Quit your motorcycle and pedal a bicycle!

[donquijote1954]

"the motorcyclist's No. 1 nemesis remains the inattentive driver. So
listen up: Your job as the driver is to drive. Period. Your attention
is focused on what's happening outside, not inside. Period."

I'm assuming that you want to save the buck, and that perhaps you care
about the environment, if not that you plain hate "cages," and, most
importantly, that you want to avoid a senseless accident like this.
Sure, you would say, "Why not ban the damned phones!?" But you know
deep down it won't happen. Too much money into it, you know. So in a
bicycle you could have let yourself go and hit the stupid woman (maybe
a MADD member?) square on the bumper. At least I've made the switch.
You can even get a chopper bicycle!

Isn't this cute?

http://www.phatcycles.com/soon.htm

(I meant the girl)


Hang Up and Drive

I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
ear).

Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I
never touched her. I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging
with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket)
and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up
pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than
the bike itself is probably worth.

As I looked up, with murder in my heart, off she went, oblivious to
what had just happened behind her. I hope that phone call was her
boyfriend, dumping her.

Even before the accident, my motorcycle was no gleaming machine -- no
snarling, customized Harley with the chrome pipes polished to within an
inch of its owner's life. It's an '86 Honda Shadow. At 500cc, it's
nimble enough for city riding while packing enough power for the road,
as long as the road isn't too long. The seat's kinda ripped up, there's
some rust and it's got its share of dings and dents. But it runs OK,
costs about $4 at the gas pump and, best of all, you can park it pretty
much where you like.

It's also a freakin' death trap.

The most hard-core biker -- even the biggest fat guy straddling the
baddest hog -- knows that riding a motorcycle is inherently dangerous.
There's no such thing as a "minor" motorcycle accident, aside from
maybe dropping the bike on your foot. We know this, but we accept the
risk of riding.

Why? Well, some of us are probably just stupid. There's the thrill
factor, of course, and it is fun. It's also relatively cheap, you can
maneuver through heavy traffic and you always look cooler than even the
coolest dude in his Euro sports car. Because you are cool, and he's
just a loser who dropped 60 grand on a penis extender.

Why is it that only a handful of states have made it illegal to talk on
the phone while driving? Driving is not something you do as an
afterthought, OK? You're hurtling down the road behind the wheel of a
3,000-pound vehicle (more like 7,000 pounds in that idiotic destroyer
of worlds, the Hummer) and it doesn't take a physicist to figure out
that if you hit a human being -- astride a motorcycle, riding a bicycle
or on foot -- you're going to do some damage.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an IT guy or a professional
poker player to understand that anything you do -- like talking on the
phone -- that distracts you from the business of driving increases the
chances of causing a serious accident.

So do everybody a favor and turn off your cell phone while you drive.
(It's OK. Your important life can wait while you zip over to the mall.)
If you have to make a call this very minute, pull over. This ain't
exactly brain surgery, but it might help prevent some of it, you know?

Then there are the vehicles themselves. Hummers aside, have you seen
the size of some these, these ... well, when Paw drove to town we used
to call them pickup trucks. Now? Pickup trucks on steroids, maybe. (A
truck that seats six adults: What genius dreamed that one up?)

They're huge. They ride high. Too high. There's a hood the size of
Rhode Island out in front of you, blotting out the sun. It makes it
even harder to see what's out there. If it was easy to miss a biker
when you were driving your Volvo station wagon, well, try checking your
field of vision in one of these mesomorphic babies. Of course, you're
probably so busy cranking up that Slayer CD that you'd miss Sonoma
Sammy at full throttle on his Fatboy. RIP, Sammy.

Car manufacturers are also tarting up their vehicles with all sorts of
things that, when used like most humans tend to use them, distract you
from watching the road. GPS (What? You can't pull over and read a
map?), high-end sound systems requiring your full attention to operate
and -- what in God's name were they thinking? -- in-dash video
monitors: These have no place in a motor vehicle. Cars exist to convey
you from one place to another. They are not concert halls or TV
babysitters for cranky children. (Teach the kid to read. Better yet,
teach him to love to read, then give him a book, fer crissake.)

What about the motorcycles themselves? They're bigger, faster and more
dangerous than ever. Why would anyone want to ride a motorcycle capable
of doing 150 mph? So they can scrape you off the road with a spatula
instead of dumping you in a body bag?

But the motorcyclist's No. 1 nemesis remains the inattentive driver. So
listen up: Your job as the driver is to drive. Period. Your attention
is focused on what's happening outside, not inside. Period.

(many replies at this link)

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,68769-0.html

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

BIKE FOR PEACE
http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

[Dt Lemons 1900]

"donquijote1954" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "the motorcyclist's No. 1 nemesis remains the inattentive driver. So
> listen up: Your job as the driver is to drive. Period. Your attention
> is focused on what's happening outside, not inside. Period."
>
> I'm assuming that you want to save the buck, and that perhaps you care
> about the environment, if not that you plain hate "cages," and, most
> importantly, that you want to avoid a senseless accident like this.
> Sure, you would say, "Why not ban the damned phones!?" But you know
> deep down it won't happen. Too much money into it, you know. So in a
> bicycle you could have let yourself go and hit the stupid woman (maybe
> a MADD member?) square on the bumper. At least I've made the switch.
> You can even get a chopper bicycle!
>
> Isn't this cute?
>
> http://www.phatcycles.com/soon.htm
>
> (I meant the girl)
>
>
> Hang Up and Drive
>
> I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
> the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
> phone to her ear, but she also had the green light


Maybe you should pay attention to the road instead of the driver in the car
and if they have a phone to their ear or not.

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> wrote:

>I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
>the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
>phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
>traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
>words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
>for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
>ear).
>
>Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
>been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
>back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I
>never touched her. I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging
>with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket)
>and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up
>pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than
>the bike itself is probably worth.

So, you were following too close, not paying attention, and
assuming cage drivers would do what you WISH they would do.

What, you want ****ing sympathy for this ????

Not.

>As I looked up, with murder in my heart, off she went, oblivious to
>what had just happened behind her. I hope that phone call was her
>boyfriend, dumping her.

Not as hurtful as you, dumping your bike :-)

>
>Even before the accident, my motorcycle was no gleaming machine -- no
>snarling, customized Harley with the chrome pipes polished to within an
>inch of its owner's life. It's an '86 Honda Shadow. At 500cc, it's
>nimble enough for city riding while packing enough power for the road,
>as long as the road isn't too long. The seat's kinda ripped up, there's
>some rust and it's got its share of dings and dents. But it runs OK,
>costs about $4 at the gas pump and, best of all, you can park it pretty
>much where you like.
>
>It's also a freakin' death trap.

With you on it, apparently so.

( snip ****ing blah blah blah )

STFU.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

[Rayvan]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> "the motorcyclist's No. 1 nemesis remains the inattentive driver. So
> listen up: Your job as the driver is to drive. Period. Your attention
> is focused on what's happening outside, not inside. Period."
>
> I'm assuming that you want to save the buck, and that perhaps you care
> about the environment, if not that you plain hate "cages," and, most
> importantly, that you want to avoid a senseless accident like this.
> Sure, you would say, "Why not ban the damned phones!?" But you know
> deep down it won't happen. Too much money into it, you know. So in a
> bicycle you could have let yourself go and hit the stupid woman (maybe
> a MADD member?) square on the bumper. At least I've made the switch.
> You can even get a chopper bicycle!
>
> Isn't this cute?
>
> http://www.phatcycles.com/soon.htm
>
> (I meant the girl)
>
>
> Hang Up and Drive
>
> I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
> the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
> phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
> traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
> words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
> for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
> ear).
>
> Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
> unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
> been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
> back seat.

You had one more choice: Stop the bike properly....
Sounds like some riding lessons are in order....

--Rayvan

Hint: A motorcycle stops faster if you use the brakes properly because
rubber has much better grip than does metal and flesh...

[BrianNZ]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> "the motorcyclist's No. 1 nemesis remains the inattentive driver. So
> listen up: Your job as the driver is to drive. Period. Your attention
> is focused on what's happening outside, not inside. Period."


.....#1 nemesis = inattentive RIDER!......



>
> Hang Up and Drive
>
> I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
> the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
> phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
> traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
> words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
> for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
> ear).
>
> Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
> unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her,


So, you had time to note what sex the driver was and what she was doing
inside her car......but weren't ready to stop if she did something stupid.

You say you were at the speed limit......I don't know about where you
are from, but we have a rule that you must be able to stop in half the
distance visible in your lane and a 'two second' rule for when you are
following a vehicle.

[Dt Lemons 1900]

"BrianNZ" > wrote in message
...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> "the motorcyclist's No. 1 nemesis remains the inattentive driver. So
>> listen up: Your job as the driver is to drive. Period. Your attention
>> is focused on what's happening outside, not inside. Period."
>
>
> ....#1 nemesis = inattentive RIDER!......
>
>
>
>>
>> Hang Up and Drive
>>
>> I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
>> the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
>> phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
>> traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
>> words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
>> for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
>> ear).
>>
>> Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>> unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her,
>
>
> So, you had time to note what sex the driver was and what she was doing
> inside her car......but weren't ready to stop if she did something stupid.
>
> You say you were at the speed limit......I don't know about where you are
> from, but we have a rule that you must be able to stop in half the
> distance visible in your lane and a 'two second' rule for when you are
> following a vehicle.

It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
"cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
rider.

[Tim Kreitz]

Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
> It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
> "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> rider.

That's 'Cager' to you.

Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.

As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.

Tim Kreitz
2003 ZX7R
2000 ZX6R
http://www.timkreitz.com

[BrianNZ]

Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:

>
> It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
> "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> rider.
>
>

The other day, when a guy asked me why I thought there were so many
accidents involving bikes where the driver pulled out in front of
them......I put a lot of the blame on speeding motorcyclists, who will
swear black and blue that they were doing the speed limit when the
accident happened (that way it IS the cars fault....no-one wants a ticket!).

I understand the motorcyclists mentality all too well.....I am
one!.....and Iv'e been on the receiving end of of 'blind' drivers....but
Iv'e also had many near misses where it was entirely my own fault. Stay
alert, stay alive!

To avoid rear ending a vehicle, you must stay at a reasonable distance
behind them.

