Re: How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

[WeatherGuy]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.
>
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>
> --
> Life is short - drive fast!
> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/


This behaviour by the cyclist was unacceptable. The "****head" was
unacceptable as well. There are times when it is necessary for safety
reasons to ride on a sidewalk (although perhaps not in this case). At all
times, the cyclist should not endanger the pedestrians, the pedestrians
should acknowledge the need to share the sidewalk and both cyclist and
pedestrians should be polite to each other.

[di]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message >
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>
> --
> Life is short - drive fast!
> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

Your website says it all, you are the asshole, everyone is supposed to
behave as you think they should.

[Joe Canuck]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As


Would you have moved into single file had you met another pedestrian?
....or would you have insisted on staying side by each?

....now be honest.

I don't think you would have. More on this later.


> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.
>
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
> http://tinypic.com/539poy


Wow, the sidewalk looks very crowded.

I can almost hear the pedestrians crying out in fear. ;)

Granted, the street is not very busy either.


>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>

You were not exactly courteous with your "****head" and "lard-asses"
comments or refusal to share the sidewalk.

Sounds to me like you and your wife started off the walk in a cranky
mood and returned home in the same state with some photographic
"evidence" to support your collective bad moods and attitudes.

Like, give me a break ok, just because one is on the phone doesn't mean
their eyes stop working. I'm sure a pedestrian would have been equally
****ed-off when your wife would not make room to let them by on the
sidewalk as well.

[Arif Khokar]

WeatherGuy wrote:

> There are times when it is necessary for safety
> reasons to ride on a sidewalk

Bull****. If you want to ride, stay on the road with other traffic. If
you want to use the sidewalk, then you can *walk* with your bicycle.
Only idiot adults ride on the sidewalk.

[Harry K]

WeatherGuy wrote:
> "Scott en Aztl=E1n" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> > narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side.
As
> > we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> > call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what
was
> > ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached
from
> > ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> > thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> > stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> > petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> > express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to
him
> > and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking
our
> > heads in disbelief.
> >
> > Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes
on
> > the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
> >
> > http://tinypic.com/539poy
> >
> > There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> > call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the
need
> > to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
> >
> > People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> > bad name.
> >
> > --
> > Life is short - drive fast!
> > http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/
>
>
> This behaviour by the cyclist was unacceptable. The "****head" was
> unacceptable as well. There are times when it is necessary for safety

> reasons to ride on a sidewalk (although perhaps not in this case). At
all
> times, the cyclist should not endanger the pedestrians, the
pedestrians
> should acknowledge the need to share the sidewalk and both cyclist
and
> pedestrians should be polite to each other.

The cyclist needs to recognize "right of way". On a sidewalk the
pedestrian has it. It is the cyclist who needs to give way, dismount
or whatever.

Harry K

[Joe Canuck]

di wrote:

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message >
>
>>Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
>>the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>>
>>http://tinypic.com/539poy
>>
>>There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
>>call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
>>to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>>
>>People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
>>bad name.
>>
>>--
>>Life is short - drive fast!
>>http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/
>
>
> Your website says it all, you are the asshole, everyone is supposed to
> behave as you think they should.
>
>

Wow, I missed that on my first pass of his post.

Ok, so we now know why he carries the camera... to collect "evidence" to
support his hate-on website.

[Joe Canuck]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very

How to ****-off Scottie...

I used to own a computer manufacturing business that offered customers
mail-in rebates on our products. Most customers never bothered to mail
them in, and when they did the requirements for the rebate were not
furfilled. We would always wait until after the rebate deadline before
sending the customer a letter informing them they had not met the rebate
requirements and that it didn't matter anymore as it was past the deadline.

One day I was driving around town in my slow moving vintage Cadillac
when it was rear-ended by some fast moving vehicle. I suffered numerous
injuries and have been off work ever since. I developed a serious
drinking problem that I have been using my credit cards to support. Now
I drive, when not drinking of course, even slower than I did before.
When the SOB fast drivers come up behind my vehicle honking their horns
I usually slow down by 10 mph. In some cases I'm already going 10 mph or
less, so we end up stopped. Of course, the passing lane is free but the
idiot fast driver is still behind me, STOPPED, expected me to move my
STOPPED vehicle over so he/she can pass. Go figure.

Well anyways, my credit cards are getting maxed out so I have declared
bankrupcy to clear the debts out so I can start over again. Scott's town
looks like a nice place to live. I may move there and pedal around town
on the sidewalks... slowly of course. Don't mind me if I don't move over
for the pedestrians on the sidewalks, that happens when I am on the cell
phone and not paying any attention to where I am going or standing. I
seem to have an out-of-body experience when I am on the cell phone for
some reason. Odd how it is, that the credit card companies always call
me when I am on the bike to offer me more credit cards.

Hey, my shiny new credit card arrived in the mail. Wowa, lookit that
credit limit. Ok, I'm heading out to the Cadillac dealership to get me a
new slo-boat.

Bye!

[Marty]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.
>
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>

Humans are inherently fallible (except for the pope of course) so you
can't expect perfect behaviour, you just have to factor silliness and
stupidity into your expectations of people. Getting upset all the time
is no good for you and won't change what they do.

Marty

[AZ Nomad]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:34:22 -0500, di > wrote:



>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message >
>> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
>> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>>
>> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
>> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
>> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>>
>> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
>> bad name.
>>
>> --
>> Life is short - drive fast!
>> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

>Your website says it all, you are the asshole, everyone is supposed to
>behave as you think they should.


hello pot.
meet kettle.

[Bill Sornson]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side.

Bzzzzzt. Bad grammar buzzer. Rest of rant deemed to be equally stupid and
therefore deleted.

Post again...one year.

Bill "OK, I recognized the hate-monger's moniker" S.

[John David Galt]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
> no exceptions for "safety reasons."

So what? I'd break that law if I felt safety required it. But that
should rarely be true for adults, unless the only available route has
a narrow right lane, no shoulder, and a high average speed. That's
the kind of road a bike rider should simply not be on.

I agree with you that you had right of way, but the rider did stop
and you should have let him by. Blocking the entire width of ANY
path or road is wrong unless it's because people are waiting in line
or it's your private property.

[John David Galt]

di wrote:
> Your website says it all, you are the asshole, everyone is supposed to
> behave as you think they should.

Generally Scott's site is right on. Though I don't agree with his
prejudice against fat people.

[Bob]

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:

> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the
need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>
> --
> Life is short - drive fast!
> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

Adult cyclists should almost never ride on sidewalks but having said
that what pedestrians is this particular pair endangering, the
photographer? If so, that cameraman must have amazing reflexes to be
able to narrowly escape being run over and still be able to whip out
his trusty camera in time to capture that photograph as the pair...
ummmm... "sped" away.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Skip Elliott Bowman]

"Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
...
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
>> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
>
>
> Would you have moved into single file had you met another pedestrian?
> ...or would you have insisted on staying side by each?
>
> ...now be honest.

Yield the sidewalk to another pedestrian? Sure. Yield the sidewalk to a
bicyclist? I don't think so. One is legal and safe; the other isn't
either.

> You were not exactly courteous with your "****head" and "lard-asses"
> comments or refusal to share the sidewalk.

Scott lives for times like these.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

+--------------------------------------+
\ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 /
\ 1 9 / /
\ 0 / 10 /
\ TROLL-O-METER / /
\ / /
\ / /
\_____________________/____/
\ /
\....................../

[Claire Petersky]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:27:18 GMT, "DD"
> > wrote:
>
> >Wow, you sure do spend a lot of time hating, don't you?
>
> More like getting irritated.

I recommend riding a bike more often. It really helps allieviate those
stresses and strains of life.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky

Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[bobgoon]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:24:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>
> +--------------------------------------+
> \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 /
> \ 1 9 / /
> \ 0 / 10 /
> \ TROLL-O-METER / /
> \ / /
> \ / /
> \_____________________/____/
> \ /
> \....................../


I'd say the meter should be pegged at 11 ("..eleven - it's one louder
isn't it?..." - N. Tufnell), and smoke should be pouring out of said
meter. A bit hard to do using ascii-art, but there you go...

- To all who tried to argue with/reason with/abuse the Original
Pillock:

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

[None]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.
>
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>
I know I'm feeding the troll but here goes. In Pennsylvania a bicycle
is considered a vehicle and as such is required to obey the same laws,
ie DON'T RIDE ON THE SIDEWALK. That being said, I have been stopped by
local township police and told to ride on the bike path (which is for
pedestrians and bicycles). Note: I ride a Bianchi Alfana with American
Classic Hubs, Nisi Laser rims, and Time peddles, not your average
'cycle. I (we) politely informed him that in the view of safety we
would stick to the road where we belong.

Back to the troll, calling someone a '**** head' is rude and uncalled
for even if he just rode over your foot. People like this give good
courteous law-abiding pedestrians a bad name.

[Dan]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.
>
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>

Granted, bicycles should not ride on the sidewalk. Having said that, I
frequently ride on a trail system made up of 2 sections, a city portion
officially designated a "Bike Path" and a metro park portion designated
a "Multi-use trail", uses including bikes. In an average trip on this ~
10 mile route, I will encounter no fewer than 4 pedestrians alone or in
groups who are totally oblivious to their surroundings and other traffic
on the path, sauntering along with the same awareness they must exhibit
when stumbling from bed to toilet at 3:30 in the morning... except my
guess is on THAT trip they are not listening to headphones turned up
full blast. There is no attempt to stay to the right, runners using the
path typically run right in the middle, and if a bike approaches from
the rear & they DO notice its presence, the reaction as often as not is
to step INTO it's path! In addition to that, on the city BIKE PATH
portion which is not adequately policed, it's not unusual to encounter
walkers who are accomanied by un-leashed dogs (ohhh, Patches wouldn't
hurt anyone... CHOMP... ). While we're upbraiding bikers for
inconsideration, let's not leave out the often self-absorbed pedestrians
as well. They walk like they drive; which makes me even LESS likely to
venture into the street with them. At least bike on walker I have a
chance, bike on SUV and it's no contest.

Dan

[Joe Canuck]

Dan wrote:

> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
>> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
>> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
>> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
>> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
>> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
>> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
>> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
>> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
>> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
>> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
>> heads in disbelief.
>>
>> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
>> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>>
>> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
>> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
>> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>>
>> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
>> bad name.
>>
>
> Granted, bicycles should not ride on the sidewalk. Having said that, I
> frequently ride on a trail system made up of 2 sections, a city portion
> officially designated a "Bike Path" and a metro park portion designated
> a "Multi-use trail", uses including bikes. In an average trip on this ~
> 10 mile route, I will encounter no fewer than 4 pedestrians alone or in
> groups who are totally oblivious to their surroundings and other traffic
> on the path, sauntering along with the same awareness they must exhibit
> when stumbling from bed to toilet at 3:30 in the morning... except my
> guess is on THAT trip they are not listening to headphones turned up
> full blast. There is no attempt to stay to the right, runners using the
> path typically run right in the middle, and if a bike approaches from
> the rear & they DO notice its presence, the reaction as often as not is
> to step INTO it's path! In addition to that, on the city BIKE PATH
> portion which is not adequately policed, it's not unusual to encounter
> walkers who are accomanied by un-leashed dogs (ohhh, Patches wouldn't
> hurt anyone... CHOMP... ). While we're upbraiding bikers for
> inconsideration, let's not leave out the often self-absorbed pedestrians
> as well. They walk like they drive; which makes me even LESS likely to
> venture into the street with them. At least bike on walker I have a
> chance, bike on SUV and it's no contest.
>
> Dan

I often encounter pedestrians on bike paths, not unusual here since we
share them. However, these pedestrians insist on walking towards the
oncoming bike/pedestrian traffic in whatever lane they happen to be in.
I figure their logic is they want to see what is coming and would rather
not be approached from the rear by a fast moving bike. When the path is
not busy this is no big deal, but it can create quite the obstacle
course when the path is busy.

Even worse, sometimes these pedestrians meet someone they know and stop
for an extended chat in one or both lanes of the path effectively
creating an obstacle... rather than moving off to the side. Then there
are those mixed standing-still groups of pedestrians and cyclists having
a chat on the path.

Are these the same folks who stop in the middle of the freeway at night
with no lights on in their vehicles? :)

[Dan]

Joe Canuck wrote:

> I often encounter pedestrians on bike paths, not unusual here since we
> share them. However, these pedestrians insist on walking towards the
> oncoming bike/pedestrian traffic in whatever lane they happen to be in.
> I figure their logic is they want to see what is coming and would rather
> not be approached from the rear by a fast moving bike. When the path is
> not busy this is no big deal, but it can create quite the obstacle
> course when the path is busy.
>
> Even worse, sometimes these pedestrians meet someone they know and stop
> for an extended chat in one or both lanes of the path effectively
> creating an obstacle... rather than moving off to the side. Then there
> are those mixed standing-still groups of pedestrians and cyclists having
> a chat on the path.
>
> Are these the same folks who stop in the middle of the freeway at night
> with no lights on in their vehicles? :)
>

Joe-Yeah, I see that too, reminds me of the aisle blocking head-up-a**
behavior seen in supermarkets. Anytime I'm riding & I see one group of
walkers about to pass another going in the opposite direction & me
coming up fast from behind, I know it's going to get interesting. A
person on foot can make a 3 foot lateral move quickly & stably with one
step (hopefully in the correct direction, definitely not a given!); even
going slowly it takes a bike several yards to do this, particularly if
the rider is forced off the trail into the grass. I actually bumped
into a woman the other day this way when she walked right into me,
looking directly at me the whole time. Fortunately by that point I was
barely moving (wobbling, really). I generally make several loops of
this trail system on a ride & therefore will pass the same individuals a
number of times on a given trip. What kills me is that one near miss at
15 mph is not enough to get it through their thick skulls that they are
not the only humans on the planet.

Dan

[GaryG]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>
> > I often encounter pedestrians on bike paths, not unusual here since we
> > share them. However, these pedestrians insist on walking towards the
> > oncoming bike/pedestrian traffic in whatever lane they happen to be in.
> > I figure their logic is they want to see what is coming and would rather
> > not be approached from the rear by a fast moving bike. When the path is
> > not busy this is no big deal, but it can create quite the obstacle
> > course when the path is busy.
> >
> > Even worse, sometimes these pedestrians meet someone they know and stop
> > for an extended chat in one or both lanes of the path effectively
> > creating an obstacle... rather than moving off to the side. Then there
> > are those mixed standing-still groups of pedestrians and cyclists having
> > a chat on the path.
> >
> > Are these the same folks who stop in the middle of the freeway at night
> > with no lights on in their vehicles? :)
> >
>
> Joe-Yeah, I see that too, reminds me of the aisle blocking head-up-a**
> behavior seen in supermarkets. Anytime I'm riding & I see one group of
> walkers about to pass another going in the opposite direction & me
> coming up fast from behind, I know it's going to get interesting. A
> person on foot can make a 3 foot lateral move quickly & stably with one
> step (hopefully in the correct direction, definitely not a given!); even
> going slowly it takes a bike several yards to do this, particularly if
> the rider is forced off the trail into the grass. I actually bumped
> into a woman the other day this way when she walked right into me,
> looking directly at me the whole time. Fortunately by that point I was
> barely moving (wobbling, really). I generally make several loops of
> this trail system on a ride & therefore will pass the same individuals a
> number of times on a given trip. What kills me is that one near miss at
> 15 mph is not enough to get it through their thick skulls that they are
> not the only humans on the planet.
>
> Dan

Moron...if you're threading through groups of peds while "coming up fast
from behind", you're the one with the problem. Try removing the training
wheels from your bike, and ride where bikes belong - in the street. If
you're bumping into peds on a MUP, you're a dangerous idiot.

GG

GG

[Joe Canuck]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On 15 May 2005 00:50:14 -0700, "Bob" > wrote:
>
>
>>Adult cyclists should almost never ride on sidewalks but having said
>>that what pedestrians is this particular pair endangering, the
>>photographer? If so, that cameraman must have amazing reflexes to be
>>able to narrowly escape being run over and still be able to whip out
>>his trusty camera in time to capture that photograph as the pair...
>>ummmm... "sped" away.
>
>
> Actually, the camera was already out, taking pictures of the
> landscaping in the right hand side of the photograph (I can post the
> others if you'd like). My wife saw an unusual type of plant which she
> thought might look good in our back yard, so I took some pictures of
> it for her. Then these two chumps brushed by on their bicycles, so I
> snapped them, too.
>

The sidewalk is for walking, not for creating an obstacle by using it as
a platform for taking pictures or chatting on the cell phone.

Want to chat on the phone or take pictures, move off to the side.

[[email protected]]

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
>
>
> OBTW, in what way is it "trolling" to relate a TRUE STORY about my
> experience with arrogant, sidewalk-riding pedalcyclists? Is it
> "trolling" when I tell about the times some asshole in an SUV
> practically ran me off the road when I was riding my bike?

Based on your past performance, I'd say anything _you_ post is a troll
unless ruled otherwise by a unanimous Supreme Court decision.

But that's just my opinion. Have a nice day, Scott. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

[Bill Sornson]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 15 May 2005 00:50:14 -0700, "Bob" > wrote:
>
>> Adult cyclists should almost never ride on sidewalks but having said
>> that what pedestrians is this particular pair endangering, the
>> photographer? If so, that cameraman must have amazing reflexes to be
>> able to narrowly escape being run over and still be able to whip out
>> his trusty camera in time to capture that photograph as the pair...
>> ummmm... "sped" away.
>
> Actually, the camera was already out, taking pictures of the
> landscaping in the right hand side of the photograph (I can post the
> others if you'd like). My wife saw an unusual type of plant which she
> thought might look good in our back yard, so I took some pictures of
> it for her. Then these two chumps brushed by on their bicycles, so I
> snapped them, too.

I'm guessing it's really hard to get past your wife on an airport runway,
much less a wide sidewalk.

STOP HOGGING THE PATHWAY WITH YOUR SIDE-BY-SIDE WADDLING!!!

[Joe Canuck]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
> From: Scott en Aztlán >
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.misc
> Subject: How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist
> Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 16:15:55 -0700
> Organization: USENET Users Anonymous
> Message-ID: >
> Reply-To: newsgroup
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
> X-No-Archive: yes
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To:
> Lines: 28
> Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.autos.driving:554731 rec.bicycles.misc:374779
> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0519-2, 12/05/2005), Inbound message
> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
>
> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.
>
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>
> --
> Life is short - drive fast!
> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

Saved for the archives due to the "X-No-Archive: yes" in original post.

[Dan]

GaryG wrote:
>
>
> Moron...if you're threading through groups of peds while "coming up fast
> from behind", you're the one with the problem. Try removing the training
> wheels from your bike, and ride where bikes belong - in the street. If
> you're bumping into peds on a MUP, you're a dangerous idiot.
>
> GG
>
> GG
>
>

My my my, what a nasty temper you have there. And such a big mouth. Do
you talk this way to people face to face? I doubt you have the guts,
little man. When you're not indulging your ugly, frustrated personality
on with insulting ng posts, how do you usually express it, beating your
wife & kids, perhaps? What am I saying, that would imply you actually
have human contact outside of your usenet outbursts. The incident in
question occurred on a designated BIKE path. And apparently you missed
the part about how the woman walked into ME when I was traveling at a
walking pace. I'll agree with the OP on this thread with regards to
"responding in kind"; Go to hell, asshole.

Dan

[Scott Ehardt]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.
>
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk?

Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to say things like, "use the
bike lane, ****head"?

However, I do agree that not enough cyclists realize the need to be in the
street - Yesterday while I was out riding I saw a cyclist barreling along on
the sidewalk going against traffic. He came to an intersection, cut off an
unsuspecting driver making a right turn, got honked at, and proceeded to
stand over his bike performing a one-fingered salute as the car drove off.


Even my computer has better manners! :-)
Not In Dictionary: ****head
Change To: hothead

--
Scott Ehardt
http://www.scehardt.com

[Joe Canuck]

Ok, I'm outa this one.

Scottie started yet another flame war.

Let the cycling community drop this one and take the high road.

:)

[Cathy Kearns]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:56:14 -0400, "WeatherGuy"
> > wrote:
>
> >This behaviour by the cyclist was unacceptable. The "****head" was
> >unacceptable as well. There are times when it is necessary for safety
> >reasons to ride on a sidewalk
>
> Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
> no exceptions for "safety reasons."

Yet police are not shy about inviting children to ride on the sidewalk on
some routes close to schools to keep them out of danger. I've seen it done
in person in my little town. In a Palo Alto there are many road signs in
similar neighborhoods that say "Bicyclist may use sidewalks". I expect these
are directed at the younger riders.

Last time I took my 10 year old daughter on a 10 mile odyssey I had pulled
out my beater hybrid and she was on her mountain bike and we were heading
along at a decent pace on the local MUP, slowing to carefully pass
pedistrians when two guys on road bikes in full kits screamed by us. She
was very surprised (I saw them coming in my mirror.) I explained that
apparently they were very lost.

