Critical

Michael Press 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?

A cheerful wave.

At traffic signals I move to the left so that drivers can make right
turns on a red light signal. I do so even when it means abandoning
the bicycle lane. Drivers have thanked me. The drivers behind me
that I move in front of I turn around to and acknowledge with a
wave, then move out of their way when the light is about to turn
green.

This should be self evident to any aware traffic participant. There
are many instances where a bicyclist can cede a bit of the road or
right of way to the benefit of others, the same as one does in a
social gathering in a crowded room or sidewalk. As I often mentioned,
"taking the lane" is the extreme opposite, because it imputes the
following vehicle operator's judgment about the situation while
slowing motor traffic to far less than its normal rate. In essence,
let me drive your car for you because this is more difficult than you
can handle. An insult, nothing less!

The same goes for a group catching up to another rider and shouting
"on your left", basically implying that this rider is a zig zagging
fool who would certainly bring down the whole group if not told how
and where to ride. I spent about 60 years riding bike before I heard
the bike-babble that seems to come from a common beginners manual:
Car-up, car-back, on-your-left/right, and shaking hand with loose
fingers to one side to indicate that the ride leader is sucking the
others into a pile of glass or other road hazard.

Who are these people!

Jobst Brandt

In article ,
writes:
Michael Press 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?

A cheerful wave.

At traffic signals I move to the left so that drivers can make right
turns on a red light signal. I do so even when it means abandoning
the bicycle lane. Drivers have thanked me. The drivers behind me
that I move in front of I turn around to and acknowledge with a
wave, then move out of their way when the light is about to turn
green.

This should be self evident to any aware traffic participant. There
are many instances where a bicyclist can cede a bit of the road or
right of way to the benefit of others, the same as one does in a
social gathering in a crowded room or sidewalk.

Yer dern tootin'. And then there are the buttinskis
in public transit queues.

I guess the long-&-short of it is, not enough people
care about other people.


As I often mentioned,
"taking the lane" is the extreme opposite, because it imputes the
following vehicle operator's judgment about the situation while
slowing motor traffic to far less than its normal rate. In essence,
let me drive your car for you because this is more difficult than you
can handle. An insult, nothing less!

AIUI, taking the lane is prescribed for riding situations in
certain pinched & narrowed stretches, such as some bridges, &c.
It's a temporary tactic, to be relinquished as soon as the road
can again be safely shared.

The same goes for a group catching up to another rider and shouting
"on your left", basically implying that this rider is a zig zagging
fool who would certainly bring down the whole group if not told how
and where to ride. I spent about 60 years riding bike before I heard
the bike-babble that seems to come from a common beginners manual:
Car-up, car-back, on-your-left/right, and shaking hand with loose
fingers to one side to indicate that the ride leader is sucking the
others into a pile of glass or other road hazard.

Who are these people!

They've just gotta get ahead of everybody in front of them,
whether those people are on bikes, on foot, driving cars,
driving cement trucks, or whatever.

They're just basically everybody who doesn't know when
to say "thank you."


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

On Dec 20, 2:33 pm, A Muzi wrote:
terryc wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:34:30 -0800, Ron Wallenfang wrote:
illegal.
In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states

bad assumption to make

there's a law requiring bicyclists to ride single file

You might want to investigate exactly what that means.
Many people in australia think so too, but the our law(s) say TWO abreats
no more than two meters fro the edge of the road(read lane)

when they would otherwise be interfering with traffic.

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

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. The police made a probably wise prudential
judgment to do nothing. Motorists were presumably annoyed, although in
our not so big town, motorist could turn at the next corner and minimize
the problem.

I doubt anyone had the lightest idea of the point of the whold thing.
For all anyone knew they could have been protesting the Iraq war - or
abortion, or just disrupting traffic for the sake of disrupting traffic
- kind of like the kids driving cars who occupy every lane in an x-way
and then go 30 mph.

As far as I could tell, the incident did no good but perhaps very slight
harm to an atitude of tolerance for bike riders.

Ron Wallenfang wrote:
In Wisconsin, and I presume many other states
there's a law requiring bicyclists to ride single file

Not in Wisconsin Statutes:http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/...s/bikelaws.pdf

specifically:
"346.80(2)(a)
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or electric personal assistive
mobility device upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic
at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride
as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the
unobstructed traveled roadway, including operators who are riding 2 or
more abreast where permitted under sub. (3)"

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I quoted an older version of the relevant statute from a statute book
I keep at home,and was not aware of the update. Here's the current
version:

(3) (a) Persons riding bicycles or electric personal assistive
mobility devices upon a roadway may ride 2 abreast if such operation
does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
Bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device operators
riding 2 abreast on a 2-lane or more roadway shall ride within
a single lane.
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more
than 2 abreast except upon any path, trail, lane or other way set
aside for the exclusive use of bicycles and electric personal
assistive
mobility devices.

