Critical

Dan O wrote:
On Dec 18, 7:34 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Dec 18, 4:30 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:36:50 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that annoy
motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way" is... well, it's
incredibly stupid.
What breaking the law? They're just riding on the road. That's not
illegal.
In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states, there's a law requiring
bicyclists to ride single file when they would otherwise be
interfering with traffic. The only Critical Mass ride I recall seeing
in Milwuakee involved many riders occupying the entire width of the
street and going very slowly. So they were breaking the law.

Sure, that's the civil disobedience. And maybe that's what's needed
to get people to *think* about what it means to share the road.

Think about what you just said...

nate

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

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:09:35 -0500, Harold Burton
wrote:

Or it could be what's needed to convince people that bicyclists are
assholes and should be given no consideration......since so many mass
bike actions involve NOT sharing the road but HOGGING it.

In most US cities, what percentage of road is taken by cars? In terms
of space on the road, what is more hoggy -- a guy on a bike or a
person in a car?

On Dec 19, 5:09 pm, Harold Burton wrote:
In article
,



Dan O wrote:
On Dec 18, 7:34 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Dec 18, 4:30 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:36:50 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that annoy
motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way" is... well, it's
incredibly stupid.

What breaking the law? They're just riding on the road. That's not
illegal.

In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states, there's a law requiring
bicyclists to ride single file when they would otherwise be
interfering with traffic. The only Critical Mass ride I recall seeing
in Milwuakee involved many riders occupying the entire width of the
street and going very slowly. So they were breaking the law.

Sure, that's the civil disobedience. And maybe that's what's needed
to get people to *think* about what it means to share the road...

Or it could be what's needed to convince people that bicyclists are
assholes and should be given no consideration......since so many mass
bike actions involve NOT sharing the road but HOGGING it.

Hey, I'm not in support of people who are assholes (even when I am
being one myself ;-), but who do you think will be convinced that
bicyclists in general should be given no consideration because a bunch
of them are assholes. I'll tell you who may be convinced thus: A few
of the already hardcore bigot asshole motorists.

On Dec 19, 5:25 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Dec 18, 7:34 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Dec 18, 4:30 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:36:50 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that annoy
motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way" is... well, it's
incredibly stupid.
What breaking the law? They're just riding on the road. That's not
illegal.
In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states, there's a law requiring
bicyclists to ride single file when they would otherwise be
interfering with traffic. The only Critical Mass ride I recall seeing
in Milwuakee involved many riders occupying the entire width of the
street and going very slowly. So they were breaking the law.

Sure, that's the civil disobedience. And maybe that's what's needed
to get people to *think* about what it means to share the road.

Think about what you just said...


Notice that I said "maybe". Think Alabama '64 if it helps you with
the concept.

What do *you* think will get motorists to appreciate the bicyclists
right to the road?

Dan O wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:25 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Dec 18, 7:34 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Dec 18, 4:30 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:36:50 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that annoy
motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way" is... well, it's
incredibly stupid.
What breaking the law? They're just riding on the road. That's not
illegal.
In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states, there's a law requiring
bicyclists to ride single file when they would otherwise be
interfering with traffic. The only Critical Mass ride I recall seeing
in Milwuakee involved many riders occupying the entire width of the
street and going very slowly. So they were breaking the law.
Sure, that's the civil disobedience. And maybe that's what's needed
to get people to *think* about what it means to share the road.
Think about what you just said...


Notice that I said "maybe". Think Alabama '64 if it helps you with
the concept.

What do *you* think will get motorists to appreciate the bicyclists
right to the road?

As a motorist, the only thing that rude, asshole cyclists make me
appreciate is police officers with bad attitudes. As a cyclist, rude,
asshole cyclists make me want to push them off into the bushes so
motorists don't think that *ALL* cyclists are assholes.

Unfortunately, my observation is that 99% of cyclists ride like
assholes. This makes me sad, because I do enjoy riding (well, when it's
not 40 degrees and raining) and I don't necessarily want motorists to
automatically assume I'm an asshole. But I understand why they do.

nate


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

Harold Burton wrote:

The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that
annoy motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way"
is... well, it's incredibly stupid.

What breaking the law? They're just riding on the road. That's
not illegal.

In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states, there's a law
requiring bicyclists to ride single file when they would otherwise
be interfering with traffic. The only Critical Mass ride I recall
seeing in Milwaukee involved many riders occupying the entire
width of the street and going very slowly. So they were breaking
the law.

Sure, that's the civil disobedience. And maybe that's what's
needed to get people to *think* about what it means to share the
road...

Or it could be what's needed to convince people that bicyclists are
assholes and should be given no consideration......since so many
mass bike actions involve NOT sharing the road but HOGGING it.

Oh now I get it! You're the guy who owns that truck with the "I hate
bicyclists" aura:

http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg

This must be your truck because you even paid to have a fake road sign
on your fence.