[Joe Canuck]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:47:39 -0400, Joe Canuck
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/
>>>
>>>Your website says it all, you are the asshole, everyone is supposed to
>>>behave as you think they should.
>>
>>Wow, I missed that on my first pass of his post.
>>
>>Ok, so we now know why he carries the camera... to collect "evidence" to
>>support his hate-on website.
>
>
> Let me guess: you're one of those assholes who takes up multiple
> parking spaces, or regularly blocks traffic by parking in no-parking
> zones?

That would be difficult, sinc I don't own a car. :)

> If not, then what, exactly, do you find objectionable about my
> web site? I only hate what every reasonable person hates: people who

It is a negative site, with little to nothing to offer in a positive way.

> think that the rules don't apply to them and that they should be
> allowed to do whatever the hell they want - like ride their bicycle on
> the sidewalk.

Of course, you have verified this with every single person who you claim
to be an idiot?

I suspect you take every single incident like this very personally and
figure the person has made a point to be at that particular location of
the sidewalk at the same time as you... just to **** you off.

Right.

[Pat]

Joe, this guy is heading for a heart attack and an ulcer. Let him be. He's
slowly killing himself.

Pat in TX

[Joe Canuck]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:02:59 -0400, Joe Canuck
> > wrote:
>
>
>>How to ****-off Scottie...
>
>
> Pretty good, but you forgot the part where you drive 15 MPH below the
> speed limit in a no-passing zone with 20 cars stacked up behind you
> yet you refuse to use the turnouts. You also forgot to mention how you
> are so busy digging **** out of your glovebox that you miss the left
> turn arrow, even though I'm leaning on the horn behind you. And don't
> forget how you find it a personal challenge to maximize the number of
> parking spaces you can occupy - I think you said your personal best
> was 8. Oh, and be sure to tell us how you zoom up in the lane that is
> closing and then force your way into the through lane only when your
> right front fender hits a cone. :)
>

Although I currently do not own a vehicle, my next one will be a Hummer.
I plan on running over slow drivers like you. ;)

[Bernard farquart]

"Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
...
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:47:39 -0400, Joe Canuck
>> > wrote:

>> If not, then what, exactly, do you find objectionable about my
>> web site? I only hate what every reasonable person hates: people who
>
> It is a negative site, with little to nothing to offer in a positive way.
>
Oh no! Not a negative site, how horrible, that Scott should
have anything less than positive to say about mouth-breathers
who make the rest of us go out of our way to accomidate
thier laziness.

Boo-Hoo.

Bernard

[Ferris]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:56:14 -0400, "WeatherGuy"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>This behaviour by the cyclist was unacceptable. The "****head" was
>>unacceptable as well. There are times when it is necessary for safety
>>reasons to ride on a sidewalk
>
>
> Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
> no exceptions for "safety reasons."
>

Can you cite the specific law that covers this? A quick search on Google
showed that in California it is illegal to park a bike laying down on
the sidewalk, and that local communities may have laws regarding
sidewalk riding. But I didn't see anything at the state level making
this illegal.

I would regard your and your wife's behavior as extremely rude, in any
case. If the two of you were taking up the entire width of the sidewalk,
as you said in your original post, then at least one of you should have
been paying attention so you could accomodate others on the sidewalk.
Did you see the biker on the sidewalk? If not, then I doubt either of
you would have paid attention to another pedestrian.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:42:19 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>WeatherGuy wrote:
>
>> There are times when it is necessary for safety
>> reasons to ride on a sidewalk
>
>Bull****. If you want to ride, stay on the road with other traffic. If
>you want to use the sidewalk, then you can *walk* with your bicycle.
>Only idiot adults ride on the sidewalk.

Or stupid kids.Around here stupid kids ride like maniacs on the
sidewalk, with no regard for anyone or anything. The adults who do it
are old hippies on beatup bikes, other down-and out types, or elderly
people.

[di]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:34:22 -0500, "di" > wrote:
>
>
> Heh heh - looks like I've managed to **** off a few MORE arrogant
> pedalcyclists. ;)


Careful, you'll break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back, It'll
take a lot more than a little nobody with a big out of control ego to ****
me off. I've seen jerks like you come and go all my life, I can tell
you a lot more of them go than come.

[GaryG]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> GaryG wrote:
> >
> >
> > Moron...if you're threading through groups of peds while "coming up fast
> > from behind", you're the one with the problem. Try removing the
training
> > wheels from your bike, and ride where bikes belong - in the street. If
> > you're bumping into peds on a MUP, you're a dangerous idiot.
> >
> > GG
> >
> > GG
> >
> >
>
> My my my, what a nasty temper you have there. And such a big mouth. Do
> you talk this way to people face to face?

Generally, yes. On occasion I've gotten face-to-face with cagers in the
middle of the road.

As for "temper", perhaps you've read more anger into my response than I had
at the time I wrote it (common with written expression). I merely meant to
inform you that you're doing something dangerous and stupid, and that there
is an alternative to blowing by little old ladies at 15 mph on a park path.

> I doubt you have the guts,
> little man.

You'd be wrong.

> When you're not indulging your ugly, frustrated personality
> on with insulting ng posts, how do you usually express it, beating your
> wife & kids, perhaps? What am I saying, that would imply you actually
> have human contact outside of your usenet outbursts. The incident in
> question occurred on a designated BIKE path.

Was it a "bikes only" path? Or (much more likely) was it a "multi-use path"
(MUP) where both bikes and peds are permitted?

If the latter, it is your responsibiltiy to control your speed...something
it sounds like you're not doing.

FWIW, multi-use paths are inherently more dangerous for cyclists because of
the unpredictability of peds, roller bladers, dogs, etc. Whining about how
"stupid" they are won't change that fact - it's inherently dangerous riding
"fast" on a MUP. And that's precisely the reason most cyclists choose to
ride the streets whenever they feel the need to go fast.

> And apparently you missed
> the part about how the woman walked into ME when I was traveling at a
> walking pace. I'll agree with the OP on this thread with regards to
> "responding in kind"; Go to hell, asshole.

Hmmmm...now who's temper is showing?

GG

>
> Dan

[Bill Sornson]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> You also forgot to mention how you
> are so busy digging **** out of your glovebox that you miss the left
> turn arrow, even though I'm leaning on the horn behind you.

May your next glovebox-rummager be on steroids and in a foul mood.

Honk-honk.

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 15 May 2005 08:36:31 -0700,
>, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>Ah, OK. So you think it's perfectly OK to ride your bike on the
>sidewalk as long as the sidewalk is not too crowded?

Cut the "too crowded" crap. There's NOBODY on that sidewalk.
It's a picture of sprawl. NOBODY walks there because there's no where
there to walk TO. It's a wasteland made for cars. It's ugly. It sucks.
You should move.
--
zk

[Arif Khokar]

Cathy Kearns wrote:

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote:

>>Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
>>no exceptions for "safety reasons."

> Yet police are not shy about inviting children to ride on the sidewalk on
> some routes close to schools to keep them out of danger.

Children are not licensed drivers. A licensed driver is supposed to
know the rules of the road and follow them regardless of what type of
vehicle he's using. If he's riding a bicycle, he's to ride on the road
in the same direction as traffic.

Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians on
a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of the
road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't have
someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

[Dan]

GaryG wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>GaryG wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Moron...if you're threading through groups of peds while "coming up fast
>>>from behind", you're the one with the problem. Try removing the
>
> training
>
>>>wheels from your bike, and ride where bikes belong - in the street. If
>>>you're bumping into peds on a MUP, you're a dangerous idiot.
>>>
>>>GG
>>>
>>>GG
>>>
>>>
>>
>>My my my, what a nasty temper you have there. And such a big mouth. Do
>>you talk this way to people face to face?
>
>
> Generally, yes. On occasion I've gotten face-to-face with cagers in the
> middle of the road.
>
> As for "temper", perhaps you've read more anger into my response than I had
> at the time I wrote it (common with written expression). I merely meant to
> inform you that you're doing something dangerous and stupid, and that there
> is an alternative to blowing by little old ladies at 15 mph on a park path.
>
>
>>I doubt you have the guts,
>>little man.
>
>
> You'd be wrong.
>
>
>>When you're not indulging your ugly, frustrated personality
>>on with insulting ng posts, how do you usually express it, beating your
>>wife & kids, perhaps? What am I saying, that would imply you actually
>>have human contact outside of your usenet outbursts. The incident in
>>question occurred on a designated BIKE path.
>
>
> Was it a "bikes only" path? Or (much more likely) was it a "multi-use path"
> (MUP) where both bikes and peds are permitted?
>
> If the latter, it is your responsibiltiy to control your speed...something
> it sounds like you're not doing.
>
> FWIW, multi-use paths are inherently more dangerous for cyclists because of
> the unpredictability of peds, roller bladers, dogs, etc. Whining about how
> "stupid" they are won't change that fact - it's inherently dangerous riding
> "fast" on a MUP. And that's precisely the reason most cyclists choose to
> ride the streets whenever they feel the need to go fast.
>
>
>>And apparently you missed
>>the part about how the woman walked into ME when I was traveling at a
>>walking pace. I'll agree with the OP on this thread with regards to
>>"responding in kind"; Go to hell, asshole.
>
>
> Hmmmm...now who's temper is showing?
>
> GG
>
>
>>Dan
>
>
>


As to all of the above, "yeah, sure". It's easy to see you are
definitely a force to be reckoned with, very impressive indeed. And
much as I would like to spend the rest of my Sunday arguing with an
utterly insignificant Usenet loud mouth, it's just too nice outside.

Plonk, flyspeck.

Dan

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"Ferris" > wrote in message
...
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:56:14 -0400, "WeatherGuy"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This behaviour by the cyclist was unacceptable. The "****head" was
> >>unacceptable as well. There are times when it is necessary for safety
> >>reasons to ride on a sidewalk
> >
> >
> > Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
> > no exceptions for "safety reasons."
> >
>
> Can you cite the specific law that covers this? A quick search on Google
> showed that in California it is illegal to park a bike laying down on
> the sidewalk, and that local communities may have laws regarding
> sidewalk riding. But I didn't see anything at the state level making
> this illegal.
>
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd11.htm

See especially the following *infractions*:

21202(a) Bicyclist, failure to use right edge of roadway.
21208(a) Failure to ride in a bicycle lane.
21208(b) Bicyclist shall not leave bike lane until reasonably safe.
21952 Sidewalk, failure to yield to pedestrian on.

> I would regard your and your wife's behavior as extremely rude, in any
> case. If the two of you were taking up the entire width of the sidewalk,
> as you said in your original post, then at least one of you should have
> been paying attention so you could accomodate others on the sidewalk.
> Did you see the biker on the sidewalk? If not, then I doubt either of
> you would have paid attention to another pedestrian.
>

Based on CVC 21952, while the use of "****head" might have been especially
rude, calling out the bicyclists traffic infraction was, IMHO, correct.

[John David Galt]

Cathy Kearns wrote:
> Yet police are not shy about inviting children to ride on the sidewalk on
> some routes close to schools to keep them out of danger. I've seen it done
> in person in my little town. In a Palo Alto there are many road signs in
> similar neighborhoods that say "Bicyclist may use sidewalks". I expect these
> are directed at the younger riders.

Those signs used to say "must" instead of may, until the state overturned
them. Alma St. and Embarcadero Rd. are both exactly the kind of street
where bikes should not be allowed -- narrow lanes, no shoulder, normal
traffic goes about 50, and plenty of parallel streets bikers can easily
use (including the dedicated Bike Boulevard on Bryant St. near Alma).

That law needs to be put back the way it was.

[John David Galt]

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians on
> a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of the
> road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't have
> someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
speed when he approaches a pedestrian -- just as cars are forced to slow
to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

Since the number of people driving cars is always much greater than the
number of either pedestrians or bikers, when there is a choice between
creating those two outcomes, the first is preferable by far.

[DD]

Wow, you sure do spend a lot of time hating, don't you? And your numerous
photos of trivial (and yes, aggravating) public indiscresions are sad and
pathetic. I'm guessing you were the fat kid in the back of class tattling
to the teacher everytime someone passed a note in class.

Hopefully your inevitable ulcers and/or stress related heart attacks won't
sideline you for long, for we all need little heel-nipping, self-rightious
nitwits like you to cure the world of all its wrongs.

Maybe you could do us a favor and post a list of rules we should be
following so that we can avoid your raging wrath?




"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.
>
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>
> --
> Life is short - drive fast!
> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

[Arif Khokar]

John David Galt wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians
>> on a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of
>> the road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't
>> have someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

> That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
> speed when he approaches a pedestrian

No, it means that the cyclist can either ride at his own pace on the
road, or he can walk his bicycle while on the sidewalk.

> -- just as cars are forced to slow
> to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

Since when do cars have to slow down? If the cyclist is in the right
lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow down.

The key difference between cyclists vs. pedestrians and cars vs.
cyclists is that the latter two are restricted by rules of the road.
Each of them must remain within lane markings and they are supposed to
signal when changing lanes or direction.

Pedestrians on a sidewalk do not have to stay within a "lane" on the
sidewalk, and they are not required to signal before changing direction.

That difference is why cars going 20 to 40 mph faster than cyclists is
safe (assuming separate lanes, of course), but cyclists going 15 mph
faster than pedestrians is unsafe.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:22:04 -0700, John David Galt
> wrote in message
>:

>That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
>speed when he approaches a pedestrian -- just as cars are forced to slow
>to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

>Since the number of people driving cars is always much greater than the
>number of either pedestrians or bikers, when there is a choice between
>creating those two outcomes, the first is preferable by far.

Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that
is all that matters.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:19:06 -0700, John David Galt
> wrote in message
>:

>> In a Palo Alto there are many road signs in
>> similar neighborhoods that say "Bicyclist may use sidewalks". I expect these
>> are directed at the younger riders.

>Those signs used to say "must" instead of may, until the state overturned
>them.

See? Sanity can prevail. Well done Palo Alto, award yourselves a
gold star.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:27:18 GMT, "DD"
> wrote in message
et>:

>Wow, you sure do spend a lot of time hating, don't you? And your numerous
>photos of trivial (and yes, aggravating) public indiscresions are sad and
>pathetic.

I don't know - the woman didn't look too bad from the back ;-)

I'm guessing it's fitness envy. No other reason for bleating about
two people riding on an obviously deserted sidewalk. I think Scott
should get himself a bike and get out more.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Paul]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:39:49 -0700, Zoot Katz , said the following in
rec.autos.driving...

>
> I **** _on_ your scuds every day.

Keep your sexual fantasies to your self, you worthless faggot!

** P * L * O * N * K **

[Brent P]

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.

If I was walking faster from behind, I would not have been pleased with
your wife's LLB behavior.

> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk?

I always use the road, but drivers keep yelling at me to ride on the
sidewalk. Even when I am going uphill and into the wind I can manage at
least 16mph, totally unsuitable for a sidewalk. Usually when I am yelled
at I am doing between 18 and 30mph.

> http://tinypic.com/539poy

> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?

If you think a bike lane makes drivers any friendlier, you are mistaken.
IME it makes them worse.

You should look up your local laws and/or local bike _path_ map. Usually
adults are forbiden from using the sidewalk unless that sidewalk is
desginated a bike path. Often there is no significant signage, so you
have to know which sidewalks are and aren't from the map. Provided he was
legally able to use the sidewalk, he was in the right considering he was
going ped speeds by your description. Check your local laws and get back
to us.

[Brent P]

In article >, Cathy Kearns wrote:

>> Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
>> no exceptions for "safety reasons."

Well, then scott, you were in the right.

> Yet police are not shy about inviting children to ride on the sidewalk on
> some routes close to schools to keep them out of danger. I've seen it done
> in person in my little town. In a Palo Alto there are many road signs in
> similar neighborhoods that say "Bicyclist may use sidewalks". I expect these
> are directed at the younger riders.

Most no-riding on the sidewalk laws have exceptions for children.
Sometimes they define an age or a bicycle wheel size.

[Brent P]

In article >, John David Galt wrote:
> Those signs used to say "must" instead of may, until the state overturned
> them.

And rightfully so.

> Alma St. and Embarcadero Rd. are both exactly the kind of street
> where bikes should not be allowed -- narrow lanes, no shoulder, normal
> traffic goes about 50, and plenty of parallel streets bikers can easily
> use (including the dedicated Bike Boulevard on Bryant St. near Alma).

You can use those roads too. As a bicyclist, going out of my way and
conditions that cause delay often outweigh a less friendly road. Just
as it does to you behind the wheel of your car.

> That law needs to be put back the way it was.

Heaven forbid you have to have some minor driving skill.

[Brent P]

In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> 21208(a) Failure to ride in a bicycle lane.

Interesting, I always described bicycle lanes as bicycle restrictions,
but only effectively. Seems they are legally too. Just another reason to
oppose them.

[Ferris]

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Ferris" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:56:14 -0400, "WeatherGuy"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This behaviour by the cyclist was unacceptable. The "****head" was
>>>>unacceptable as well. There are times when it is necessary for safety
>>>>reasons to ride on a sidewalk
>>>
>>>
>>>Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
>>>no exceptions for "safety reasons."
>>>
>>
>>Can you cite the specific law that covers this? A quick search on Google
>>showed that in California it is illegal to park a bike laying down on
>>the sidewalk, and that local communities may have laws regarding
>>sidewalk riding. But I didn't see anything at the state level making
>>this illegal.
>>
>
> http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd11.htm
>
> See especially the following *infractions*:
>
> 21202(a) Bicyclist, failure to use right edge of roadway.
> 21208(a) Failure to ride in a bicycle lane.
> 21208(b) Bicyclist shall not leave bike lane until reasonably safe.
> 21952 Sidewalk, failure to yield to pedestrian on.
>

I think you should re-interpret the first three items in your list. They
have to do with operating a bicycle while *on the road* (and
with/without a bike lane). There's nothing in the code you listed that
says it's illegal to operate a bicycle on the sidewalk.

>
>>I would regard your and your wife's behavior as extremely rude, in any
>>case. If the two of you were taking up the entire width of the sidewalk,
>>as you said in your original post, then at least one of you should have
>>been paying attention so you could accomodate others on the sidewalk.
>>Did you see the biker on the sidewalk? If not, then I doubt either of
>>you would have paid attention to another pedestrian.
>>
>
>
> Based on CVC 21952, while the use of "****head" might have been especially
> rude, calling out the bicyclists traffic infraction was, IMHO, correct.
>
Having the right of way doesn't give you the right to take up the entire
road/path/whatever. They were purposely being asses to this poor guy on
the bike because the could. And, he was certainly not breaking a
California law by riding on the sidewalk.

>
>

[Ferris]

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
>
>>21208(a) Failure to ride in a bicycle lane.
>
>
> Interesting, I always described bicycle lanes as bicycle restrictions,
> but only effectively. Seems they are legally too. Just another reason to
> oppose them.
>
>

I would interpret this as meaning if you're riding on the road, and
there is a bicycle lane, you need to be in it. There's nothing in the
code that prohibits riding on a sidewalk.

[Jim Yanik]

Ferris > wrote in :

> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:56:14 -0400, "WeatherGuy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This behaviour by the cyclist was unacceptable. The "****head" was
>>>unacceptable as well. There are times when it is necessary for safety
>>>reasons to ride on a sidewalk
>>
>>
>> Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
>> no exceptions for "safety reasons."
>>
>
> Can you cite the specific law that covers this? A quick search on Google
> showed that in California it is illegal to park a bike laying down on
> the sidewalk, and that local communities may have laws regarding
> sidewalk riding. But I didn't see anything at the state level making
> this illegal.
>
> I would regard your and your wife's behavior as extremely rude, in any
> case. If the two of you were taking up the entire width of the sidewalk,
> as you said in your original post, then at least one of you should have
> been paying attention so you could accomodate others on the sidewalk.
> Did you see the biker on the sidewalk? If not, then I doubt either of
> you would have paid attention to another pedestrian.
>
>

What is the difference between a cyclist and say a roller-blade skater?
Move for one but not the other?
What if it were a child biking on the sidewalk?
I guess they would rather the child ride out in traffic.

Myself,when I've encountered people cycling on the sidewalk,I stepped
aside;it's no big deal.Easier for me to move than for them to stop.
It's a courtesy.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:

> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>
>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote:
>
>>>Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
>>>no exceptions for "safety reasons."
>
>> Yet police are not shy about inviting children to ride on the
>> sidewalk on some routes close to schools to keep them out of danger.
>
> Children are not licensed drivers. A licensed driver is supposed to
> know the rules of the road and follow them regardless of what type of
> vehicle he's using. If he's riding a bicycle, he's to ride on the
> road in the same direction as traffic.
>
> Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians
> on a sidewalk.