In article ,
" writes:
On Dec 18, 8:22*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Ron Wallenfang writes:

On Dec 17, 7:53*pm, wrote:
Here's an item from NY:

*http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

You may have seen this elsewhere.

Jobst Brandt
Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say about
Critical Mass?

Which one? *The daily Car Critical Mass, or the monthly
Bike Critical Mass? *Both are partly about entitlement
and possession. *Operators of motor vehicles certainly
need to be /informed/ (note I didn't say "reminded")
that the streets & roads aren't exclusively theirs,
despite that pervasive mindset.

The traffic movements of bicycle CM is the bugaboo,
because they deviate from what drivers accept (in
theory) as adherence to established traffic law.

But if a CM ride obeyed traffic law to the very letter,
that would /really/ **** off a bunch of drivers.
Fortunately, CM riders are more socially conscious
and amicable than that.

IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than good.

Crows & sparrows squabble over the same food tidbits
lying on the ground. *Nobody gets hurt. *It's just
the same old same-old, as per endless usual. *What's
that biblical word? *Oh, yeah: "covet." *That's the
line which separates what we're entitled to, from
what we greedily and selfishly desire, and cling to,
and embrace, and would never relinquish come hell
or high water. *Remember Gollum in Tokien's "Lord
of The Rings?"

{\raspy_Gollum_voice:
*"My preciousss ..."}

I don't see either bicycle Critical Mass *or car
Critical Mass generally crossing that line. *But
sometimes there are asseninely-inspired incidents
between covetous individuals, or between covetous
individuals & people who are peacefully minding
their own business.

Those few dramatic incidents steal the attention and
the focus of what's going on in the big picture.

I think it's good that cylists are establishing
our presence among other-vehicled urban street users.
And if some riders wanna friendlily say "Hi" to fellow
urban street users, that's fine by me. *'Cuz that's
what it's all about. *And the truth is, all kinds of
positive, good relations between various street users
happens. *But if you're not there, you don't see it.
If you're not there, you only get to hear or read news
media stories by news purveyors who like to turn
everything into some kind of war. *CM is not a war.
It's a peace.
When you're a quart low, do your eyes change color?

It would appear I have a more positive and friendlily
sociable outlook than you do.

Why are you being so negative?

And FYI, my eyes don't have any specific, identifiable,
single colour at any time. It freaks a lot of people out.
I guess I've got "mood" eyes, except it isn't necessarily
my mood that changes their (combinations of) colours.
Usually I can't see what they're doing, because I'm on
the other side of them.

Wild, feral and domestic animules see my eyes and
realize I'm no threat or challenge to them, and they
gravitate toward me. Same for human babies, or
anyone innocent of jaded human adulthood.

When I'm a quart low, I just go out and buy another quart.
We ~are~ talking about grapefruit juice, right?
That stuff brings out the golden flecks in my irises.


cheers,
Tom

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

In article ,
slide wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:


I'm a psychologist. Behavioral patterns, personality traits, etc.
cross the line into disorders when they create significant problems
in people's lives or the lives of others around them- impairing
their ability to maintain relationships, to maintain employment,
etc. We've all got some tweaks to our personalities that sometimes
cause trouble in our lives; personality disorders go well beyond
those to be persistently problematic across almost all
relationships and social roles. (I realize that's a touch vague,
and would mention that the existence of personality disorders at
all remains somewhat controversial among clinicians. Most would
agree on the existence of antisocial personality disorder, paranoid
personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and
narcissistic personality disorder, but the other personality
disorders might be less universally accepted).

In the case of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (not the
same as obsessive compulsive disorder which is an anxiety disorder;
the name for this personality disorder is poorly chosen IMHO),
which that research found to be the most prevalent of the
personality disorders, the characteristics are a personality style
that is rigid, poorly able to adapt to changes, overly focused on
detail to the point that the big picture is lost, perfectionistic
to the point of being unable to finish tasks, etc.

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx26.htm

These folks are often irritable and excessively demanding of
others. They poorly tolerate not being in control. Think of "The
Great Santini" as an example. A little bit of these traits would
be helpful, promoting organization, commitment to work, etc. Too
much of a good thing becomes a bad thing.

Thanks, Tim. I suppose, as you imply, determining when a trait moves
into being a disorder is quite difficult to determine unless the line
is well behind the person in the sense that the person is clearly
dysfunctional.

That's basically it. For that reason, BTW, personality disorder
diagnoses tend to be used sparingly. If it's not an obvious situation,
other diagnoses are usually used preferentially. In many cases, though,
the presence of a personality disorder is very obvious.

