Face it: Drivers don't like you!

Not that you can do much about it other than building BIKE FACILITIES
(bike lanes and bike paths), or letting cyclists TAKE THE LANE, but at
least you know the bone of contention is COMPETITION.

This interview has A LOT of valuable information about many other
issues (like legislation in different states or how we cyclists are
divided), so UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE...

One thing I'd like to remind the drivers is, "Yes, we can rescue you
from your cages!"

Nolo: One thing that may be a factor in some accidents is what you
refer to as a prevailing prejudice against cyclists by motorists. So,
could you talk a little bit about that?

Bob Mionske: Sure. I mean, I don’t think anybody that rides a bike
extensively will be surprised to learn that some people that drive
vehicles don’t like them -- don’t want to see them in the road -- and
I think that prejudice against cyclists stems from the competition for
the roadway. You have more people riding, and the motorists have to
adapt the way they drive. Even though bikes were here first, in the
eyes of the motorists in this motor crazy country, more and more bikes
on the road represents a threat for the space; it makes them uneasy,
angry, they have to drive slower, they have to look out for them --
this is really sociology.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/Obje...4/199/255/ART/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 3 C's of successful monkeys... Communicate, Coordinate, Cooperate.

http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes:
Not that you can do much about it other than building BIKE FACILITIES
(bike lanes and bike paths), or letting cyclists TAKE THE LANE, but at
least you know the bone of contention is COMPETITION.

Skilled riders don't compete with drivers, they cooperate with the
reasonable, rational & sociable majority of them, while letting
the impatient ones get ahead, and getting ahead of (or otherwise
avoiding) the indecisive, screwy ones who don't know where they
want to go.

This interview has A LOT of valuable information about many other
issues (like legislation in different states or how we cyclists are
divided), so UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE...

Divided we ~what~? Riders have been divided on various issues
over decades, and yet people still ride.

One thing I'd like to remind the drivers is, "Yes, we can rescue you
from your cages!"

What stupid glibness.

Nolo: One thing that may be a factor in some accidents is what you
refer to as a prevailing prejudice against cyclists by motorists. So,
could you talk a little bit about that?

Bob Mionske:

vehicles don=92t like them -- don=92t want to see them in the road -- and
I think that prejudice against cyclists stems from the competition for
the roadway. You have more people riding, and the motorists have to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
adapt the way they drive.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah. Pretty good, eh?

As for car/bike "accidents" (some of us prefer to call them
"collisions,") the majority of them happen in intersections,
and arise from either or both of two factors: unawareness
of opposing traffic, or misjudgment of relative speeds.

My cerebral cortex is better than yours. It ~really~ is.
Think about it, if you can. And I'm not laying any claim
to fame. A lot of people's cerebral corteces are better
than yours. I'm just one of 'em.

I guess it's fairly easy to blast out into opposing traffic,
get hit by a car, and then petulantly whine: "That driver
hit me because he hates me, because I'm so f'ing smart!"

But go ahead and enjoy your bathtub revolution. In private.


Stupido.


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

On Jul 22, 1:42*pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:
Not that you can do much about it other than building BIKE FACILITIES
(bike lanes and bike paths), or letting cyclists TAKE THE LANE, but at
least you know the bone of contention is COMPETITION.

This interview has A LOT of valuable information about many other
issues (like legislation in different states or how we cyclists are
divided), so UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE...

One thing I'd like to remind the drivers is, "Yes, we can rescue you
from your cages!"

Nolo: One thing that may be a factor in some accidents is what you
refer to as a prevailing prejudice against cyclists by motorists. So,
could you talk a little bit about that?

Bob Mionske: Sure. I mean, I don’t think anybody that rides a bike
extensively will be surprised to learn that some people that drive
vehicles don’t like them -- don’t want to see them in the road -- and
I think that prejudice against cyclists stems from the competition for
the roadway. You have more people riding, and the motorists have to
adapt the way they drive. Even though bikes were here first, in the
eyes of the motorists in this motor crazy country, more and more bikes
on the road represents a threat for the space; it makes them uneasy,
angry, they have to drive slower, they have to look out for them --
this is really sociology.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/Obje...44B1-9234C823C...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 3 C's of successful monkeys... Communicate, Coordinate, Cooperate.