You must have never seen any kids riding their bicycles."go too fast",LMAO.


> Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of
> the road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't
> have someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.


But it's somehow OK to have a slow bicycle among faster moving autos

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:


>
> Since when do cars have to slow down?

I see that frequently.

> If the cyclist is in the right
> lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow
> down.

Only IF there IS a "left lane".

>
> The key difference between cyclists vs. pedestrians and cars vs.
> cyclists is that the latter two are restricted by rules of the road.
> Each of them must remain within lane markings and they are supposed to
> signal when changing lanes or direction.
>
> Pedestrians on a sidewalk do not have to stay within a "lane" on the
> sidewalk, and they are not required to signal before changing
> direction.
>
> That difference is why cars going 20 to 40 mph faster than cyclists is
> safe (assuming separate lanes, of course), but cyclists going 15 mph
> faster than pedestrians is unsafe.
>

But a bicycle going 15 mph slower than the auto traffic is somehow safe?
No.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Brent P]

In article >, Ferris wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>21208(a) Failure to ride in a bicycle lane.
>>
>>
>> Interesting, I always described bicycle lanes as bicycle restrictions,
>> but only effectively. Seems they are legally too. Just another reason to
>> oppose them.

> I would interpret this as meaning if you're riding on the road, and
> there is a bicycle lane, you need to be in it.

Exactly. a bicycle restriction. Without a bicycle lane, provided a
bicyclist is doing the speed of traffic, he can be in any lane he wants
to be in. I've used the left lane on a bicycle legally numerous times.
Yes, I was passing motor vehicle traffic to my right and keeping up with
the vehicles in front of me. Striping a bike lane would make that
illegal.

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>> If the cyclist is in the right
>> lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow
>> down.
>
> Only IF there IS a "left lane".

Then you should have the cement mixers and other slow motor vehicles use
the sidewalk too.

I just got home from riding. 54 degrees F today... blah. anyway, there
was a cabby blocking my path on to the road as I was leaving a strip
mall. He was parked on the sidewalk.

>> The key difference between cyclists vs. pedestrians and cars vs.
>> cyclists is that the latter two are restricted by rules of the road.
>> Each of them must remain within lane markings and they are supposed to
>> signal when changing lanes or direction.

>> Pedestrians on a sidewalk do not have to stay within a "lane" on the
>> sidewalk, and they are not required to signal before changing
>> direction.

>> That difference is why cars going 20 to 40 mph faster than cyclists is
>> safe (assuming separate lanes, of course), but cyclists going 15 mph
>> faster than pedestrians is unsafe.

> But a bicycle going 15 mph slower than the auto traffic is somehow safe?
> No.

It's perfectly safe. It's not an interstate and a bicyclist is easy to
pass. And riding as much as I do, I can tell you for a fact I am slowed
by drivers when I am on a bicycle far more than I ever slow them in those
circumstances that require me to take the lane and including when it's
due to their own inability to handle their vehicle in traffic.

[GaryG]

"Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
...
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:47:39 -0400, Joe Canuck
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/
> >>>
> >>>Your website says it all, you are the asshole, everyone is supposed to
> >>>behave as you think they should.
> >>
> >>Wow, I missed that on my first pass of his post.
> >>
> >>Ok, so we now know why he carries the camera... to collect "evidence" to
> >>support his hate-on website.
> >
> >
> > Let me guess: you're one of those assholes who takes up multiple
> > parking spaces, or regularly blocks traffic by parking in no-parking
> > zones?
>
> That would be difficult, sinc I don't own a car. :)
>
> > If not, then what, exactly, do you find objectionable about my
> > web site? I only hate what every reasonable person hates: people who
>
> It is a negative site, with little to nothing to offer in a positive way.
>
> > think that the rules don't apply to them and that they should be
> > allowed to do whatever the hell they want - like ride their bicycle on
> > the sidewalk.
>
> Of course, you have verified this with every single person who you claim
> to be an idiot?
>
> I suspect you take every single incident like this very personally and
> figure the person has made a point to be at that particular location of
> the sidewalk at the same time as you... just to **** you off.
>
> Right.
>

LOL - he reminds me of my ex-wife. She too had a low tolerance for "stupid"
this, and "idiot" that, and took every little thing personally, and never
missed an opportunity to whine about it. She seemed to believe that there
was some sort of Galactic Conspiracy of Stupid People to Deny Her Happiness.

It's a pretty toxic mindset, and leaving her and her negative baggage behind
was one of the smartest moves I ever made.

GG

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"Zoot Katz" > @4ax.com...
>

Hey Zoot, looks like your reference to Scuds has upset some of
the FAT people over on that lamer autos.driving NG!

[Bob]

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> My wife saw an unusual type of plant which she
> thought might look good in our back yard, so I took some pictures of
> it for her. Then these two chumps brushed by on their bicycles, so I
> snapped them, too.

Yeah. Right. I believe you. Really. Were all those pictures on your
geocities site taken incidentally as well when you or your wife saw an
unusual parking barricade you thought might make an interesting lawn
ornament?
Trolling about bikes on sidewalks, people driving too fast, people
driving too slow, people that don't park the way you think they
should... it must really suck to be you.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[David L. Johnson]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:15:55 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:

Because drivers (and police) yell at them to "get the **** off the road".

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can
_`\(,_ | assure you that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein
(_)/ (_) |

[Arif Khokar]

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Arif Khokar > wrote:

>>Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of
>>the road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't
>>have someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

> But it's somehow OK to have a slow bicycle among faster moving autos

Cyclists stay within lane markings, pedestrians do not. There's a
reason why it's advised to walk on the left side of the road facing
traffic instead of away from traffic.

Besides, you're free to move over to the next lane, or half-way over the
center line to pass a cyclist. That's what I do whenever I encounter a
cyclist while driving.

[Bill Sornson]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:36:00 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> > wrote:
>
>> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>> You also forgot to mention how you
>>> are so busy digging **** out of your glovebox that you miss the left
>>> turn arrow, even though I'm leaning on the horn behind you.
>>
>> May your next glovebox-rummager be on steroids and in a foul mood.
>
> It'd take a hell of a lot of steriods for him to survive being run
> over by a car... ;)

Hate-mongers ought not use smilies.

:-D

[Bill Sornson]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:41:23 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing it's really hard to get past your wife on an airport
>> runway, much less a wide sidewalk.
>>
>> STOP HOGGING THE PATHWAY WITH YOUR SIDE-BY-SIDE WADDLING!!!
>
> Now who's prejudiced against fat people? LOL!!

Just obnoxious, self-absorbed ones who devote entire websites to their
narrow, small-minded views of the world.

Bill "just got a $29.99 mail-in rebate, by the way" S.

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 16 May 2005 00:22:34 GMT, <eJRhe.1360100$Xk.515801@pd7tw3no>,
World Famous Euro Pro, "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote:
>
>Hey Zoot, looks like your reference to Scuds has upset some of
>the FAT people over on that lamer autos.driving NG!
>
Those people are constantly upset anyway.
I **** on them and their stinking scuds.
--
zk

[Joe Canuck]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:47:28 -0400, Joe Canuck
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Although I currently do not own a vehicle, my next one will be a Hummer.
>>I plan on running over slow drivers like you. ;)
>
>
> What's a Hummer's top speed? I heard it was something like 85 MPH,
> probably due both to mass and wind resistance from the brick-like
> shape.
>
> You'd never catch me. :)
>

Ah, but mine is going to be a custom Hummer.

Prepare to be flattened.

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 15 May 2005 18:59:20 -0700,
>, Scott en Aztlán
> dribbled and dripped:

>It might if we knew what you mean when you use the term. AFAIK, a
>"scud" is a very poorly made Russion missile

With a range, lethality, faulty guidance system and payload about
equal to your beloved ****wagons.
--
zk

[Bob]

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> Rule #1: Don't be disingenuous.
>
> Everybody has pet peeves. Don't make me out to be some kind of
monster
> because I talk about mine. Andy Rooney does it every week and rakes
in
> big bucks.

If you wish to emulate Andy Rooney you should adopt a new Rule #1. One
that comes immediately to mind is-
"Try to be at least mildly entertaining. If you are the only one
laughing the odds aren't that your audience is slow to get the joke.
More likely, the joke simply wasn't funny."=20

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message >

> It might if we knew what you mean when you use the term.

Scottie doesn't know much.

[Rich Clark]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 May 2005 23:03:11 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>But it's somehow OK to have a slow bicycle among faster moving autos
>
> If the pedalcyclists would only stay in their bike lanes, there
> wouldn't BE any slow bicycles traffic among faster moving autos. ;)

Most roads do not have bike lanes. Bicyclists should not base their habits
on the assumption there will be one, and car/bike interactions are governed
by laws that presume the sharing of lanes.

RichC

[Scott Ehardt]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:57:51 GMT, "Scott Ehardt"
> > wrote:
>
>>Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to say things like, "use the
>>bike lane, ****head"?
>
> What would you have said to someone so obnoxious? Being nice to these
> people just doesn't penetrate.


I'm not claiming to be perfect or anything (I'm not by far), but I've found
that the more positive you can be in a situation, the more likely you are to
get a good response. Is your ultimate goal to let the biker know you're mad
at him (you did a good job of that) or to convince him to ride in the bike
lane?

--
Scott Ehardt
http://www.scehardt.com

[GaryG]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:25:38 -0400, Joe Canuck
> > wrote:
>
> >> If not, then what, exactly, do you find objectionable about my
> >> web site? I only hate what every reasonable person hates: people who
> >
> >It is a negative site, with little to nothing to offer in a positive way.
>
> Some people find it amusing, as it reflects their own pet peeves. I
> suppose those from the "just let them do it" crowd might not
> understand this, however.

FWIW, I don't like people who park intentionally in multiple parking spaces
(I keep a little container of baby shampoo in my car that I occasionally
apply to their windshields in protest). But, there's a large leap between
not liking something and embracing you inner curmudgeon with a dumbass
little website devoted to the things you "hate".

GG

> --
> Life is short - drive fast!
> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán > writes:

> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.

No they don't. No more than drunk drivers give courteous,
law-abiding drivers a bad name (which they don't, either.)

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

[Lady Veteran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 16 May 2005 04:04:00 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>Lady Veteran wrote:
>
>> If you are reading this in a group that is not
>> soc.support.fat-acceptance, soc.singles or soc.women,
>> it means the idiot who started this thread posted
>> in your group as well as mine and I flamed his ass.
>
>No, the thread was originally only posted in rec.autos.driving and
>rec.bicycles.misc. Some troll by the name of Corinne Boswell
> cross-posted the existing thread into
>soc.aupport.fat-acceptance, misc.health.diabetes, and
>alt.support.sleep-disorder. If anyone is to be flamed, it's
>Corinne.
>
>Follow-ups set back to original group distribution.
>
>Oh, and BTW dumb****, a real SHA-1 hash looks like the following:
>
>0bf35035573bcad9ff731954654bf776aacd9704
>
>which is the SHA-1 hash of the text I typed above.
>
Look, Mr. ****-a-duck, I don't give a damn about the "original Hash".
I do give a damn about idiots like boswell here posting into SSFA
where the regulars keep to themselves and every dickhead in the world
feels they have a right to disrespect.

That paragraph was intended for him, but if it hits home with you,
read it, learn it, live it.

LV

- ------------------------------------------------------
I rode a tank and held a General's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank

- - - - Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil
- ----------------------------------------
Today's mighty oak is yesterdays nut that held its ground.

- - -unknown
- ----------------------------------------
Yes, I have let myself go...Now I'm Free!!!

- - - unknown
- ----------------------------------------
If you are reading this in a group that is not
soc.support.fat-acceptance, soc.singles or soc.women,
it means the idiot who started this thread posted
in your group as well as mine and I flamed his ass.
I consider the idiots I flame a waste of humanity
and deserving of all of the ill treatment I can
hand them. If you don't like it, remove the groups
I use from your reply and you won't hear from me.
- ----------------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQoimMcr91nvpayIKEQJ1+ACcDjfctIyN/W1GAlzNG6+0e981is4An32S
JPzJNf0ulWCEArdHXERnQqBZ
=hyF7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Roy Owen]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 05:49:14 GMT, "Scott Ehardt"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to say things like, "use the
>>>>bike lane, ****head"?
>>>
>>>What would you have said to someone so obnoxious? Being nice to these
>>>people just doesn't penetrate.
>>
>>I'm not claiming to be perfect or anything (I'm not by far), but I've found
>>that the more positive you can be in a situation, the more likely you are to
>>get a good response. Is your ultimate goal to let the biker know you're mad
>>at him (you did a good job of that) or to convince him to ride in the bike
>>lane?
>
>
> The reason people like this do the things they know are wrong is
> because there are no negative consequences. Being "considerate" and
> "just letting him do it" is what reinforces and perpetulates this bad
> behavior.
>
> OTOH, if every pedestrian to whom he failed to yield were to respond
> by calling him a ****head, he'd quickly change his bad behavior.
>
Or maybe he'd just start packing a 9mm and blow people away.

[Jim Yanik]

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> Arif Khokar > wrote:
>
>>>Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of
>>>the road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't
>>>have someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.
>
>> But it's somehow OK to have a slow bicycle among faster moving autos
>
> Cyclists stay within lane markings, pedestrians do not. There's a
> reason why it's advised to walk on the left side of the road facing
> traffic instead of away from traffic.

cyclists still make left turns.the do not always stay on one's right.

>
> Besides, you're free to move over to the next lane, or half-way over the
> center line to pass a cyclist. That's what I do whenever I encounter a
> cyclist while driving.
>
IF there is a "next" lane.
IF opposing traffic allows such a move.
If traffic is high enough,as here in Orlando,then that is not an option.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Pat Lamb]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> +--------------------------------------+
> \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 /
> \ 1 9 / /
> \ 0 / 10 /
> \ TROLL-O-METER / /
> \ / /
> \ / /
> \_____________________/____/
> \ /
> \....................../

Congratulations, Guy, this is one of the very few pieces of ASCII art
that seems to work on usenet.

Oh, and I agree with the meter reading. Is there intelligent life in
this thread??

[Jeff Starr]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:


>>
>>FWIW, I don't like people who park intentionally in multiple parking spaces
>>(I keep a little container of baby shampoo in my car that I occasionally
>>apply to their windshields in protest). But, there's a large leap between
>>not liking something and embracing you inner curmudgeon with a dumbass
>>little website devoted to the things you "hate".
>
>Now THAT is hilarious!
>
>You think vandalism is OK, but a harmless little website is a
>horrible, terrible, awful thing?
>
>You pedalcyclists crack me up!!!

He keeps the shampoo in his CAR. That has nothing to do with being a
"pedalcyclist".
I thought you claimed to ride a bicycle, so I guess that makes you a
"pedalcyclist" too. But of course you are nothing like those of us who
post on rec.bicycle.misc. Apparently you are above us, somehow. So
very superior.

I personally think you put way too much effort into the petty little
occurrences that are a part of everyday life.

I do have one pet peeve, these days. It is inconsiderate people on
cell phones. Whether it be in cars, stores, or walking along on the
sidewalk. It is distracting enough, that people become at a minimum
inconsiderate and at worst dangerous. Maybe you should post a picture
of your wife, being distracted and therefore inconsiderate.

Gary, dumping anything on peoples cars is just plain wrong, and an
over reaction. If it bothers you that much, leave a note. Maybe they
are just dumb, not intentionally inconsiderate. Try to educate them,
take the positive route.


Life is Good!
Jeff

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> cyclists still make left turns.the do not always stay on one's right.

Oh heaven forbid. I make my left turns faster than the majority of
drivers. In fact, if I am behind someone driving a car there is a ~90%
that driver will slow me down in making the turn. But a few drivers see
someone on a bicycle and automatically go into a rage. They are upset
because I'm ahead of them. I am practically tailgating the car in front
of me given that bicycles don't have the greatest brakes in the world
(but small enough that I can go left or right to avoid a collison) and
yet somehow, the delay I am stuck with because of the sloth driver(s) in
front of me is somehow now my fault.

Just a little over a week ago, I ended up with two drivers that were
****ed off at me. In the first case, a woman driving a car in front of me
was on a cellphone and dillydallied getting going on the green. Thusly
the light was yellow when she reached, where she then stopped, and
changed her mind and made a right on red. Of course I was stuck for
another cycle. The woman behind me blamed me for this. If I had just
gutter passed I would have been through the light and gone, but then the
bicycle haters would complain about having to pass me back later. Nothing is
good enough for a bicycle hater. Later down the road I am stuck behind
this huge SUV at a traffic light when this dumb ass tries to pull along
side me. (I'm in the middle of the lane waiting my turn, speed of traffic
is STOPPED) The light changes and we start moving. I pass (on the left) the
sloth accelerating SUV as it tried to turn right to get away from the
moron who goes to the left lane to also get around the SUV. As I return
to the right he passes me. Soon after I catch up to the asshat who is now
holding up other traffic with his sloth. I yell for him to accelerate,
and guess who's nearby, the lady who was the first driver, who I last
saw about 2 miles earlier. Yeah. I'm slow. I make the same time as anyone
who's driving around here. It takes me the same time (and often less) to
bike to work than to drive.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:42:51 -0500, Pat Lamb
> wrote:

>Congratulations, Guy, this is one of the very few pieces of ASCII art
>that seems to work on usenet.

Shamelessly stolen from somewhere else, so I can't claim the credit -
but it has a certain validity in context, I think :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Matthew]

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in message
...
> On 15 May 2005 17:25:25 -0700, "Bob" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> >> My wife saw an unusual type of plant which she
> >> thought might look good in our back yard, so I took some pictures
of
> >> it for her. Then these two chumps brushed by on their bicycles,
so I
> >> snapped them, too.
> >
> >Yeah. Right. I believe you. Really.
>
> http://tinypic.com/546hp0
>
> If you can identify it, please let me know. :)
>
Perhaps Hesperaloe parviflora (Red yucca). Widely cultivated in the
Southwest USA. Suprisingly hardy; I understand it has been
successfully planted even in the higher elevations of Colorado.

Matthew

[GaryG]

"Jeff Starr" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> > wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>FWIW, I don't like people who park intentionally in multiple parking
spaces
> >>(I keep a little container of baby shampoo in my car that I occasionally
> >>apply to their windshields in protest). But, there's a large leap
between
> >>not liking something and embracing you inner curmudgeon with a dumbass
> >>little website devoted to the things you "hate".
> >
> >Now THAT is hilarious!
> >
> >You think vandalism is OK, but a harmless little website is a
> >horrible, terrible, awful thing?
> >
> >You pedalcyclists crack me up!!!
>
> He keeps the shampoo in his CAR. That has nothing to do with being a
> "pedalcyclist".
> I thought you claimed to ride a bicycle, so I guess that makes you a
> "pedalcyclist" too. But of course you are nothing like those of us who
> post on rec.bicycle.misc. Apparently you are above us, somehow. So
> very superior.
>
> I personally think you put way too much effort into the petty little
> occurrences that are a part of everyday life.
>
> I do have one pet peeve, these days. It is inconsiderate people on
> cell phones. Whether it be in cars, stores, or walking along on the
> sidewalk. It is distracting enough, that people become at a minimum
> inconsiderate and at worst dangerous. Maybe you should post a picture
> of your wife, being distracted and therefore inconsiderate.
>
> Gary, dumping anything on peoples cars is just plain wrong, and an
> over reaction. If it bothers you that much, leave a note. Maybe they
> are just dumb, not intentionally inconsiderate. Try to educate them,
> take the positive route.

FWIW, I've only used it on a couple of occasions, on vehicles that were very
obviously cross-parked intentionally in crowded lots (i.e., not on cars a
bit over the line, or cars cross-parked where there's plenty of spaces
available). With those folks, it's not an issue of education, but behavior
modification. I only apply about a teaspoon of shampoo, squirted onto the
windshield. Presumably the cross-parker will notice it when they get back
to their car, turn on their windshield wipers, and then have a moment of
karmic irritation as they have to deal with it foaming up. The shampoo
container fits easily in my pocket, and it's a much quicker and more
assertive form of "speech" than writing a note (which would probably be
laughed off and thrown on the ground anyway).

GG

>
>
> Life is Good!
> Jeff
>

[GaryG]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:55:33 -0700, "GaryG" >
> wrote:
>
> >> >It is a negative site, with little to nothing to offer in a positive
way.
> >>
> >> Some people find it amusing, as it reflects their own pet peeves. I
> >> suppose those from the "just let them do it" crowd might not
> >> understand this, however.
> >
> >FWIW, I don't like people who park intentionally in multiple parking
spaces
> >(I keep a little container of baby shampoo in my car that I occasionally
> >apply to their windshields in protest). But, there's a large leap
between
> >not liking something and embracing you inner curmudgeon with a dumbass
> >little website devoted to the things you "hate".
>
> Now THAT is hilarious!
>
> You think vandalism is OK, but a harmless little website is a
> horrible, terrible, awful thing?

