Schram at it again

[Claire Petersky]

He's whingeing about bicyclists again:

Here's his column:
http://www.komotv.com/stories/26456.htm

Here's local bike commuter Doug Bosworth's reply:

---
Still running red lights and stop signs, still driving drunk, still
scattering pedestrians in crosswalks; still cutting bicyclists off
with abrupt turns; still not paying attention to traffic and talking
on cell phones, ramming into stopped cars on the freeway at 80 MPH and
killing whole families; still ignoring traffic laws and common sense.

Yep, those damn car and SUV drivers are still out there.

But I don't think I've ever criticized these four-wheeled terrorists.

For the last twelve long months I kept hoping for at least one glimpse
of one cop giving one of these clowns a ticket, and the only one's
I've seen written are for violating the Diamond Lane. Oh, yes, that is
dangerous, isn't it.

It's a shame because there are enough gas pedal-pumpin', cell phone
usin' scofflaws out there who deserve tickets: for speeding; for
illegal turns; for not signaling; for blowing through red lights and
smashing into families.

It's not most motorists, but it's too many motorists.

Yep, they're still out there.

And I haven't given up hope of having the satisfaction of one day
seeing one cop pull one of them over to write them up for one of their
stupid, illegal antics.

All part of sharing the road don'tcha know.

Too bad there aren't more people getting out of their cars and walking
or riding their bikes. I haven't yet seen another person get injured
by another bicyclist. Two Hundred Fifty pounds of bike and rider, vs.
2500+ pounds of car and driver? I'll let you decide who the real
threat is.
---

Warm Regards,



Claire Petersky )
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Singing with you at: http://www.tiferet.net/
Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky

[Robin Hubert]

"Claire Petersky" > wrote in message
om...
> He's whingeing about bicyclists again:
>
> Here's his column:
> http://www.komotv.com/stories/26456.htm
>
> Here's local bike commuter Doug Bosworth's reply:
>
> ---
> Still running red lights and stop signs, still driving drunk, still
> scattering pedestrians in crosswalks; still cutting bicyclists off
> with abrupt turns; still not paying attention to traffic and talking
> on cell phones, ramming into stopped cars on the freeway at 80 MPH and
> killing whole families; still ignoring traffic laws and common sense.
>
> Yep, those damn car and SUV drivers are still out there.
>
> But I don't think I've ever criticized these four-wheeled terrorists.
>
> For the last twelve long months I kept hoping for at least one glimpse
> of one cop giving one of these clowns a ticket, and the only one's
> I've seen written are for violating the Diamond Lane. Oh, yes, that is
> dangerous, isn't it.
>
> It's a shame because there are enough gas pedal-pumpin', cell phone
> usin' scofflaws out there who deserve tickets: for speeding; for
> illegal turns; for not signaling; for blowing through red lights and
> smashing into families.
>
> It's not most motorists, but it's too many motorists.
>
> Yep, they're still out there.
>
> And I haven't given up hope of having the satisfaction of one day
> seeing one cop pull one of them over to write them up for one of their
> stupid, illegal antics.
>
> All part of sharing the road don'tcha know.
>
> Too bad there aren't more people getting out of their cars and walking
> or riding their bikes. I haven't yet seen another person get injured
> by another bicyclist. Two Hundred Fifty pounds of bike and rider, vs.
> 2500+ pounds of car and driver? I'll let you decide who the real
> threat is.
> ---
>
> Warm Regards,
>
>

I believe that most municipalities could rake in the mint if they hired
enough extra cops just to write traffic tickets. Of course, after a few
years everything would settle down and we'd have thousands of extra cops
with nothing to do other than be Nazi's.



--
Robin Hubert >

[Larry Schuldt]

On 8 Aug 2003 07:31:18 -0700, (Claire Petersky)
wrote:

>He's whingeing about bicyclists again:
>
>Here's his column:
>http://www.komotv.com/stories/26456.htm
>

What's wrong with enforcing laws for cyclists? As a cyclist, I'd
welcome it! I meet too many wrong-way cyclists and I see to many idot
POBs out there.

larry
--
To reply by e-mail, be polite. Rudeness will get you nowhere.

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 08 Aug 2003 10:57:53 -0500,
>, Larry Schuldt
> wrote:

>
>What's wrong with enforcing laws for cyclists? As a cyclist, I'd
>welcome it! I meet too many wrong-way cyclists and I see to many idot
>POBs out there.

There's still no problem with "too many" persons riding bikes. That
they don't conform to your idealised notion of what makes a "cyclist"
is your problem. I say anyone riding a bike in a NA city is doing us
all a favour.