*http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

This discussion needs to include reference to use of cell phones by
motorists. It was very recently disclosed that NHTSA research showed
clear distractions and impairment akin to driving under the influence
of alcohol to motorists using the devices, and I venture there are any
number of motorists hitting bicyclists because of such wrong-doing.
News reports also disclosed that NHTSA hid the research because they
were afraid of angering members of Congress.

Whatever political influence anyone has should be directed to an
outright ban on use of the phones -- not just hands-free -- while
driving a motor vehicle.

BTW, the organized motorcycle lobby agrees. Any use of cell phones
while driving a motor vehicle should be banned.

Dave

On Jul 23, 10:05*am, Dave Clark wrote:
On Jul 22, 1:42*pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:





Not that you can do much about it other than building BIKE FACILITIES
(bike lanes and bike paths), or letting cyclists TAKE THE LANE, but at
least you know the bone of contention is COMPETITION.

This interview has A LOT of valuable information about many other
issues (like legislation in different states or how we cyclists are
divided), so UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE...

One thing I'd like to remind the drivers is, "Yes, we can rescue you
from your cages!"

Nolo: One thing that may be a factor in some accidents is what you
refer to as a prevailing prejudice against cyclists by motorists. So,
could you talk a little bit about that?

Bob Mionske: Sure. I mean, I don’t think anybody that rides a bike
extensively will be surprised to learn that some people that drive
vehicles don’t like them -- don’t want to see them in the road -- and
I think that prejudice against cyclists stems from the competition for
the roadway. You have more people riding, and the motorists have to
adapt the way they drive. Even though bikes were here first, in the
eyes of the motorists in this motor crazy country, more and more bikes
on the road represents a threat for the space; it makes them uneasy,
angry, they have to drive slower, they have to look out for them --
this is really sociology.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/Obje...44B1-9234C823C...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
The 3 C's of successful monkeys... Communicate, Coordinate, Cooperate.

*http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

This discussion needs to include reference to use of cell phones by
motorists. *It was very recently disclosed that NHTSA research showed
clear distractions and impairment akin to driving under the influence
of alcohol to motorists using the devices, and I venture there are any
number of motorists hitting bicyclists because of such wrong-doing.
News reports also disclosed that NHTSA hid the research because they
were afraid of angering *members of Congress.

Whatever political influence anyone has should be directed to an
outright ban on use of the phones -- not just hands-free -- while
driving a motor vehicle.

BTW, the organized motorcycle lobby agrees. *Any use of cell phones
while driving a motor vehicle should be banned.

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good, it makes so much sense that I don't know how they manage to
avoid a solution...

Anyway, the link above says (try reading it) that a lawyer is able to
defend you on the grounds of you wearing a bright vest. So my word of
advice, in light of so many stupid drivers on the phone, etc, is to
make yourself visible by vest, flag, or any other mean.

On Jul 22, 9:28*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * ComandanteBanana writes:

Not that you can do much about it other than building BIKE FACILITIES
(bike lanes and bike paths), or letting cyclists TAKE THE LANE, but at
least you know the bone of contention is COMPETITION.

Skilled riders don't compete with drivers, they cooperate with the
reasonable, rational & sociable majority of them, while letting
the impatient ones get ahead, and getting ahead of (or otherwise
avoiding) the indecisive, screwy ones who don't know where they
want to go.

You are assuming skilled riders, but not skilled DRIVERS, and that's
where the equation falls apart.

This interview has A LOT of valuable information about many other
issues (like legislation in different states or how we cyclists are
divided), so UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE...

Divided we ~what~? *Riders have been divided on various issues
over decades, and yet people still ride.

The main divide is: ELITE VS. NON ELITE, where the elite ones don't
care about those lesser cyclists who prefer and need bike facilities.


One thing I'd like to remind the drivers is, "Yes, we can rescue you
from your cages!"

What stupid glibness.

They are in a CAGE of sorts, aren't they? And they call them CAGERS
for something. Also notice how they are prisoners of debts, insurance
and gas.


Nolo: One thing that may be a factor in some accidents is what you
refer to as a prevailing prejudice against cyclists by motorists. So,
could you talk a little bit about that?

Bob Mionske:
vehicles don=92t like them -- don=92t want to see them in the road -- and
I think that prejudice against cyclists stems from the competition for
the roadway. You have more people riding, and the motorists have to

* * * * * * * *^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ adapt the way they drive.

* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah. *Pretty good, eh?