[Dt Lemons 1900]

"Tim Kreitz" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
>> It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of
>> the
>> "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
>> rider.
>
> That's 'Cager' to you.
>
> Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
> over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
> it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.
>
> As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
> Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
>
> Tim Kreitz
> 2003 ZX7R
> 2000 ZX6R
> http://www.timkreitz.com
>

Life-saving horsepower?????

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> wrote:


>
>I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
>the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
>phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
>traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
>words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
>for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
>ear).
>
>Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
>been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
>back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I
>never touched her. I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging
>with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket)
>and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up
>pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than
>the bike itself is probably worth.
>

All this proves is that you were either tail-gating or innatentive.

[bill]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> What about the motorcycles themselves? They're bigger, faster and more
> dangerous than ever. Why would anyone want to ride a motorcycle capable
> of doing 150 mph? So they can scrape you off the road with a spatula
> instead of dumping you in a body bag?

Don't crash and 150 MPH and faster is an Adrenalin rush and then some.
Just do it where there is no chance of traffic, like way out in the
desert. 170-180+ for 10 miles and losing a CHP made my day back in 1973.
Of course the road was dead straight and slightly downhill for over 11
miles and I had no hope of combing my hair for about a week (no helmet)
but I would do it again. Death wish, I guess.
--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

[BrianNZ]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:


hehehe.....as a convicted drunk driver and habitual speeder, I can only
assume you lost a family member to a speeding drunk driver to call them
'MURDERERS'.......Iv'e never hurt anyone :) LOL.

[Timberwoof]

In article . com>,
"donquijote1954" > wrote:

> I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
> the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
> phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
> traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
> words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
> for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
> ear).
>
> Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
> unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
> been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
> back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle.

Oh, baloney! Did she have working brake lights? Were you following at a
decent distance? (Do you know the two-second rule?) Since it was at a
traffic light, chances are the speed limit was 45 mph or less. Do you
practice hard braking? Obviously not.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Timberwoof]

In article >,
"Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:

> It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
> "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> rider.

Oh, baloney! Some of us bikers know we're more exposed to traffic
stupidity, so we advocate reasonable following distances jut for this
sort of thing.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Timberwoof]

In article >,
"Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:

> "Tim Kreitz" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
> >> It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of
> >> the
> >> "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> >> rider.
> >
> > That's 'Cager' to you.
> >
> > Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
> > over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
> > it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.
> >
> > As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
> > Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> > Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> > and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
> >
> > Tim Kreitz
> > 2003 ZX7R
> > 2000 ZX6R
> > http://www.timkreitz.com
> >
>
> Life-saving horsepower?????

Yes. On a bicycle, the only way to get out of a situation is to stop.
With a motorcycle, there's also the option to get out of there.

Consider if I'm stopped at the end of a queue of cars waiting at a red
light. I monitor my rear-view mirror and see a car heading towards me
faster than it ought to: I sneak over between cars and ahead a few, and
avoid a rear-end collision.

Consider if I'm cruising along the freeway and some inattentive cager
decides to change lanes into me (typically after a merge). Depending on
where I am, I could brake hard and still have to deal with the
possibility of the cager also braking hard or the car behind me not
braking hard ... or accelerate out of there. (Which, since I keep good
following distance, I have room to do.)

So if you're not an experienced motorcycle rider, don't be quick to
dismiss possibilities you haven't thought of.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Outback Jon]

bill wrote:
> Don't crash and 150 MPH and faster is an Adrenalin rush and then some.
> Just do it where there is no chance of traffic, like way out in the
> desert. 170-180+ for 10 miles and losing a CHP made my day back in 1973.
> Of course the road was dead straight and slightly downhill for over 11
> miles and I had no hope of combing my hair for about a week (no helmet)
> but I would do it again. Death wish, I guess.

What bike were you on in 73 that could do 170~180+?

Or should I ask what *drugs* were you on?
--
"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE

AMD Opteron 146 ) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power...
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 48435

2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385
1980 CB750F SuperSport "CoolerKing"

[oasysco]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> "the motorcyclist's No. 1 nemesis remains the inattentive driver. So

I've recently read that the #1 nemesis is the inattentive rider. A
different perspective altogether.

Greg

> listen up: Your job as the driver is to drive. Period. Your attention
> is focused on what's happening outside, not inside. Period."


>
> I'm assuming that you want to save the buck, and that perhaps you care
> about the environment, if not that you plain hate "cages," and, most
> importantly, that you want to avoid a senseless accident like this.
> Sure, you would say, "Why not ban the damned phones!?" But you know
> deep down it won't happen. Too much money into it, you know. So in a
> bicycle you could have let yourself go and hit the stupid woman (maybe
> a MADD member?) square on the bumper. At least I've made the switch.
> You can even get a chopper bicycle!
>
> Isn't this cute?
>
> http://www.phatcycles.com/soon.htm
>
> (I meant the girl)
>
>
> Hang Up and Drive
>
> I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
> the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
> phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
> traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
> words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
> for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
> ear).
>
> Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
> unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
> been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
> back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I
> never touched her. I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging
> with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket)
> and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up
> pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than
> the bike itself is probably worth.
>
> As I looked up, with murder in my heart, off she went, oblivious to
> what had just happened behind her. I hope that phone call was her
> boyfriend, dumping her.
>
> Even before the accident, my motorcycle was no gleaming machine -- no
> snarling, customized Harley with the chrome pipes polished to within an
> inch of its owner's life. It's an '86 Honda Shadow. At 500cc, it's
> nimble enough for city riding while packing enough power for the road,
> as long as the road isn't too long. The seat's kinda ripped up, there's
> some rust and it's got its share of dings and dents. But it runs OK,
> costs about $4 at the gas pump and, best of all, you can park it pretty
> much where you like.
>
> It's also a freakin' death trap.
>
> The most hard-core biker -- even the biggest fat guy straddling the
> baddest hog -- knows that riding a motorcycle is inherently dangerous.
> There's no such thing as a "minor" motorcycle accident, aside from
> maybe dropping the bike on your foot. We know this, but we accept the
> risk of riding.
>
> Why? Well, some of us are probably just stupid. There's the thrill
> factor, of course, and it is fun. It's also relatively cheap, you can
> maneuver through heavy traffic and you always look cooler than even the
> coolest dude in his Euro sports car. Because you are cool, and he's
> just a loser who dropped 60 grand on a penis extender.
>
> Why is it that only a handful of states have made it illegal to talk on
> the phone while driving? Driving is not something you do as an
> afterthought, OK? You're hurtling down the road behind the wheel of a
> 3,000-pound vehicle (more like 7,000 pounds in that idiotic destroyer
> of worlds, the Hummer) and it doesn't take a physicist to figure out
> that if you hit a human being -- astride a motorcycle, riding a bicycle
> or on foot -- you're going to do some damage.
>
> And it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an IT guy or a professional
> poker player to understand that anything you do -- like talking on the
> phone -- that distracts you from the business of driving increases the
> chances of causing a serious accident.
>
> So do everybody a favor and turn off your cell phone while you drive.
> (It's OK. Your important life can wait while you zip over to the mall.)
> If you have to make a call this very minute, pull over. This ain't
> exactly brain surgery, but it might help prevent some of it, you know?
>
> Then there are the vehicles themselves. Hummers aside, have you seen
> the size of some these, these ... well, when Paw drove to town we used
> to call them pickup trucks. Now? Pickup trucks on steroids, maybe. (A
> truck that seats six adults: What genius dreamed that one up?)
>
> They're huge. They ride high. Too high. There's a hood the size of
> Rhode Island out in front of you, blotting out the sun. It makes it
> even harder to see what's out there. If it was easy to miss a biker
> when you were driving your Volvo station wagon, well, try checking your
> field of vision in one of these mesomorphic babies. Of course, you're
> probably so busy cranking up that Slayer CD that you'd miss Sonoma
> Sammy at full throttle on his Fatboy. RIP, Sammy.
>
> Car manufacturers are also tarting up their vehicles with all sorts of
> things that, when used like most humans tend to use them, distract you
> from watching the road. GPS (What? You can't pull over and read a
> map?), high-end sound systems requiring your full attention to operate
> and -- what in God's name were they thinking? -- in-dash video
> monitors: These have no place in a motor vehicle. Cars exist to convey
> you from one place to another. They are not concert halls or TV
> babysitters for cranky children. (Teach the kid to read. Better yet,
> teach him to love to read, then give him a book, fer crissake.)
>
> What about the motorcycles themselves? They're bigger, faster and more
> dangerous than ever. Why would anyone want to ride a motorcycle capable
> of doing 150 mph? So they can scrape you off the road with a spatula
> instead of dumping you in a body bag?
>
> But the motorcyclist's No. 1 nemesis remains the inattentive driver. So
> listen up: Your job as the driver is to drive. Period. Your attention
> is focused on what's happening outside, not inside. Period.
>
> (many replies at this link)
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,68769-0.html
>
> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
> BIKE FOR PEACE
> http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

[necromancer]

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), donquijote1954
trolled in rec.autos.driving:

<snip of alot of crap>

[bill]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
>> the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
>> phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
>> traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
>> words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
>> for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
>> ear).
>>
>> Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>> unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
>> been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
>> back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I
>> never touched her. I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging
>> with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket)
>> and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up
>> pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than
>> the bike itself is probably worth.
>>
>
> All this proves is that you were either tail-gating or innatentive.

In 15 years of almost daily motorcycle riding I never rear ended a car,
nor came remotely close. The same rules as bicycles, keep you eye on ALL
possible hazards.
I had a friend get a broken hip, but even that was not his fault since
some really old (antique) lady turned left in front of him and even
though he tried to lay it down the car clipped the rear of his bike and
tossed him at about 50 MPH.
Whenever you are on the road, Bike, cage, or even walking, you are at
the mercy of idiots.

--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

[jojo]

"donquijote1954" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "the motorcyclist's No. 1 nemesis remains the inattentive driver. So
> listen up: Your job as the driver is to drive. Period. Your attention
> is focused on what's happening outside, not inside. Period."
>
> I'm assuming that you want to save the buck, and that perhaps you care
> about the environment, if not that you plain hate "cages," and, most
> importantly, that you want to avoid a senseless accident like this.
> Sure, you would say, "Why not ban the damned phones!?" But you know
> deep down it won't happen. Too much money into it, you know. So in a
> bicycle you could have let yourself go and hit the stupid woman (maybe
> a MADD member?) square on the bumper. At least I've made the switch.
> You can even get a chopper bicycle!

http://bicycleaustin.info/justice/
not the solution

[[email protected]]

<snip>

Pretty interesting post, and sadly it's pretty accurate as well. THREE
TIMES in the past 18 months, I've been in stop-and-go traffic in my big
Dodge truck - you know, the traffic where you move forward a few feet,
then stop, then a few feet more, then stop, then a few feet more, then
stop... - and the car behind me SLAMMED into my back bumper.