Sure, I'd favour ticketing every road user endangering the public but
it's not being done. Idiot drivers are getting away with murder while
this pork slurping scumwad takes up valuable air-time whining to
bobble heads about bicycles jumping curbs. It's sickening when
self-proclaimed so called "cyclists" agree with those views.
--
zk

[Thomas Reynolds]

(Claire Petersky) wrote in message >...
> He's whingeing about bicyclists again:
>
> Here's his column:
> http://www.komotv.com/stories/26456.htm
>
> Here's local bike commuter Doug Bosworth's reply:
>
> ---
> Still running red lights and stop signs, still driving drunk, still
> ......

As a cyclist who puts in a few thousand commuting miles a year in a
big city, I have to say I agree with Schram's column. Cyclists who
behave like that are ignoring the law and endangering the safety of
others. The cops should crack down on them. The reply that you
posted completely ignored Schram's arguments to point out that some
motorists do the same. I agree with that also. The cops should crack
down on them as well.

[Scott Munro]

On 8 Aug 2003 12:00:55 -0700, (Thomas Reynolds)
wrote:

(Claire Petersky) wrote in message >...
>> He's whingeing about bicyclists again:
>>
>> Here's his column:
>> http://www.komotv.com/stories/26456.htm
>>
>> Here's local bike commuter Doug Bosworth's reply:
>>
>> ---
>> Still running red lights and stop signs, still driving drunk, still
>> ......
>
>As a cyclist who puts in a few thousand commuting miles a year in a
>big city, I have to say I agree with Schram's column.

I do too (apart from the idiotic "terrorists" comment). I kept waiting
for him to complain about cyclists riding outside of bike lanes and
riding in the center of the lane, at which point I would have written
him off as a selfish, pig-ignorant cretin, but he never did. All of
his complaints are perfectly reasonable.

--
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes--our
ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit
to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be
walking around."
-- G.K. Chesterton

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:28:40 GMT,
>, Scott Munro
> wrote:

>All of
>his complaints are perfectly reasonable.

While couched in language that would land his bosses in court if he
were berating any other visible minority. That scumwad is fostering
hatred with his assinine comments.
--
zk

[Eric S. Sande]

>Just curious, is there a newsgroup that features lots of talk about
>cycling topics such as equipment, accessories, technique, rides/routes,
>etc...? Every time I come back here to read/learn, it's heavy with
>political diatribes and the "motorists are evil/bikes should be societies
>only mode of transportation/I know best and expect the rest of society to
>adopt my view of the world and conform" crowd. It just makes me want to
>park the bike - sort of defeating my purpose for reading the group.

rec.bicycles.misc will cover most of your questions.

rec.bicycles.tech will more than cover technical questions.

rec.bicycles.soc is, well, rec.bicycles.soc.

If you want to wreck your bicycle, wreck it in the right place.

There are also rec.bicycles.rides and rec.bicycles.marketplace.

The whole point of splitting up these ngs was that there was too
much traffic for one ng, therefore the current hierarchy.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Eric S. Sande]

OK Zoot, also:

fr.rec.sport.cyclisme

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 09 Aug 2003 02:39:22 -0400, >, "Eric
S. Sande" > wrote:

>OK Zoot, also:
>
>fr.rec.sport.cyclisme

Well, from the sound of it, I didn't bother to include the
<japan.sports.bicycles> and there's Martin's bicyle-greenways.nbg
dither that I totally ignore too.

<it.discussioni.droghe>?
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 09 Aug 2003 03:51:12 -0400, >, "Eric
S. Sande" > wrote:

>>>fr.rec.sport.cyclisme
>
>>Well, from the sound of it, I didn't bother.
>
>Too bad you didn't check it out. It's the rec.bicycles of France.
>
>You sound a lot like Mayonnaise here, Zoot, the official languages
>of bicycling are English and French.

You mean the _other_ two official languages.
it.hobby.cicloturismo
it.sport.ciclismo

>
>Zut, alors.
>
>Anyway, it's a cool ng, mostly the same discussions go on there as
>go on here.
>
I bet they talk more about food.
--
zk

[Eric S. Sande]

>I bet they talk more about food.

I could have sworn there was a UCI rule that said English and French
were the deal. Never mind food, that's a universal language, and
I'm checking on it.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Luigi de Guzman]

"RecBike" > wrote in message >...

> Just curious, is there a newsgroup that features lots of talk about cycling
> topics such as equipment, accessories, technique, rides/routes, etc...?
> Every time I come back here to read/learn, it's heavy with political
> diatribes and the "motorists are evil/bikes should be societies only mode of
> transportation/I know best and expect the rest of society to adopt my view
> of the world and conform" crowd. It just makes me want to park the bike -
> sort of defeating my purpose for reading the group.