As for car/bike "accidents" (some of us prefer to call them
"collisions,") the majority of them happen in intersections,
and arise from either or both of two factors: unawareness
of opposing traffic, or misjudgment of relative speeds.

And sometimes they just IGNORE you, or are simply chatting on the
phone...


My cerebral cortex is better than yours. *It ~really~ is.
Think about it, if you can. *And I'm not laying any claim
to fame. *A lot of people's cerebral corteces are better
than yours. *I'm just one of 'em.

Even a monkey can ride a bike and get by for a while. Soldiers can and
do survive wars, which don't make them any smarter than the rest of
the population. But in YOUR mind, this is being "SMART."

Perhaps the smart ones never go to war!


I guess it's fairly easy to blast out into opposing traffic,
get hit by a car, and then petulantly whine: "That driver
hit me because he hates me, because I'm so f'ing smart!"

But go ahead and enjoy your bathtub revolution. *In private.

Stupido.

That's a sweeping comment. If I'm STUPIDO, I'll admit it. I'm not like
you. I have made mistake running a light, etc. And many drivers
actually care for us. But you MUST admit to this possibility...

"Assume 1% is REALLY aggressive and that you are overtaken by just 100
cars... How many accidents can you get into? One, right? And how many
you need to be killed? One, right?

I rest my case."

On Jul 23, 1:28 am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes:

Not that you can do much about it other than building BIKE FACILITIES
(bike lanes and bike paths), or letting cyclists TAKE THE LANE, but at
least you know the bone of contention is COMPETITION.

Skilled riders don't compete with drivers, they cooperate with the
reasonable, rational & sociable majority of them, while letting
the impatient ones get ahead, and getting ahead of (or otherwise
avoiding) the indecisive, screwy ones who don't know where they
want to go.
snip

Until I was assaulted with a motor vehicle because I was riding my
bicycle on the street I would have agreed with you, but there are
drivers (thankfully a very small percentage) that think any bike on
the road is wasted space, that anything (including drivers in other
cars) that slows them down or even makes them change lanes is
"impeding traffic" (they are the only "traffic" that counts). Let's
say that that number is .01%, or 1 in 10,000. That may be high or it
may be low, but until they start giving psych exams to drivers we just
have to guess as to how high the number of sociopaths and psychotics
with licenses is. I ride in a densely auto populated urban area, the D/
FW Metroplex, and I estimate that there are times when I get passed as
much as 2,000 times an hour. That's another SWAG, as I'm too busy
trying not to be killed by the people on the bottom end of the bell
curve in driving skills to count everyone else. So using those
assumptions you would expect to face a psycho- or sociopath about once
in 5 hours of cycling in heavy traffic. The good part is that cycling
in heavy traffic actually prevents the nutjobs from hitting you, the
bad part is every once in a while they catch you on a deserted road,
like what happened to me in 2001.

As I alluded to in the previous paragraph, the most common threats are
drivers who can't drive, in spite of having a license. Even without
cell phones or in-car entertainment systems they pay little attention
to the road or much else outside the car. Usually these drivers won't
ram you from behind so much as mis-judge passing clearances and clip
you with a mirror or door handle. The psychos and sociopaths want to
kill you for existing in their world, but these guys just don't care
unless they hit you, and then they're isoo sorry/i that you are
injured... Now if we could just Do Something about those 2 groups we
could reduce the cyclist injury and death toll by 2/3. Unfortunately
by removing the dense drivers from the drivers group you move them to
the cyclist group where they stink up our statistics by getting run
over because they don't pay any more attention on a bike than they did
in a car, but at least this is a self-limiting phenomenon, even more
so if they get killed before they can breed. Being dense and
inattentive in a car raises your insurance rates, the same behavior on
a bicycle takes you out of the gene pool.

In article ,
Opus writes:
On Jul 23, 1:28 am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes:

Not that you can do much about it other than building BIKE FACILITIES
(bike lanes and bike paths), or letting cyclists TAKE THE LANE, but at
least you know the bone of contention is COMPETITION.

Skilled riders don't compete with drivers, they cooperate with the
reasonable, rational & sociable majority of them, while letting
the impatient ones get ahead, and getting ahead of (or otherwise
avoiding) the indecisive, screwy ones who don't know where they
want to go.
snip

Until I was assaulted with a motor vehicle because I was riding my
bicycle on the street I would have agreed with you, but there are
drivers (thankfully a very small percentage) that think any bike on
the road is wasted space, that anything (including drivers in other
cars) that slows them down or even makes them change lanes is
"impeding traffic" (they are the only "traffic" that counts).