There may also be value and self interest involved. Frex, children
may think their aged parent dysfunctional because, at 80 years old,
he takes up with a 23 year old who knows more than anything how to
spend a lot of money. The old guy may think he's getting his money's
worth while the children think he deranged.

Sure, perspective determines perception to a very great extent. (Funny
you should mention this, because my primary specialty is geropsychology.
I've seen such situations. If the 80 year old is on the ball and knows
what they are doing, then it is their choice IMHO. When the 80 year old
has advanced dementia, the story may a bit different).

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article
,
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?

A cheerful wave.

At traffic signals I move to the left so that drivers can make right
turns on a red light signal. I do so even when it means abandoning
the bicycle lane. Drivers have thanked me. The drivers behind me that
I move in front of I turn around to and acknowledge with a wave, then
move out of their way when the light is about to turn green.

I do the same thing. There is no reason to hold someone up just because
the bike lane and the right turn lane coincide at the intersection. I
can move over and let them through. I also stop at red lights, at least
slow down for stop signs to check carefully for other traffic, and
generally try to inconvenience other road users as little as possible.

In article ,
wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

missing attribution

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

A cheerful wave.

At traffic signals I move to the left so that drivers can make right
turns on a red light signal. I do so even when it means abandoning
the bicycle lane. Drivers have thanked me. The drivers behind me
that I move in front of I turn around to and acknowledge with a
wave, then move out of their way when the light is about to turn
green.

This should be self evident to any aware traffic participant. There
are many instances where a bicyclist can cede a bit of the road or
right of way to the benefit of others, the same as one does in a
social gathering in a crowded room or sidewalk. As I often mentioned,
"taking the lane" is the extreme opposite, because it imputes the
following vehicle operator's judgment about the situation while
slowing motor traffic to far less than its normal rate. In essence,
let me drive your car for you because this is more difficult than you
can handle. An insult, nothing less!

The same goes for a group catching up to another rider and shouting
"on your left", basically implying that this rider is a zig zagging
fool who would certainly bring down the whole group if not told how
and where to ride.

I generally just pass people as expeditiously as I can. I am, however,
often yelled at by cyclists I pass with a sarcastic "on your left!" even
though I've generally given them about 5-10 feet of clearance. I think
that the real objection may be that I just rode by them without going
out of my way to acknowledge their presence and they feel insulted by
this. I'll admit to being a bit baffled by this oversensitivity, since
I don't care if faster riders pass me without chatting- and as I get
older and have stopped racing that happens with increasing frequency.

I spent about 60 years riding bike before I heard the bike-babble
that seems to come from a common beginners manual: Car-up, car-back,
on-your-left/right, and shaking hand with loose fingers to one side
to indicate that the ride leader is sucking the others into a pile of
glass or other road hazard.

I just don't go on those rides any more. There are a lot of "rules"
about cycling these days. I prefer to ride with 1-3 friends and just
have a nice time on the bike.

Tim McNamara wrote:

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

A cheerful wave.

At traffic signals I move to the left so that drivers can make
right turns on a red light signal. I do so even when it means
abandoning the bicycle lane. Drivers have thanked me. The drivers
behind me that I move in front of I turn around to and acknowledge
with a wave, then move out of their way when the light is about to
turn green.

This should be self evident to any aware traffic participant.
There are many instances where a bicyclist can cede a bit of the
road or right of way to the benefit of others, the same as one does
in a social gathering in a crowded room or sidewalk. As I often
mentioned, "taking the lane" is the extreme opposite, because it
imputes the following vehicle operator's judgment about the
situation while slowing motor traffic to far less than its normal
rate. In essence, let me drive your car for you because this is
more difficult than you can handle. An insult, nothing less!

The same goes for a group catching up to another rider and shouting
"on your left", basically implying that this rider is a zig zagging
fool who would certainly bring down the whole group if not told how
and where to ride.

I generally just pass people as expeditiously as I can. I am,
however, often yelled at by cyclists I pass with a sarcastic "on
your left!" even though I've generally given them about 5-10 feet of
clearance. I think that the real objection may be that I just rode
by them without going out of my way to acknowledge their presence
and they feel insulted by this. I'll admit to being a bit baffled
by this oversensitivity, since I don't care if faster riders pass me
without chatting- and as I get older and have stopped racing that
happens with increasing frequency.

I spent about 60 years riding bike before I heard the bike-babble
that seems to come from a common beginners manual: Car-up,
car-back, on-your-left/right, and shaking hand with loose fingers
to one side to indicate that the ride leader is sucking the others
into a pile of glass or other road hazard.

I just don't go on those rides any more. There are a lot of "rules"
about cycling these days. I prefer to ride with 1-3 friends and
just have a nice time on the bike.