Remember that this newsgroup, along with the others on the
rec.bicycles.* hierarchy, provides an almost unfailingly sympathetic
audience when it comes to rants against bad drivers, stupid road
design, political indifference, etc. If you tried to have a serious
conversation about the problems on your commute with a non-cyclist,
the non-cyclist would in all probability tell you, repeatedly, to get
off the road. A sympathetic hearing and encouragement from the NG is
a useful antidote to this sort of dialogue of the deaf.


If you spend a lot of time riding a bicycle on the public
rights-of-way, you will soon find that questions of rights and
responsibilities as they apply to road-users are of more than academic
importance to cyclists.

rec.bicycles.misc is a largely North American NG, and in the North
American context, the bicycle is a marginalized form of transport.
Very little provision is made for bicycle access, education, or even
legal protection for cyclists severely injured or even killed as a
result of the carelessness, ignorance or outright hostility of
motor-vehicle users. Cyclists, being as they are a minority, are
acutely aware that without awareness and action, they risk being
legislated out of existence and confined to 'safe' areas that go
nowhere. For those of us who ride for daily transport or utilitarian
purposes, this would have a similar effect as the imposition of
apartheid on black South Africans: confining us to 'homelands,'
deemed 'appropriate to our needs,' limiting our recourse to legal
protection while cycling, and ultimately, an attempt at killing us off
as a viable transportation option.

Consequently, if any article, public statement, or government policy
is published that would seem to attack our right to the public
roadways should be discovered and posted on here, the natural response
is anger--and several hundred irate emails directed at the publishers.
Some posters on this group are notably more hostile towards
automobiles and motorized traffic in general, but I would submit that
the vast majority are quite content to coexist with the car, provided
their own rights are not infringed.

One last thought: this is an unmoderated NG. You get what you put
in. If you want to learn about equipment, technique, routes, and
other 'practical' advice,then *ask*. Those same horrible, 'political'
types you're complaining about are also very experienced cyclists, and
would know a thing or two about getting around and having fun on two
wheels.

-Luigi

"Political thought is itself political action."
-E.H. Carr, _The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939_

[Eric S. Sande]

>Those same horrible, 'political' types you're complaining about are
>also very experienced cyclists, and would know a thing or two about
>getting around and having fun on two wheels.

He's only been reading .soc, Luigi. Relax. All cyclists are not
horrible and political. Most of us are merely horrible, with mild
political overtones.

We only pretend to be helpful, until we have you where we want you,
then we pounce, HA HA!

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

In reality if I had the energy at my age to race Fabrizzio to the top
of L' Alpe de Huez I would be doing it. I'm just a mild-mannered
commuter.

If there's anything I can help you with in terms of like, a spare
tube or something, I'll be glad to do it.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Luigi de Guzman]

"Eric S. Sande" > wrote in message >...
> >Those same horrible, 'political' types you're complaining about are
> >also very experienced cyclists, and would know a thing or two about
> >getting around and having fun on two wheels.
>
> He's only been reading .soc, Luigi. Relax. All cyclists are not
> horrible and political. Most of us are merely horrible, with mild
> political overtones.

I abandoned .soc a long time ago. M*** V******* posts, mainly, and
..misc does a better job of talking about whatever .soc was supposed to
do.

>
> We only pretend to be helpful, until we have you where we want you,
> then we pounce, HA HA!
>
> No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

"Cardinal! bring forth....THE NARROW SADDLE!"

>
> In reality if I had the energy at my age to race Fabrizzio to the top
> of L' Alpe de Huez I would be doing it. I'm just a mild-mannered
> commuter.

hey, at my weight, I *am* the peloton.

>
> If there's anything I can help you with in terms of like, a spare
> tube or something, I'll be glad to do it.

score me some EPO?

*grin*

-luigi

[Gary Smiley]

You got that right- I did a bike tour in France last year for the first
time, and I literally ate my way across Provence and the Riviera, and
man, that food was great!

Zoot Katz wrote:

> Sat, 09 Aug 2003 03:51:12 -0400, >, "Eric
> S. Sande" > wrote:
>
> >>>fr.rec.sport.cyclisme
> >
> >>Well, from the sound of it, I didn't bother.
> >
> >Too bad you didn't check it out. It's the rec.bicycles of France.
> >
> >You sound a lot like Mayonnaise here, Zoot, the official languages
> >of bicycling are English and French.
>
> You mean the _other_ two official languages.
> it.hobby.cicloturismo
> it.sport.ciclismo
>
> >
> >Zut, alors.
> >
> >Anyway, it's a cool ng, mostly the same discussions go on there as
> >go on here.
> >
> I bet they talk more about food.
> --
> zk

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 02:14:45 -0400, Eric S. Sande > wrote:
> The whole point of splitting up these ngs was that there was too
> much traffic for one ng, therefore the current hierarchy.

Of course, much is cross-posted, and when not, there's similar
discussion in each ng.

--
Rick Onanian

[Scott Eiler]

In article >,
the robotic servitors of (Luigi de Guzman)
rose up with the following chant:
>"Eric S. Sande" > wrote in message
> >...
>> >Those same horrible, 'political' types you're complaining about are
>> >also very experienced cyclists, and would know a thing or two about
>> >getting around and having fun on two wheels.
>>
>> He's only been reading .soc, Luigi. Relax. All cyclists are not
>> horrible and political. Most of us are merely horrible, with mild
>> political overtones.
>
>I abandoned .soc a long time ago. M*** V******* posts, mainly, and
>..misc does a better job of talking about whatever .soc was supposed to
>do.

I'm new to the cycling groups, and I picked .soc over .misc. The topic of
..soc is mostly what I'm interested in, and I'm prepared to ignore everything
else. Bottom line, the .soc group has lots of irrelevant rants about mountain
bikes, but the .misc group has even more stuff that's irrelevant (to me).

-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"We have more than enough people in this world, so adding children to it is about as much of a contribution as donating a box of cereal to the Kellogg's company!" -- Bill, from the Cyber-Church of Jesus Christ Childfree.

[RecBike]

"RecBike" > wrote in message
...
> "Claire Petersky" > wrote in message
> om...
> > He's whingeing about bicyclists again:
> >
> > Here's his column:
> > http://www.komotv.com/stories/26456.htm
> >
>
> Just curious, is there a newsgroup that features lots of talk about
cycling
> topics such as equipment, accessories, technique, rides/routes, etc...?
> Every time I come back here to read/learn, it's heavy with political
> diatribes and the "motorists are evil/bikes should be societies only mode
of
> transportation/I know best and expect the rest of society to adopt my view
> of the world and conform" crowd. It just makes me want to park the bike -
> sort of defeating my purpose for reading the group.
>
> Thanks,
> Ray
>
Alright, thanks for all of the input. I'll check out some of the threads
that aren't that appealing to me at first glance; see if I can glean
something I hadn't considered.

Oh yeah, I'll quit "bitchin'". : )

Ray

[Scott Munro]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:44:28 -0700, Zoot Katz
> wrote:

>Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:28:40 GMT,
>, Scott Munro
> wrote:
>
>>All of
>>his complaints are perfectly reasonable.
>
>While couched in language that would land his bosses in court if he
>were berating any other visible minority.

No, it wouldn't. Not in the US, anyway (though it might get him sent
to the camps if he were in Canada or Europe).

> That scumwad is fostering
>hatred with his assinine comments.

Oh, I see: you're parodying the racialist Left. Good one.

--
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes--our
ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit
to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be
walking around."
-- G.K. Chesterton

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 09 Aug 2003 19:55:51 GMT,
>, Scott Munro
> wrote:

>>While couched in language that would land his bosses in court if he
>>were berating any other visible minority.
>
>No, it wouldn't. Not in the US, anyway

Substitute "cyclists" for some racial group and re-read it.

The guy is hate mongering with that spewage you willingly sucked up.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, >,
Gary Smiley > wrote:

>You got that right- I did a bike tour in France last year for the first
>time, and I literally ate my way across Provence and the Riviera, and
>man, that food was great!

mmm . . . Socca.
--
zk

[david moore]

(Luigi de Guzman) wrote in
m:

> I abandoned .soc a long time ago. M*** V******* posts, mainly, and
> .misc does a better job of talking about whatever .soc was supposed to
> do.

The killfile is your friend. The following X-News score file entries have
made .soc very readable for me:

[rec\.bicycles\.soc]
Score:: =-9999
From:

Score:: =-9999
XRef: alt.mountain-bike

I suggest people use these, as the only way the idiot will go away is if
everyone ignores him.

[Bill Davidson]

david moore wrote:
> The killfile is your friend. The following X-News score file entries have
> made .soc very readable for me:
>
> [rec\.bicycles\.soc]
> Score:: =-9999
> From:
>
> Score:: =-9999
> XRef: alt.mountain-bike
>
> I suggest people use these, as the only way the idiot will go away is if
> everyone ignores him.

I believe that just kills his articles and leaves the response threads
around. I use Mozilla 1.4 and the filters can be set up to ignore an
entire thread based upon given criteria (like a certain annoying troll
posting to it). If I didn't see these little complaint threads, I
wouldn't even know that super-troll was still posting here. I think
there's a few other news readers that can do this too.