In two cases, it was some bubbleheaded broad. In the other case, it was
some pimple-faced, greasy haired high school boy. In all three cases,
they were jabbering on their cell phones and weren't aware that their
cars were still rolling.

One of the women was in a 3/4 ton truck, pulling a trailer with 4
horses. On top of that, she had a dog in her lap. All while jabbering
on her cell.

I didn't hurt my truck: I learned a long time ago to leave the trailer
hitch sticking out there. It protects my truck, and tears the hell out
of your car if you bump into me.

But the point is... in all three cases, what if I had been on my bike?


For the most part, I won't ride a cycle in town. It's not fun anyway,
since it's just stop and go; you can't just relax and cruise. Plus, of
course, being RIDICULOUSLY dangerous. If I'm just going to sit there in
city traffic, I might as well lean back in my truck and get comfortable
with the A/C and some good music. These people who use their bikes to
commute to work every day in big city rush hour traffic are just
begging for disaster.

There's no point in complaining about how dangerous cage drivers are;
it's like complaining about the sky being blue. Just adapt to it. And
save your cycle for nice cruises down country roads on Sunday
afternoon.

Bill S.

[Tim McNamara]

In article t>,
necromancer > wrote:

> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), donquijote1954
> trolled in rec.autos.driving:
>
> <snip of alot of crap>

Yes, he's a troll. So killfile him and ignore him, as I have done. Use
your newsreader to kill his threads. Stop feeding the troll!

[bill]

Outback Jon wrote:
> bill wrote:
>> Don't crash and 150 MPH and faster is an Adrenalin rush and then some.
>> Just do it where there is no chance of traffic, like way out in the
>> desert. 170-180+ for 10 miles and losing a CHP made my day back in 1973.
>> Of course the road was dead straight and slightly downhill for over 11
>> miles and I had no hope of combing my hair for about a week (no
>> helmet) but I would do it again. Death wish, I guess.
>
> What bike were you on in 73 that could do 170~180+?
>
> Or should I ask what *drugs* were you on?

It was a Kawasaki 750cc 2 stroke that had been modded with Denco
chambers, bigger carbs, and better free flow air filters, plus a one
tooth larger front chain gear for a slight overdrive. The official
factory red line was 7500 which would have been right at 160 MPH but
with the extra tooth 7500 was more like 175 MPH and with the chambers it
pulled harder and harder up to 12,000 RPM. On that day I saw about 8,500
RPM so the actual speed was way up there but since I lost the CHP and
didn't get radared (and jail) I don't know. The bike was insanely fast
and could do a throttle wheelie at 90 MPH or a shift wheelie at the 4-5
shift at 130 MPH. Once in a turn I broke the rear wheel loose at 125 MPH
in 4th gear and that got really interesting, but I learned that it was
the same as dirt track racing. I could just twiddle the throttle
according to how much I wanted to kick it out. Not recommended for a
long riding life, but fun (and scary). Those bikes used to run high 9's
at about 135-140 MPH at the drag strip, so the top end I saw was not a
stretch, but I had to lay down or the wind slowed the bike and tried to
pull me off. The other effect was that I pulled back on the handlebars
so hard that I could turn the bars and not turn the bike since the
weight was off the front wheel. That was the only time I ever took it
that fast and that was up in the high desert (Mojave) where there was
zero traffic and no side streets or even driveways for the 11 mile
stretch I was on. After I stopped in a restaurant and the CHP went
screaming by I got back on the bike and 20 miles later the bigger front
gear let go and chewed up my ignition wiring. The $150 for parts was
still cheaper than the ticket would have been and the dealer that made
the mod paid for it since their mechanic failed to bend over the
retaining ring. Sam Arena Harley Davidson in San Jose. I started out to
buy a Harley and wound up with the rice rocket.

--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> For the most part, I won't ride a cycle in town. It's not fun anyway,
> since it's just stop and go; you can't just relax and cruise. Plus, of
> course, being RIDICULOUSLY dangerous. If I'm just going to sit there in
> city traffic, I might as well lean back in my truck and get comfortable
> with the A/C and some good music. These people who use their bikes to
> commute to work every day in big city rush hour traffic are just
> begging for disaster.

Nah, we're just a hell of a lot more skilled than you. You made the
right choice for you, leave it at that.

Tim

28 years commuting daily in Metro D.C. - 0 accidents

[[email protected]]

Rayvan wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:

> >
> > Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
> > unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
> > been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
> > back seat.
>
> You had one more choice: Stop the bike properly....
> Sounds like some riding lessons are in order....
>

How dare you bring knowledge and logic to a rant. Shame on you. ;)

> --Rayvan
>
> Hint: A motorcycle stops faster if you use the brakes properly because
> rubber has much better grip than does metal and flesh...

Much less painful also. A guy I know "laid it down" because he was
going to hit a car. I asked him why in the world he would do that and
he said he would rather have road rash than hit the car. I commented
that now he had road rash and a broken leg and collarbone because he
still hit the car. I told him he hit the car harder than if he had
rode the brakes in. He told me I was nuts and that everybody knows
sliding the bike was the fastest way to stop but you only did it to
avoid a worse crash. Running through all of Newton's laws of motion
and how brakes are much more efficient than grinding chrome off the
bike to change the kinetic energy to heat meant nothing.

You have to understand that this is the same guy that spent almost two
months in the hospital after "surfing" his bike and falling off. The
bike happily went almost another 50 yards or more without him. He also
only uses the rear brake if he's going over about 25mph because he
doesn't want to flip the bike by over braking the front. Yet he has
successfully lived to be almost 40 years old. My mind boggles.

[David Kerber]

In article . com>,
says...

....

> Much less painful also. A guy I know "laid it down" because he was
> going to hit a car. I asked him why in the world he would do that and
> he said he would rather have road rash than hit the car. I commented
> that now he had road rash and a broken leg and collarbone because he
> still hit the car. I told him he hit the car harder than if he had
> rode the brakes in. He told me I was nuts and that everybody knows
> sliding the bike was the fastest way to stop but you only did it to

Yep. Whenever you hear "everybody knows", that usually means
"everybody's wrong". The only exception I know of is the one that says
"everybody knows that red bikes are faster" ;-D

> avoid a worse crash. Running through all of Newton's laws of motion
> and how brakes are much more efficient than grinding chrome off the
> bike to change the kinetic energy to heat meant nothing.

Next time tell him to carefully lay his motorcycle down in his driveway
and see how hard it is (or isn't!) to slide it around, then try that
with it up on its tires and the gears engaged. Maybe he'll figure it
out after that...

....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[donquijote1954]

Tim Kreitz wrote:
> Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
> > It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
> > "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > rider.
>
> That's 'Cager' to you.
>
> Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
> over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
> it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.
>
> As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
> Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.

Well, you never feel frustrated by ladies like this. Once we create our
own *bike lanes,* we'll be absolutely free from these MADD drivers. (I
call them so because they don't have driving manners but never drink.)

We cyclists then we'll live similar to Key West, Daiquiri in
handlebars.

By the way, cyclists and motorcyclists have a lot in common: TWO WHEELS
GOOD, FOUR WHEELS BAD. And we also share this T-shirt...

http://cafepress.com/putsomefun

[donquijote1954]

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Kreitz" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
> > >> It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of
> > >> the
> > >> "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > >> rider.
> > >
> > > That's 'Cager' to you.
> > >
> > > Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
> > > over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
> > > it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.
> > >
> > > As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
> > > Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> > > Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> > > and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
> > >
> > > Tim Kreitz
> > > 2003 ZX7R
> > > 2000 ZX6R
> > > http://www.timkreitz.com
> > >
> >
> > Life-saving horsepower?????
>
> Yes. On a bicycle, the only way to get out of a situation is to stop.
> With a motorcycle, there's also the option to get out of there.

Or simply squeeze on the right.

>
> Consider if I'm stopped at the end of a queue of cars waiting at a red
> light. I monitor my rear-view mirror and see a car heading towards me
> faster than it ought to: I sneak over between cars and ahead a few, and
> avoid a rear-end collision.
>
> Consider if I'm cruising along the freeway and some inattentive cager
> decides to change lanes into me (typically after a merge). Depending on
> where I am, I could brake hard and still have to deal with the
> possibility of the cager also braking hard or the car behind me not
> braking hard ... or accelerate out of there. (Which, since I keep good
> following distance, I have room to do.)
>
> So if you're not an experienced motorcycle rider, don't be quick to
> dismiss possibilities you haven't thought of.

But the MADD lady doesn't do your job any easier. She challenges you
without even noticing thanks to her poor reflexes and the yanking on
the phone.

[donquijote1954]

jojo wrote:
> "donquijote1954" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > "the motorcyclist's No. 1 nemesis remains the inattentive driver. So
> > listen up: Your job as the driver is to drive. Period. Your attention
> > is focused on what's happening outside, not inside. Period."
> >
> > I'm assuming that you want to save the buck, and that perhaps you care
> > about the environment, if not that you plain hate "cages," and, most
> > importantly, that you want to avoid a senseless accident like this.
> > Sure, you would say, "Why not ban the damned phones!?" But you know
> > deep down it won't happen. Too much money into it, you know. So in a
> > bicycle you could have let yourself go and hit the stupid woman (maybe
> > a MADD member?) square on the bumper. At least I've made the switch.
> > You can even get a chopper bicycle!
>
> http://bicycleaustin.info/justice/
> not the solution

It is but only when we get rid of the jungle. Coming soon...

RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS

OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the
word of choice...

"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)

"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)

And this one...

"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government
listens" -Alastair Farrugia

Oh, that one was so good. So let's see: The monkey can cry all he wants
but he will be ignored. Tough life that of the monkey.

Other quotes...

"Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is
silence about truth" -Aldous Huxley

That one was deep. We all live in the lie (notice the word "lie" in
li-on). And look at this one...