Jobst Brandt

On Dec 19, 5:59*pm, terryc wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:34:30 -0800, Ron Wallenfang wrote:

In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states
there's a law requiring bicyclists to ride single file
when they would otherwise be interfering with traffic.

and is that the exact wording of the law(s)?


No, the exact wording is tougher than that:

"Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file on all
roadways which have center lines or lane lines indicated by painting
or other marking and in all unincorporated areas. On roadways not
divided by painted or other marked center lines or lane lines, bicycle
operators may ride two abreast in incorporated areas." 346.80(2)

In article ,
Nate Nagel writes:
Dan O wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:25 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Dec 18, 7:34 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Dec 18, 4:30 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:36:50 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
The stupidity of gathering together to do the very things that annoy
motorists-- breaking the law and "getting in the way" is... well, it's
incredibly stupid.
What breaking the law? They're just riding on the road. That's not
illegal.
In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states, there's a law requiring
bicyclists to ride single file when they would otherwise be
interfering with traffic. The only Critical Mass ride I recall seeing
in Milwuakee involved many riders occupying the entire width of the
street and going very slowly. So they were breaking the law.
Sure, that's the civil disobedience. And maybe that's what's needed
to get people to *think* about what it means to share the road.
Think about what you just said...


Notice that I said "maybe". Think Alabama '64 if it helps you with
the concept.

What do *you* think will get motorists to appreciate the bicyclists
right to the road?

As a motorist, the only thing that rude, asshole cyclists make me
appreciate is police officers with bad attitudes. As a cyclist, rude,
asshole cyclists make me want to push them off into the bushes so
motorists don't think that *ALL* cyclists are assholes.

Unfortunately, my observation is that 99% of cyclists ride like
assholes. This makes me sad, because I do enjoy riding (well, when it's
not 40 degrees and raining) and I don't necessarily want motorists to
automatically assume I'm an asshole. But I understand why they do.

A fair number of socially inept cyclists ride like
socially inept drivers drive, and vice verso.

'Cuz they both ride ~and~ drive, bringing the same
attitude to bear in either endeavour.

It's a semi-amusing "pot calling the kettle black" thing.

And then there are those hell-spawned pedestrians
cluttering the streets.

Never mind that all of us are ultimately pedestrians.
Especially drivers who've just gotten out of their cars.
They're often the worst pedestrians going.


cheers,
Tom



--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Dan O wrote:

What do *you* think will get motorists to appreciate the bicyclists
right to the road?

As a motorist, the only thing that rude, asshole cyclists make me
appreciate is police officers with bad attitudes. As a cyclist,
rude, asshole cyclists make me want to push them off into the bushes
so motorists don't think that *ALL* cyclists are assholes.

Unfortunately, my observation is that 99% of cyclists ride like
assholes. This makes me sad, because I do enjoy riding (well, when
it's not 40 degrees and raining) and I don't necessarily want
motorists to automatically assume I'm an asshole. But I understand
why they do.

So the 99% of drivers that drive like assholes are OK?

In article ,
wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

The second ranked nation? China. With over four times the
population, China's prison population is one-fifth of ours. I
have no idea what their undocumented incarceration rate is
thought to be, and the Chinese government system appears to be
more willing to carry out summary executions which keeps the
prison population down.

We do not disagree on the larger issue. Prison populations are
thick with simple possession, nonsupport, DWI, driving after rev,
etc.

The fruits of "getting tough on crime." We're surrounded by media
fear mongering about crime, political fear mongering about crime,
etc., most of which is predicated on outright false information.

As a regular Chicago Trib reader, it's notable how many violent
crimes are tracked to repeaters.

I've not looked for data on that but it would not surprise me if
this were true in many cases. I suspect that most violent
offenders are repeaters before their first arrest; it wouldn't seem
a stretch to find them to be repeaters after getting out of prison.

These are basically antisocial people who do not see themselves as
part of the world, state, or city community, but rather predators who
see their fellow man as prey. Fortunately most men who feel that
way, act out their predation on wildlife for the sport of it, but it
is, as I see it a parallel urge. The goods are there for the taking
and we can always attribute it to the hunter gatherer syndrome.

The milder form of this is prolific dumping of trash on rural roads,
tossing of fast food debris, gum, and cigarette butts everywhere.

Antisocial personality disorder is thought to have a prevalence of about
3.6% the US. Paranoid personality disorder it thought to have a
prevalence of about 4.5% Both can readily lead to antisocial behavior.
Overall about 14.8% of the US population are thought to meet the
criteria for at least one of the identified personality disorders,
meaning that the traits are of sufficient severity to interfere with
employment, personal relationships, etc. Many more people have
significant traits of various personality disorders but are able to get
along reasonably well in the world. Most of us have some personality
disorder traits that tend to come out under stress.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c.../full/39/17/12