Face it: Drivers don't like you!

In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes:
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.

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.

Yeah, life is pretty scary in a society born and bred in violence,
and populated by natural born killers.

Maybe I should give up my bike and stay out of drivers' ways,
just like you want.

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.

Whatever.


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

In article ,
Opus writes:

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

There's a lot of stuff to happen, and there's a lot of people for
stuff to happen to. But there's also a lot of space/time for stuff
to happen to people ~in~, so it's rarified.

Staying alive and intact means being heads-up.
But there's no guarantee being heads-up will save us.
There's no guarantee for almost anything.

I don't mean to be contentious with you. I "get" that you've
been in the past hassled by drivers, and I empathise with you
for that rather than taking you to task. I've been hassled
by some drivers, too. But most of 'em haven't run me over yet.


cheers,
Tom


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

On 23 July, 15:11, ComandanteBanana wrote:
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.

Yes, in order to avoid vulnerable victim blame you have to be seen to
comply fully with all safety advice and laws when struck by a
motorised vehicle, regardless of the driver's loss of control. Even
then your road behaviour at the time is likely to be questioned and
possibly brought into disrepute by the police motorists who question
you. Read carefully any statement the police prepare for you and avoid
signing it if there is anything at all you disagree with, difficult
though if you are in hospital suffering from injuries at the time of
your questioning and you are not fully attentive.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Jul 25, 12:23*pm, Opus wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know, I know. But the Natural Born Killers are out there... and they
have a License to Kill.

On Jul 26, 1:07*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * ComandanteBanana writes:





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.
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.

Yeah, life is pretty scary in a society born and bred in violence,
and populated by natural born killers.

Maybe I should give up my bike and stay out of drivers' ways,
just like you want.

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.

Whatever.

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

- Show quoted text -

Maybe I want to control and regulate those Natural Born Killers. Maybe
I think it's a good idea to put CAMERAS around, so they can be on
camera but not on TV precisely.

You just want to keep IGNORING the issues that keep the cyclists away,
like 99.6% of them.

On Jul 26, 1:35*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Opus writes:

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

There's a lot of stuff to happen, and there's a lot of people for
stuff to happen to. *But there's also a lot of space/time for stuff
to happen to people ~in~, so it's rarified.

Staying alive and intact means being heads-up.
But there's no guarantee being heads-up will save us.
There's no guarantee for almost anything.

I don't mean to be contentious with you. *I "get" that you've
been in the past hassled by drivers, and I empathise with you
for that rather than taking you to task. *I've been hassled
by some drivers, too. *But most of 'em haven't run me over yet.

cheers,
* * * * Tom

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

We all know you are alive, Tom. Stupidity is hard to eradicate.

In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes:

Stupidity is hard to eradicate.

I take it that means you intend to continue
to inflict us with your stupidity.

I'm somehow not surprised.


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

In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes:

Maybe I want to control and regulate those Natural Born Killers. Maybe
I think it's a good idea to put CAMERAS around, so they can be on
camera but not on TV precisely.

Oh gwaud, he's a wannabe Idi Amin!

Shove your delusions of grandeur up your ass.
And retain them there.

You and your bathtub revolution stink.

Quit trying to scare cyclists off the streets
and roads.


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

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes:

Stupidity is hard to eradicate.

I take it that means you intend to continue
to inflict us with your stupidity.

I'm somehow not surprised.


I think the drivers (and everyone else) took a dislike to
ComandanteBanana after reading his Usenet trolls.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
The right to arm bears does not make armed bears right.- Anon.

On Jul 26, 10:09*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * ComandanteBanana writes:

Stupidity is hard to eradicate.

I take it that means you intend to continue
to inflict us with your stupidity.

I'm somehow not surprised.

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

No, I meant stupid riders usually get hurt before those driving SUVs.

But you are the exception to the rule.