"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they
don't have any" -Alice Walker

And this would threaten the order in the jungle...

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the
rulers" -Aristotle

And here they must be talking about the lion...

"The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in
front of it" -Axel Munthe

Many more quotes to entertain yourself are found at the link below. I
hope you use them responsibly and don't start a revolution.

http://www.democracy.ru/english/quotes.php

*Riding a bike is good for the environment, great for peace, and
excellent for your health. We need facilities, though, like BIKE LINES
to be safe.


This is a summary of what's going on in the jungle...
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

[Triman]

http://www.tri-mansworldmailboxofficesupply.com/
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Kreitz" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
> > >> It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of
> > >> the
> > >> "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > >> rider.
> > >
> > > That's 'Cager' to you.
> > >
> > > Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
> > > over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
> > > it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.
> > >
> > > As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
> > > Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> > > Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> > > and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
> > >
> > > Tim Kreitz
> > > 2003 ZX7R
> > > 2000 ZX6R
> > > http://www.timkreitz.com
> > >
> >
> > Life-saving horsepower?????
>
> Yes. On a bicycle, the only way to get out of a situation is to stop.
> With a motorcycle, there's also the option to get out of there.
>
> Consider if I'm stopped at the end of a queue of cars waiting at a red
> light. I monitor my rear-view mirror and see a car heading towards me
> faster than it ought to: I sneak over between cars and ahead a few, and
> avoid a rear-end collision.
>
> Consider if I'm cruising along the freeway and some inattentive cager
> decides to change lanes into me (typically after a merge). Depending on
> where I am, I could brake hard and still have to deal with the
> possibility of the cager also braking hard or the car behind me not
> braking hard ... or accelerate out of there. (Which, since I keep good
> following distance, I have room to do.)
>
> So if you're not an experienced motorcycle rider, don't be quick to
> dismiss possibilities you haven't thought of.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Triman]

http://www.tri-mansworldmailboxofficesupply.com/
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Kreitz" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
> > >> It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of
> > >> the
> > >> "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > >> rider.
> > >
> > > That's 'Cager' to you.
> > >
> > > Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
> > > over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
> > > it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.
> > >
> > > As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
> > > Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> > > Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> > > and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
> > >
> > > Tim Kreitz
> > > 2003 ZX7R
> > > 2000 ZX6R
> > > http://www.timkreitz.com
> > >
> >
> > Life-saving horsepower?????
>
> Yes. On a bicycle, the only way to get out of a situation is to stop.
> With a motorcycle, there's also the option to get out of there.
>
> Consider if I'm stopped at the end of a queue of cars waiting at a red
> light. I monitor my rear-view mirror and see a car heading towards me
> faster than it ought to: I sneak over between cars and ahead a few, and
> avoid a rear-end collision.
>
> Consider if I'm cruising along the freeway and some inattentive cager
> decides to change lanes into me (typically after a merge). Depending on
> where I am, I could brake hard and still have to deal with the
> possibility of the cager also braking hard or the car behind me not
> braking hard ... or accelerate out of there. (Which, since I keep good
> following distance, I have room to do.)
>
> So if you're not an experienced motorcycle rider, don't be quick to
> dismiss possibilities you haven't thought of.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[donquijote1954]

wrote:
> There's no point in complaining about how dangerous cage drivers are;
> it's like complaining about the sky being blue. Just adapt to it. And
> save your cycle for nice cruises down country roads on Sunday
> afternoon.

There's a lot to be asked from them, or better from the officials that
allow the phones and other distracting gadgets to be normal behavior on
our roads. Meanwhile you hear all the bad rap about drunks and speeders
--and getting hefty tickets, which are fixed by the foxes of the
jungle, ie the lawyers.

[donquijote1954]

Here's a follow up to the original article...

(which I totally endorse)

"lol, people, you will find anyone else to blame to completely miss the
point of the driver in the SUV. Mr. Long's experience with a motorcycle
should have prevented this alone, but still, the lady was yacking away
needless on a phone while driving. Had she been driving that tank
(which, SUV owners should be subject to a harder and much strict
license exam; let alone have their insurance cost shoot up %80) like
she was supposed to be doing, the accident wouldn't have happened
anyway.

I don't see where the complication lies. Talking on cell phones in cars
= unnecessary distraction to the driver. Ban cell phone use in cars
that are in movement."

[Don Fearn]

I think it was "donquijote1954" > who
stated:


>I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
>the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
>phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
>traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
>words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
>for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
>ear).
>
>Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
>been the usual evasion tactic.

Following too close.

GUILTY.


Next case!

[Henry]

donquijote1954 wrote:

> Why would anyone want to ride a motorcycle capable
> of doing 150 mph? So they can scrape you off the road with a spatula
> instead of dumping you in a body bag?

Power is a safety feature that enables the rider
to accelerate away from danger.
HTH

--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.st911.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incompetence.

"The tools that enable Cuba to save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

[Dt Lemons 1900]

"Don Fearn" > wrote in message
...
>I think it was "donquijote1954" > who
> stated:
>
>
>>I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
>>the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
>>phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
>>traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
>>words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
>>for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
>>ear).
>>
>>Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>>unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
>>been the usual evasion tactic.
>
> Following too close.
>
> GUILTY.
>
>
> Next case!

It's the fault of the "cager"

Motorcycle riders are never at fault.

[Timberwoof]

In article . com>,
"donquijote1954" > wrote:

> Here's a follow up to the original article...
>
> (which I totally endorse)
>
> "lol, people, you will find anyone else to blame to completely miss the
> point of the driver in the SUV. Mr. Long's experience with a motorcycle
> should have prevented this alone, but still, the lady was yacking away
> needless on a phone while driving. Had she been driving that tank
> (which, SUV owners should be subject to a harder and much strict
> license exam; let alone have their insurance cost shoot up %80) like
> she was supposed to be doing, the accident wouldn't have happened
> anyway.
>
> I don't see where the complication lies. Talking on cell phones in cars
> = unnecessary distraction to the driver. Ban cell phone use in cars
> that are in movement."

What if she had been paying attention to the road and stopped for a
little old lady crossing the street against the light? It would still
have been your fault for following too closely and not paying attention.
Just because she's driving around focused on her conversation instead of
her surroundings is no excuse for you to follow too close and not pay
attention to yours!

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Timberwoof]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Rayvan wrote:
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
> > > unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
> > > been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
> > > back seat.
> >
> > You had one more choice: Stop the bike properly....
> > Sounds like some riding lessons are in order....
> >
>
> How dare you bring knowledge and logic to a rant. Shame on you. ;)
>
> > --Rayvan
> >
> > Hint: A motorcycle stops faster if you use the brakes properly because
> > rubber has much better grip than does metal and flesh...
>
> Much less painful also. A guy I know "laid it down" because he was
> going to hit a car. I asked him why in the world he would do that and
> he said he would rather have road rash than hit the car. I commented
> that now he had road rash and a broken leg and collarbone because he
> still hit the car. I told him he hit the car harder than if he had
> rode the brakes in. He told me I was nuts and that everybody knows
> sliding the bike was the fastest way to stop but you only did it to
> avoid a worse crash. Running through all of Newton's laws of motion
> and how brakes are much more efficient than grinding chrome off the
> bike to change the kinetic energy to heat meant nothing.
>
> You have to understand that this is the same guy that spent almost two
> months in the hospital after "surfing" his bike and falling off. The
> bike happily went almost another 50 yards or more without him. He also
> only uses the rear brake if he's going over about 25mph because he
> doesn't want to flip the bike by over braking the front. Yet he has
> successfully lived to be almost 40 years old. My mind boggles.

He probably won't understand this either, but others here might:
http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/stoppie.html

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Timberwoof]

In article om>,
"donquijote1954" > wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:
> >
> > > "Tim Kreitz" > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > > Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
> > > >> It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of
> > > >> the
> > > >> "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > > >> rider.
> > > >
> > > > That's 'Cager' to you.
> > > >
> > > > Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
> > > > over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
> > > > it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.
> > > >
> > > > As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
> > > > Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> > > > Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> > > > and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
> > > >
> > > > Tim Kreitz
> > > > 2003 ZX7R
> > > > 2000 ZX6R
> > > > http://www.timkreitz.com
> > > >
> > >
> > > Life-saving horsepower?????
> >
> > Yes. On a bicycle, the only way to get out of a situation is to stop.
> > With a motorcycle, there's also the option to get out of there.
>
> Or simply squeeze on the right.

Yes, as I illustrate in the following paragraph.

> > Consider if I'm stopped at the end of a queue of cars waiting at a red
> > light. I monitor my rear-view mirror and see a car heading towards me
> > faster than it ought to: I sneak over between cars and ahead a few, and
> > avoid a rear-end collision.
> >
> > Consider if I'm cruising along the freeway and some inattentive cager
> > decides to change lanes into me (typically after a merge). Depending on
> > where I am, I could brake hard and still have to deal with the
> > possibility of the cager also braking hard or the car behind me not
> > braking hard ... or accelerate out of there. (Which, since I keep good
> > following distance, I have room to do.)
> >
> > So if you're not an experienced motorcycle rider, don't be quick to
> > dismiss possibilities you haven't thought of.
>
> But the MADD lady doesn't do your job any easier. She challenges you
> without even noticing thanks to her poor reflexes and the yanking on
> the phone.

Were you paying attention when I and several others told you to pay
attention? It doesn't matter what she was doing: she was in front of you
and you should have paid attention to her. You should have been far
enough away that you could have stopped in time. Or, when the light
turned green and she didn't go, you should have noticed and not smashed
into her.

None of which has anything to do with this sub-thread, which is that
sometimes you can accelerate out of a bad situation.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[BroTHeR zAcHaRy]

wrote:
> Rayvan wrote:
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
> > > unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
> > > been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
> > > back seat.
> >
> > You had one more choice: Stop the bike properly....
> > Sounds like some riding lessons are in order....
> >
>
> How dare you bring knowledge and logic to a rant. Shame on you. ;)
>
> > --Rayvan
> >
> > Hint: A motorcycle stops faster if you use the brakes properly because
> > rubber has much better grip than does metal and flesh...
>
> Much less painful also. A guy I know "laid it down" because he was
> going to hit a car. I asked him why in the world he would do that and
> he said he would rather have road rash than hit the car. I commented
> that now he had road rash and a broken leg and collarbone because he
> still hit the car. I told him he hit the car harder than if he had
> rode the brakes in. He told me I was nuts and that everybody knows
> sliding the bike was the fastest way to stop but you only did it to
> avoid a worse crash. Running through all of Newton's laws of motion
> and how brakes are much more efficient than grinding chrome off the
> bike to change the kinetic energy to heat meant nothing.
>
> You have to understand that this is the same guy that spent almost two
> months in the hospital after "surfing" his bike and falling off.

*feh*, after a concussion and a broken clavicle, I was back to work two
days later. I shouldn't have been... but I was.

> He also
> only uses the rear brake if he's going over about 25mph because he
> doesn't want to flip the bike by over braking the front.

Idiot. I bought a ZX-10 about ten years ago. It only had 15K mi. on the
odometer. The back rotor, however was concave (so that and a new set of
pads was the first thing I did to it) . The two previous owners were
apparently rear brake lovers, too.

[Road Glidin' Don]

On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> wrote:

>Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
>been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
>back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle.

BWAAA HAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

--

Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/personal/

[Road Glidin' Don]

On 24 Oct 2006 14:29:09 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> wrote:

>TWO WHEELS GOOD, FOUR WHEELS BAD

Unless you're a twit cross-poster who doesn't know how to stop a
motorcycle.

--

Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/personal/

[Harry K]

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "donquijote1954" > wrote:
>
> > Here's a follow up to the original article...
> >
> > (which I totally endorse)
> >
> > "lol, people, you will find anyone else to blame to completely miss the
> > point of the driver in the SUV. Mr. Long's experience with a motorcycle
> > should have prevented this alone, but still, the lady was yacking away
> > needless on a phone while driving. Had she been driving that tank
> > (which, SUV owners should be subject to a harder and much strict
> > license exam; let alone have their insurance cost shoot up %80) like
> > she was supposed to be doing, the accident wouldn't have happened
> > anyway.
> >
> > I don't see where the complication lies. Talking on cell phones in cars
> > = unnecessary distraction to the driver. Ban cell phone use in cars
> > that are in movement."
>
> What if she had been paying attention to the road and stopped for a
> little old lady crossing the street against the light? It would still
> have been your fault for following too closely and not paying attention.
> Just because she's driving around focused on her conversation instead of
> her surroundings is no excuse for you to follow too close and not pay
> attention to yours!
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

Thanks. I was wondering if anyone was going to mention the obvious.

Harry K

[Timberwoof]

In article om>,
"Harry K" > wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "donquijote1954" > wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a follow up to the original article...
> > >
> > > (which I totally endorse)
> > >
> > > "lol, people, you will find anyone else to blame to completely miss the
> > > point of the driver in the SUV. Mr. Long's experience with a motorcycle
> > > should have prevented this alone, but still, the lady was yacking away
> > > needless on a phone while driving. Had she been driving that tank
> > > (which, SUV owners should be subject to a harder and much strict
> > > license exam; let alone have their insurance cost shoot up %80) like
> > > she was supposed to be doing, the accident wouldn't have happened
> > > anyway.
> > >
> > > I don't see where the complication lies. Talking on cell phones in cars
> > > = unnecessary distraction to the driver. Ban cell phone use in cars
> > > that are in movement."
> >
> > What if she had been paying attention to the road and stopped for a
> > little old lady crossing the street against the light? It would still
> > have been your fault for following too closely and not paying attention.
> > Just because she's driving around focused on her conversation instead of
> > her surroundings is no excuse for you to follow too close and not pay
> > attention to yours!
> >
> > --
> > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> > faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
>
> Thanks. I was wondering if anyone was going to mention the obvious.

I did mention it yesterday. And what's obvious to you isn't obvious to
everyone. Obviously Mr. Donqi didn't pay attention to my first post, so
I felt compelled to post again.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[bill]

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>> Rayvan wrote:
>> You have to understand that this is the same guy that spent almost two
>> months in the hospital after "surfing" his bike and falling off. The
>> bike happily went almost another 50 yards or more without him. He also
>> only uses the rear brake if he's going over about 25mph because he
>> doesn't want to flip the bike by over braking the front. Yet he has
>> successfully lived to be almost 40 years old. My mind boggles.

40 is still young.
>
> He probably won't understand this either, but others here might:
> http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/stoppie.html
>
Have you ever tried a stoppie? Unless you are skilled way beyond the
normal human it will result in a wrong way wheelie all the way over.
There are only a handful of people who can do it and they are probably
working as stunt men for the movie industry. The record was about 600
feet starting at 100 MPH +, but the guy was an Evel Knievel type pro.
I tried something like that when I was younger and dumber and went over
the bars and slid with the bike (motorcycle) on top of me, causing much
unwanted road rash. First time == last time.



--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

[Keith Schiffner]

"Road Glidin' Don" > wrote
in message
...
> On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> > wrote:
>
>>Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping
>>was so completely
>>unexpected that I didn't have time to ride
>>around her, which would have
>>been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump
>>the bike or visit her
>>back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass
>>over teakettle.
>
> BWAAA HAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

That was my initial reaction also. Granted I
had extra special effects of coffee, uri(runny
nose + laughter = snot everywhere)
--
Keith Schiffner
History does not record anywhere at any time a
religion that has any rational basis. Religion is
a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up
to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff,
most people do have a religion and spend time and
money on it and seem to derive considerable
pleasure from fiddling with it.
Robert Heinlein

[[email protected]]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> Tim Kreitz wrote:
> > Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
> > > It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
> > > "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > > rider.
> >
> > That's 'Cager' to you.
> >
> > Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
> > over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
> > it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.
> >
> > As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
> > Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> > Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> > and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
>
> Well, you never feel frustrated by ladies like this. Once we create our
> own *bike lanes,* we'll be absolutely free from these MADD drivers. (I
> call them so because they don't have driving manners but never drink.)

I ride motorcycles. I drive cars. I also ride bicycles. You can take
you bike lanes and shove them someplace rude. I pay for the ****ing
roads just like everybody else and I'll use all of my vehicles there.
I don't want to go where the bike lanes go, I want to go wherever the
**** I want to.

>
> We cyclists then we'll live similar to Key West, Daiquiri in
> handlebars.

In many states thats a DUI.

>
> By the way, cyclists and motorcyclists have a lot in common: TWO WHEELS
> GOOD, FOUR WHEELS BAD. And we also share this T-shirt...

Any number of wheels good. Poor vehicle operators bad.

>
> http://cafepress.com/putsomefun

[donquijote1954]

Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2006 14:29:09 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> > wrote:
>
> >TWO WHEELS GOOD, FOUR WHEELS BAD
>
> Unless you're a twit cross-poster who doesn't know how to stop a
> motorcycle.
>

I learned fast enough and never went down again: Too much front brake
in light rain. Luckily I was slow enough not to hurt myself.

Still two wheels is better than four wheels because they are the
underdog in this dog-eats-dog traffic. And they pollute less to boot.

[donquijote1954]

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:
>
> > It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
> > "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > rider.
>
> Oh, baloney! Some of us bikers know we're more exposed to traffic
> stupidity, so we advocate reasonable following distances jut for this
> sort of thing.
>

I see you are ready to bow to every stupid driver out there on four
wheels, but in the struggle between big and stupid and small and smart,
the winner should be the last one. It's survival of the fittest not the
biggest.

In the following paragraph think of the animal on two wheels (cyclist
or motorcyclist) as an insect, or better yet as a monkey. Well, the
monkey has developed an strategy based on staying on the treetops
(similar to cyclists having bike lanes), well away from the predators
down there (SUVs and other aggressive cagers)...

(the comparison is not totally scientific, but you get the point about
how to deal with the jungle out there)

"insects are prey to many animals; monkeys, anteaters, coatimundis,
spiders, and frogs all enjoy an occasional insect such as a termite or
a grasshopper. For this reason, insects have developed many
techniques to escape predators. Grasshoppers and katydids (insect
similar to a grasshopper) have powerful hind legs that allow them jump
from place to place at incredible speeds. Many animals use the
camouflage to remain unseen. A great number of animals, including
insects, birds, and wild cats, in the Amazon are able to blend into the
background. Some animals have mechanism that allow it to defend or
attack. An example of such would be the scorpion which can use its
stinger to kill a prey or defend itself when under attack. Monkeys
try to stick to the trees. In the trees, they are able to quickly move
about. When on land, however, they can become targets for jaguars and
other wild cats."

http://library.thinkquest.org/21395/graphics/fauna/forest.html

[donquijote1954]

wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > Tim Kreitz wrote:
> > > Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
> > > > It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
> > > > "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > > > rider.
> > >
> > > That's 'Cager' to you.
> > >
> > > Statistically speaking, the car driver is found to be at fault in just
> > > over 75 percent of all car-bike crashes, according to the NHTSA. So no,
> > > it's not ALWAYS the cager's fault. Just most of the time.
> > >
> > > As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
> > > Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> > > Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> > > and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
> >
> > Well, you never feel frustrated by ladies like this. Once we create our
> > own *bike lanes,* we'll be absolutely free from these MADD drivers. (I
> > call them so because they don't have driving manners but never drink.)
>
> I ride motorcycles. I drive cars. I also ride bicycles. You can take
> you bike lanes and shove them someplace rude. I pay for the ****ing
> roads just like everybody else and I'll use all of my vehicles there.
> I don't want to go where the bike lanes go, I want to go wherever the
> **** I want to.

OK, me too, but we must know what is bad, better and good. I drive my
girlfriends Lexus (bad), I ride a motorcycle whenever I have a chance
(but havent fixed my motorcycle) and I ride bicycles of late (good).

What's it's not good in that the two wheeled vehicles are always at the
bottom of the food chain, living an insect's life so speak.

>
> >
> > We cyclists then we'll live similar to Key West, Daiquiri in
> > handlebars.
>
> In many states thats a DUI.

Well, the small one should get away with some stuff not allowed to the
big one. A guy in an SUV thus should have to pay twice more for
drinking and driving such a deadly piece of junk. The guy on the bike
though hurts no one and should be allowed to have fun. That's why Key
West is such a draw. Still you find the StupidUVs but they pretty much
behave.

>
> >
> > By the way, cyclists and motorcyclists have a lot in common: TWO WHEELS
> > GOOD, FOUR WHEELS BAD. And we also share this T-shirt...
>
> Any number of wheels good. Poor vehicle operators bad.

True. SUVs should have special license though. Too much risk to others.

Bad behavior matters and so does size.

[donquijote1954]

I don't have to tell you that the big fish eats the little fish, but I
got to remind you that the SUV eats the rest of the vehicles out there.

'Department of Transportation scientists study the "kill rate" - how
manyother people certain vehicle models are responsible for killing
each year in crashes. Looking at SUVs, these scientists came to a
frightening conclusion. For every one life saved by driving an SUV,
five others will be taken. In one specific instance, they found that
the SUV Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the
road. In comparison, the Honda Accord kills 21 people.'

http://www.suv.org/newsarticle.html

[Billzz]

"donquijote1954" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Timberwoof wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:
>>
>> > It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of
>> > the
>> > "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
>> > rider.
>>
>> Oh, baloney! Some of us bikers know we're more exposed to traffic
>> stupidity, so we advocate reasonable following distances jut for this
>> sort of thing.
>>
>
> I see you are ready to bow to every stupid driver out there on four
> wheels, but in the struggle between big and stupid and small and smart,
> the winner should be the last one. It's survival of the fittest not the
> biggest.
>
> In the following paragraph think of the animal on two wheels (cyclist
> or motorcyclist) as an insect, or better yet as a monkey. Well, the
> monkey has developed an strategy based on staying on the treetops
> (similar to cyclists having bike lanes), well away from the predators
> down there (SUVs and other aggressive cagers)...
>
> (the comparison is not totally scientific, but you get the point about
> how to deal with the jungle out there)
>
> "insects are prey to many animals; monkeys, anteaters, coatimundis,
> spiders, and frogs all enjoy an occasional insect such as a termite or
> a grasshopper. For this reason, insects have developed many
> techniques to escape predators. Grasshoppers and katydids (insect
> similar to a grasshopper) have powerful hind legs that allow them jump
> from place to place at incredible speeds. Many animals use the
> camouflage to remain unseen. A great number of animals, including
> insects, birds, and wild cats, in the Amazon are able to blend into the
> background. Some animals have mechanism that allow it to defend or
> attack. An example of such would be the scorpion which can use its
> stinger to kill a prey or defend itself when under attack. Monkeys
> try to stick to the trees. In the trees, they are able to quickly move
> about. When on land, however, they can become targets for jaguars and
> other wild cats."
>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/21395/graphics/fauna/forest.html

This seems to be good advice. Ride your motorcyle in the trees and you
won't get run down by a Jaguar.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Timberwoof > wrote:
>
>He probably won't understand this either, but others here might:
>http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/stoppie.html

You say there that the torque created by the inertial and braking
forces is clockwise. I don't think that's possible. In both diagrams
that torque is counterclockwise, tending to transfer weight from the rear
wheel to the front. In the case of the BMW, you reach the traction
limit of the tire before the weight on the rear tire reaches 0. In
the case of the Honda, you don't.

Hmm... maybe you meant the torque created by the inertial, braking,
and gravitational forces is clockwise?

(of course the "inertial force" exists only in the accelerated frame
of reference of the motorcycle, but that's a lot more convenient than
trying to find a useful inertial frame)
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Timberwoof]

In article >,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article >,
> Timberwoof > wrote:
> >
> >He probably won't understand this either, but others here might:
> >http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/stoppie.html
>
> You say there that the torque created by the inertial and braking
> forces is clockwise. I don't think that's possible. In both diagrams
> that torque is counterclockwise, tending to transfer weight from the rear
> wheel to the front. In the case of the BMW, you reach the traction
> limit of the tire before the weight on the rear tire reaches 0. In
> the case of the Honda, you don't.
>
> Hmm... maybe you meant the torque created by the inertial, braking,
> and gravitational forces is clockwise?

You're absolutely correct; my description was in error. Thanks for
pointing that out; I corrected the web page.

> (of course the "inertial force" exists only in the accelerated frame
> of reference of the motorcycle, but that's a lot more convenient than
> trying to find a useful inertial frame)

I hope you're okay with the phrase ' momentum "torque" '.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[P.Roehling]

"bill" > wrote

> Have you ever tried a stoppie? Unless you are skilled way beyond the
> normal human it will result in a wrong way wheelie all the way over. There
> are only a handful of people who can do it and they are probably working
> as stunt men for the movie industry.

Uh, unless you're *way, way* off in your estimate, all those "stunt men"
live within ten miles of me.

In fact, there are scads of riders out there who can pull a controlled
stoppie, and with the explosion of "stuntahs" and their assorted websites
over the last few years, their numbers are no doubt still growing by leaps
and bounds.

That is not to say that there weren't a lot of trashed bikes, broken bones,
and serious road rash strewn along the learning curve that led to
competence, but your statement that there are "only a handful of people who
can do it" is wildly inaccurate.

Pete

[P.Roehling]

"Timberwoof" > wrote

>> Hmm... maybe you meant the torque created by the inertial, braking,
>> and gravitational forces is clockwise?
>
> You're absolutely correct; my description was in error. Thanks for
> pointing that out; I corrected the web page.

What!? An open admission of a mistake on Usenet? And worse yet, a *polite*
admission?

I just *knew* that last oyster tasted funny...

Pete

[necromancer]

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), donquijote1954
trolled in rec.autos.driving:

<snip of nothing of importance>

STFU, trolling scum!


>

[Alan Moore]

On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> wrote:

<snip>

>Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
>been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
>back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I
>never touched her. I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging
>with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket)
>and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up
>pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than
>the bike itself is probably worth.

Gee, given the choice of landing on a nicely upholstered car seat or a
slab of pavement, I'd go for the car seat! Do they have really soft
pavement where you ride?

Al Moore
DoD 734

[Timberwoof]

In article >,
bill > wrote:

> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> > On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
> >> the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
> >> phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
> >> traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
> >> words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
> >> for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
> >> ear).
> >>
> >> Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
> >> unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
> >> been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
> >> back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I
> >> never touched her. I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging
> >> with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket)
> >> and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up
> >> pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than
> >> the bike itself is probably worth.
> >>
> >
> > All this proves is that you were either tail-gating or innatentive.
>
> In 15 years of almost daily motorcycle riding I never rear ended a car,
> nor came remotely close. The same rules as bicycles, keep you eye on ALL
> possible hazards.
> I had a friend get a broken hip, but even that was not his fault since
> some really old (antique) lady turned left in front of him and even
> though he tried to lay it down the car clipped the rear of his bike and
> tossed him at about 50 MPH.

Let's see now. He braked as hard as he could on the steel and plastic
parts of his bike, and fifty feet later, he was still doing 50 MPH.
Makes me wonder how fast he was going when he was still on his wheels.
Probably 55 MPH.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what happened. She was oncoming and
turned left ... and clipped the rear end of his motorcycle? That doesn't
compute.

> Whenever you are on the road, Bike, cage, or even walking, you are at
> the mercy of idiots.

But you can mitigate that by riding intelligently and learning skills to
handle the bike: For instance, how to stop a bike quickly. (Hint: Not
on the steel and plastic bits.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Timberwoof]

In article om>,
"donquijote1954" > wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Dt Lemons 1900" <YEAHRIGHT> wrote:
> >
> > > It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
> > > "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > > rider.
> >
> > Oh, baloney! Some of us bikers know we're more exposed to traffic
> > stupidity, so we advocate reasonable following distances jut for this
> > sort of thing.
> >
>
> I see you are ready to bow to every stupid driver out there on four
> wheels, but in the struggle between big and stupid and small and smart,
> the winner should be the last one. It's survival of the fittest not the
> biggest.
>
> In the following paragraph

<snipped irrelevant lession on entymology>

So. How close were you following the car, and why were you that close at
that speed?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Timberwoof]

In article >, BrianNZ >
wrote:

> Dt Lemons 1900 wrote:
>
> >
> > It's never the fault of the motorcycle rider, it's always the fault of the
> > "cage" driver. You have to understand the mentality of the motorcycle
> > rider.
> >
> >
>
> The other day, when a guy asked me why I thought there were so many
> accidents involving bikes where the driver pulled out in front of
> them......I put a lot of the blame on speeding motorcyclists, who will
> swear black and blue that they were doing the speed limit when the
> accident happened (that way it IS the cars fault....no-one wants a ticket!).
>
> I understand the motorcyclists mentality all too well.....I am
> one!.....and Iv'e been on the receiving end of of 'blind' drivers....but
> Iv'e also had many near misses where it was entirely my own fault. Stay
> alert, stay alive!
>
> To avoid rear ending a vehicle, you must stay at a reasonable distance
> behind them.

Yesterday morning, at a four-way stop sign, the driver of the vehicle
approaching decided to go, turn on his turn signal, and turn left, all
at he same time. Had the **** had his turn signal on as he approached
the intersection, I might have had a clue about his intentions. Foe some
reason, many San Francisco drivers think that you use the turn signal to
indicate that you are making a turn.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Timberwoof]

In article om>,
"donquijote1954" > wrote:

> Well, the small one should get away with some stuff not allowed to the
> big one.

For example, you think you should be able to get away with following too
closely. (It's better if the person you followed too closely was yacking
on a cell phone[1] because you can blame it on that.)

[1] You must have been following quite closely to be able to tell that.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Timberwoof]

In article >,
bill > wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Rayvan wrote:
> >> You have to understand that this is the same guy that spent almost two
> >> months in the hospital after "surfing" his bike and falling off. The
> >> bike happily went almost another 50 yards or more without him. He also
> >> only uses the rear brake if he's going over about 25mph because he
> >> doesn't want to flip the bike by over braking the front. Yet he has
> >> successfully lived to be almost 40 years old. My mind boggles.
>
> 40 is still young.
> >
> > He probably won't understand this either, but others here might:
> > http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/stoppie.html
> >
> Have you ever tried a stoppie? Unless you are skilled way beyond the
> normal human it will result in a wrong way wheelie all the way over.

Please come to Berkeley sometime. There's a road west of there that
climbs into the hills. There's a place called "The Wall" where bikers
like to hang out. Hang out there on some summer day and watch the
experienced riders routinely stoppie in.


> There are only a handful of people who can do it and they are probably
> working as stunt men for the movie industry.

All of them must live in the San Francisco area, too.

> The record was about 600
> feet starting at 100 MPH +, but the guy was an Evel Knievel type pro.
> I tried something like that when I was younger and dumber and went over
> the bars and slid with the bike (motorcycle) on top of me, causing much
> unwanted road rash. First time == last time.

Ah. The informal fallacy of "If I cannot do it, no ordinary mortal can."

(I have not tried stoppieing my motorcycle.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Turby]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:08:02 -0700, Timberwoof
> wrote:

>Please come to Berkeley sometime. There's a road west of there that
>climbs into the hills.

<pedantic mode on>
West? Would those be the Marin hills?

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

[bill]

P.Roehling wrote:
> "bill" > wrote
>
>> Have you ever tried a stoppie? Unless you are skilled way beyond the
>> normal human it will result in a wrong way wheelie all the way over. There
>> are only a handful of people who can do it and they are probably working
>> as stunt men for the movie industry.
>
> Uh, unless you're *way, way* off in your estimate, all those "stunt men"
> live within ten miles of me.
>
> In fact, there are scads of riders out there who can pull a controlled
> stoppie, and with the explosion of "stuntahs" and their assorted websites
> over the last few years, their numbers are no doubt still growing by leaps
> and bounds.
>
> That is not to say that there weren't a lot of trashed bikes, broken bones,
> and serious road rash strewn along the learning curve that led to
> competence, but your statement that there are "only a handful of people who
> can do it" is wildly inaccurate.
>
> Pete
>
>
I will admit to the possibility of being inaccurate, but then again I am
a very skilled rider, not just of bicycles, but have about 100,000 miles
on a motorcycle and can't do it. The few times I tried it resulted in
going over, once minor, the other time trashing the bike. If you have
scads of riders doing them, then mass insanity must be gripping the new
riders (possible these days) of they have way too much money to spend on
new bikes and/or repairs. There are none in my area, maybe due to police
with zero sense of humor, or maybe it is a big city thing, like racing
those ridiculous modded Honda front wheel drives, which would embarrass
me clean off the road.

--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

[bill]

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article >,
> bill > wrote:
>
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>> On 23 Oct 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was riding my motorcycle to work one morning a few months ago when
>>>> the car in front of me stopped. Cold. The woman behind the wheel had a
>>>> phone to her ear, but she also had the green light. There wasn't any
>>>> traffic to speak of and there was nobody in front of her. In other
>>>> words, she stopped for absolutely no reason at all (except, probably,
>>>> for whatever it was someone had just whispered into her shell-like
>>>> ear).
>>>>
>>>> Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely
>>>> unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have
>>>> been the usual evasion tactic. My choices: Dump the bike or visit her
>>>> back seat. I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I
>>>> never touched her. I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging
>>>> with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket)
>>>> and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up
>>>> pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than
>>>> the bike itself is probably worth.
>>>>
>>> All this proves is that you were either tail-gating or innatentive.
>> In 15 years of almost daily motorcycle riding I never rear ended a car,
>> nor came remotely close. The same rules as bicycles, keep you eye on ALL
>> possible hazards.
>> I had a friend get a broken hip, but even that was not his fault since
>> some really old (antique) lady turned left in front of him and even
>> though he tried to lay it down the car clipped the rear of his bike and
>> tossed him at about 50 MPH.
>
> Let's see now. He braked as hard as he could on the steel and plastic
> parts of his bike, and fifty feet later, he was still doing 50 MPH.
> Makes me wonder how fast he was going when he was still on his wheels.
> Probably 55 MPH.
>
> I'm having a hard time figuring out what happened. She was oncoming and
> turned left ... and clipped the rear end of his motorcycle? That doesn't
> compute.

He had it partially laid down at that point and she was already almost
through the intersection and clear of him. Another 0.25 second and they
probably would have missed but he would still have been laid down with
road rash. He turned left to avoid her and she turned left from the
other direction so it was a rear to rear collision. He may have been
doing 55 for all I know since the rest of the group was sell behind him
and it happened so fast that some didn't even see the accident. Girls on
the side of the road do that to guys on motorcycles. Sorry.

>
>> Whenever you are on the road, Bike, cage, or even walking, you are at
>> the mercy of idiots.
>
> But you can mitigate that by riding intelligently and learning skills to
> handle the bike: For instance, how to stop a bike quickly. (Hint: Not
> on the steel and plastic bits.)
>
I have personally never laid one down, but then I learned early on not
to tailgate and to watch 'very' carefully at intersections where someone
could turn in front of me without warning. I can't tailgate on a bicycle
unless it is a bus or big box semi at 35 MPH but I always watch the
oncoming traffic for possible left turners on cell phones. That is just
common survival sense.


--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

[bill]

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article >,
> bill > wrote:
>
>> Timberwoof wrote:
>>> In article . com>,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rayvan wrote:
>>>> You have to understand that this is the same guy that spent almost two
>>>> months in the hospital after "surfing" his bike and falling off. The
>>>> bike happily went almost another 50 yards or more without him. He also
>>>> only uses the rear brake if he's going over about 25mph because he
>>>> doesn't want to flip the bike by over braking the front. Yet he has
>>>> successfully lived to be almost 40 years old. My mind boggles.
>> 40 is still young.
>>> He probably won't understand this either, but others here might:
>>> http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/stoppie.html
>>>
>> Have you ever tried a stoppie? Unless you are skilled way beyond the
>> normal human it will result in a wrong way wheelie all the way over.
>
> Please come to Berkeley sometime. There's a road west of there that
> climbs into the hills. There's a place called "The Wall" where bikers
> like to hang out. Hang out there on some summer day and watch the
> experienced riders routinely stoppie in.

Ask them how many bikes and or broken bones it took to get good. There
may be local clusters of groups who get together to do this but I have
not seen it on local roads. Maybe I just don't have the population
density and number of Motorcycle riders where I live. I am also a rider
with 100,000 miles on various motorcycles (pre-1985 pocket rockets) so
the types of bikes I rode may have precluded doing that. I tried it at
fairly high speed on a 1973 Kawasaki 750 2 stroke and messed up the bike
pretty bad, and again at much lower speed on a 198? Kawsaki 650 4
cylinder with end end over but mostly hurt pride. I stopped trying
because I had to work and not convalesce, and I couldn't afford
repairing the bike or buying a new one every time I failed.

>
>
>> There are only a handful of people who can do it and they are probably
>> working as stunt men for the movie industry.
>
> All of them must live in the San Francisco area, too.
>
>> The record was about 600
>> feet starting at 100 MPH +, but the guy was an Evel Knievel type pro.
>> I tried something like that when I was younger and dumber and went over
>> the bars and slid with the bike (motorcycle) on top of me, causing much
>> unwanted road rash. First time == last time.
>
> Ah. The informal fallacy of "If I cannot do it, no ordinary mortal can."
>
> (I have not tried stoppieing my motorcycle.)
>
Maybe so, but the record I did see a video of and if my overloaded brain
cells remember right he started at 119 MPH with full armor on. 600 feet
is still quite a balancing act, so I give this guy tons of respect.



--
Bill (Sleepless biker) Baka

[donquijote1954]

Billzz wrote:
> > "insects are prey to many animals; monkeys, anteaters, coatimundis,
> > spiders, and frogs all enjoy an occasional insect such as a termite or
> > a grasshopper. For this reason, insects have developed many
> > techniques to escape predators. Grasshoppers and katydids (insect
> > similar to a grasshopper) have powerful hind legs that allow them jump
> > from place to place at incredible speeds. Many animals use the
> > camouflage to remain unseen. A great number of animals, including
> > insects, birds, and wild cats, in the Amazon are able to blend into the
> > background. Some animals have mechanism that allow it to defend or
> > attack. An example of such would be the scorpion which can use its
> > stinger to kill a prey or defend itself when under attack. Monkeys
> > try to stick to the trees. In the trees, they are able to quickly move
> > about. When on land, however, they can become targets for jaguars and
> > other wild cats."
> >
> > http://library.thinkquest.org/21395/graphics/fauna/forest.html
>
> This seems to be good advice. Ride your motorcyle in the trees and you
> won't get run down by a Jaguar.

Not quite. Jaguars are tree climbers as far as I know, but lions aren't
for the most part.

Motorcycles can only benefit from taming the predators though, and that
would take a miracle --or a banana, according to this story...

The monkey knows that the lion is more powerful than him, and knows he
better use his own weapons, so he decides to be funny, that being his
natural gift. The story goes like this: The lion roars: "Monkey,
I'm made to eat meat, so you better come down right now." And the
monkey replies very cool: "Mighty King, that's doubtful as the
Bible says you were vegetarian, so you can eat my banana..."
(T-shirts with the slogan "You Can Eat My Banana" available now!)

By the way, DO YOU THINK THE LION WILL EAT THE BANANA?
__ No, the lion is a carnivore
__ Why not, he's gonna love it!
__ We gotta wait until he's hungry
__ We can stick it into a sausage

[donquijote1954]

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article om>,
> "donquijote1954" > wrote:
>
> > Well, the small one should get away with some stuff not allowed to the
> > big one.
>
> For example, you think you should be able to get away with following too
> closely. (It's better if the person you followed too closely was yacking
> on a cell phone[1] because you can blame it on that.)
>
> [1] You must have been following quite closely to be able to tell that.
>

I'm thinking here of bar hopping among bikers. Let them be! Not the car
on the SUV though. They can kill many innocents.

[[email protected]]

BroTHeR zAcHaRy wrote:
> wrote:

> >
> > You have to understand that this is the same guy that spent almost two
> > months in the hospital after "surfing" his bike and falling off.
>
> *feh*, after a concussion and a broken clavicle, I was back to work two
> days later. I shouldn't have been... but I was.

Knowing him, if it hadn't been for that pesky six week coma thing he
probably would have too. He had the neatest little gizmo to bend his
knee they had to rebuild. Two loops with about two feet of cargo
tiedown strapping between them. Hook one end over your foot and pull
on the other one to raise your leg. Compound fracture of the humerus.
He damn near was a Darwin Award contestant. All this a good 3 years
before Indian Larry did himself in doing the same damn fool thing.

>
> > He also
> > only uses the rear brake if he's going over about 25mph because he
> > doesn't want to flip the bike by over braking the front.
>
> Idiot. I bought a ZX-10 about ten years ago. It only had 15K mi. on the
> odometer. The back rotor, however was concave (so that and a new set of
> pads was the first thing I did to it) . The two previous owners were
> apparently rear brake lovers, too.

The thing is that a ZX-10 MIGHT be able to stoppie. The large cruiser
the guy I know owns couldn't under any circumstances.

[donquijote1954]

The point is, not so much that the motorcycle rider was to blame or
not, but that both motorcyclists and cyclists live under the constant
terror of idiots on the phone. WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE.

Countries that ban cell phones while driving

(In Poland you get fined $1,000! while America, of course, ignores the
problem)

http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/

But here here's the approach followed by MADD, the politicians and the
traffic authorities (the three wise monkeys)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Monkeys-nikko-japan.jpg

[Tom Keats]

In article . com>,
"Tim Kreitz" > writes:

> As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.

Yeah, well, what else is new?

> Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
> Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^

Okay, I can't let that last statement go by unrebutted
any longer.

Actually, bicycles are one of the most safe transportational
modes. Safer even than being a pedestrian. Motorcycles are
one of the least safe, as is being a pedestrian.

I'll get back to you on that on the weekend and provide some
substantiating references (unless someone else beats me to it.)
For now I've gotta hit the hay and get my 40 winks before my
last graveyard shift of the week.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this consideration:
motorcycles and bicycles involve differing approaches to
interacting with fellow traffic, hence exposures to
differing risk levels for various scenarios (and perhaps
differing tactics for dealing with those risks.)

Bicycles may not have the "life saving horspower" of MCs,
but they /do/ have some pretty good life saving handling,
if the rider is up to it.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Tom Keats) writes:
> In article . com>,
> "Tim Kreitz" > writes:
>
>> As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
>
> Yeah, well, what else is new?
>
>> Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
>> Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>
> Okay, I can't let that last statement go by unrebutted
> any longer.


Your above statement: "Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists
at an alarming rate, as well" shouldn't really go by unrebutted
either. But, oh well. One thing at at time.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Timberwoof]

In article . com>,
"donquijote1954" > wrote:

> The point is, not so much that the motorcycle rider was to blame or
> not, but that both motorcyclists and cyclists live under the constant
> terror of idiots on the phone. WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE.

Absolutely, Donqui. And in future, you should watch your following
distances very carefully‹especially behind idiots on their cell phones.

Hint: If you can tell that the idiot is talking on a cell phone, you're
probably too close.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Tom Keats) writes:
> In article . com>,
> "Tim Kreitz" > writes:
>
>> As for the rest of Donkey-Hotay's original post: complete drivel.
>
> Yeah, well, what else is new?
>
>> Cagers in metro areas run over bicyclists at an alarming rate, as well.
>> Robbing yourself of a motorcycle's potentially life-saving horsepower
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> and handling for the sake of pedal power is nonsensical.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>
> Okay, I can't let that last statement go by unrebutted
> any longer.
>
> Actually, bicycles are one of the most safe transportational
> modes. Safer even than being a pedestrian. Motorcycles are
> one of the least safe, as is being a pedestrian.
>
> I'll get back to you on that on the weekend and provide some
> substantiating references (unless someone else beats me to it.)
> For now I've gotta hit the hay and get my 40 winks before my
> last graveyard shift of the week.
>
> In the meantime, I'll leave you with this consideration:
> motorcycles and bicycles involve differing approaches to
> interacting with fellow traffic, hence exposures to
> differing risk levels for various scenarios (and perhaps
> differing tactics for dealing with those risks.)
>
> Bicycles may not have the "life saving horspower" of MCs,
> but they /do/ have some pretty good life saving handling,
> if the rider is up to it.

Have a look at the motorcycle/bicycle/pedestrian crash numbers here:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/traffic/crash/final.htm

At the ends of the lines, under "Avg" over the period from years
2000 to 2005 we have:

Pedestrian Crashes: 1,504
Pedestrians Killed: 50
Pedestrians Injured: 1,489

Bicycle Crashes: 1,195
Bicyclists Killed: 11
Bicyclists Injured: 1,155

Motorcycle Crashes: 2,296
Motorcyclists Killed: 81
Motorcyclists Injured: 2,184

Gee whiz, motorcycling in Wisconsin is almost twice as dangerous
as bicycling! And about a third more dangerous than just walking!

Here's another good 'un:
http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html


Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle Car

Death Rates
-----------
per 10,000
vehicles N/A N/A 6.7 1.6

per 1 million
population 16.9 2.5 11 12.9

per 1 million
miles travelled 0.2 0.2 27.6 1.3


Injury Rates
------------

per 10,000
vehicles N/A N/A 133 124

per 1 million
population 280 453 210 987

per 1 million
miles travelled 3.9 15 551 99

Hmmm ... maybe all that power & speed that's intrinsic to motorcycles
actually contributes more to crashes than to safety?

I can come up with more, and I'm just about ready to do so.
I fact, I shall.

In the meantime I sincerely hope you don't become another fatality
statistic on your dangerous, stinky, air-pollutin' murdercycle.
The world already has more than enough good people dying uselessly &
needlessly. Please be safe, and stick around to make your positive
contribution to this wonderful world that needs good people to keep
it goin'.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Timberwoof > writes:

> Were you paying attention when I and several others told you to pay
> attention? It doesn't matter what she was doing: she was in front of you
> and you should have paid attention to her. You should have been far
> enough away that you could have stopped in time. Or, when the light
> turned green and she didn't go, you should have noticed and not smashed
> into her.
>
> None of which has anything to do with this sub-thread, which is that
> sometimes you can accelerate out of a bad situation.

The numbers seem to indicate that more often, one
accelerates /into/ bad situations.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Stephen!" > writes:
> (Tom Keats) wrote in
> :
>
>> Gee whiz, motorcycling in Wisconsin is almost twice as dangerous
>> as bicycling! And about a third more dangerous than just walking!
>
> Wow... You have absolutely no grasp of statistics, do you?

How come you killed rec.bicycles.misc from the Newsgroups list?
What do you fear?

From Ken Kifer's site:
<http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm>

"There is absolutely no way that I can furnish definite proof that
bicycling is a safe activity. Those of us who bicycle on a regular
basis while following the traffic laws know that it is a safe
activity from years of experience, but we are also aware that other
cyclists have frequent accidents, we assume due to different behavior.
Nor can I do anything to reconcile my various sources of statistics.
However, I think I can easily establish that cycling is much less
dangerous that what the fearmongers insist and that it has compensating
benefits which are more important than the risks involved. I think you
will agree when you finish reading this that bicycling is very far from
being the dangerous activity that the fearmongers like to make it appear."

I invite you to check out the above URL, and to read further.
I assure you it's benign and well-known. And there are some
interesting numbers in there, as well as what I consider an
honest approach to interpreting them.

I am not attacking you. But as a bicyclist, I feel compelled
to defend myself and my fellow riders from the misbegotten
notion that bicycling is particularly dangerous.

Further cites & references bolstering my position shall be forthcoming.

In the meantime, I friendlily wish you a pleasant weekend,
and a Good Life.


cheers,
Tom


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[donquijote1954]

Tom Keats wrote:
> > Actually, bicycles are one of the most safe transportational
> > modes. Safer even than being a pedestrian. Motorcycles are
> > one of the least safe, as is being a pedestrian.

Where you see differences I see simliraties: MOTORCYCLES, BICYCLES AND
PEDESTRIANS SHARE BEING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN.

Even though bicycles may not that dangerous, they are perceived as
such, and the authorities don't do much to dismiss those fears. It's
not that I'm that fearful (I even rode last night several miles at 3
o'clock am and I'm still alive) it's just the fear factor is always
there particularly in heavy traffic. But you know the saying: WHAT
DOESN'T KILL YOU, MAKE YOU STRONGER.

[MLOM]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> Tom Keats wrote:
> > > Actually, bicycles are one of the most safe transportational
> > > modes. Safer even than being a pedestrian. Motorcycles are
> > > one of the least safe, as is being a pedestrian.
>
> Where you see differences I see simliraties: MOTORCYCLES, BICYCLES AND
> PEDESTRIANS SHARE BEING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN.
>
> Even though bicycles may not that dangerous, they are perceived as
> such, and the authorities don't do much to dismiss those fears. It's
> not that I'm that fearful (I even rode last night several miles at 3
> o'clock am and I'm still alive) it's just the fear factor is always
> there particularly in heavy traffic. But you know the saying: WHAT
> DOESN'T KILL YOU, MAKE YOU STRONGER.

It sounds like the old anecdote of the guy on a safari who asks his
guide, "Is that lion safe?" Response: "He's safer than you."

[donquijote1954]

MLOM wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > Tom Keats wrote:
> > > > Actually, bicycles are one of the most safe transportational
> > > > modes. Safer even than being a pedestrian. Motorcycles are
> > > > one of the least safe, as is being a pedestrian.
> >
> > Where you see differences I see simliraties: MOTORCYCLES, BICYCLES AND
> > PEDESTRIANS SHARE BEING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN.
> >
> > Even though bicycles may not that dangerous, they are perceived as
> > such, and the authorities don't do much to dismiss those fears. It's
> > not that I'm that fearful (I even rode last night several miles at 3
> > o'clock am and I'm still alive) it's just the fear factor is always
> > there particularly in heavy traffic. But you know the saying: WHAT
> > DOESN'T KILL YOU, MAKE YOU STRONGER.
>
> It sounds like the old anecdote of the guy on a safari who asks his
> guide, "Is that lion safe?" Response: "He's safer than you."

I see. But I won't feel safe until his paws and teeth are removed. Or
until he publicly renounces to eating meat and becomes a vegetarian.

[donquijote1954]

Though not worthy of another thread the small incident that occurred
last night is illustrative of what's going out there...

I was riding my bike at night with the tail light and all, and all of a
sudden I hear the blast of a horn. It was a young lady --phone-on-ear--
who panicked or was trying to intimidate me out of the way, while the
three-lane road was totally deserted...

This is a sort of terrorism without terrorists, or without a cause for
that matter, just plain simple stupidity and lack of interest on the
part of the traffic authorities and politicians to erradicate this
problem.

But my Quixotic adventures --riding a bike on the road-- will continue.
To be continued (if I survive). Of course, and I will wear my
one-of-a-kind T-shirts, like this...

http://cafepress.com/putsomefun

"My struggle is not against the puppet, but against the puppeteer"