Vandalism? A teaspoon of shampoo on a windshield? I don't think so.
Nothing is destroyed or damaged on their car, and a couple of squirts of
water will remove it.

FWIW, I never said your little website is a "horrible, terrible, awful
thing". But, it is pointless and just a way for you to vent your
frustrations, without actually doing anything about them.

> You pedalcyclists crack me up!!!

You silly trolls crack me up too!

GG

>
> --
> Life is short - drive fast!
> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

[John David Galt]

>>> Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians
>>> on a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of
>>> the road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't
>>> have someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

>> That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
>> speed when he approaches a pedestrian

> No, it means that the cyclist can either ride at his own pace on the
> road, or he can walk his bicycle while on the sidewalk.

You're wrong. There is no such law.

>> -- just as cars are forced to slow
>> to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

> Since when do cars have to slow down?

I specified a narrow street. That implies not enough room to pass the
bike in the right lane.

> If the cyclist is in the right
> lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow down.

Only if there's almost no traffic, which NEVER happens around here
(unless it's 2 AM, and not even the eco-freaks bike at that hour).

> The key difference between cyclists vs. pedestrians and cars vs.
> cyclists is that the latter two are restricted by rules of the road.
> Each of them must remain within lane markings and they are supposed to
> signal when changing lanes or direction.

EVERYONE is restricted by rules of the road when on the road. In some
places those rules give pedestrians extra privilege.

> Pedestrians on a sidewalk do not have to stay within a "lane" on the
> sidewalk, and they are not required to signal before changing direction.
>
> That difference is why cars going 20 to 40 mph faster than cyclists is
> safe (assuming separate lanes, of course), but cyclists going 15 mph
> faster than pedestrians is unsafe.

True, but only when you're within 10 feet or so of the pedestrians.

[John David Galt]

Brent P wrote:
> Then you should have the cement mixers and other slow motor vehicles use
> the sidewalk too.

I certainly expect them to pull over and let me pass at the first
opportunity. There is nothing wrong with expecting the same of bike
riders. And unlike cement mixers, they have that opportunity
continuously if a sidewalk is present.

[John David Galt]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that
> is all that matters.

That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of
"playing the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not the
hard way -- that the universal moral principle that slower traffic must
give way to faster, includes them.

[John David Galt]

>> That law needs to be put back the way it was.

> Heaven forbid you have to have some minor driving skill.

Driving skill has nothing to do with the question. The point is that
no one has any business needlessly slowing traffic. Repeat that until
you get it through your thick head.

[Brent P]

In article >, John David Galt wrote:

> I specified a narrow street. That implies not enough room to pass the
> bike in the right lane.

The bicyclist can take the lane under the law in most states, if not all.

>> If the cyclist is in the right
>> lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow down.

> Only if there's almost no traffic, which NEVER happens around here
> (unless it's 2 AM, and not even the eco-freaks bike at that hour).

I can easily pass bicyclists at all times of day in crowded traffic
especially when there is more than one lane in my direction of travel. I
don't understand why you people have such problems. It's not like the
bicyclist magically appears in front of you like a lloyd lounger or that
you bicycle hating r.a.d regulars have the inattention to the road as
carl taylor so 'unexpected' things pop out of nowhere.

I see the bicyclist up ahead, with considerable warning. I slow or speed
up slight to where I can change lanes and do. If traffic is so packed
that I cannot, odds are I'm not catching up to the bicyclist at all and
won't have to pass him any time soon.

[Brent P]

In article >, John David Galt wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> Then you should have the cement mixers and other slow motor vehicles use
>> the sidewalk too.
>
> I certainly expect them to pull over and let me pass at the first
> opportunity. There is nothing wrong with expecting the same of bike
> riders. And unlike cement mixers, they have that opportunity
> continuously if a sidewalk is present.

Except with you, first opportunity for a bicyclist is 'get the **** off
the road NOW', as you are stating above in other words. Sorry I'm jumping
curbs or going off the pavement for you. When a safe oppertunity arises
to let you pass I will. Otherwise, deal.

Of course I don't often encounter drivers so incompetent. Almost all of
them pass easily without even slowing down.

[Brent P]

In article >, John David Galt wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
>> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
>> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that
>> is all that matters.
>
> That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of
> "playing the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not the
> hard way -- that the universal moral principle that slower traffic must
> give way to faster, includes them.

I haven't had a slower car yield to me yet. And yes, I am often faster
than the motor vehicles.

[Brent P]

In article >, John David Galt wrote:
>>> That law needs to be put back the way it was.
>
>> Heaven forbid you have to have some minor driving skill.
>
> Driving skill has nothing to do with the question. The point is that
> no one has any business needlessly slowing traffic. Repeat that until
> you get it through your thick head.

Who's slowing traffic? Not me. It's the lack of a driver's skill that
slows traffic. It's the car that is difficult to pass.

[Bill Sornson]

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, John David Galt wrote:
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
>>> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
>>> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that
>>> is all that matters.
>>
>> That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of
>> "playing the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not
>> the hard way -- that the universal moral principle that slower
>> traffic must give way to faster, includes them.
>
> I haven't had a slower car yield to me yet. And yes, I am often faster
> than the motor vehicles.

I've had cars ease to the right to let me pass -- usually on long, curvy
downhills. I return the favor when the road straightens out by signalling
'em to come on by. (It's amazing how good will can actually work like
that.)

The vast majority of drivers can recognize that, literally, a 10-second
delay won't in fact retard their /overall/ progress one iota. Then, of
course, there are morons like John David Galt. (Similarly, the vast
majority of cyclists are considerate of and cooperative with motorists; the
antagonistic idiots who treat every bike ride like a "me versus them"
confrontation don't do ANYONE any good.)

[dgk]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:15:55 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
>narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
>we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
>call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
>ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
>ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
>thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
>stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
>petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
>express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
>and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
>heads in disbelief.
>
>Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
>the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
>http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
>There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
>call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
>to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
>People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
>bad name.

Wow, Good post judging by the number of replies so far. Stirred up the
old hornet's nest. Now for my comments.

When I was much younger I once bought a pad of fake parking tickets.
They thanked the offender for being thoughtless and taking up two
parking spaces and hoped that the fleas of 1000 camels would infest
their armpits. I can still not figure out why folks park right in the
middle of two spots or park in ways that fail to maximize the number
of spots on a block.

Your pictures for the most part are places where there appear to be
many available spots so the impact is lessened. Sort of hard to
complain about lousy parking when it makes no difference. Still, I
share your outrage at thoughtless parking. Worse if it is not
thoughtless.

I sometimes bike on the sidewalk, and this is in Manhattan where it is
definitely illegal. But sometimes the streets are so congested that it
is simply unsafe to bike on it. Or, more likely, it is just too
crowded for me to be able to ease by cars and trucks and I would have
to wait as long as they do to get by. You know that it is FUd when
there are three lanes of traffic and a bike can't squeeze by nohow.

So up on the curb I go. That said, I go very slowly and do not disturb
pedestrians. Except for the few folks with broomsticks up their asses
who bitch that it is illegal to bike on sidewalks. Note that I have
caused them no problem. I haven't whizzed by or startled them or
anything. Probably very lawabiding themselves and never cross against
a light.

I see that your shots are either of Florida or some place like that.
Sure looks like Florida to me. Anyway, folks ride on the sidewalk
there because no one walks on the sidewalk. Drive here, drive there,
no walk. And, if it is Florida, it is dangerous to bike on the streets
because, well, older folks drive on the streets. And the impatient
ones who are trying to get past the older folks.

Final comment. I'm surprised that you don't have pictures involving
the stupid things that folks distracted by their cell phones do. Like
stopping in the middle of the sidewalk.

[Joe Canuck]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 05:49:14 GMT, "Scott Ehardt"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to say things like, "use the
>>>>bike lane, ****head"?
>>>
>>>What would you have said to someone so obnoxious? Being nice to these
>>>people just doesn't penetrate.
>>
>>I'm not claiming to be perfect or anything (I'm not by far), but I've found
>>that the more positive you can be in a situation, the more likely you are to
>>get a good response. Is your ultimate goal to let the biker know you're mad
>>at him (you did a good job of that) or to convince him to ride in the bike
>>lane?
>
>
> The reason people like this do the things they know are wrong is
> because there are no negative consequences. Being "considerate" and
> "just letting him do it" is what reinforces and perpetulates this bad
> behavior.
>
> OTOH, if every pedestrian to whom he failed to yield were to respond
> by calling him a ****head, he'd quickly change his bad behavior.
>

....and a few of them would very likely provide you with an "attitude
adjustment" as well.

Someday you will make the wrong remark to the wrong person and really
end up in trouble over it, more trouble than you can handle.

I don't wish this on you, but with your attitude it is just a matter of
time before it happens.

[catzz66]

Joe Canuck wrote:
>
>
> I don't wish this on you, but with your attitude it is just a matter of
> time before it happens.

You're right. It's hard to side with either party. A person who gets
furious over someone who is legally occupying the sidewalk is just as
bad as a person who intentionally blocks both lanes of the perfectly
good sidewalk just to make some legalistic point.

[DD]

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:27:18 GMT, "DD"
> > wrote:
>
> >Wow, you sure do spend a lot of time hating, don't you?
>
> More like getting irritated.

Sorry, I was just responding to your website. You know, the one with the
introduction that reads "This page is going to be about the things I hate"

>
> >And your numerous
> >photos of trivial (and yes, aggravating) public indiscresions are sad and
> >pathetic. I'm guessing you were the fat kid in the back of class
tattling
> >to the teacher everytime someone passed a note in class.
>
> Sorry, Hans, wrong guess. Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy?

Sure Alex, I'll take "Who probably doesn't confront anybody but rather
spends way too much time taking and posting pictures and probably works up
enough bile to leave a profane note or two on someones windsheild" for
$500.00. (PS I liked the "Die Hard" reference.)

>
> >Maybe you could do us a favor and post a list of rules we should be
> >following so that we can avoid your raging wrath?
>
> Rule #1: Don't be disingenuous.
>
> Everybody has pet peeves. Don't make me out to be some kind of monster
> because I talk about mine. Andy Rooney does it every week and rakes in
> big bucks.

Rule #2: Don't use big words if you don't know what they mean. There was
nothing disingenuous about what I said. Sarcastic, sure, but very sincere,
trust me.

For the record, I agree with you, some people are rude, thoughtless and
self-centered. The difference is I don't feel some weird urge to document
parking violations on a website (speaking of which, do you always have a
camera with you or what?) nor do I usually call a complete stranger a
****head even if they do ring a bell at me. So even though you do a bit
more than just talk about your pet peeves, I don't think you're quite in
monster territory.

As far as the Andy Rooney thing, hang tight, with the looks of what passes
for entertainment on television these days, you just might have your own
show soon enough.

[Paul]

<rec.autos.driving removed>

On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:24:28 -0400, Joe Canuck , cross-posted the=20
following to rec.autos.driving...=20


> Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:47:28 -0400, Joe Canuck
> > > wrote:

<drivel snipped>=20

>=20

Why don't you, Scott, Bill and the other cross-posters take your k0Ok=20
dance to alt.local.village.idiot or alt.usenet.kooks or somewhere else=20
where you'll be right at home. I'm getting sick of having to kill this=20
thread everytime I launch my ****ing newsreader.....

[Jim Yanik]

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> cyclists still make left turns.the do not always stay on one's right.
>
> Oh heaven forbid. I make my left turns faster than the majority of
> drivers.

Yes,and we all know you are the average example of bicyclists everywhere.


(sarcasm mode off)


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

John David Galt > wrote in
:

> Brent P wrote:
>> Then you should have the cement mixers and other slow motor vehicles
>> use the sidewalk too.
>
> I certainly expect them to pull over and let me pass at the first
> opportunity. There is nothing wrong with expecting the same of bike
> riders. And unlike cement mixers, they have that opportunity
> continuously if a sidewalk is present.
>

Most cement trucks and other "slow" motor vehicles still move faster than
the usual bicyclist.And they are more rare than the usual bicyclist(unless
your route takes you past the cement plant).

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Harry K]

GaryG wrote:
> "Jeff Starr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 16 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700, Scott en Aztl=E1n
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >>FWIW, I don't like people who park intentionally in multiple
parking
> spaces
> > >>(I keep a little container of baby shampoo in my car that I
occasionally
> > >>apply to their windshields in protest). But, there's a large
leap
> between
> > >>not liking something and embracing you inner curmudgeon with a
dumbass
> > >>little website devoted to the things you "hate".
> > >
> > >Now THAT is hilarious!
> > >
> > >You think vandalism is OK, but a harmless little website is a
> > >horrible, terrible, awful thing?
> > >
> > >You pedalcyclists crack me up!!!
> >
> > He keeps the shampoo in his CAR. That has nothing to do with being
a
> > "pedalcyclist".
> > I thought you claimed to ride a bicycle, so I guess that makes you
a
> > "pedalcyclist" too. But of course you are nothing like those of us
who
> > post on rec.bicycle.misc. Apparently you are above us, somehow. So
> > very superior.
> >
> > I personally think you put way too much effort into the petty
little
> > occurrences that are a part of everyday life.
> >
> > I do have one pet peeve, these days. It is inconsiderate people on
> > cell phones. Whether it be in cars, stores, or walking along on the
> > sidewalk. It is distracting enough, that people become at a minimum
> > inconsiderate and at worst dangerous. Maybe you should post a
picture
> > of your wife, being distracted and therefore inconsiderate.
> >
> > Gary, dumping anything on peoples cars is just plain wrong, and an
> > over reaction. If it bothers you that much, leave a note. Maybe
they
> > are just dumb, not intentionally inconsiderate. Try to educate
them,
> > take the positive route.
>
> FWIW, I've only used it on a couple of occasions, on vehicles that
were very
> obviously cross-parked intentionally in crowded lots (i.e., not on
cars a
> bit over the line, or cars cross-parked where there's plenty of
spaces
> available). With those folks, it's not an issue of education, but
behavior
> modification. I only apply about a teaspoon of shampoo, squirted
onto the
> windshield. Presumably the cross-parker will notice it when they get
back
> to their car, turn on their windshield wipers, and then have a moment
of
> karmic irritation as they have to deal with it foaming up. The
shampoo
> container fits easily in my pocket, and it's a much quicker and more
> assertive form of "speech" than writing a note (which would probably
be
> laughed off and thrown on the ground anyway).
>
> GG
>
> >
> >
> > Life is Good!
> > Jeff
> >

So please explain how dumping soap on a windshield has educated
someone. Are they somehow to -guess- that is why you did it?? Sorry
but that type of action is totally moronic as well as being vandalism.
As someone else said, if you want to educate them, explain the nature
of their transgression.

Harry K

[Jim Yanik]

John David Galt > wrote in
:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
>> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
>> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that
>> is all that matters.

Well,that IS why the roads are there.


> That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of
> "playing the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not the
> hard way -- that the universal moral principle that slower traffic must
> give way to faster, includes them.
>

They should also consider what happens in a auto-bike collision,and who the
bigger loser ends up to be,regardless of intentional or unintended.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in
:


> (Similarly, the vast majority of cyclists are considerate of and
> cooperative with motorists;

"vast majority";HA,what BS.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, John David Galt wrote:
>>>> That law needs to be put back the way it was.
>>
>>> Heaven forbid you have to have some minor driving skill.
>>
>> Driving skill has nothing to do with the question. The point is that
>> no one has any business needlessly slowing traffic. Repeat that until
>> you get it through your thick head.
>
> Who's slowing traffic? Not me. It's the lack of a driver's skill that
> slows traffic. It's the car that is difficult to pass.
>
>

Yeah,the average bicyclist is every bit as speedy and skilled as you(think
you are).Every one a pro.


Right....


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Bill Sornson]

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> (Similarly, the vast majority of cyclists are considerate of and
>> cooperative with motorists;
>
> "vast majority";HA,what BS.

You yanking us, Yanik? Why would cyclists NOT want to coexist peacefully
with motorists?!? You think people want to get hit, run over, run off the
road, etc???

It's called self preservation (as well as manners, courtesy, good will)...

BS What

[The Real Bev]

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> >This behaviour by the cyclist was unacceptable. The "****head" was
> >unacceptable as well. There are times when it is necessary for safety
> >reasons to ride on a sidewalk
>
> Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
> no exceptions for "safety reasons."

That depends on what city you're in. Pasadena allows riding on the sidewalk
except in the commercial areas.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ========
"The last thing you want is for somebody to commit suicide
before executing them."
-Gary Deland, former Utah director for corrections

[The Real Bev]

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:24:29 -0700, John David Galt
> > wrote:
>
> >Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> >> Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
> >> no exceptions for "safety reasons."
> >
> >So what? I'd break that law if I felt safety required it. But that
> >should rarely be true for adults, unless the only available route has
> >a narrow right lane, no shoulder, and a high average speed.
>
> This particular street had a nice bike lane, a 40 MPH speed limit, and
> light automobile traffic:
>
> http://tinypic.com/53qxz6
>
> >I agree with you that you had right of way, but the rider did stop
> >and you should have let him by.
>
> We *did* let him by: when we reached the point where this guy was
> standing, we fell into single-file temporarily until we were past him,
> the same way we would have done for any pedestrian. He was ****ed
> because we didn't "let him by" by stepping off the concrete into the
> grass so he could ride by at full speed. And you know, it really
> breaks my heart that this arrogant scofflaw had to suffer such a grave
> inconvenience...

OK, the guy was an asshole. If you had been carrying a broom handle you could
have moved off the sidewalk and thrust it through his spokes as he passed. Or
maybe you could have given him a squirt with the bottle of ammonia water that
you carry to ward off attacking dogs. "Oops, sorry, dude..."

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ========
"The last thing you want is for somebody to commit suicide
before executing them."
-Gary Deland, former Utah director for corrections

[di]

"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
.. .
> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> (Similarly, the vast majority of cyclists are considerate of and
>> cooperative with motorists;
>
> "vast majority";HA,what BS.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Yanik

What are you, the 2nd team for Scott?

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> cyclists still make left turns.the do not always stay on one's right.
>>
>> Oh heaven forbid. I make my left turns faster than the majority of
>> drivers.
>
> Yes,and we all know you are the average example of bicyclists everywhere.
>
> (sarcasm mode off)

Of those advanced enough to be using left hand turn lanes, yes.

I don't see any POB's using left turn lanes or making proper left hand
turns. Now that I think of it, left turn behavior is good way to
separate real road bicyclists from the rest.

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> Most cement trucks and other "slow" motor vehicles still move faster than
> the usual bicyclist.And they are more rare than the usual bicyclist(unless
> your route takes you past the cement plant).

I've been stuck behind such vehicles. While they may move faster, I am
stuck behind them much, much, longer. Sometimes for minutes and miles. As
compared to zero to seconds and feet for the bicyclist. I have to slow to
the slow motor vehicle's speed. I can't recall ever being forced to slow
to a bicyclist's speed.

The total delay getting by a bicyclist for me has always been trivial and
generally too small to measure. Slow moving motor vehicle on the other
hand have been easily measurable by reducing speed over significant
travel distances.

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> They should also consider what happens in a auto-bike collision,and who the
> bigger loser ends up to be,regardless of intentional or unintended.

You should consider what happens in a semitruck-auto collision. Better
get off the road, there are vehicles out there much bigger than yours.

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, John David Galt wrote:
>>>>> That law needs to be put back the way it was.
>>>
>>>> Heaven forbid you have to have some minor driving skill.
>>>
>>> Driving skill has nothing to do with the question. The point is that
>>> no one has any business needlessly slowing traffic. Repeat that until
>>> you get it through your thick head.
>>
>> Who's slowing traffic? Not me. It's the lack of a driver's skill that
>> slows traffic. It's the car that is difficult to pass.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah,the average bicyclist is every bit as speedy and skilled as you(think
> you are).Every one a pro.
>
>
> Right....

I'm no pro. I'm slow. Lance armstrong is pro, his crusing speed is my
sprint.

[Joe Canuck]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:02:16 -0400, Joe Canuck
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Someday you will make the wrong remark to the wrong person and really
>>end up in trouble over it, more trouble than you can handle.
>>
>>I don't wish this on you, but with your attitude it is just a matter of
>>time before it happens.
>
>
> I'll be sure and let you know when it does so you can gloat. :)
>

Thats the problem, you might not be around to do so.

Sheesh, lighten up.

[Jim Yanik]

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> They should also consider what happens in a auto-bike collision,and
>> who the bigger loser ends up to be,regardless of intentional or
>> unintended.
>
> You should consider what happens in a semitruck-auto collision. Better
> get off the road, there are vehicles out there much bigger than yours.
>
>
>

They have a better chance of surviving with lesser injuries than a bike-
auto collision.At least one in an auto has some sheet metal wrapped around
them.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[AZ Nomad]

On 17 May 2005 12:40:51 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:


(Brent P) wrote in
:

>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They should also consider what happens in a auto-bike collision,and
>>> who the bigger loser ends up to be,regardless of intentional or
>>> unintended.
>>
>> You should consider what happens in a semitruck-auto collision. Better
>> get off the road, there are vehicles out there much bigger than yours.
>>
>>
>>

>They have a better chance of surviving with lesser injuries than a bike-
>auto collision.At least one in an auto has some sheet metal wrapped around
>them.

That's only true at the similar speeds. I can't recall the last time I was
at 90 mph while riding a bicycle.

[Bob]

John David Galt wrote:
> >> That law needs to be put back the way it was.
>
> > Heaven forbid you have to have some minor driving skill.
>
> Driving skill has nothing to do with the question. The point is that
> no one has any business needlessly slowing traffic. Repeat that
until
> you get it through your thick head.

No, the real point is that you are making the assumptions that:
1) bicyclists cause other traffic to slow (something I've rarely
witnessed) and
2) that any slowing of traffic is "needless".
Until and unless you refine your argument to conform with both reality
and applicable laws you will continue to sound like those that complain
about drivers that actually obey the posted speed limits.
You seem to be in California. California law grants bicyclists the
right to use the roadways. Repeat that until you get it through your
thick head.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[fbloogyudsr]

"Bob" > wrote
> No, the real point is that you are making the assumptions that:
> 1) bicyclists cause other traffic to slow (something I've rarely
> witnessed) and

Your anectdotal evidence is negated by my anectdotal evidence
on SR 900 and May Valley Road (near Issaquah, WA near Seattle);
both designated bike routes. However, neither of these two-lane
40mph roads have adequate shoulders, and traffic slows until
there is room to pass. Every Day.

FloydR

[1oki]

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob" > wrote
>> No, the real point is that you are making the assumptions that:
>> 1) bicyclists cause other traffic to slow (something I've rarely
>> witnessed) and
>
> Your anectdotal evidence is negated by my anectdotal evidence

No it isn't. He may or may not be right but giving a counter-example to his
assertion does not mean your experience isn't a rarity.

> on SR 900 and May Valley Road (near Issaquah, WA near Seattle);
> both designated bike routes. However, neither of these two-lane
> 40mph roads have adequate shoulders, and traffic slows until
> there is room to pass. Every Day.
>
> FloydR

[fbloogyudsr]

"1oki" > wrote
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Bob" > wrote
>>> No, the real point is that you are making the assumptions that:
>>> 1) bicyclists cause other traffic to slow (something I've rarely
>>> witnessed) and
>>
>> Your anectdotal evidence is negated by my anectdotal evidence
>
> No it isn't. He may or may not be right but giving a counter-example to
> his assertion does not mean your experience isn't a rarity.
>
>> on SR 900 and May Valley Road (near Issaquah, WA near Seattle);
>> both designated bike routes. However, neither of these two-lane
>> 40mph roads have adequate shoulders, and traffic slows until
>> there is room to pass. Every Day.

And *NEITHER* of our anecdotal evidence is valid. So his (and
my statements are entirely discounted in any discussion of this
matter.

Floyd

[Jim Yanik]

AZ Nomad > wrote in
:

> On 17 May 2005 12:40:51 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>
(Brent P) wrote in
:
>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They should also consider what happens in a auto-bike collision,and
>>>> who the bigger loser ends up to be,regardless of intentional or
>>>> unintended.
>>>
>>> You should consider what happens in a semitruck-auto collision.
>>> Better get off the road, there are vehicles out there much bigger
>>> than yours.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>>They have a better chance of surviving with lesser injuries than a
>>bike- auto collision.At least one in an auto has some sheet metal
>>wrapped around them.
>
> That's only true at the similar speeds. I can't recall the last time
> I was at 90 mph while riding a bicycle.
>

Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the cyclist
loses every time. Smack an import into a big SUV or the reverse at 25 mph
and the people almost always survive ,often with few injuries.Even with a
helmet,the cyclist is vulnerable to head/neck injuries that any auto
occupant will not get.
Any honest cyclist will acknowledge their vulnerability.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They should also consider what happens in a auto-bike collision,and
>>> who the bigger loser ends up to be,regardless of intentional or
>>> unintended.
>>
>> You should consider what happens in a semitruck-auto collision. Better
>> get off the road, there are vehicles out there much bigger than yours.
>>
>>
>>
>
> They have a better chance of surviving with lesser injuries than a bike-
> auto collision.At least one in an auto has some sheet metal wrapped around
> them.

You think the A pilars and glass are going to offer protection when you
end up under a semi's trailer? Think again.

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the cyclist
> loses every time.

I ride between 18 and 30mph. On arterial streets I am often crusing at
24-25mph. I have a speedo now, so I can actually see my real speed. At
25mph the collision speed would be about zero.

> Smack an import into a big SUV or the reverse at 25 mph
> and the people almost always survive ,often with few injuries.Even with a
> helmet,the cyclist is vulnerable to head/neck injuries that any auto
> occupant will not get.

Slide that same import under a semi truck and they'll be lucky to keep
their heads attached to their bodies.

> Any honest cyclist will acknowledge their vulnerability.

Yes. But since when is that *your* business in a free society?

[Dennis Ferguson]

Bob > wrote:
> John David Galt wrote:
>> Driving skill has nothing to do with the question. The point is that
>> no one has any business needlessly slowing traffic. Repeat that
> until
>> you get it through your thick head.
[...]
> Until and unless you refine your argument to conform with both reality
> and applicable laws you will continue to sound like those that complain
> about drivers that actually obey the posted speed limits.

Not that it matters, but that seems to be exactly his complaint. One
of the streets he'd like bikes banned from, Embarcadero Road in Palo
Alto, has a 25 mph speed limit. I can maintain that on my bicycle if
the wind is right. What's more, Embarcadero Road's direction is about
30 degrees off the road grid in the surrounding neighbourhoods so there
really are no parallel streets, and the indirect routes through those
residential neighbourhoods are a maze of stop signs designed to encourage
traffic onto Embarcadero Road.

This means that if you are on your bicycle at one end of Embarcadero
and you need to get to the other end, you have a choice. You can
take a quick trip in the traffic on Embarcadero, or a slower trip
(often twice the time) winding your way through the neighbourhoods
with the stop signs. Because of this I understand his argument to be
that, on the off chance he might be unable to immediately change lanes
to pass a cyclist without slowing, and hence might actually need to
inconvenience himself by slowing to the speed limit for a while on
Embarcadero, the cyclist should instead be forced into the neighbourhoods
to deal with the stop signs. That is, if there's any possibility that
the presence of a cyclist might delay him a bit the cyclist should be
forced to suffer a certain delay instead (because the cyclist's time
is of no importance compared to his own?).

I live in a neighbourhood close to Embarcadero Road, and I'm pleased
to have the right to pick my routes based on my own needs and preferences.
If convenience for cars was the sole consideration I wouldn't be able
to take my bicycle out of my garage.

Dennis Ferguson

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>What is the difference between a cyclist and say a roller-blade skater?

An inline skater is more likely than a cyclist to use his shoulder on
a path-blocker.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Roy Owen > wrote:
>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>> OTOH, if every pedestrian to whom he failed to yield were to respond
>> by calling him a ****head, he'd quickly change his bad behavior.
>>
>Or maybe he'd just start packing a 9mm and blow people away.

In which case he'd end up dead or in jail in short order, also solving
the problem.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Bill Sornson > wrote:
>Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> (Similarly, the vast majority of cyclists are considerate of and
>>> cooperative with motorists;
>>
>> "vast majority";HA,what BS.
>
>You yanking us, Yanik? Why would cyclists NOT want to coexist peacefully
>with motorists?!?

Two words: Critical Mass.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Bill Sornson]

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Bill Sornson > wrote:
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>> "Bill Sornson" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> (Similarly, the vast majority of cyclists are considerate of and
>>>> cooperative with motorists;
>>>
>>> "vast majority";HA,what BS.
>>
>> You yanking us, Yanik? Why would cyclists NOT want to coexist
>> peacefully with motorists?!?
>
> Two words: Critical Mass.

Two more words: Lunatic Fringe.

[Jim Smith]

(Matthew Russotto) writes:

> In article >,
> Roy Owen > wrote:
>>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>>
>>> OTOH, if every pedestrian to whom he failed to yield were to respond
>>> by calling him a ****head, he'd quickly change his bad behavior.
>>>
>>Or maybe he'd just start packing a 9mm and blow people away.
>
> In which case he'd end up dead or in jail in short order, also solving
> the problem.

Lets review. Our problem is a rude bicyclist. You are tacitly
endorsing a course of action which "solves the problem" by leaving one
person dead and another either dead or in jail. Good work! I think
there is a job waitning for you in Washington D.C.

[Brent P]

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> Two words: Critical Mass.

The counterparts to you, yanik, and galt.

They want cars off the road, you want bicycles off the road.

[Claire Petersky]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Tue, 17 May 2005 22:50:59 -0700, >,
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote:
>
> >BTW, Seattle has lanes reserved for buses (during rush hour), to keep
> >auto traffic moving, so the answer to your second question is yes.
>
> AFAIK, the reason it's done in Vancouver BC, is to keep bus traffic
> moving so that bus travel is more attractive and timely.

This is also the case in the Seattle area. For example, Bothell/Lake City
Way has a transit lane to facilitate the ease of travel for the buses. If
the issue was only keeping auto traffic moving, they'd only need cut-outs
for the bus to pull into at each stop.

Fbloogyudsr, however, may be refering to the bus lanes in downtown. Here, I
think the focus is to indeed keep the other motor vehicle traffic flowing.

> Bus lanes are sometimes shared with bikes. Bicycles are permitted in
> HOV lanes too.

Whether or not bicycles were permitted in the transit lanes like Lake City
Way was discussed on a local cycling commuter board, but I don't remember
the conclusion. Certainly it is a common practice on the weekends, when the
buses don't run as frequently and traffic is generally lighter. I think
there was some concern about cycling in the bus lane at rush hour when car
traffic is basically stopped and the bus in barrelling down the narrow
diamond lane at 40 mph.

Downtown is another issue. If you are cycling on Second or Fourth, which are
one-way and have the bus lanes, you want to be on the far left, not on the
far right. (In Washington State it is legal for cyclists on one-way streets
to be as close to the left as practicable as well as right.) The bus lane
simply has too many vehicles pulling in and out to be safe for cyclists.

--
Warm Regards,


Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[Jim Yanik]

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the
>> cyclist loses every time.
>
> I ride between 18 and 30mph. On arterial streets I am often crusing at
> 24-25mph. I have a speedo now, so I can actually see my real speed. At
> 25mph the collision speed would be about zero.

Depends on the vectors.And once you go flying OFF your bike,the impact with
the ground or some other solid unmoving object will not do you any
good.Even road rash is gonna hurt bad.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in news:v-
:

> In article >,
> Jim Yanik .> wrote:


WRONG;Jim Yanik did NOT say this,somebody else did.
>>
>>What is the difference between a cyclist and say a roller-blade skater?
>
> An inline skater is more likely than a cyclist to use his shoulder on
> a path-blocker.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Matthew Russotto
> wrote:
>
>> Two words: Critical Mass.
>
> The counterparts to you, yanik, and galt.
>
> They want cars off the road, you want bicycles off the road.
>
>
>

Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Bill Sornson]

Jim Yanik wrote:

> WRONG;Jim Yanik did NOT say this,somebody else did.

Psst, Jim. Your spacebar called. It wants to be used once in a while.

[Zoot Katz]

17 May 2005 23:05:08 GMT,
>, scud slave, Jim Yanik
.>demonstrated its stupidity with this bull****:

>
>Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.

Everybody pays for the roads.
Autos destroy the roads. Bikes do not.

>Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.

Autos require subsides to offset their negative externalities.

Get your ugly stinking lethal scud off my road, scum.
--
zk

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the
>>> cyclist loses every time.
>>
>> I ride between 18 and 30mph. On arterial streets I am often crusing at
>> 24-25mph. I have a speedo now, so I can actually see my real speed. At
>> 25mph the collision speed would be about zero.
>
> Depends on the vectors.And once you go flying OFF your bike,the impact with
> the ground or some other solid unmoving object will not do you any
> good.Even road rash is gonna hurt bad.

Same with a car colliding with a semi. And so does an airbag exploding in
your face.

Since when do you get to tell me what acceptable risks are?

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Matthew Russotto
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Two words: Critical Mass.
>>
>> The counterparts to you, yanik, and galt.
>>
>> They want cars off the road, you want bicycles off the road.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.

Wrong. On many levels.
1) I pay property taxes that cover more than the wear and tear I do
to most of the roads I ride on.
2) Bicycles cause so little wear as to be unmeasurable.
3) I, like most bicyclists, own motor vehicles. I've paid to use THREE
motor vehicles on the road. I could recruit two friends to drive the
other two if I wanted. Instead of taking up the space of three vehicles,
I take up only the space of a bicycle.

> Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.

So you promptly drive into the ditch everytime a semi wants to pass you?

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message ...
> 17 May 2005 23:05:08 GMT,
> >, scud slave, Jim Yanik
> .>demonstrated its stupidity with this bull****:
>
> >

I wouldn't care too much about what nobodies like Yankit have to say.
This is what happens when some dork cross posts to loser newsgroups
like autos.driving.

[[email protected]]

Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>
> Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the
cyclist
> loses every time. Smack an import into a big SUV or the reverse at 25
mph
> and the people almost always survive ,often with few injuries.Even
with a
> helmet,the cyclist is vulnerable to head/neck injuries that any auto
> occupant will not get.

Jim, you may not know that in the US, the greatest source of head
injury fatalities by FAR is riding in a motor vehicle. It causes
roughly 50% of those fatlities. Falls around the home account for
about 40%. Cycling accidents cause considerably less than 1%.

And it's not just that more hours are spent in cars. On a per-hour
basis, riding in a car and riding a bike are about equal in fatal head
injury risk. Incidentally, walking near traffic is even worse - mostly
because of road zombies mowing people down in crosswalks.

Most people - especially enthusiastic motorists - like to pretend that
driving is extremely safe, and cycling is extremely dangerous regarding
accidental deaths. But that's absolutely wrong. See
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

Next time you drive through an intersection on a green light, think
about what happens when a larger vehicle runs the red from the left.
Think about your head and that hard door frame, hard roof, hard window
glass. Yeah, it doesn't happen all that often - just often enough to
make it number one.

> Any honest cyclist will acknowledge their vulnerability.

An honest motorist would do the same.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bob]

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
> Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.

No, all taxpayers pay for the roads. The day that fuel taxes become the
sole or even primary source of revenue for road construction and
maintenance will be the day that construction and maintenance ceases.
Autos move commerce? That explains all those Mustangs hauling machine
parts to the local Ford assembly plant.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[John David Galt]

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
>>Two words: Critical Mass.
>
>
> The counterparts to you, yanik, and galt.
>
> They want cars off the road, you want bicycles off the road.

Not at all. I just expect everyone on the road to obey the rules as
accepted by the majority, including "never delay faster traffic
needlessly" which unfortunately is not the law in most places yet.

[Bob]

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote
> > No, the real point is that you are making the assumptions that:
> > 1) bicyclists cause other traffic to slow (something I've rarely
> > witnessed) and
>
> Your anectdotal evidence is negated by my anectdotal evidence
> on SR 900 and May Valley Road (near Issaquah, WA near Seattle);
> both designated bike routes. However, neither of these two-lane
> 40mph roads have adequate shoulders, and traffic slows until
> there is room to pass. Every Day.
>
> FloydR

I made a parenthetical comment that I've rarely seen cyclists cause any
real traffic slowdowns. It was never meant as anecdotal evidence but
I'll stand by my comment. The only times I've seen cyclists cause more
than an inconsequential delay have been Critical Mass rides and large
(1000+ riders) organized rides that had the blessing of the local DOT.
I don't count either of those as simply being cyclists anymore than I
count a demonstration or parade as "pedestrians".
Since you are claiming anecdotal evidence that bicycles *do* cause
traffic slowdowns, please quantify those slowdowns. Does a trip on one
of those roads you mention take 10% longer because of the bicycles?
20%? Do they cause travel times to increase more than say mass transit
or school buses? I'd be amazed if they do and if not, should we build
separate roadways for buses so drivers of private autos aren't impeded
by their frequent stops?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[[email protected]]

John David Galt wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article >, Matthew Russotto
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Two words: Critical Mass.
> >
> >
> > The counterparts to you, yanik, and galt.
> >
> > They want cars off the road, you want bicycles off the road.
>
> Not at all. I just expect everyone on the road to obey the rules as
> accepted by the majority, including "never delay faster traffic
> needlessly" which unfortunately is not the law in most places yet.

??? That's a rule accepted by the majority??

Seriously: When I'm doing utility biking - for example, riding to work
- I'm routinely delayed by road zombies, far more than I ever delay
motorists. Number one examples are the people at the front of the
queue for a ten second left turn arrow - the motorists who say "I've
got plenty of time, so let me examine that shade of green for a while."


Number two examples are the ones at four way stops - the "You go"...
"No, you go" crowd.

Number three are the people who never did learn what that turn signal
lever is for, who slow down, and slow down, and slow down, then finally
turn. If we only knew, three of us could have made our move.

I could go on, but the point is this: If you're worried about delays
while driving, work on your motorist buddies. They'll give you plenty
of material - and in fact, they're 99.99% of the problem.

Perhaps you should stop worrying about bicyclist's 0.01% of the
problem.

- Frank Krygowski

[Ferris]

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:49:38 -0700, Ferris > wrote:
>
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>21208(a) Failure to ride in a bicycle lane.
>>>
>>>
>>>Interesting, I always described bicycle lanes as bicycle restrictions,
>>>but only effectively. Seems they are legally too. Just another reason to
>>>oppose them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I would interpret this as meaning if you're riding on the road, and
>>there is a bicycle lane, you need to be in it. There's nothing in the
>>code that prohibits riding on a sidewalk.
>
>
> I will yield on that point, as clearly the CVC overrules the "Rules of
> the Road" book. But the fact remains, what this pedalcyclist did was
> indefensible, and I only became rude in response to his own rudeness.
>

I'll concede he should have at least given a verbal "excuse me" to get
your attention - but you and your wife should have been watching out for
others as well.

[Brent P]

In article . com>, wrote:

> Most people - especially enthusiastic motorists - like to pretend that
> driving is extremely safe, and cycling is extremely dangerous regarding
> accidental deaths.

True enthusiastic motorists are few and far between. Many of
them own their own helmet because they spend weekends at the TRACK.

Now, I haven't spent many weekends at the track so, I don't own a helmet.
But I've spent considerable time riding a bicycle on the roads.

The danger I find on the road wrt drivers isn't the small percentage of a
small percentage of enthusiastic motorists. The danger I face is from the
uncaring toaster-mobile drivers who think that the car gives them the
right of way. The toaster-mobile drivers who are too busy on the
cellphone or slurping a drink or who knows what, but they aren't
concerned with drivers. And of course the posuer enthusiastic drivers,
usually teenagers. There are of course combinations. Teenagers in a
taurus, not paying much attention to the road that decide to a harrass a
bicyclist for instance.

[Brent P]

In article >, John David Galt wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Two words: Critical Mass.
>>
>>
>> The counterparts to you, yanik, and galt.
>>
>> They want cars off the road, you want bicycles off the road.
>
> Not at all. I just expect everyone on the road to obey the rules as
> accepted by the majority, including "never delay faster traffic
> needlessly" which unfortunately is not the law in most places yet.

Considering the overwhelming number of sloth drivers out there, I don't
think that's true. Today I was stuck behind a sloth driver. Older
mistubishi product. Guy drove it like he couldn't operate a manual
transmission, or maybe the clutch or the trans was going. Anyway, this
guy was really holding me up with his slow acceleration and pace, traffic
was thick and the queues at each light long, but this guy wouldn't keep
up. But anyway I digress. I was stuck waiting behind this guy, just
moving maybe 10mph.

Oh, I was riding my cannondale at the time... that's a bicycle, Galt.
After the mitsu driver turned off the road, I sped up to 30mph and was
*passing* automotive traffic in the left lane.

I can't think of any time I delayed traffic more than the average driver
around here does rutinely. Not once. I can't think of a time where
legally riding bicyclists have delayed me while I was driving.

Thusly, if you are being delayed, my guess is that you simply lack
driving skills or spend a huge amount of time on crowded, narrow two lane
roads that attract a lot of bicyclists. I have a difficult time such
roads exist.

[Brent P]

In article . com>, wrote:

> Seriously: When I'm doing utility biking - for example, riding to work
> - I'm routinely delayed by road zombies, far more than I ever delay
> motorists. Number one examples are the people at the front of the
> queue for a ten second left turn arrow - the motorists who say "I've
> got plenty of time, so let me examine that shade of green for a while."