What!!! You mean you aren't on a "training ride" and I guess you are
probably in the 'wrong' gear while looking at the scenery go by.

http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/6.1.html

Jobst Brandt

On Dec 21, 11:16*am, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
Tim McNamara considered Sun, 21 Dec 2008
00:35:40 -0600 the perfect time to write:



In article ,
slide wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

I'm a psychologist. *Behavioral patterns, personality traits, etc.
cross the line into disorders when they create significant problems
in people's lives or the lives of others around them- impairing
their ability to maintain relationships, to maintain employment,
etc. *We've all got some tweaks to our personalities that sometimes
cause trouble in our lives; personality disorders go well beyond
those to be persistently problematic across almost all
relationships and social roles. *(I realize that's a touch vague,
and would mention that the existence of personality disorders at
all remains somewhat controversial among clinicians. *Most would
agree on the existence of antisocial personality disorder, paranoid
personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and
narcissistic personality disorder, but the other personality
disorders might be less universally accepted).

In the case of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (not the
same as obsessive compulsive disorder which is an anxiety disorder;
the name for this personality disorder is poorly chosen IMHO),
which that research found to be the most prevalent of the
personality disorders, the characteristics are a personality style
that is rigid, poorly able to adapt to changes, overly focused on
detail to the point that the big picture is lost, perfectionistic
to the point of being unable to finish tasks, etc. *

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx26.htm

These folks are often irritable and excessively demanding of
others. They poorly tolerate not being in control. *Think of "The
Great Santini" as an example. *A little bit of these traits would
be helpful, promoting organization, commitment to work, etc. *Too
much of a good thing becomes a bad thing.

Thanks, Tim. I suppose, as you imply, determining when a trait moves
into being a disorder is quite difficult to determine unless the line
is well behind the person in the sense that the person is clearly
dysfunctional.

That's basically it. *For that reason, BTW, personality disorder
diagnoses tend to be used sparingly. *If it's not an obvious situation,
other diagnoses are usually used preferentially. *In many cases, though,
the presence of a personality disorder is very obvious.

There may also be value and self interest involved. Frex, children
may think their aged parent dysfunctional because, at 80 years old,
he takes up with a 23 year old who knows more than anything how to
spend a lot of money. The old guy may think he's getting his money's
worth while the children think he deranged.

Sure, perspective determines perception to a very great extent. *(Funny
you should mention this, because my primary specialty is geropsychology. *
I've seen such situations. *If the 80 year old is on the ball and knows
what they are doing, then it is their choice IMHO. *When the 80 year old
has advanced dementia, the story may a bit different).

The diagnostic rules also have the somewhat strange effect of meaning
that 2 people, with identical traits, may be diagnosed (and
diagnosable), based purely on whether they have managed to find a
suitable "niche" in life.
This means that since the person who has found a suitable niche is no
longer diagnosable, their experience in coping with their situation is
no longer regarded as useful in assisting others with identical traits
(since you are now comparing people who do not share the same
diagnosis).

It's somewhat similar to saying that a paraplegic is no longer
disabled because he has found a desk job in a single storey building,
and that his experience is therefore not relevant to other
paraplegics.

It really doesn't say much for the professionals that compile the DSM
that their grasp of reality is so poor.

Hallelujah!

The most telling statistic for American psychology is that twice as
many Americans are identifiably psychopathic per 1000 of population
than in, to pick a comparison simply because you live there, the UK.
But the US has many more psychologists per unit of population than
anyone else. One has to wonder what they were all doing all these
decades... Writing pointless protocols to cover their collective slack
ass?

Andre Jute
Embarrassing statistics a specialty

Tim McNamara wrote:


Sure, perspective determines perception to a very great extent. (Funny
you should mention this, because my primary specialty is geropsychology.
I've seen such situations. If the 80 year old is on the ball and knows
what they are doing, then it is their choice IMHO. When the 80 year old
has advanced dementia, the story may a bit different).

Well, I recently had a case which involved something similar. A woman,
at about 50 years old, told a nephew that he was her favorite and that
he'd inherit her enormous fortune. He, at that time about 20 years old,
then devoted his life to pleasing her. He failed to develop a career or
even the means to make a good living knowing it was for naught being as
he'd soon inherit a huge fortune making his efforts at career moot.

However, the woman ended up living a lot longer than any anticipated.
When she was about 85, she announced that she'd changed her Will to
divide her estate evenly among her relatives which grossly diluted the
favored nephew's share. He sued claiming incompetence but the woman,
aside from being rather nasty, had no mental issues. That's when I got
the case as then the nephew was suing everybody claiming undue influence.

The odd thing about it is that the case settled but I never understood
why the woman changed her Will to trigger the fight. Was she really
dysfunctional on and off or was it something else? I guess I'll never
know and the question will just be left hanging.