I'm inclined to /let/ the impatient ones get ahead of me.
That's right where I want 'em -- where I can see what
they're up to. That's not to say I let them run me off
the pavement, neither is it to say I'm going to make them
wait behind me until I find a nice, big, roomy turnoff.
If the impatient driver wants to go faster, that speeds
up his overtaking, so the rider doesn't need as much space
in which to reasonably safely heave-to, let the driver get
past, and then the rider can resume his original line.
It seems to me a lot of road/street users fixate on space
while disregarding the time, or rather: ~timing~ element.

There's a certain dynamic I've noticed, between drivers
and riders:

a) riding consistently close to the nearest curb invites
brush passes

b) making a political, "I'm a road user too" statement by
consistently adhering to a line and thereby detending
upcoming drivers until they get a chance to wholly change
lanes to pass, just ****es 'em off something fierce

c) there are usually many "little," fleeting opportunities
where the rider can move a little to the right and
slow down a taste, and the impatient upcoming driver can
move a little to the left -- maybe straddle a dividing line
a little, but no big deal. Driver gets past, rider doesn't
get the Evil Eye, and everybody's on their merry ways.

I've actually gotten a lot of nice "thank you" honks, waves,
peace signs and Dancing With The Devil salutes by so doing.
Using those fleeting little opportunities takes a little
discernment of space, speed and time; in other words it's a
skill, but it's not rocket surgery. I often intuit those
drivers are astounded that a bike rider was for once actually
considerate toward them.

Anyways, it seems to me that so many people want to battle
for space, because if they have space, they don't have to
make the effort of dealing with timing. It's a lazy out
on the parts of both drivers and riders.

Both the Take The Lane and bike lane approaches are all
about space. Nothing at all about time or timing.

Let's
say that that number is .01%, or 1 in 10,000. That may be high or it
may be low, but until they start giving psych exams to drivers we just
have to guess as to how high the number of sociopaths and psychotics
with licenses is. I ride in a densely auto populated urban area, the D/
FW Metroplex, and I estimate that there are times when I get passed as
much as 2,000 times an hour.

That seems like a fairly steep number. Being passed by a car every
second works out to 3600 car-passes/hour, disregarding traffic light
stops. That would be like a 60 MPH stretch of freeway.
Being passed 2000 times/hour is roughly between 2/3rds and
3/4ths of that, or an ambient traffic flow of between 40 and
50 MPH. That hardly sounds like a densely auto populated
urban area, unless it's inflicted with cross-town freeways,
or doesn't have traffic lights. Dallas/Ft. Worth, eh? Do
you get to ride on the cross-town freeways?


That's another SWAG, as I'm too busy
trying not to be killed by the people on the bottom end of the bell
curve in driving skills to count everyone else. So using those
assumptions you would expect to face a psycho- or sociopath about once
in 5 hours of cycling in heavy traffic.

There are also drunk drivers, and drivers who've dropped
a cigarette under the bench seat, and have to reach down
and fish around to find it, while taking their eyes off
the road. And women wearing shoes with high heels that
get snagged in the gas pedal so they accidentally shoot
their cars into store fronts or bus stops populated by
elderly people with canes and walkers.

The good part is that cycling
in heavy traffic actually prevents the nutjobs from hitting you, the
bad part is every once in a while they catch you on a deserted road,
like what happened to me in 2001.

As I alluded to in the previous paragraph, the most common threats are
drivers who can't drive, in spite of having a license.

The most common threat in city traffic is me-firstism.
No matter what vehicle. The second most common threat
is a long stretch of dry weather followed by rain or snow.

Jason from Friday the XIII, Hannibal Lecter and famous
wealthy blonde chixs who don't really do anything to
deserve their celebrity are way down the list.


cheers,
Tom

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

On Jul 25, 12:00*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Opus writes:





On Jul 23, 1:28 am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * ComandanteBanana writes:

Not that you can do much about it other than building BIKE FACILITIES
(bike lanes and bike paths), or letting cyclists TAKE THE LANE, but at
least you know the bone of contention is COMPETITION.

