
'****ing' PW and a liberal-socialist-communist like TS dictating anything to
us.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota