Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

On Feb 27, 6:04*pm, Zoot Katz wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:



Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. *I remember it well,
and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.

nate

So you still don't understand how those things work.
Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.


If you're claiming that they do anything more than slow people down
right at their location, then you are mistaken. Average speeds on
roads with speed humps INCREASES when they are installed.

Explain that, if you please.

E.P.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:18:51 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Zoot Katz wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:


Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. I remember it well,
and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.

nate


So you still don't understand how those things work.
Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.

I understand perfectly well how they work, they don't.

And that will be my last word on the subject, as I believe didn't I say
"please let us not resurrect this thread?"

nate

Still touchy about all those busted plastic air-dams you've left
littering the road, I guess.

Maybe next time you can wipe out the exhaust so you can replace it
with something that doesn't sound like a leaf blower in a footlocker.

Gosh, that's such a sexy car you're married to.
--
zk

Paul M. Hobson wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:15 pm, N8N wrote:

100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.


wrote:

Wrong.


Nate Nagel wrote:

Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.


So Nate, you're saying that you run stop signs when you're on your bike
too? Seems a little odd considering it irks you so much.

I don't really ride anymore. But no, I wouldn't.

How about this: While driving, do you ever speed (even 1 mph counts)?

Of course.

Do you ever roll through stop signs?

NO.


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark,
wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because he
did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a very
narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side of the
road to get around parked cars.)

It is possible that he had one of those crappy bicycle headlights. If
he was in range of your vehicle's headlamps, the light from them would
easily overpower the bicycle light.

My solution to the headlight problem was to buy more of them. At one
time, I had three of them mounted on the handle bars

Arif Khokar wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

Just this evening I was following a cyclist who was riding after dark,
wearing dark clothing, with no headlight. *I* could see him because
he did have a taillight, but oncoming traffic couldn't (and this was a
very narrow street where you'd often have to go onto the "wrong" side
of the road to get around parked cars.)


It is possible that he had one of those crappy bicycle headlights. If
he was in range of your vehicle's headlamps, the light from them would
easily overpower the bicycle light.

My solution to the headlight problem was to buy more of them. At one
time, I had three of them mounted on the handle bars

No, he had no headlight at all. At one point I passed him and checked
my rearview, I could just barely see a figure on a bike. I'm really not
sure how he could see when there wasn't a car behind him or approaching.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Paul M. Hobson wrote:

So Nate, you're saying that you run stop signs when you're on your bike
too? Seems a little odd considering it irks you so much.

How about this: While driving, do you ever speed (even 1 mph counts)?
Do you ever roll through stop signs?

The root of the problem is that most stop signs are unnecessary. If one
has a clear view of the intersecting road, then one should only have to
yield to oncoming traffic before crossing.

As for speeding, almost all highway speed limits are under posted.

N8N wrote:

But you're right, there's a whole lotta stupid on both sides. Just
more so with cyclists, it seems. Not sure why; I don't actually know
any serious cyclists in this area personally, so I haven't had the
opportunity to try to figure it out - and to be perfectly honest,
their behavior is kind of a disincentive to take up cycling seriously
again, although this area is actually more bike-friendly than any I've
lived in the last decade or so.

Most cyclists where I live aren't any different. When I ride, I follow
the rules of the road as much as I do in my car (though I don't speed
quite as much

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

Come ride with me someday. *You'll see I'm right.

Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
counterexample to prove you wrong.

Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
it's *your* proposal, after all.

From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.

If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.

The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
law. They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
the rules.

It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.

The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.

Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
wrote:


Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.

Sorry, but according to the rules of logic, it takes only one
counterexample to prove you wrong.

Yes. Now prove that he has ever seen one bicyclist stop. Go ahead,
it's *your* proposal, after all.


From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm

of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.


If some cyclists' behaviour gets your attention it should make you
more cautious around other cyclists and that's okay with me.

The most likely explanation is that normal drivers (not you clowns in
r.a.d) don't notice cyclists obeying the rules to the letter of the
law. They're processed as regular traffic and forgotten. It's the
same as I quickly forget the attentive attuned motorists playing by
the rules.

Nope. I just don't see them because cyclists obeying the letter of the
law don't exist in my area.


It's the stunned or belligerent scud jockeys who get my attention
though few of them are memorable except by their sheer numbers.

The typical scud slave exhibiting their typically less than lawful
conduct is usually predictable, rarely disappoints me, and quickly
forgotten so I'm ready for the inevitable next one.

Mostly they're all regarded as potentially dangerous, self-absorbed
idiots who may well be asleep, zonked on drugs, talking on phones,
putting on make-up, shaving or diverted by their electronic toys.

I'd like to cordially invite you to take your attitude and shove it up
your ass. It's not like I needed yet *another* reason to think the
average cyclist was a self-important asshole.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:32:04 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On Feb 27, 6:04*pm, Zoot Katz wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:23:24 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:



Please, PLEASE let us not resurrect that thread. *I remember it well,
and it was definitely a case of an irresistable force of reason meeting
an immovable object of stubbornness and irrationality.

nate

So you still don't understand how those things work.
Perhaps if they were renamed "slow humps" you might get it.


If you're claiming that they do anything more than slow people down
right at their location, then you are mistaken. Average speeds on
roads with speed humps INCREASES when they are installed.

Explain that, if you please.

Drivers are petulant brats.

What's new?
--
zk