Of course, it's also true that if nobody responded to his idiocy, he
would go away and killfiles/filters wouldn't even be necessary.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now

[Hunrobe]

>Zoot Katz

wrote:

>Substitute "cyclists" for some racial group and re-read it.
>
>The guy is hate mongering with that spewage you willingly sucked up.

Uhhh, Zoot? If you replace "cagers" and "SUV numbnuts" with a racial group in
many of your posts *you* would look like a hate monger.
What you propose simply is not a valid argument.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

10 Aug 2003 08:21:57 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>
>Uhhh, Zoot? If you replace "cagers" and "SUV numbnuts" with a racial group in
>many of your posts *you* would look like a hate monger.
>What you propose simply is not a valid argument.

Yeah, I knew that and it's an indefensible position.

I don't have the same access to the air-waves nor would the
advertisers permit my views to be expressed. I guess I twitch whenever
I see media slamming or denigrating bicycles yet consciously ignoring
the greater damage automobiles do to our society.

That, and I don't like the guy's face. He looks all puffy pink like
pork.
--
zk

[Jym Dyer]

>> I abandoned .soc a long time ago. M*** V******* posts,
>> mainly, and ..misc does a better job of talking about
>> whatever .soc was supposed to do.

=v= I wouldn't say "mainly." Now and then he reposts a deluge
of stuff, but that can be easily filtered out, if that's what
you want. Other things in r.b.soc are quite interesting.

> Bottom line, the .soc group has lots of irrelevant rants about
> mountain bikes, but the .misc group has even more stuff that's
> irrelevant (to me).

=v= The whole point of a .misc group is to handle the stuff
that's not got its own newsgroup. In this case, that means
anything that's not .racing, .soc, .technical, etc. In theory
folks ought to keep the .soc stuff in .soc, but it's not
happening.

=v= Basically each newsgroup has its own set of regulars, and
the discourse reflects them more than it does the newsgroup
charter. I think .misc has a fine crop of regulars, but there
is a lot of traffic that's irrelevant (to me). Much stuff is
cross-posted, too. My solution is to read .soc first, which
(in my newsreader) removes a good chunk of stuff (the stuff
that's cross-posted) from .misc, making .misc more manageable.
<_Jym_>

[Hunrobe]

>Zoot Katz

wrote:

>Yeah, I knew that and it's an indefensible position.
>
>I don't have the same access to the air-waves nor would the
>advertisers permit my views to be expressed. I guess I twitch whenever
>I see media slamming or denigrating bicycles yet consciously ignoring
>the greater damage automobiles do to our society.
>
>That, and I don't like the guy's face. He looks all puffy pink like
>pork.
>--
>zk

Well, at least you're honest about it. :-)
On another note, have you seen the August '03 issue of CycleSport? There's a
very good article in there about Cervelo and their R2.5 that you, as a booster
of things Canadian, might find interesting. I won't mention that the R2.5 got
it's debut in the peloton with a Danish team led by an American. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

10 Aug 2003 16:49:24 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>>Yeah, I knew that and it's an indefensible position.
\sizp
>Well, at least you're honest about it. :-)

Am not! . . .

>On another note, have you seen the August '03 issue of CycleSport? There's a
>very good article in there about Cervelo and their R2.5 that you, as a booster
>of things Canadian, might find interesting. I won't mention that the R2.5 got
>it's debut in the peloton with a Danish team led by an American. ;-)

Well, it's kinda obvious that Canadian bikes are the most advanced in
the world. I mean, not only did the fastest team in le Tour ride
Cervélo, but that HPV record of 82mph also belongs to a Canadian on a
Varna, another Canadian bike.
And here you thought we just made snowmobiles.
--
zk

[Scott Munro]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:36:52 -0700, Zoot Katz
> wrote:

>Sat, 09 Aug 2003 19:55:51 GMT,
>, Scott Munro
> wrote:
>
>>>While couched in language that would land his bosses in court if he
>>>were berating any other visible minority.
>>
>>No, it wouldn't. Not in the US, anyway
>
>Substitute "cyclists" for some racial group and re-read it.
>
>The guy is hate mongering with that spewage you willingly sucked up.

As I said, I'm talking about the US. You, being a Canadian (which I
didn't realize until you said so in another message), perhaps do not
realize just how much free speech protection we have in the US.

In the US, one can publish pamphlets about how "n****rs, s***ks, and
k**es" are ruining the country (not that one should, of course), and
there is no law under which one could be "hauled into court" for so
doing. Indeed, under the First Amendment to our Constitution, no such
law is permitted to exist.

In Canada, of course, no such protection exists for unpopular
opinions.

