logistics associated with starting a new riding group?

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:39:31 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On 15 Feb 2007 11:05:57 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
wrote:

On Feb 15, 7:02 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 22:36:39 -0800, "Prisoner at War"

wrote:
I'd really like to meet the asses who started the whole "a
bike is a vehicle" mentality,

I didn't start it but strongly agree with it. W/o it we'd have even
more limited rights on the road.
--

I must disagree. AFAIK, bicyclists have always had road rights, as do
even pedestrians.

Even pedestrians?
Really? So you can just walk down a typical road or street as much as
you want - no need to be on the sidewalk? I did not know that.

Many highways (used in the technical sense) either

a) include the pavement set aside for pedestrians; or

b) have no such pavement, and all traffic uses the road surface.

Now of course, there are differences in the details depending on the
jurisdiction, but the essential difference which results in cyclists
(and pedestrians) having a _right_ to use the roads and drivers of
motor-cars having merely a _permission_, is that driving a motor-car
is not permitted unless the individual who wishes to do so asks to do
so, pays some form of fee to do so, and undergoes various tests to
determine if he or she should be allowed to do so; whereas the
cyclists' (and pedestrians') right to use the roads exists ab initio.

wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:39:31 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On 15 Feb 2007 11:05:57 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
wrote:

On Feb 15, 7:02 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 22:36:39 -0800, "Prisoner at War"

wrote:
I'd really like to meet the asses who started the whole "a
bike is a vehicle" mentality,
I didn't start it but strongly agree with it. W/o it we'd have even
more limited rights on the road.
--
I must disagree. AFAIK, bicyclists have always had road rights, as do
even pedestrians.
Even pedestrians?
Really? So you can just walk down a typical road or street as much as
you want - no need to be on the sidewalk? I did not know that.

Many highways (used in the technical sense) either

a) include the pavement set aside for pedestrians; or

b) have no such pavement, and all traffic uses the road surface.

Now of course, there are differences in the details depending on the
jurisdiction, but the essential difference which results in cyclists
(and pedestrians) having a _right_ to use the roads and drivers of
motor-cars having merely a _permission_, is that driving a motor-car
is not permitted unless the individual who wishes to do so asks to do
so, pays some form of fee to do so, and undergoes various tests to
determine if he or she should be allowed to do so; whereas the
cyclists' (and pedestrians') right to use the roads exists ab initio.

Walk, or ride, on a highway where there is any amount of car traffic and
sooner or later, you may become a footnote in the 'Darwin' log.
Survival of the fittest does not include those individuals who
stubbornly insist on pursuing their right to use the same road as cars.
Simple, huh?
Bill Baka

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:21:12 GMT, Bill Baka wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:39:31 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On 15 Feb 2007 11:05:57 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
wrote:

On Feb 15, 7:02 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 22:36:39 -0800, "Prisoner at War"

wrote:
I'd really like to meet the asses who started the whole "a
bike is a vehicle" mentality,
I didn't start it but strongly agree with it. W/o it we'd have even
more limited rights on the road.
--
I must disagree. AFAIK, bicyclists have always had road rights, as do
even pedestrians.
Even pedestrians?
Really? So you can just walk down a typical road or street as much as
you want - no need to be on the sidewalk? I did not know that.

Many highways (used in the technical sense) either

a) include the pavement set aside for pedestrians; or

b) have no such pavement, and all traffic uses the road surface.

Now of course, there are differences in the details depending on the
jurisdiction, but the essential difference which results in cyclists
(and pedestrians) having a _right_ to use the roads and drivers of
motor-cars having merely a _permission_, is that driving a motor-car
is not permitted unless the individual who wishes to do so asks to do
so, pays some form of fee to do so, and undergoes various tests to
determine if he or she should be allowed to do so; whereas the
cyclists' (and pedestrians') right to use the roads exists ab initio.

Walk, or ride, on a highway where there is any amount of car traffic and
sooner or later, you may become a footnote in the 'Darwin' log.
Survival of the fittest does not include those individuals who
stubbornly insist on pursuing their right to use the same road as cars.
Simple, huh?
Bill Baka

Driving a motor-car on the same highway is more likely to result in
the same end.

wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:21:12 GMT, Bill Baka wrote:

Walk, or ride, on a highway where there is any amount of car traffic and
sooner or later, you may become a footnote in the 'Darwin' log.
Survival of the fittest does not include those individuals who
stubbornly insist on pursuing their right to use the same road as cars.
Simple, huh?
Bill Baka

Driving a motor-car on the same highway is more likely to result in
the same end.