That is a sloth driver. I am surprised that you don't like sloth drivers.
If you saw one of my rants against sloth drivers I would guess you'd call
me all sorts of names. Call me an unsafe driver, etc and so forth. Then I
would tell you that I am usually on a bicycle when I am yelling at these
brain dead drivers to GO!

> Number two examples are the ones at four way stops - the "You go"...
> "No, you go" crowd.

Don't forget the ones who think it's "nice" to change the rules of the
road because they see a bicyclist stoping, turning etc as per the vehicle
code.

> Number three are the people who never did learn what that turn signal
> lever is for, who slow down, and slow down, and slow down, then finally
> turn. If we only knew, three of us could have made our move.

I got stuck behind one of these while driving and another while bicycling
today. Didn't like it much either time.

[fbloogyudsr]

"Bob" > wrote
> I'd be amazed if they do and if not, should we build
> separate roadways for buses so drivers of private autos aren't impeded
> by their frequent stops?

My anectdotal estimates are the same as your "amazement" estimate
of 10-20%: worthless.

BTW, Seattle has lanes reserved for buses (during rush hour), to keep
auto traffic moving, so the answer to your second question is yes.

Floyd

[Bob]

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote
> > I'd be amazed if they do and if not, should we build
> > separate roadways for buses so drivers of private autos aren't
impeded
> > by their frequent stops?
>
> My anectdotal estimates are the same as your "amazement" estimate
> of 10-20%: worthless.
>
> BTW, Seattle has lanes reserved for buses (during rush hour), to keep
> auto traffic moving, so the answer to your second question is yes.
>
> Floyd

You don't pay too much attention to punctuation marks do you, Floyd?
????? <--- Do you see these funny looking things? They are called
question marks and indicate that a question is being asked. A question
is an interrogatory statement designed to elicit a response. I was not
estimating anything. I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
cyclists are causing. That you refuse to give any estimate of the delay
while at the same time answering my "second question" makes it apparent
that you realize it was indeed a question, just not one that the answer
to would bolster your argument.
BTW, does every bus route in Seattle have bus lanes over its entire
length and do the buses *only* run during rush hour? Unless the answer
to both these questions is yes then we're right back at square one. You
say "delay" and I ask, "How long of a delay? Is it an unreasonable or
even measurable delay?". Not that I expect you will ever answer that.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bob]

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote
> > I'd be amazed if they do and if not, should we build
> > separate roadways for buses so drivers of private autos aren't
impeded
> > by their frequent stops?
>
> My anectdotal estimates are the same as your "amazement" estimate
> of 10-20%: worthless.
>
> BTW, Seattle has lanes reserved for buses (during rush hour), to keep
> auto traffic moving, so the answer to your second question is yes.
>
> Floyd

You don't pay too much attention to punctuation marks do you, Floyd?
????? <--- Do you see these funny looking things? They are called
question marks and indicate that a question is being asked. A question
is an interrogatory statement designed to elicit a response. I was not
estimating anything. I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
cyclists are causing. That you refuse to give any estimate of the delay
while at the same time answering my "second question" makes it apparent
that you realize it was indeed a question, just not one that the answer
to would bolster your argument.
BTW, does every bus route in Seattle have bus lanes over its entire
length and do the buses *only* run during rush hour? Unless the answer
to both these questions is yes then we're right back at square one. You
say "delay" and I ask, "How long of a delay? Is it an unreasonable or
even measurable delay?". I don't expect you will ever answer that
though so further discussion with you is pointless.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 18 May 2005 02:33:16 GMT, <MPxie.1395592$8l.880164@pd7tw1no>,
Euro Prince "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > sagely advised:
>
>> >, scud slave, Jim Yanik
>> .>demonstrated its stupidity with this bull****:
>>
>> >
>
>I wouldn't care too much about what nobodies like Yankit have to say.
>This is what happens when some dork cross posts to loser newsgroups
>like autos.driving.
>
Fab, baby, you're right. **** on 'em.
They'll always be nobodies.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 17 May 2005 22:50:59 -0700, >,
"fbloogyudsr" > wrote:

>BTW, Seattle has lanes reserved for buses (during rush hour), to keep
>auto traffic moving, so the answer to your second question is yes.

AFAIK, the reason it's done in Vancouver BC, is to keep bus traffic
moving so that bus travel is more attractive and timely. It was also
made law to yield to them thereby codifying the laws of survival.

Bus lanes are sometimes shared with bikes. Bicycles are permitted in
HOV lanes too.
--
zk

[Jim Yanik]

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Matthew Russotto
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Two words: Critical Mass.
>>>
>>> The counterparts to you, yanik, and galt.
>>>
>>> They want cars off the road, you want bicycles off the road.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>
> Wrong. On many levels.
> 1) I pay property taxes that cover more than the wear and tear I do
> to most of the roads I ride on.
> 2) Bicycles cause so little wear as to be unmeasurable.

Not relevant.Its still USAGE.

> 3) I, like most bicyclists, own motor vehicles. I've paid to use THREE
> motor vehicles on the road. I could recruit two friends to drive the
> other two if I wanted. Instead of taking up the space of three
> vehicles, I take up only the space of a bicycle.

Paying for the auto covers the autos usage,NOT your bikes.
Note that if you have mre than one auto,you have to pay for EACH ONE(buy
plates).

>
>> Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>
> So you promptly drive into the ditch everytime a semi wants to pass
> you?
>

Commerce helps pay for their road usage. Bikes don't.
Bikes are "leeches" on the road system.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> In article >, Matthew Russotto
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Two words: Critical Mass.
>>>>
>>>> The counterparts to you, yanik, and galt.
>>>>
>>>> They want cars off the road, you want bicycles off the road.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>>
>> Wrong. On many levels.
>> 1) I pay property taxes that cover more than the wear and tear I do
>> to most of the roads I ride on.
>> 2) Bicycles cause so little wear as to be unmeasurable.
>
> Not relevant.Its still USAGE.

Very relevant. Also #1.

>> 3) I, like most bicyclists, own motor vehicles. I've paid to use THREE
>> motor vehicles on the road. I could recruit two friends to drive the
>> other two if I wanted. Instead of taking up the space of three
>> vehicles, I take up only the space of a bicycle.

> Paying for the auto covers the autos usage,NOT your bikes.
> Note that if you have mre than one auto,you have to pay for EACH ONE(buy
> plates).

Yes, I currently paid for THREE autos. I paid. Period. all that matters
in your warped universe of taxation leading to privilege. Do I get
priority over people who don't pay or paid less in income tax than me?

>>> Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>>
>> So you promptly drive into the ditch everytime a semi wants to pass
>> you?
>>
>
> Commerce helps pay for their road usage. Bikes don't.
> Bikes are "leeches" on the road system.

laughable. Bicycles don't require the thick, wide roads. Trucks do.
Our road requirements are very small and easily covered by the taxes we
pay. Once upon a time I calculated what a fair registration cost for a
bicycle would be based on what I pay for my cars. Postage would practically
double it. That means it would cost more to collect, it would cost
government money, thusly they do not bother. Now of course you'd suggest
a punitive tax, because your goal isn't fairness, it's eliminating the
rights of others to use the road with the vehicle of their choice.

It's about as rational as baning SUVs. I believe one of the resient
trolls of r.a.d suggests that. If you want to be that looney, go for it.

[fbloogyudsr]

"Bob" > wrote
> I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
> cyclists are causing.

Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small, is
significant." If the answer was different (i.e., insignificant), then *NO*
separations for different traffic would exist. For instance, no-one
(in the Seattle area for instance) would be discussing bicycle lanes,
Bus Rapid Transit lanes, Light Rail, Monorail (the ultimate in grade
separation!), HOV lanes, HOT lanes, etc.

BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.

Floyd

[[email protected]]

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote
> > I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
> > cyclists are causing.
>
> Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small, is
> significant." ...

:-) Charming proof that you never learned the concept of "negligible."
I'm sure your math teachers are still shaking their heads at your
ignorance.


>
> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.

You drive an RV? Then you've caused more motorist delay on one trip
than I've caused in a decade of bicycling.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

fbloogyudsr wrote:
>
> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.


Then you're the only RVer in the whole damn state that does it.
Especially on HWY2, those assholes will creep at 20-under, and pass
pull-out after pull-out.

I have never been in any kind of slow-down involving a bike, but I have
spent countless hours of my life stuck behind slow-moving, brain-dead
RVers.

On the drive I do every day to and from work, there are dump trucks and
cement trucks that do exactly the same thing - 45 in a 55, (V85+5 would
be about 70, IMO), with a string of 30 cars, bumper-to-bumper behind.
Every now and again, a cyclist at 25mph, and never even a hiccup.

Really, have you ever been held up as the first vehicle behind a
bicyclist? Or are you being held up by a scaredy-driver who can't
figure out how to pass? I have been held up by the latter a couple of
times, but not nearly as much as driving for miles behind a sloth dump-
or cement truck.

E.P.

[Wayne Pein]

Jim Yanik wrote:


> Commerce helps pay for their road usage. Bikes don't.
> Bikes are "leeches" on the road system.
>

Since legislators could make bicycle drivers have registration and
license fees (and require them to generate gas tax revenue by using gas
powered air conditioners?) but have chosen not to, just how are bicycle
drivers supposed to contribute directly? Send a donation to their State?

It also seems to me you have chosen to participate in motoring, knowing
full well the fees, or did someone force you to drive? You could choose
to take advantage of free bicycling. Perhaps you also don't take legal
tax writeoffs?

Wayne

[fbloogyudsr]

> wrote
> fbloogyudsr wrote:
>> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
>> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
>> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
>> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.
>
> Then you're the only RVer in the whole damn state that does it.
> Especially on HWY2, those assholes will creep at 20-under, and pass
> pull-out after pull-out.

Yeah, and then they speed up in the passing zones and make it
hard to pass. I've never driven my RV on Stevens Pass, so you've
never had occaision to curse at me. ;-)

Floyd

[fbloogyudsr]

> wrote
> fbloogyudsr wrote:
>> "Bob" > wrote
>> > I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
>> > cyclists are causing.
>>
>> Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small, is
>> significant." ...
>
> :-) Charming proof that you never learned the concept of "negligible."
> I'm sure your math teachers are still shaking their heads at your
> ignorance.

Negligible is not the same as insignificant, Frank. If it were
then this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Nor would road-rage
exist.

>> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
>> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
>> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
>> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.
>
> You drive an RV? Then you've caused more motorist delay on one trip
> than I've caused in a decade of bicycling.
>
> Oh, the hypocrisy!

You must have me confused with someone else. Please go back
and demonstrate where *I* ever said that I object to delays caused
by cyclists.

Floyd

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...

>There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
>call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
>to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?

I can see a problem if you can't tell the difference between a bike lane and
shoulder. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they are not.

>People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
>bad name.

True. I happen to have the complete opposite problem. I ride to work most
days and I have to go around many pedestrians who are too stupid to realize
they are in a bicycle lane. They hog up the whole lane and often block it,
one the cell phone seems the cause many times. What makes this even worse is
that there is a pedestrian lane right next to the bike lane.
-------------
Alex

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >, says...

>Children are not licensed drivers. A licensed driver is supposed to
>know the rules of the road and follow them regardless of what type of
>vehicle he's using. If he's riding a bicycle, he's to ride on the road
>in the same direction as traffic.

No license is required to ride a bike.
--------------
Alex

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Jim Smith > wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) writes:
>
>> In article >,
>> Roy Owen > wrote:
>>>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, if every pedestrian to whom he failed to yield were to respond
>>>> by calling him a ****head, he'd quickly change his bad behavior.
>>>>
>>>Or maybe he'd just start packing a 9mm and blow people away.
>>
>> In which case he'd end up dead or in jail in short order, also solving
>> the problem.
>
>Lets review. Our problem is a rude bicyclist. You are tacitly
>endorsing a course of action which "solves the problem" by leaving one
>person dead and another either dead or in jail.

No. I'm endorsing a course of action that, _if escalated by the
bicyclist_ will leave one person dead and another either dead or in
jail. The only alternative being a course of action which will not solve
the problem at all -- that course of action being to simply silently
allow the rudeness to stand.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>And it's not just that more hours are spent in cars. On a per-hour
>basis, riding in a car and riding a bike are about equal in fatal head
>injury risk.

When we want to get from point A to point B, we measure on a per-mile
basis, not per hour.

>Incidentally, walking near traffic is even worse - mostly
>because of road zombies mowing people down in crosswalks.

Mostly because of drunk pedestrians wandering in the middle of unlit
streets.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Mike Latondresse]

"Claire Petersky" > wrote in
:

> This is also the case in the Seattle area. For example,
> Bothell/Lake City Way has a transit lane to facilitate the ease of
> travel for the buses. If the issue was only keeping auto traffic
> moving, they'd only need cut-outs for the bus to pull into at each
> stop.
>
Actually in Vancouver streets they are inatallling sidewalk bulges so
buses don't have to pull in (across the parking lane) to pick people
up. This of course delays the cars behind (and speeds up the bus) but
the planners say tough, take a bus. Love it.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Mike Latondresse > wrote:
>
>Actually in Vancouver streets they are inatallling sidewalk bulges so
>buses don't have to pull in (across the parking lane) to pick people
>up. This of course delays the cars behind (and speeds up the bus) but
>the planners say tough, take a bus. Love it.

Not even the planners think they can figure out how to make taking a
bus pleasant enough to be an option most people will voluntarily take
over driving a car. So instead they try to figure out way to make
driving a car even more unpleasant. But the gap is too wide to be
bridged that way too.


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...

>Two words: Critical Mass.

They represent themselves, not other cyclists. It's like saying LLB's
represent all drivers.
--------------
Alex

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >, .
says...

>Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.

Cyclists also pay taxes that help fund the roads. Many cyclists also own
cars, so they are paying for the road. A cyclist also causes basically no wear
and tear to the road. So in order to pay their fair share they would only need
to a trivial amount.

---------------
Alex

[Brent P]

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article . com>,
> > wrote:
>>
>>And it's not just that more hours are spent in cars. On a per-hour
>>basis, riding in a car and riding a bike are about equal in fatal head
>>injury risk.
>
> When we want to get from point A to point B, we measure on a per-mile
> basis, not per hour.

Maybe out in rural areas per mile is valuable way to determine A-to-B
travel. I'm used to travel being described in a minutes basis.

Thusly if I am making a decision to drive to work or ride to work, my
consideration is the number of minutes. Biking is usually equal in the
morning and faster in the afternoon.

[Paul]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 02:33:16 GMT, Fabrizio Mazzoleni , said the following
in rec.autos.driving...

>
> I wouldn't care too much about what nobodies like Yankit have to say.
> This is what happens when some dork cross posts to loser newsgroups
> like autos.driving.

Shut the **** up, cross posting scum

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 18 May 2005 12:23:03 -0500,
>,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Mike Latondresse > wrote:
>>
>>Actually in Vancouver streets they are inatallling sidewalk bulges so
>>buses don't have to pull in (across the parking lane) to pick people
>>up. This of course delays the cars behind (and speeds up the bus) but
>>the planners say tough, take a bus. Love it.
>
>Not even the planners think they can figure out how to make taking a
>bus pleasant enough to be an option most people will voluntarily take
>over driving a car. So instead they try to figure out way to make
>driving a car even more unpleasant. But the gap is too wide to be
>bridged that way too.

The more enlightened commuters, who after using rapid transit, wonder
why they'd not done it before. But you're right, drivers don't convert
voluntarily so they should be forced by exorbitant costs and
restrictive legislation reducing the attractiveness of driving.

I firmly believe in making driving more unpleasant, expensive,
inconvenient, and socially unacceptable. It should be stigmatised the
same way smoking has been since it's potentially several times more
deadly to far greater numbers of persons who didn't buy into your
slovenly habitual sloth.

Futchu and your stinking filthy second-hand smoke.
--
zk

[Brian Huntley]

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
> Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.

My city currently gets $0.00 per litre of gasoline in tax dollars, plus
a whopping $0.00 per car/truck/motorcycle/trailer registered. Yet it
pays for the streets. Some of my property taxes, it would seem, are
doing so.

And while internal combustion engined vehicles (trucks, mainly) do move
a lot of goods, the actual 'commerce' in places like Wall Street, Bay
Street, or The City depends a lot on bicycles.

[Brent P]

In article . com>, Brian Huntley wrote:

> And while internal combustion engined vehicles (trucks, mainly) do move
> a lot of goods, the actual 'commerce' in places like Wall Street, Bay
> Street, or The City depends a lot on bicycles.

I wonder if a bicycle messenger using the commerce defense for his
violation of the vehicle code would go over well? I certainly wouldn't
buy that excuse from bicycle messengers any more than I buy it from the
motoring public.

[AZ Nomad]

On 17 May 2005 16:12:37 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:


>Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the cyclist
>loses every time. Smack an import into a big SUV or the reverse at 25 mph

Have a semi smack you at 80 from behind and you'll lose every time too.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Zoot Katz > wrote:
>Wed, 18 May 2005 12:23:03 -0500,
>,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>>Not even the planners think they can figure out how to make taking a
>>bus pleasant enough to be an option most people will voluntarily take
>>over driving a car. So instead they try to figure out way to make
>>driving a car even more unpleasant. But the gap is too wide to be
>>bridged that way too.
>
>The more enlightened commuters, who after using rapid transit, wonder
>why they'd not done it before.

Describing a city bus as "rapid transit" is Newspeak.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Arif Khokar]

Alex Rodriguez wrote:

> In article >, says...

>>Children are not licensed drivers. A licensed driver is supposed to
>>know the rules of the road and follow them regardless of what type of
>>vehicle he's using. If he's riding a bicycle, he's to ride on the road
>>in the same direction as traffic.

> No license is required to ride a bike.

I know that, but most adult cyclists also have a drivers license.

[C. E. White]

So you are contending it is OK for you and your wife to
effectively block the sidewalk by walking side-by-side while
ignoring anyone coming from the other direction?

I actually agree that the bike rider was wrong to stare you
down, and that he should have moved over to the road at
least to avoid pedestrians. However, I do have a problem
with people who think it is perfectly OK to walk side by
side down a sidewalk, hallway, store aisle, whatever while
they are talking no matter how much it may inconvenience
people they are meeting, or people behind them that are
moving at a more rapid pace. I have literally stopped on a
sidewalk when meeting groups holding a discussion while
walking and had then walk into me. It seems to me that
people walking in a group feel empowered to consume the
entire width of a path. Don't get be started on the three
and four person wide moving hallway meetings I see at work.

Ed

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.
>
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>
> --
> Life is short - drive fast!
> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

[C. E. White]

Zoot Katz wrote:
>
> 17 May 2005 23:05:08 GMT,
> >, scud slave, Jim Yanik
> .>demonstrated its stupidity with this bull****:
>
> >
> >Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>
> Everybody pays for the roads.

Last time I checked, road use taxes (i.e., gas taxes) were
actaully bringing in far more than were being spent on road
construction and repair. The "excess" was being siphoned off
to pay for things like sidewalks, bike paths, landscaping,
and mass transis. Last time I checked, bikes riders pay no
user fees for using roads, bike paths, or sidewalks.

> Autos destroy the roads. Bikes do not.

Big trucks and weather do the most damage. Several local
paths through the woods have been repaved more times than
the adjeacent city streets (although the streets definitely
need it). Despite the lack of cars, the bike paths still
deteriorate. Heck, popular mountian bike trails deteriorate
to the point they have to be rerouted. You can't blame that
on cars. In fact I wonder, don't you suppose that high
pressure bike tires actaully stress the road surface more
than most automobiole tires - at least in localized areas?

> >Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>
> Autos require subsides to offset their negative externalities.

OK, so we kill of autos...who's going to pay for your bike
roads? It is going to be hard to ride down the train tracks.


Ed

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:41:49 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote in message >:

>Last time I checked, road use taxes (i.e., gas taxes) were
>actaully bringing in far more than were being spent on road
>construction and repair.

Last time I checked, those were not the only costs.

we have *much* higher road use taxes than you do and they still only
meet the lower end estimates for the costs of private motoring to the
economy. In Leftpondian terms, think in terms of lost tax revenue
from 40,000-odd dead citizens every year.

>Last time I checked, bikes riders pay no
>user fees for using roads, bike paths, or sidewalks.

Last time I checked, pedestrians don't either. It's a reflection of
the fact that some people use the roads by right and others under
licence, and of the fact that motorised traffic requires a
substantially higher grade of road than does human-powered traffic.

And in the UK, it turns out that cyclists are more likely than average
to be house owners, car owners, to earn above average income and pay
higher rates of tax.

We pay our road usage taxes and then leave the car at home. You
should thank us :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[C. E. White]

Brent P wrote:

> Wrong. On many levels.

> 1) I pay property taxes that cover more than the wear and tear I do
> to most of the roads I ride on.