This, of course, leaves aside the notion of treating cyclists as yet
another privileged victim group, which is frankly too silly to merit a
response.

--
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes--our
ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit
to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be
walking around."
-- G.K. Chesterton

[Larry Schuldt]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:28:46 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:
>
>There's still no problem with "too many" persons riding bikes. That
>they don't conform to your idealised notion of what makes a "cyclist"
>is your problem. I say anyone riding a bike in a NA city is doing us
>all a favour.

I don't recall saying that there were "too many" persons riding. I
have no notions of an idealized "cyclist". There are too many persons
riding for too many different reasons for a single notion to be
correct. However, too many are riding unsafely. Maybe you consider
that someone coming at you on the wrong side of the road is "doing us
all a favour". I do not. This makes as much sense as a motor vehicle
operator saying that it's a good thing to have more people on the road
even if they are operating ther vehicles dangerously. Sorry, I think
dangerous vehicle operators should be removed from the road. This
applies to cyclists, too.
>
>Sure, I'd favour ticketing every road user endangering the public but
>it's not being done.

Agreed.

> Idiot drivers are getting away with murder while
>this pork slurping scumwad takes up valuable air-time whining to
>bobble heads about bicycles jumping curbs.

Ad hominem attacks don't impress me. This discussion is not about
motor vehicle operators. You are bringing in a red herring.

>It's sickening when
>self-proclaimed so called "cyclists" agree with those views.

Sorry you get sick that I disagree with you. Get used to it. I'm not
obligated to agree with you because I ride a bike. And why the quotes?
Do you believe I can't be a "real cyclist" if I don't agree with you?


--
To reply by e-mail, be polite. Rudeness will get you nowhere.

[Larry Schuldt]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:57:49 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:00:47 -0500,
>, Larry Schuldt
> wrote:
>
>>I don't recall saying that there were "too many" persons riding.
>
>Message-ID: >
>>>meet too many wrong-way cyclists and I see to many idot
>>>POBs out there.
>
>Choke.
I said there are too many people riding dangerously, not that there
are too many riding. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your
strong point.
>
>>Do you believe I can't be a "real cyclist" if I don't agree with you
>
>I believe you're just a bigot. You've declared that unless somebody is
>riding in a manner and style you deem acceptable that they shouldn't
>be on the road. Guess what, they are there. And the idiots on bikes
>pose far less threat to you than the idiots in cages. If they really
>are idiots, be thankful they aren't driving.

No, YOU'RE the bigot. You believe cyclists should be given a pass on
riding dangerously. I disagree. Again, this discussion is NOT about
motorists.
--
To reply by e-mail, be polite. Rudeness will get you nowhere.

[Larry Schuldt]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:24:41 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>>I said there are too many people riding dangerously, not that there
>>are too many riding. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your
>>strong point.
>
>You're lame.
>
Ad hominem attacks again?

>WTF is are "idot POBs" unless it's someone of whom you disapprove?
>I guessing it's because they don't fulfill YOUR idealised stereotype
>of what makes a "cyclist". Like I said before, choke, bigot

Ok, lets just say "people who ride dangerously" instead of idiot POBs.
Yes, I do disapprove. According to you, my disapproval of dangerous
riding makes me a bigot.

I can live with that.

larry
--
To reply by e-mail, be polite. Rudeness will get you nowhere.

[Fritz M]

"Robin Hubert" > wrote

> I believe that most municipalities could rake in the mint if they hired
> enough extra cops just to write traffic tickets.

A nearby county did something kinda cool. They had a dump truck
driving back and forth along a two mile stretch of Colorado State Hwy
66, with deputies at the ready to pounce on the drivers who did
illegal things. They cited 46 drivers in a six hour period during
this sting operation. This operation was funded with a $32,000 grant
from the state.

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_2156787,00.html

The state police have also recently conducted a high-profile operation
ticketing aggressive drivers on I-25 between Longmont and Ft. Collins,
and Longmont city police have been out in force this last week with
radar guns pulling drivers over left and right. Today, I saw some
cops standing in the median on a busy street with a radar gun, a
notebook, and a digital camera.

RFM

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:45:32 -0500,
>, Larry Schuldt
> wrote:

>Ok, lets just say "people who ride dangerously" instead of idiot POBs.