With a lot more miles racked up if at all.
Ever try walking on a California highway or freeway with your back to
the traffic? In the middle of the lane you think you have a right to?
Want some flowers on your grave or just a 'Darwin' party?
Bill Baka

On Feb 15, 6:39 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 11:05:57 -0800, "Prisoner at War"

wrote:
On Feb 15, 7:02 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 22:36:39 -0800, "Prisoner at War"

wrote:
I'd really like to meet the asses who started the whole "a
bike is a vehicle" mentality,

I didn't start it but strongly agree with it. W/o it we'd have even
more limited rights on the road.
--

I must disagree. AFAIK, bicyclists have always had road rights, as do
even pedestrians.

Even pedestrians?
Really? So you can just walk down a typical road or street as much as
you want - no need to be on the sidewalk? I did not know that.

Sure, jaywalkers, joggers, lil' ol' babushkas...I don't know how all
these NY grannies get killed on Queens Blvd. Don't the friggin'
drivers see someone in the middle of the god-damned road?? It's a
goddamned five or six-lane boulevard; how the freak does it get
christened "The Boulevard of Death" year after year? Why don't these
goddamned motorists slow the **** down and watch where the **** they
goin'??

'Cause people have forgotten that driving is a *priviledge*, which is
why it's *licensed* -- and now we have this inanity about bicycles
being "vehicles" too...God damn fascists and lawyers!!!

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, Bill Baka wrote:

Walk, or ride, on a highway where there is any amount of car traffic and
sooner or later, you may become a footnote in the 'Darwin' log.
Survival of the fittest does not include those individuals who
stubbornly insist on pursuing their right to use the same road as cars.
Simple, huh?
Bill Baka



Bill, you confuse "right" with "might"...haven't you read Abraham
Lincoln yet??

On Feb 16, 8:56 am, Bill Baka wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:21:12 GMT, Bill Baka wrote:

Walk, or ride, on a highway where there is any amount of car traffic and
sooner or later, you may become a footnote in the 'Darwin' log.
Survival of the fittest does not include those individuals who
stubbornly insist on pursuing their right to use the same road as cars.
Simple, huh?
Bill Baka

Driving a motor-car on the same highway is more likely to result in
the same end.

With a lot more miles racked up if at all.
Ever try walking on a California highway or freeway with your back to
the traffic? In the middle of the lane you think you have a right to?
Want some flowers on your grave or just a 'Darwin' party?
Bill Baka


Why be so absurd? He was talking about pedestrian lanes.

And, no, thank you very much, DRIVERS DO NOT HAVE A ****ING RIGHT TO
RUN DOWN ANYBODY JUST 'CAUSE THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, EVEN
IF IT IS A GODDAMNED HIGHWAY!

And bicycles ARE NOT vehicles, by Mohammad's turban!!

Oh, and cut that Darwin **** out...funny how the most ideological
mentalities like to cite the iconoclastic Darwin -- morons....

On Feb 15, 4:21 pm, Bill Baka wrote:


I was thinking Guilliani(sp?). Bloomberg is a total unknown to me? Does
he drive a gas guzzling SUV or get limo'd everywhere he goes? Has he
EVER ridden a bike?

LOL -- Bill, consider this your personal invitation to NYC for the
annual Five-Boro Bike Tour in May!!

No, Bloomy's been mayor for the past, what, five or six years now. He
takes the subway to work most days, though for the weekend he has his
own jet or two for undisclosed getaways. Seeing how he grew up middle-
class in Forest Hills, I'm sure he had a bike once. Since he's just
another old Jewish guy, he might even be a member of the Easy Racers
Recumbent Riders Club!

Many city kids never get a chance to ride a bike,
due to money, theft, and parents concerns over the freedom to go into
bad areas. The closest I have ever come to a big city was growing up in
the Chicago suburbs where I could ride into the city, but chose to ride
away from it. Riding in Chicago seemed so improbable that even at 14 I
took the Metra train and hooked up with the 'El' subway/skyway system
then took buses to things like the museums. I don't know if Chicago is
bike unfriendly by law, but my common sense tells me I want to be in a
car in that city.