Most locations don't depend on property taxes to pay for
roads. User fee's in the form of gas taxes are the primary
source of funds for road construction and maintenance. Maybe
if they actually used your property taxes to maintain roads,
they would cover your personal wear and tear on the roads,
but I doubt they cover your share of the maintenance if only
bikes used the roads, and they certainly wouldn't come close
to covering the initial construction cost. Around here,
gasoline tax money is routinely diverted to pay for bike
paths, despite many streets that are in poor condition.

> 2) Bicycles cause so little wear as to be unmeasurable.

Roads deteriorate whether they are used or not. Since bike
riders aren't paying user fee's like car drivers, they
aren't even covering the cost of age related deterioration.
And I am not at all sure the wear is unmeasurable. It might
be unmeasurable for one bike, but how about if there were
thousands of bikes? The pressure exerted by bike tires per
unit area or probably greater than car tires.

> 3) I, like most bicyclists, own motor vehicles. I've paid to use THREE
> motor vehicles on the road. I could recruit two friends to drive the
> other two if I wanted. Instead of taking up the space of three vehicles,
> I take up only the space of a bicycle.

Good for you, but if it wasn't for the cars and user fee
revenue that they generate, you probably would not have the
roads.

>
> > Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>
> So you promptly drive into the ditch everytime a semi wants to pass you?

My car can go as fast as a semi, a bicycles can't go as fast
as a car. It is difficult for me to run stop lights and
signs or gutter pass in my car. Cyclist do it all the time.

Ed

[C. E. White]

Brent P wrote:

> laughable. Bicycles don't require the thick, wide roads. Trucks do.
> Our road requirements are very small and easily covered by the taxes we
> pay. Once upon a time I calculated what a fair registration cost for a
> bicycle would be based on what I pay for my cars. Postage would practically
> double it. That means it would cost more to collect, it would cost
> government money, thusly they do not bother. Now of course you'd suggest
> a punitive tax, because your goal isn't fairness, it's eliminating the
> rights of others to use the road with the vehicle of their choice.

You seem to think that the registration fees pay for roads.
They don't. They pay for the bureaucracy that keeps track of
cars, so that the cars can be taxed by other government
bureaucracies to generate even more revenues to maintain
other bureaucracies. Roads construction and maintenance is
more than funded by gas tax revenues. If you aren't driving
your cars, you aren't paying to build and maintain the
roads. In fact, since many bike paths are actually funded by
siphoning off gas tax revenues, if you aren't driving your
car, you aren't even paying to maintain the bike paths.

Ed

[C. E. White]

Bob wrote:
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> > Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
> > Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>
> No, all taxpayers pay for the roads. The day that fuel taxes become the
> sole or even primary source of revenue for road construction and
> maintenance will be the day that construction and maintenance ceases.

Where are you from? Gas / fuel tax revenues far exceed the
amount spent to build and maintain roads. In fact, siphoning
off gas tax revenues to fund other government programs, like
bike paths, mass transit, and landscaping is very common.

Ed

[C. E. White]

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
> In article >, .
> says...
>
> >Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>
> Cyclists also pay taxes that help fund the roads. Many cyclists also own
> cars, so they are paying for the road. A cyclist also causes basically no wear
> and tear to the road. So in order to pay their fair share they would only need
> to a trivial amount.

Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used. Road
maintenance is paid for out of gas tax revenues, so if you
aren't driving your car, you aren't paying to maintain the
road.

Ed

[1oki]

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> .
>> says...
>>
>> >Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>>
>> Cyclists also pay taxes that help fund the roads. Many cyclists also own
>> cars, so they are paying for the road. A cyclist also causes basically
>> no wear
>> and tear to the road. So in order to pay their fair share they would
>> only need
>> to a trivial amount.
>
> Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used. Road
> maintenance is paid for out of gas tax revenues, so if you
> aren't driving your car, you aren't paying to maintain the
> road.

The problem with your thesis is that while automotive use adds up to a net
cost to society, bicycling is a net benefit when all externalities are
factored in.

Far from paying; cyclists should be paid to cycle considering the benefit
they bring to the bottom line of social cost/benefit.

--
'Nowhere Man, the world is at your command.
He's as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see'
-the beatles

[C. E. White]

Brian Huntley wrote:
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> > Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
> > Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>
> My city currently gets $0.00 per litre of gasoline in tax dollars, plus
> a whopping $0.00 per car/truck/motorcycle/trailer registered. Yet it
> pays for the streets. Some of my property taxes, it would seem, are
> doing so.

Where do you live? In North Carolina, the state government
collects the gas tax, and then allocates a portion to towns
for street maintenance and construction. On a national basis
the US federal government does the same. I've seen that
something like 35% of all US highway related revenue is
generated by taxing gasoline. Registration and property
taxes combined are less than 25%. The balance is from other
sources (bonds, tolls, investment income, etc.). In most
cases, less than 35% of all highway revenue is actually
spent on building and maintaining roads. The rest is used
for other things (like bike paths, bureaucrat outing, and
mass transit).

> And while internal combustion engined vehicles (trucks, mainly) do move
> a lot of goods, the actual 'commerce' in places like Wall Street, Bay
> Street, or The City depends a lot on bicycles.

[Brent P]

In article >, C. E. White wrote:

> and mass transis. Last time I checked, bikes riders pay no
> user fees for using roads, bike paths, or sidewalks.

I don't ride on sidewalks and most bike paths are useless. I pay more
taxes that go for roads than many people who drive everywhere do. A
fair amount of road tax for a bicycle would cost more in collection
costs than what would be collected. When is this stupid arguement going
to die?

[Brent P]

In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> Wrong. On many levels.
>
>> 1) I pay property taxes that cover more than the wear and tear I do
>> to most of the roads I ride on.

> Most locations don't depend on property taxes to pay for
> roads. User fee's in the form of gas taxes are the primary
> source of funds for road construction and maintenance.

Which I and practically all other adult bicyclists pay. The road fund has
a net benefit everytime we use our bicycles. More than enough to cover
those who don't own motor vechicles.

> Maybe
> if they actually used your property taxes to maintain roads,
> they would cover your personal wear and tear on the roads,
> but I doubt they cover your share of the maintenance if only
> bikes used the roads, and they certainly wouldn't come close
> to covering the initial construction cost.

The construction costs are high because the roads are built for trucks.
Bicycles need a lane 18 inches wide and a surface of fine compacted
gravel. Motor vehicles need the thick pavement, thusly motor vehicle
taxes pay for it.

> Around here,
> gasoline tax money is routinely diverted to pay for bike
> paths, despite many streets that are in poor condition.

I don't want bike paths. They are for drivers who like to drive their
bicycle somewhere and then ride slowly in circles for an afternoon.

>> 2) Bicycles cause so little wear as to be unmeasurable.

> Roads deteriorate whether they are used or not.

Wooptie do.

> Since bike
> riders aren't paying user fee's like car drivers,

All $0.75 a year or so.

> they
> aren't even covering the cost of age related deterioration.

Motor vehicles need the heavy expensive roads. Not bicycles. I could live
with a smooth dirt path that is 'maintained' by constant bicycle travel.

> And I am not at all sure the wear is unmeasurable. It might
> be unmeasurable for one bike, but how about if there were
> thousands of bikes? The pressure exerted by bike tires per
> unit area or probably greater than car tires.

Bicycles don't even need pavement, just a smooth surface. Some of the
fastest surface I've ever ridden on was dry dirt.


>> 3) I, like most bicyclists, own motor vehicles. I've paid to use THREE
>> motor vehicles on the road. I could recruit two friends to drive the
>> other two if I wanted. Instead of taking up the space of three vehicles,
>> I take up only the space of a bicycle.

> Good for you, but if it wasn't for the cars and user fee
> revenue that they generate, you probably would not have the
> roads.

Without bicyclists there never would have been good roads in the USA.

>> > Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>>
>> So you promptly drive into the ditch everytime a semi wants to pass you?

> My car can go as fast as a semi, a bicycles can't go as fast
> as a car.

I often go as fast or faster than cars. Sure, the car might pass me mid
block, but he's there waiting at the next intersection.

> It is difficult for me to run stop lights and
> signs or gutter pass in my car. Cyclist do it all the time.

Drivers rutinely exceed the posted speed limits, even in residential
areas to cut me off then slam on the brakes to make a stop. They then
accelerate a crawl, delaying me.

Oh, and should I use even more of the worse drivers out there and make
that the norm? I obey the vehicle code to the letter when riding, and it
****es off you anti-bicycle drivers even more. Your kind can't even deal
with me holding my turn in the queue at stop light. Getting all ****ed
off because I am in line ahead of you. Then if I gutter passed illegally
you'd be all ****ed off about that to.

[Brent P]

In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> laughable. Bicycles don't require the thick, wide roads. Trucks do.
>> Our road requirements are very small and easily covered by the taxes we
>> pay. Once upon a time I calculated what a fair registration cost for a
>> bicycle would be based on what I pay for my cars. Postage would practically
>> double it. That means it would cost more to collect, it would cost
>> government money, thusly they do not bother. Now of course you'd suggest
>> a punitive tax, because your goal isn't fairness, it's eliminating the
>> rights of others to use the road with the vehicle of their choice.
>
> You seem to think that the registration fees pay for roads.

They are one of the taxes.

> They don't. They pay for the bureaucracy that keeps track of
> cars, so that the cars can be taxed by other government
> bureaucracies to generate even more revenues to maintain
> other bureaucracies. Roads construction and maintenance is
> more than funded by gas tax revenues. If you aren't driving
> your cars, you aren't paying to build and maintain the
> roads.

Most of the roads I ride on are funded by PROPERTY TAXES. The remaining
ones are more than covered under other taxes I PAY.

Let's get to the root of this arguement. It has nothing to do with paying
or not paying. It's just a made up reason to justify running bicyclists
off the roads. Motor vehicles needed thick pavement and wide lanes, so
you pay for it.

> In fact, since many bike paths are actually funded by
> siphoning off gas tax revenues, if you aren't driving your
> car, you aren't even paying to maintain the bike paths.

Once again, I'll repeat. Bicycle paths are not for vehicular bicyclists.
They are for people like you, people who drive their bikes to a forest
preserve or something and then take a slow ride on the meandering and
often circular trails for an afternoon. When they are done they pack the
bikes back up in their _motor_ vehicles and go home.

[Brent P]

In article >, C. E. White wrote:
> the US federal government does the same. I've seen that
> something like 35% of all US highway related revenue is
> generated by taxing gasoline.

A whole third.

> Registration and property taxes combined are less than 25%.

And a bicycle is less than a 1/4 of a car in size, thusly everyone has
already paid enough to use a bicycle on the road unless they are
homeless, living on the street and don't have a car.

You just proved bicyclists pay their share.

[Jim Yanik]

Alex Rodriguez > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> . says...
>
>>Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>
> Cyclists also pay taxes that help fund the roads.

Not relevant.If one has more than one auto,they have to pay for plates for
each additional vehicle.Paying ofr one plate does not exclude the others
from the fees for using public roads.

>Many cyclists also
> own cars, so they are paying for the road.

Only for their autos.

>A cyclist also causes
> basically no wear and tear to the road.

Not relevant.
They still are USING it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

AZ Nomad > wrote in
:

> On 17 May 2005 16:12:37 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>
>>Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the
>>cyclist loses every time. Smack an import into a big SUV or the
>>reverse at 25 mph
>
> Have a semi smack you at 80 from behind and you'll lose every time
> too.
>

That still doesn't change the odds or resultant damages that cyclists get
from auto-cyclist collisions. Cyclists are far more vulnerable than any
auto traffic.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Wayne Pein]

C. E. White wrote:

> Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used.

I don't believe that. Can you provide documentation to support your
assertion?

Wayne

[Brian Huntley]

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>,
Brian Huntley wrote:
>
> > And while internal combustion engined vehicles (trucks, mainly) do
move
> > a lot of goods, the actual 'commerce' in places like Wall Street,
Bay
> > Street, or The City depends a lot on bicycles.
>
> I wonder if a bicycle messenger using the commerce defense for his
> violation of the vehicle code would go over well? I certainly
wouldn't
> buy that excuse from bicycle messengers any more than I buy it from
the
> motoring public.

Defense? Violation? What the heck are you talking about?

[Brian Huntley]

C. E. White wrote:
> Brian Huntley wrote:
>
> > My city currently gets $0.00 per litre of gasoline in tax dollars,
plus
> > a whopping $0.00 per car/truck/motorcycle/trailer registered. Yet
it
> > pays for the streets. Some of my property taxes, it would seem, are
> > doing so.
>
> Where do you live? In North Carolina, the state government
> collects the gas tax, and then allocates a portion to towns
> for street maintenance and construction.

Toronto, Canada. Both the Feds and the Province (Ontario) can and do
collect gas taxes, but the city cannot levy them (or any other tax
without provincial approval.) At this point in time, Toronto
effectively receives $0 from either source, and in fact pays out almost
50% of locally collected taxes upstream to the province. But that's our
problem. And with luck, the upcoming Federal budget will pass, as it
has some equalization measures in it.

[AZ Nomad]

On 19 May 2005 00:51:52 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:


>AZ Nomad > wrote in
:

>> On 17 May 2005 16:12:37 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the
>>>cyclist loses every time. Smack an import into a big SUV or the
>>>reverse at 25 mph
>>
>> Have a semi smack you at 80 from behind and you'll lose every time
>> too.
>>

>That still doesn't change the odds or resultant damages that cyclists get
>from auto-cyclist collisions. Cyclists are far more vulnerable than any
>auto traffic.

Then I guess it's a damn good thing they don't ride on the highways.

[[email protected]]

C=2E E. White wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> > Jim Yanik wrote:
> >
> > > Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
> > > Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
> >
> > No, all taxpayers pay for the roads. The day that fuel taxes become
the
> > sole or even primary source of revenue for road construction and
> > maintenance will be the day that construction and maintenance
ceases.
>
> Where are you from? Gas / fuel tax revenues far exceed the
> amount spent to build and maintain roads. In fact, siphoning
> off gas tax revenues to fund other government programs, like
> bike paths, mass transit, and landscaping is very common.

I think you're GREATLY overestimating the amount spent on bike paths,
mass transit and landscaping. Feel free to prove me wrong by giving me
those amounts as percentages of your state's transportation budget.

But for accuracy, you should include things like traffic enforcement
expenses (we'd need far fewer cops, patrol cars, judges, etc. if not
for yahoos in cars), traffic injuries (ambulances, hospital fees, lost
work time, funeral expenses etc), other health costs worsened by
automobiles (the effects of driving stress, air pollution, noise
pollution, obesity from larded bottoms sunk into car seats, etc.)

BTW, I had this on file:


----------------------------------------------------------------

=EF=BB=BFSTUDY FINDS THAT BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS SUBSIDIZE MOTORISTS!

Anybody who accuses bicyclists of not paying a fair share of road
costs is wrong. According to a recent study, _Whose Roads?_,
bicyclists pay more road costs per mile of travel than automobile
users.

The study estimates that motor vehicle users pay an average of
2=2E3 cents per mile in user charges such as fuel taxes and motor
vehicle registration fees, and impose 6.5 cents per mile in road
service costs. The difference between automobile user charge
contributions and road service costs is supported by general taxes and
property assessments. Bicyclists and pedestrians pay an equal share of
these taxes, but impose costs averaging only .2 cents per mile in road
service costs, and travel much shorter distances than automobile
users. Bicyclists and pedestrians pay more per mile of travel in
general taxes than drivers pay in general taxes and user
charges combined, despite the much lower costs they impose.

Overpayment by bicyclists is even more significant with respect to
local
roads, the roads that bicyclists ride on most. Only a third of the
funds for building and maintaining local roads originate from motor
vehicle user charges. The rest comes from local property, income and
sales taxes. Motor vehicle user charges contribute only about 1 cent
per mile towards local roads and impose costs six and one half times
that amount. Everybody, including bicyclists, pays local taxes that
make up the difference.

The report's author, Todd Litman, states, "Many people assume that
motor vehicle user charges cover all road costs when in fact they only
pay about two-thirds of facility costs, and an even smaller portion of
total roadway services provided for motor vehicles. We all pay for
these services, no matter how we travel. When you consider the
extremely low public costs associated with non-motorized travel,
bicyclists and pedestrians are unfairly subsidizing motor vehicle
use."

The study also determines that cycling reduces congestion. It points
out that people who are economically, socially, and physically
disadvantaged rely heavily on cycling, walking, and argues that
"shifting resources (funding, road space, and emphasis of road design)
from motor vehicle use to non-motorized modes would increase equity."

_Whose Roads?_ is one of several reports on the costs, cost
effectiveness, and fairness of different transportation modes. Another
report, _Quantifying Bicycling Benefits for Achieving Transportation
Demand Management Goals_ describes how to calculate the benefits of
increased bicycling based on criteria used for assessing
transportation investments.


- Frank Krygowski

[Scott Ehardt]

"Wayne Pein" > wrote in message
om...
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used.
>
> I don't believe that. Can you provide documentation to support your
> assertion?


I have seen evidence that roads deteriorate *faster* if they aren't used. I
once walked on a path made from part of a road. The walking part (chained
off from the rest of the road) was fine, however, where vegetation was
allowed to grow its roots buckled the asphalt.

--
Scott Ehardt
http://www.scehardt.com

[Brent P]

In article . com>, Brian Huntley wrote:

> Defense? Violation? What the heck are you talking about?

Drivers using the fact that commerce uses motor vehicles as their excuse
to run roughshod over the rights of bicyclists are the same as bicycle
messengers who use the fact they are doing a job (commerce) to justify
running redlights,etc and so on.

[Brent P]

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Tell me, how far in advance of our meeting up with oncoming "traffic"
> on a sidewalk should my wife and I form a single-file line, in your
> opinion?
>
> a) As soon as we see a spec on the horizon?
> b) 100 feet away?
> c) 10 feet away?
> d) 5 feet away?
> e) 1 foot away?
> f) My wife and I should walk single-file on the sidewalk at all times.

Keep right except to pass. Otherwise your just a pedestrian LLB.

[Bob]

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote
> > I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
> > cyclists are causing.
>
> Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small, is
> significant." If the answer was different (i.e., insignificant),
then *NO*
> separations for different traffic would exist. For instance, no-one
> (in the Seattle area for instance) would be discussing bicycle lanes,
> Bus Rapid Transit lanes, Light Rail, Monorail (the ultimate in grade
> separation!), HOV lanes, HOT lanes, etc.
>
> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.
>
> Floyd

That's a non-answer that reminds me of Loncoln's famous reply when
someone asked him how long his legs were. He meant his reply of, "Long
enough to reach the ground when I stand.", as a joke though.
To answer your implied question, yes I would if I was on a two lane
road and there were five or more vehicles formed in a line behind me
and opposing traffic or other conditions made it unsafe for those
vehicles to pass me. That's what RCW 46.61.427 actually mandates.
That's a far cry from what seems to be your position of "any delay is
significant so get the hell off the road".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Keats]

In article om>,
"Bob" > writes:
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>> Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>
> No, all taxpayers pay for the roads. The day that fuel taxes become the
> sole or even primary source of revenue for road construction and
> maintenance will be the day that construction and maintenance ceases.

I've recently been made acutely aware of how a *city street*
is much, much more than paved surface on which to operate
vehicles. There are sewers, underground cables, culverts,
natural gas lines ... all kinds of stuff in there that isn't
directly connected with transportation. All that infrastructure
really is infra. And it looks pretty expensive to li'l ol' me.

So when somebody uses their DSL line via underground fibre optics
buried in the street, they are in effect using the street,
without actually being physically /on/ it. Same thing with
flushing the john, or turning up their gas furnace, or drawing
water from their gas-fired water heater. The pavement on top
is just the tip of the iceberg.

> Autos move commerce? That explains all those Mustangs hauling machine
> parts to the local Ford assembly plant.

And besides, bikes get cycle-commuters to their jobs,
and utility cyclists (consumers) to the shops. Streets
and roads are great facilitators for market-based
economies. To deprive cyclists of the use of streets
and roads would be counter-productive. Especially since
cyclists don't appreciably slow anyone else down.


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

[fbloogyudsr]

"Bob" > wrote
> fbloogyudsr wrote:
>> "Bob" > wrote
>> > I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
>> > cyclists are causing.
>>
>> Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small, is
>> significant." If the answer was different (i.e., insignificant),
> then *NO*
>> separations for different traffic would exist. For instance, no-one
>> (in the Seattle area for instance) would be discussing bicycle lanes,
>> Bus Rapid Transit lanes, Light Rail, Monorail (the ultimate in grade
>> separation!), HOV lanes, HOT lanes, etc.
>>
>> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
>> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
>> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
>> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.
>>
>> Floyd
>
> That's a non-answer that reminds me of Loncoln's famous reply when
> someone asked him how long his legs were. He meant his reply of, "Long
> enough to reach the ground when I stand.", as a joke though.
> To answer your implied question, yes I would if I was on a two lane
> road and there were five or more vehicles formed in a line behind me
> and opposing traffic or other conditions made it unsafe for those
> vehicles to pass me. That's what RCW 46.61.427 actually mandates.
> That's a far cry from what seems to be your position of "any delay is
> significant so get the hell off the road".