I'd say that you were judging them more by their clothing and
equipment than by their riding, bigot. Besides, it's no skin off your
nose how they ride. They're doing you a favour by not driving.
--
zk

[Robin Hubert]

"Fritz M" > wrote in message
om...
> "Robin Hubert" > wrote
>
> > I believe that most municipalities could rake in the mint if they hired
> > enough extra cops just to write traffic tickets.
>
> A nearby county did something kinda cool. They had a dump truck
> driving back and forth along a two mile stretch of Colorado State Hwy
> 66, with deputies at the ready to pounce on the drivers who did
> illegal things. They cited 46 drivers in a six hour period during
> this sting operation. This operation was funded with a $32,000 grant
> from the state.
>
>
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_2156787,00.ht
ml
>
> The state police have also recently conducted a high-profile operation
> ticketing aggressive drivers on I-25 between Longmont and Ft. Collins,
> and Longmont city police have been out in force this last week with
> radar guns pulling drivers over left and right. Today, I saw some
> cops standing in the median on a busy street with a radar gun, a
> notebook, and a digital camera.
>

SWEET!!!!



--
Robin Hubert >

[Larry Schuldt]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:20:59 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:45:32 -0500,
>, Larry Schuldt
> wrote:
>
>>Ok, lets just say "people who ride dangerously" instead of idiot POBs.
>
>I'd say that you were judging them more by their clothing and
>equipment than by their riding, bigot. Besides, it's no skin off your
>nose how they ride. They're doing you a favour by not driving.

Where did I mention clothing?
--
To reply by e-mail, be polite. Rudeness will get you nowhere.

[Larry Schuldt]

On 11 Aug 2003 19:54:13 -0700, (Chalo) wrote:

>Consider that there is nothing intrinsically that dangerous about a
>person on a bicycle no matter how he or she is riding. The mortal
>danger in traffic is imposed by motorists. Your line of reasoning
>transfers much of the responsibility for mitigating that danger onto
>the cyclist, which is ethically fallacious.
>
>Substitute a retarded child, loose animal, or fallen tree for the
>cyclist and it may be a little clearer to you.
>
>Chalo Colina

To say a 200 pound mass traveling at 20+ mph is not intrinsically
dangerous is equally disengenuous. If you want to say that danger in
traffic is mainly from motorists fine. I agree. How about the danger
on sidewalks from cyclists?

However, defending dangerous cyclists by saying "Motorists are even
more dangerous" is not a rational defense. If I rob a bank, I can't
say it's ok by saying "John Dillinger robbed more banks." The
reasoning just doesn't hold up. Now once again, all together, "This is
a discussion about dangerous cyclists, NOT MOTORISTS." Constantly
bringing up motorist behavior is a distraction.


--
To reply by e-mail, be polite. Rudeness will get you nowhere.

[Robin Hubert]

"Larry Schuldt" > wrote in message
...
> On 11 Aug 2003 19:54:13 -0700, (Chalo) wrote:
>
> >Consider that there is nothing intrinsically that dangerous about a
> >person on a bicycle no matter how he or she is riding. The mortal
> >danger in traffic is imposed by motorists. Your line of reasoning
> >transfers much of the responsibility for mitigating that danger onto
> >the cyclist, which is ethically fallacious.
> >
> >Substitute a retarded child, loose animal, or fallen tree for the
> >cyclist and it may be a little clearer to you.
> >
> >Chalo Colina
>
> To say a 200 pound mass traveling at 20+ mph is not intrinsically
> dangerous is equally disengenuous. If you want to say that danger in
> traffic is mainly from motorists fine. I agree. How about the danger
> on sidewalks from cyclists?
>
> However, defending dangerous cyclists by saying "Motorists are even
> more dangerous" is not a rational defense. If I rob a bank, I can't
> say it's ok by saying "John Dillinger robbed more banks." The
> reasoning just doesn't hold up. Now once again, all together, "This is
> a discussion about dangerous cyclists, NOT MOTORISTS." Constantly
> bringing up motorist behavior is a distraction.
>
>

Give me a break! There is no such thing as a dangerous cyclist unless he's
strapping a suicide bomb!

Scenario: On the news, motorist drives into crowd on sidewalk, killing and
maiming x-amount of people. Now, replace "motorist" with "bicyclist". Do
you hear people laughing?



--
Robin Hubert >

[Chalo]

"RecBike" wrote

> Every time I come back here to read/learn, it's heavy with political
> diatribes and the "motorists are evil/bikes should be societies only mode of
> transportation/I know best and expect the rest of society to adopt my view
> of the world and conform" crowd. It just makes me want to park the bike -

I thought there was plenty of broadcast TV to keep you folks
entertained.

Go on, git on home! Careful not to drop your cell phone in your
freedom fries while you're driving away.

Chalo Colina

[Chalo]

Larry Schuldt > wrote:

> (Chalo) wrote:
>
> >Consider that there is nothing intrinsically that dangerous about a
> >person on a bicycle no matter how he or she is riding. The mortal
> >danger in traffic is imposed by motorists.
>
> To say a 200 pound mass traveling at 20+ mph is not intrinsically
> dangerous is equally disengenuous. If you want to say that danger in
> traffic is mainly from motorists fine. I agree. How about the danger
> on sidewalks from cyclists?