One of my great life ambitions is to simply bike ride in Chicago. I
hear the waterfront is especially attractive for that, with designated
lanes and scenic views.

Riding with cars, weaving through traffic, is a great bicycling
experience, Bill. I've even done it with a recumbent during summer
rush-hour in NYC, through Times Square and all! It's not dangerous at
all if you know how to ride a bike and not be distracted by imagined
fears.

New York doesn't seem to be that different in terms of
population density, so is it ridable or what?

New York's got bike riding, Bill -- and honestly, you can even ride on
the sidewalks, for all the fascists around! Most cops would rather
chase robbers than bicyclists, and most New Yorkers are still
immigrant enough to recognize a bicycle when they see one, and not
mistake it for a "vehicle."

Just mind your speed, of course.

Sidewalks being illegal does not make much sense unless some hot shots
tried 20 MPH and actually caused accidents that got the law passed.
8 MPH on a sidewalk beats 20 MPH in traffic, for me, at least.
Bill Baka

Again, glad you're part of the Rebel Alliance, Bill! Yes, I think
5mph-8mph on the sidewalk with a bike isn't bad at all. Bicyclists
really ought to be more considerate, I agree, but to categorically
deny bikes sidewalk access is just ****ing fascist, and a remedy worse
than the problem it would solve.

More folks die from cars running onto sidewalks than from being run
down by bikes. Why not ban cars, for Muhammad's sake??

Prisoner at War wrote:
On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, Bill Baka wrote:
Walk, or ride, on a highway where there is any amount of car traffic and
sooner or later, you may become a footnote in the 'Darwin' log.
Survival of the fittest does not include those individuals who
stubbornly insist on pursuing their right to use the same road as cars.
Simple, huh?
Bill Baka



Bill, you confuse "right" with "might"...haven't you read Abraham
Lincoln yet??

I've read more than enough 'Lincoln', good and bad. Anyone who exercises
their 'right' to a lane in my part of California 'will' become a
statistic sooner or later if Jesus himself isn't sitting on his
shoulder. Logging trucks coming around a corner flatten first, then,
maybe, stop to see what the bump was. My riding is not for city sissies.
Bill Baka

Prisoner at War wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:56 am, Bill Baka wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:21:12 GMT, Bill Baka wrote:
Walk, or ride, on a highway where there is any amount of car traffic and
sooner or later, you may become a footnote in the 'Darwin' log.
Survival of the fittest does not include those individuals who
stubbornly insist on pursuing their right to use the same road as cars.
Simple, huh?
Bill Baka
Driving a motor-car on the same highway is more likely to result in
the same end.
With a lot more miles racked up if at all.
Ever try walking on a California highway or freeway with your back to
the traffic? In the middle of the lane you think you have a right to?
Want some flowers on your grave or just a 'Darwin' party?
Bill Baka


Why be so absurd? He was talking about pedestrian lanes.

What pedestrian lanes?

And, no, thank you very much, DRIVERS DO NOT HAVE A ****ING RIGHT TO
RUN DOWN ANYBODY JUST 'CAUSE THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, EVEN
IF IT IS A GODDAMNED HIGHWAY!

If they can get away with "I didn't see him." they can, especially if it
is after sunset.

And bicycles ARE NOT vehicles, by Mohammad's turban!!

I can coast down some hills at 50-55 MPH, and that is a vehicle speed.
No matter how hard I try, I can't run downhill at 55 MPH.

Oh, and cut that Darwin **** out...funny how the most ideological
mentalities like to cite the iconoclastic Darwin -- morons....

Darwin applies. Like the fool who walked in front of a train while zoned
out to his I-Tunes. He cut himself out of the gene pool very
effectively. Unfortunately it applies in reverse too, like the girl in
San Jose who ran down 4 legal cyclists with her Bronco while searching
for a tape on the passenger floor at 45 MPH. They had a bike lane.
She, and the logging trucks are reasons why I ride on the wrong side of
the road in some bicycle unfriendly areas. No bike lane or shoulder on
either side but usually a ditch to dive into for emergencies. One
section is cut out of rock and the only way to get past is to look for a
break of about 1/4 to 1/2 mile and then haul ass, uphill.
That could get a riding group sued if anyone actually planned a ride
through that pass. That was the post, wasn't it?
Bill Baka