Skilled riders don't compete with drivers, they cooperate with the
reasonable, rational & sociable majority of them, while letting
the impatient ones get ahead, and getting ahead of (or otherwise
avoiding) the indecisive, screwy ones who don't know where they
want to go.
snip

Until I was assaulted with a motor vehicle because I was riding my
bicycle on the street I would have agreed with you, but there are
drivers (thankfully a very small percentage) that think any bike on
the road is wasted space, that anything (including drivers in other
cars) that slows them down or even makes them change lanes is
"impeding traffic" (they are the only "traffic" that counts).

I'm inclined to /let/ the impatient ones get ahead of me.
That's right where I want 'em -- where I can see what
they're up to. *That's not to say I let them run me off
the pavement, neither is it to say I'm going to make them
wait behind me until I find a nice, big, roomy turnoff.
If the impatient driver wants to go faster, that speeds
up his overtaking, so the rider doesn't need as much space
in which to reasonably safely heave-to, let the driver get
past, and then the rider can resume his original line.
It seems to me a lot of road/street users fixate on space
while disregarding the time, or rather: ~timing~ element.

There's a certain dynamic I've noticed, between drivers
and riders:

a) riding consistently close to the nearest curb invites
* *brush passes

b) making a political, "I'm a road user too" statement by
* *consistently adhering to a line and thereby detending
* *upcoming drivers until they get a chance to wholly change
* *lanes to pass, just ****es 'em off something fierce

c) there are usually many "little," fleeting opportunities
* *where the rider can move a little to the right and
* *slow down a taste, and the impatient upcoming driver can
* *move a little to the left -- maybe straddle a dividing line
* *a little, but no big deal. *Driver gets past, rider doesn't
* *get the Evil Eye, and everybody's on their merry ways.

I've actually gotten a lot of nice "thank you" honks, waves,
peace signs and Dancing With The Devil salutes by so doing.
Using those fleeting little opportunities takes a little
discernment of space, speed and time; in other words it's a
skill, but it's not rocket surgery. *I often intuit those
drivers are astounded that a bike rider was for once actually
considerate toward them.

Anyways, it seems to me that so many people want to battle
for space, because if they have space, they don't have to
make the effort of dealing with timing. *It's a lazy out
on the parts of both drivers and riders.

Both the Take The Lane and bike lane approaches are all
about space. *Nothing at all about time or timing.

Let's
say that that number is .01%, or 1 in 10,000. That may be high or it
may be low, but until they start giving psych exams to drivers we just
have to guess as to how high the number of sociopaths and psychotics
with licenses is. I ride in a densely auto populated urban area, the D/
FW Metroplex, and I estimate that there are times when I get passed as
much as 2,000 times an hour.

That seems like a fairly steep number. *Being passed by a car every
second works out to 3600 car-passes/hour, disregarding traffic light
stops. *That would be like a 60 MPH stretch of freeway.
Being passed 2000 times/hour is roughly between 2/3rds and
3/4ths of that, or an ambient traffic flow of between 40 and
50 MPH. *That hardly sounds like a densely auto populated
urban area, unless it's inflicted with cross-town freeways,
or doesn't have traffic lights. *Dallas/Ft. Worth, eh? *Do
you get to ride on the cross-town freeways?

That's another SWAG, as I'm too busy
trying not to be killed by the people on the bottom end of the bell
curve in driving skills to count everyone else. So using those
assumptions you would expect to face a psycho- or sociopath about once
in 5 hours of cycling in heavy traffic.

There are also drunk drivers, and drivers who've dropped
a cigarette under the bench seat, and have to reach down
and fish around to find it, while taking their eyes off
the road. *And women wearing shoes with high heels that
get snagged in the gas pedal so they accidentally shoot
their cars into store fronts or bus stops populated by
elderly people with canes and walkers.

The good part is that cycling
in heavy traffic actually prevents the nutjobs from hitting you, the
bad part is every once in a while they catch you on a deserted road,
like what happened to me in 2001.

As I alluded to in the previous paragraph, the most common threats are
drivers who can't drive, in spite of having a license.

The most common threat in city traffic is me-firstism.
No matter what vehicle. *The second most common threat
is a long stretch of dry weather followed by rain or snow.