Who do you know who's been maimed or killed by a cyclist, on or off a
sidewalk? You imply a problem that for all relevant purposes does not
exist.

I don't suggest that it is impossible for someone to be hurt or killed
by a lone cyclist, just that in the real world there is not a
meaningful danger of that happening.

Cyclists, unlike motorists, travel with their hides exposed and full
blood flow to their brains. The resultant awareness is their first
and best defense against collision.

Chalo Colina

[Erik Freitag]

In article >,
(Chalo) wrote:

> Larry Schuldt > wrote:
>
> > (Chalo) wrote:
> >
> > >Consider that there is nothing intrinsically that dangerous about a
> > >person on a bicycle no matter how he or she is riding. The mortal
> > >danger in traffic is imposed by motorists.
> >
> > To say a 200 pound mass traveling at 20+ mph is not intrinsically
> > dangerous is equally disengenuous. If you want to say that danger in
> > traffic is mainly from motorists fine. I agree. How about the danger
> > on sidewalks from cyclists?
>
> Who do you know who's been maimed or killed by a cyclist, on or off a
> sidewalk? You imply a problem that for all relevant purposes does not
> exist.

Misleading at best. I don't know anyone who has been killed by a car,
but I know cars are dangerous.

> I don't suggest that it is impossible for someone to be hurt or killed
> by a lone cyclist, just that in the real world there is not a
> meaningful danger of that happening.

Looks like there about 2 a year in NYC - probably only meaningful to the
victim's family. http://www.messengers.org/messville/NYC_AC2.HTM

> Cyclists, unlike motorists, travel with their hides exposed and full
> blood flow to their brains. The resultant awareness is their first
> and best defense against collision.

Or high endorphin levels reduce awareness of their surroundings? Bicycle
drivers must have better road skills than car drivers, not better
awareness.

[Chalo]

Erik Freitag > wrote:

> (Chalo) wrote:
>
> > I don't suggest that it is impossible for someone to be hurt or killed
> > by a lone cyclist, just that in the real world there is not a
> > meaningful danger of that happening.
>
> Looks like there about 2 a year in NYC - probably only meaningful to the
> victim's family. http://www.messengers.org/messville/NYC_AC2.HTM

That's eight times a hundred, times a hundred, times a hundred people
living on top of each other. I bet there are at least as many who
perish due to collisions between people on foot.

Cycling ain't dangerous and you look foolish trying to make it seem
so.

Chalo Colina

[Erik Freitag]

In article >,
(Chalo) wrote:

> That's eight times a hundred, times a hundred, times a hundred people
> living on top of each other. I bet there are at least as many who
> perish due to collisions between people on foot.

Pretty selective quoting. Don't you think is more than a little off the
original topic.


> Cycling ain't dangerous and you look foolish trying to make it seem
> so.

You must be thinking of someone else.

[Marc VanHeyningen]

Thus said (Thomas Reynolds):
(Claire Petersky) wrote in message
>...
>> He's whingeing about bicyclists again:
>>
>> Here's his column:
>> http://www.komotv.com/stories/26456.htm
>
>As a cyclist who puts in a few thousand commuting miles a year in a
>big city, I have to say I agree with Schram's column. Cyclists who
>behave like that are ignoring the law and endangering the safety of
>others. The cops should crack down on them. The reply that you
>posted completely ignored Schram's arguments to point out that some
>motorists do the same. I agree with that also. The cops should crack
>down on them as well.

So, what other things should the police cut back on in order to provide
this increased enforcement?

[Thomas Reynolds]

(Marc VanHeyningen) wrote in message >...
> Thus said (Thomas Reynolds):
> (Claire Petersky) wrote in message
> >...
> >> He's whingeing about bicyclists again:
> >>
> >> Here's his column:
> >> http://www.komotv.com/stories/26456.htm
> >
> >As a cyclist who puts in a few thousand commuting miles a year in a
> >big city, I have to say I agree with Schram's column. Cyclists who
> >behave like that are ignoring the law and endangering the safety of
> >others. The cops should crack down on them. The reply that you
> >posted completely ignored Schram's arguments to point out that some
> >motorists do the same. I agree with that also. The cops should crack
> >down on them as well.
>
> So, what other things should the police cut back on in order to provide
> this increased enforcement?

Nothing. I'm willing to pay higher taxes for this. Radical idea,
huh?

BTW, the "other" is unnecessary since my first post didn't suggest
they cut back on anything.

Ride more,
Tom