Jason from Friday the XIII, Hannibal Lecter and famous
wealthy blonde chixs who don't really do anything to
deserve their celebrity are way down the list.

cheers,
* * * * Tom

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

- Show quoted text -

Those are nice and dainty words, but in a society born and bred in
violence, there are way too many "NATURAL BORN KILLERS" out there.
Remember the scene where they shoot a cyclist for the hell of it?
Yeah, I've found some of those killers out there too, but luckily
escaped with a spit to my face...

(watch scene where they shoot cyclist)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksLmQ...m=PL&index=105

The good thing is you are likely to make it to the Six O'Clock News
(feed the ratings), so you will make it to the screen.

On Jul 25, 4:00 am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
snip
Let's
say that that number is .01%, or 1 in 10,000. That may be high or it
may be low, but until they start giving psych exams to drivers we just
have to guess as to how high the number of sociopaths and psychotics
with licenses is. I ride in a densely auto populated urban area, the D/
FW Metroplex, and I estimate that there are times when I get passed as
much as 2,000 times an hour.

That seems like a fairly steep number. Being passed by a car every
second works out to 3600 car-passes/hour, disregarding traffic light
stops. That would be like a 60 MPH stretch of freeway.
Being passed 2000 times/hour is roughly between 2/3rds and
3/4ths of that, or an ambient traffic flow of between 40 and
50 MPH. That hardly sounds like a densely auto populated
urban area, unless it's inflicted with cross-town freeways,
or doesn't have traffic lights. Dallas/Ft. Worth, eh? Do
you get to ride on the cross-town freeways?

That's the speed they drive on the through roads, my end of the county
doesn't have low speed through roads just speed limits of 40-45 MPH
which means actual speeds of 50 or so. That is what I have to ride on.
There are traffic signals every mile or so, half mile in residential
areas so that people can get out of their houses and on the roads.

That's another SWAG, as I'm too busy
trying not to be killed by the people on the bottom end of the bell
curve in driving skills to count everyone else. So using those
assumptions you would expect to face a psycho- or sociopath about once
in 5 hours of cycling in heavy traffic.

There are also drunk drivers, and drivers who've dropped
a cigarette under the bench seat, and have to reach down
and fish around to find it, while taking their eyes off
the road. And women wearing shoes with high heels that
get snagged in the gas pedal so they accidentally shoot
their cars into store fronts or bus stops populated by
elderly people with canes and walkers.

That would be the "bottom of the bell curve" I mentioned. Those people
can kill you with Stupid, I was referring specifically to the drivers
that will use their cars as weapons.

The good part is that cycling
in heavy traffic actually prevents the nutjobs from hitting you, the
bad part is every once in a while they catch you on a deserted road,
like what happened to me in 2001.

As I alluded to in the previous paragraph, the most common threats are
drivers who can't drive, in spite of having a license.

The most common threat in city traffic is me-firstism.
No matter what vehicle. The second most common threat
is a long stretch of dry weather followed by rain or snow.

I would include me-firstism as a characteristic of people that can't
drive, like the ones that barge around me to be first at a red
light...

Jason from Friday the XIII, Hannibal Lecter and famous
wealthy blonde chixs who don't really do anything to
deserve their celebrity are way down the list.

The discussion was not how prevalent they are but the fact that they
exist and are a threat.

On Jul 25, 3:30 pm, ComandanteBanana
wrote:
On Jul 25, 12:00 am, (Tom Keats) wrote:



In article ,
Opus writes:

On Jul 23, 1:28 am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes:

Not that you can do much about it other than building BIKE FACILITIES
(bike lanes and bike paths), or letting cyclists TAKE THE LANE, but at
least you know the bone of contention is COMPETITION.

Skilled riders don't compete with drivers, they cooperate with the
reasonable, rational & sociable majority of them, while letting
the impatient ones get ahead, and getting ahead of (or otherwise
avoiding) the indecisive, screwy ones who don't know where they
want to go.
snip

Until I was assaulted with a motor vehicle because I was riding my
bicycle on the street I would have agreed with you, but there are
drivers (thankfully a very small percentage) that think any bike on
the road is wasted space, that anything (including drivers in other
cars) that slows them down or even makes them change lanes is
"impeding traffic" (they are the only "traffic" that counts).

I'm inclined to /let/ the impatient ones get ahead of me.
That's right where I want 'em -- where I can see what
they're up to. That's not to say I let them run me off
the pavement, neither is it to say I'm going to make them
wait behind me until I find a nice, big, roomy turnoff.
If the impatient driver wants to go faster, that speeds
up his overtaking, so the rider doesn't need as much space
in which to reasonably safely heave-to, let the driver get
past, and then the rider can resume his original line.
It seems to me a lot of road/street users fixate on space
while disregarding the time, or rather: ~timing~ element.

There's a certain dynamic I've noticed, between drivers
and riders:

a) riding consistently close to the nearest curb invites
brush passes

b) making a political, "I'm a road user too" statement by
consistently adhering to a line and thereby detending
upcoming drivers until they get a chance to wholly change
lanes to pass, just ****es 'em off something fierce

c) there are usually many "little," fleeting opportunities
where the rider can move a little to the right and
slow down a taste, and the impatient upcoming driver can
move a little to the left -- maybe straddle a dividing line
a little, but no big deal. Driver gets past, rider doesn't
get the Evil Eye, and everybody's on their merry ways.

I've actually gotten a lot of nice "thank you" honks, waves,
peace signs and Dancing With The Devil salutes by so doing.
Using those fleeting little opportunities takes a little
discernment of space, speed and time; in other words it's a
skill, but it's not rocket surgery. I often intuit those
drivers are astounded that a bike rider was for once actually
considerate toward them.

Anyways, it seems to me that so many people want to battle
for space, because if they have space, they don't have to
make the effort of dealing with timing. It's a lazy out
on the parts of both drivers and riders.

Both the Take The Lane and bike lane approaches are all
about space. Nothing at all about time or timing.

Let's
say that that number is .01%, or 1 in 10,000. That may be high or it
may be low, but until they start giving psych exams to drivers we just
have to guess as to how high the number of sociopaths and psychotics
with licenses is. I ride in a densely auto populated urban area, the D/
FW Metroplex, and I estimate that there are times when I get passed as
much as 2,000 times an hour.

That seems like a fairly steep number. Being passed by a car every
second works out to 3600 car-passes/hour, disregarding traffic light
stops. That would be like a 60 MPH stretch of freeway.
Being passed 2000 times/hour is roughly between 2/3rds and
3/4ths of that, or an ambient traffic flow of between 40 and
50 MPH. That hardly sounds like a densely auto populated
urban area, unless it's inflicted with cross-town freeways,
or doesn't have traffic lights. Dallas/Ft. Worth, eh? Do
you get to ride on the cross-town freeways?

That's another SWAG, as I'm too busy
trying not to be killed by the people on the bottom end of the bell
curve in driving skills to count everyone else. So using those
assumptions you would expect to face a psycho- or sociopath about once
in 5 hours of cycling in heavy traffic.

There are also drunk drivers, and drivers who've dropped
a cigarette under the bench seat, and have to reach down
and fish around to find it, while taking their eyes off
the road. And women wearing shoes with high heels that
get snagged in the gas pedal so they accidentally shoot
their cars into store fronts or bus stops populated by
elderly people with canes and walkers.

The good part is that cycling
in heavy traffic actually prevents the nutjobs from hitting you, the
bad part is every once in a while they catch you on a deserted road,
like what happened to me in 2001.

As I alluded to in the previous paragraph, the most common threats are
drivers who can't drive, in spite of having a license.

The most common threat in city traffic is me-firstism.
No matter what vehicle. The second most common threat
is a long stretch of dry weather followed by rain or snow.

Jason from Friday the XIII, Hannibal Lecter and famous
wealthy blonde chixs who don't really do anything to
deserve their celebrity are way down the list.

cheers,
Tom

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

- Show quoted text -

Those are nice and dainty words, but in a society born and bred in
violence, there are way too many "NATURAL BORN KILLERS" out there.
Remember the scene where they shoot a cyclist for the hell of it?
Yeah, I've found some of those killers out there too, but luckily
escaped with a spit to my face...

(watch scene where they shoot cyclist)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksLmQ...List&p=2565934...

The good thing is you are likely to make it to the Six O'Clock News
(feed the ratings), so you will make it to the screen.

I know that makes for good cinema, but not very good Real Life.
Bullets are about 9% fatal, but a car hitting a cyclist or pedestrian
at 40 MPH is 85% fatal and 15% incapacitating injury, and above 60 MPH
the survival rate gets into the fractional %. If you want to kill
someone don't shoot them run them down with a car.