I double-dog-dare you to find any post where I wrote anything like
your paraphrase directly above.

Floyd

[fbloogyudsr]

"Bob" > wrote
> fbloogyudsr wrote:
>> "Bob" > wrote
>> > I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
>> > cyclists are causing.
>>
>> Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small, is
>> significant." If the answer was different (i.e., insignificant),
> then *NO*
>> separations for different traffic would exist. For instance, no-one
>> (in the Seattle area for instance) would be discussing bicycle lanes,
>> Bus Rapid Transit lanes, Light Rail, Monorail (the ultimate in grade
>> separation!), HOV lanes, HOT lanes, etc.
>>
>> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
>> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
>> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
>> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.
>>
>> Floyd
>
> That's a non-answer that reminds me of Loncoln's famous reply when
> someone asked him how long his legs were. He meant his reply of, "Long
> enough to reach the ground when I stand.", as a joke though.
> To answer your implied question, yes I would if I was on a two lane
> road and there were five or more vehicles formed in a line behind me
> and opposing traffic or other conditions made it unsafe for those
> vehicles to pass me. That's what RCW 46.61.427 actually mandates.
> That's a far cry from what seems to be your position of "any delay is
> significant so get the hell off the road".

There you go again, twisting and combining out-of-context statements
to come up with something I never said. The context surrounding
"significant" is clearly related to the discussion *GROUP* at large:
this is quite clear in my reply to Frank. Members (of both RAD
and RBM) clearly care about delays. Members of the general public
clearly care about delays.

However, your combination of these two unrelated statements
into the paraphrase above is completely incorrect. I've never said
anything remotely close to that.

Floyd

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 18 May 2005 23:38:23 -0700, >,
"fbloogyudsr" > replied to Bob Hunt's:
\
>> That's a far cry from what seems to be your position of "any delay is
>> significant so get the hell off the road".
>
>I double-dog-dare you to find any post where I wrote anything like
>your paraphrase directly above.
>
You wrote in Message-ID: >

"any delay, no matter how small, is significant."
and
"if you're delaying 5 or more you've got to pull over and let them
pass."

I'd say that sounds like what he said you said.
--
zk

[Joe Canuck]

Paul wrote:

> <rec.autos.driving removed>
>
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:24:28 -0400, Joe Canuck , cross-posted the
> following to rec.autos.driving...
>
>
>
>>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:47:28 -0400, Joe Canuck
> wrote:
>
>
> <drivel snipped>
>
>
>
> Why don't you, Scott, Bill and the other cross-posters take your k0Ok
> dance to alt.local.village.idiot or alt.usenet.kooks or somewhere else
> where you'll be right at home. I'm getting sick of having to kill this
> thread everytime I launch my ****ing newsreader.....

And what... you'd be the village keystone kops? :)

[Jim Yanik]

Wayne Pein > wrote in
om:

> C. E. White wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used.
>
> I don't believe that. Can you provide documentation to support your
> assertion?
>
> Wayne
>
>

freeze-thaw cycles,heat buckling,water erosion of the bed underneath the
paving(sinkholes in Florida!)

Just a few examples.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>Motor vehicles need the heavy expensive roads. Not bicycles. I could live
>with a smooth dirt path that is 'maintained' by constant bicycle travel.

That would be a rutted dirt path in short order, unless it rained in which case
it would wash away. Even some of the asphalt bike paths around
here are rutted from bicycle use.

>Without bicyclists there never would have been good roads in the USA.

Sure there would have. A few might have been later.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Bill Sornson]

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:

>> Motor vehicles need the heavy expensive roads. Not bicycles. I could
>> live with a smooth dirt path that is 'maintained' by constant
>> bicycle travel.

> That would be a rutted dirt path in short order, unless it rained in
> which case it would wash away. Even some of the asphalt bike paths
> around here are rutted from bicycle use.

Your first sentence is totally false. Your second one is just ridiculous.
(Channeling MV, perhaps?)

Other than that, great post.

BS

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Bill Sornson > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Brent P > wrote:
>
>>> Motor vehicles need the heavy expensive roads. Not bicycles. I could
>>> live with a smooth dirt path that is 'maintained' by constant
>>> bicycle travel.
>
>> That would be a rutted dirt path in short order, unless it rained in
>> which case it would wash away. Even some of the asphalt bike paths
>> around here are rutted from bicycle use.
>
>Your first sentence is totally false. Your second one is just ridiculous.

There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think
they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates?

The first statement is true as well; bicycles cut ruts in dirt paths.
What would you expect to happen when you continually put ~200 pounds
of pressure on two dinky little contact patches on dirt? You'll get a
rut in fairly short order.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Bill Sornson]

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Bill Sornson > wrote:
>> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Brent P > wrote:
>>
>>>> Motor vehicles need the heavy expensive roads. Not bicycles. I
>>>> could live with a smooth dirt path that is 'maintained' by constant
>>>> bicycle travel.
>>
>>> That would be a rutted dirt path in short order, unless it rained in
>>> which case it would wash away. Even some of the asphalt bike paths
>>> around here are rutted from bicycle use.
>>
>> Your first sentence is totally false. Your second one is just
>> ridiculous.
>
> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think
> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates?

Unless someone rode on /wet/ asphalt, there's no way a bike (or bikes) could
cause "ruts" or even an imprint.

> The first statement is true as well; bicycles cut ruts in dirt paths.
> What would you expect to happen when you continually put ~200 pounds
> of pressure on two dinky little contact patches on dirt? You'll get a
> rut in fairly short order.

This and your original statement are too "absolutist". A well-designed and
properly drained "dirt path" will NOT become rutted and/or wash away. I've
been riding the same trails for nearly 10 years now, and they haven't
changed appreciably at all. (Others were damaged by fires and subsequent
heavy rains.)

Bicycles can harm soft, wet trails, no doubt; not hard-packed, well-drained
paths and certainly not asphalt.

JMO, BS

[Brent P]

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think
> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates?

The only time I've seen such things it was because kids rode across the
surface before it was cured. The tire tracks then become part of the
surface when it hardens.

> The first statement is true as well; bicycles cut ruts in dirt paths.
> What would you expect to happen when you continually put ~200 pounds
> of pressure on two dinky little contact patches on dirt? You'll get a
> rut in fairly short order.

Some of the best and fastest trails are ones that are just smoothly
dished 'rut'.

[Wayne Pein]

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Wayne Pein > wrote in
> om:
>
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used.
>>
>>I don't believe that. Can you provide documentation to support your
>>assertion?
>>
>>Wayne
>>
>>
>
>
> freeze-thaw cycles,heat buckling,water erosion of the bed underneath the
> paving(sinkholes in Florida!)
>
> Just a few examples.
>

As far as I know, freeze-thaw damage only occurs when cracks are first
formed in the surface from heavy vehicle use and water enters these and
freezes. I've never seen heat buckling in my neck of the woods here in
NC, but I can't discount that it might happen elsewhere. I suspect that
it occurs when heavy vehicles operate on the hot surface and is not a
function of mere heat. Water erosion of the subsurface can happen in
floods, but that is not quite what I believe the original poster meant
by deterioration, which implies slow degregation. Any natural disaster
can destroy roads, but the culprit of deterioration is not age from just
sitting there but use from motor vehicles, and more precisely heavy ones.

Wayne

[Pat Lamb]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> As far as I know, freeze-thaw damage only occurs when cracks are first
> formed in the surface from heavy vehicle use and water enters these and
> freezes. I've never seen heat buckling in my neck of the woods here in
> NC, but I can't discount that it might happen elsewhere. I suspect that
> it occurs when heavy vehicles operate on the hot surface and is not a
> function of mere heat. Water erosion of the subsurface can happen in
> floods, but that is not quite what I believe the original poster meant
> by deterioration, which implies slow degregation. Any natural disaster
> can destroy roads, but the culprit of deterioration is not age from just
> sitting there but use from motor vehicles, and more precisely heavy ones.

Wayne,

I think more damage is done to most roads where it snows and ices by
keeping them clear than by use or disuse. Check out the parts of the
Blue Ridge Parkway (in western NC) that are never cleared in winter;
they need to be repaved every 15-20 years, where nearby roads are
potholed after 5 years.

Let's see, the last numbers I saw indicated 41% of highway costs were
not paid by gas taxes and user fees. Throw cars off the roads, cut
re-paving and paving costs drop by 75%, and you still have 16% savings
from other taxes, right?

Pat

[Bob]

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote
> > fbloogyudsr wrote:
> >> "Bob" > wrote
> >> > I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
> >> > cyclists are causing.
> >>
> >> Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small,
is
> >> significant." If the answer was different (i.e., insignificant),
> > then *NO*
> >> separations for different traffic would exist. For instance,
no-one
> >> (in the Seattle area for instance) would be discussing bicycle
lanes,
> >> Bus Rapid Transit lanes, Light Rail, Monorail (the ultimate in
grade
> >> separation!), HOV lanes, HOT lanes, etc.
> >>
> >> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
> >> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
> >> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
> >> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.
> >>
> >> Floyd
> >
> > That's a non-answer that reminds me of Loncoln's famous reply when
> > someone asked him how long his legs were. He meant his reply of,
"Long
> > enough to reach the ground when I stand.", as a joke though.
> > To answer your implied question, yes I would if I was on a two lane
> > road and there were five or more vehicles formed in a line behind
me
> > and opposing traffic or other conditions made it unsafe for those
> > vehicles to pass me. That's what RCW 46.61.427 actually mandates.
> > That's a far cry from what seems to be your position of "any delay
is
> > significant so get the hell off the road".
>
> I double-dog-dare you to find any post where I wrote anything like
> your paraphrase directly above.
>
> Floyd

I said "any delay is significant so get the hell off the road" SEEMS to
be your position. If it isn't then I apologize for misinterpreting your
post. Fair enough?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[~^Johnny^~]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 17 May 2005 23:05:08 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.

Autos don't pay anything. Their operators do.
Paying the fair share, perhaps, are all the haughty, egotistical,
road-hogging, milegage-logging SUV owners/drivers.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBQo1lFwIk7T39FC4ZEQLy3wCfSQxE9PLOtVlN5kLpXzhBHA AQAuAAn2fx
SuuzUYPZYEyGgmXN2Bj3uaHj
=NONi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:
> fbloogyudsr wrote:
> >
> > I double-dog-dare you to find any post where I wrote anything like
> > your paraphrase directly above.
> >
> > Floyd
>
> I said "any delay is significant so get the hell off the road" SEEMS
to
> be your position. If it isn't then I apologize for misinterpreting
your
> post. Fair enough?

And I'd suggest that Floyd explain his position on this point. Either
several people have misinterpreted his meaning, or his meaning has
shifted as the thread progressed.

Personally, I maintain that some traffic delays are negligible, i.e.
insignificant. Furthermore, I believe that nearly all delays of
motorists by cyclists are insignificant. Do you agree, Floyd?

- Frank Krygowski

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think
>> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates?
>
>The only time I've seen such things it was because kids rode across the
>surface before it was cured. The tire tracks then become part of the
>surface when it hardens.

That wasn't the case here, but I suspect it happened when the asphalt
softened in the sun. Not great asphalt to begin with, obviously.

>> The first statement is true as well; bicycles cut ruts in dirt paths.
>> What would you expect to happen when you continually put ~200 pounds
>> of pressure on two dinky little contact patches on dirt? You'll get a
>> rut in fairly short order.
>
>Some of the best and fastest trails are ones that are just smoothly
>dished 'rut'.

Are you talking mountain bike trail or road bike trail?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Wayne Pein > wrote:
>
>As far as I know, freeze-thaw damage only occurs when cracks are first
>formed in the surface from heavy vehicle use and water enters these and
>freezes.

Freezing not only works from the surface, but from the soil beneath
and around the road. Frost heaves can damage the surface themselves,
and also cause cracking allowing further damage.

>I've never seen heat buckling in my neck of the woods here in
>NC, but I can't discount that it might happen elsewhere. I suspect that
>it occurs when heavy vehicles operate on the hot surface and is not a
>function of mere heat.

You'd be wrong. Enough heat can force segments of concrete highways
above neighboring ones.

>by deterioration, which implies slow degregation. Any natural disaster
>can destroy roads, but the culprit of deterioration is not age from just
>sitting there but use from motor vehicles, and more precisely heavy ones.

This is true on a road which is used by heavy vehicles, because that's
the fastest method of deterioration from such roads. An unused
Interstate-quality highway will last a good long time, because its
base is too deep to allow vegetation to get a foothold, and it's
well-drained (hopefully) and generally very thick. But eventually it
will deteriorate. Lesser-quality roads will deteriorate much faster,
particularly where freezes occur.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Brent P]

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:
>>In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think
>>> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates?
>>
>>The only time I've seen such things it was because kids rode across the
>>surface before it was cured. The tire tracks then become part of the
>>surface when it hardens.
>
> That wasn't the case here, but I suspect it happened when the asphalt
> softened in the sun. Not great asphalt to begin with, obviously.

And I know of road surfaces that potholed like the moon in the first
winter. So your point is that contractors often do poor work and/or cheat
on specifications. As if this somehow reflects on the needs of bicycling.

>>> The first statement is true as well; bicycles cut ruts in dirt paths.
>>> What would you expect to happen when you continually put ~200 pounds
>>> of pressure on two dinky little contact patches on dirt? You'll get a
>>> rut in fairly short order.
>>
>>Some of the best and fastest trails are ones that are just smoothly
>>dished 'rut'.

> Are you talking mountain bike trail or road bike trail?

There was no designation. It was a trail to get from A to B.

[Mark Mitchell]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:03:33 -0700, John David Galt wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
>> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
>> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that is
>> all that matters.
>
> That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of "playing
> the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not the hard way --
> that the universal moral principle that slower traffic must give way to
> faster, includes them.

The claim that your position is a 'universal moral principal' is *very*
highly debatable. It's not universal, hard to see where 'moral' comes
into it, and it's certainly not a principle.

What is not debatable is that it is *not* a _legal_ principal that slower
traffic must yeild to faster traffic.

Mark

[Mark Mitchell]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:05:08 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not. Autos move more commerce than
> bikes,too.

My family owns 5 bicycles, and 2 cars. We pay licensing fees and gas
taxes on our cars. Please explain how I haven't paid for the roads I and
my family ride our bikes on.

Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:03:33 -0700, John David Galt wrote:
>
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
> >> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
> >> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced,
that is
> >> all that matters.
> >
> > That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of
"playing
> > the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not the hard
way --
> > that the universal moral principle that slower traffic must give
way to
> > faster, includes them.
>
> The claim that your position is a 'universal moral principal' is
*very*
> highly debatable. It's not universal, hard to see where 'moral'
comes
> into it, and it's certainly not a principle.
>
> What is not debatable is that it is *not* a _legal_ principal that
slower
> traffic must yeild to faster traffic.

FYI: Look up statutes that use the phrases "slower traffic keep
right," or "keep right except to pass." In addition, in WA state, the
delay of five or more vehicles requires that the slow vehicle operator
turn out to let the faster vehicles pass.

HTH,

E.P.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think
>>>> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates?
>>>
>>>The only time I've seen such things it was because kids rode across the
>>>surface before it was cured. The tire tracks then become part of the
>>>surface when it hardens.
>>
>> That wasn't the case here, but I suspect it happened when the asphalt
>> softened in the sun. Not great asphalt to begin with, obviously.
>
>And I know of road surfaces that potholed like the moon in the first
>winter.

I'm in Pennsylvania; I could throw a chunk of asphalt from any given
location and hit at least three such.

>So your point is that contractors often do poor work and/or cheat
>on specifications. As if this somehow reflects on the needs of bicycling.

My point is that bicycle paths aren't the undamagable maintenance-free
meccas you make them out to be. A paved bike path will be destroyed
not by the bikes but by the winter and vegetation. An unpaved one
will become rutted by the bikes and washed out in rain. A
crushed-gravel one will need the gravel periodically replenished
(particularly after winter) and will also wash out in heavy rain (I've
seen it happen).

Further, I'm not sure why a bicyclist only needs an 18-inch wide path
but when he's out on the road a 48-inch wide path is just too narrow
for him.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Chalo]

Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
> Further, I'm not sure why a bicyclist only needs an 18-inch wide path
> but when he's out on the road a 48-inch wide path is just too narrow
> for him.

Perhaps that's because the objects to either side of him on the trail
won't mangle him and leave him for dead, but many of those on the road
will.

Chalo Colina

[[email protected]]

Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
> My point is that bicycle paths aren't the undamagable
maintenance-free
> meccas you make them out to be.

A more important point is that bicycles inflict zero damage on the
roads. The points are largely independent - and both may be true.


> Further, I'm not sure why a bicyclist only needs an 18-inch wide path
> but when he's out on the road a 48-inch wide path is just too narrow
> for him.

Perhaps if you stood on the road, 30 inches from semis passing at 60
mph, you'd understand.

But perhaps not. Not everyone can understand everything, I've found.

- Frank Krygowski

[Jim Yanik]

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in news:-O6dnWL-
:

> In article >,
> Wayne Pein > wrote:
>>
>>As far as I know, freeze-thaw damage only occurs when cracks are first
>>formed in the surface from heavy vehicle use and water enters these and
>>freezes.
>
> Freezing not only works from the surface, but from the soil beneath
> and around the road. Frost heaves can damage the surface themselves,
> and also cause cracking allowing further damage.
>
>>I've never seen heat buckling in my neck of the woods here in
>>NC, but I can't discount that it might happen elsewhere. I suspect that
>>it occurs when heavy vehicles operate on the hot surface and is not a
>>function of mere heat.
>
> You'd be wrong. Enough heat can force segments of concrete highways
> above neighboring ones.
>
>>by deterioration, which implies slow degregation. Any natural disaster
>>can destroy roads, but the culprit of deterioration is not age from just
>>sitting there but use from motor vehicles, and more precisely heavy ones.
>
> This is true on a road which is used by heavy vehicles, because that's
> the fastest method of deterioration from such roads. An unused
> Interstate-quality highway will last a good long time, because its
> base is too deep to allow vegetation to get a foothold, and it's
> well-drained (hopefully) and generally very thick. But eventually it
> will deteriorate. Lesser-quality roads will deteriorate much faster,
> particularly where freezes occur.

A long time ago,I read somewhere(maybe a PopSci article) that roadway life
is directly related to roadbed preparation,and that German roads lasted far
longer because they spent more on roadbed construction then the US.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Mark Mitchell > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:05:08 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not. Autos move more commerce than
>> bikes,too.
>
> My family owns 5 bicycles, and 2 cars. We pay licensing fees and gas
> taxes on our cars. Please explain how I haven't paid for the roads I and
> my family ride our bikes on.
>
> Mark
>

You pay for each and every auto you use on public roads.
You don't get to pay for one and the rest go for free.
Even motorcycles must pay for each MC used on the roads.
You haven't paid for any of your bikes.
Yet you expect the same priveleges as autos.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Brent P]

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

>>So your point is that contractors often do poor work and/or cheat
>>on specifications. As if this somehow reflects on the needs of bicycling.
>
> My point is that bicycle paths aren't the undamagable maintenance-free
> meccas you make them out to be.

Your proof is that a poorly paved surface will essentially self distruct.

> A paved bike path will be destroyed
> not by the bikes but by the winter and vegetation.

There are several once paved bike paths in northern cook county IL forest
preserves. They are quite ridable. I found the fine gravel an odd color.
On closer examination I found that the gravel was once pavement.

> An unpaved one
> will become rutted by the bikes and washed out in rain.

There was some single track trail that was in use from before I could
ride a bicycle until last year when houses were built there.

> A
> crushed-gravel one will need the gravel periodically replenished
> (particularly after winter) and will also wash out in heavy rain (I've
> seen it happen).

I too, but only in portions where the contours of the land were not
respected.

> Further, I'm not sure why a bicyclist only needs an 18-inch wide path
> but when he's out on the road a 48-inch wide path is just too narrow
> for him.

Get rid of the car passing in the same lane and there is only a need for
18 inches.

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> You pay for each and every auto you use on public roads.
> You don't get to pay for one and the rest go for free.
> Even motorcycles must pay for each MC used on the roads.
> You haven't paid for any of your bikes.
> Yet you expect the same priveleges as autos.

Are you going to pay the taxes to collect a fair bicycle tax? I'll pay my
annual 75 cents if you'll pay the dollar or more in collection costs.

But let's examine your aruguement another way. It would be ok in your
eyes for him to have his 5 cars and my 3 cars on the road at the same
time, but not our two bicycles? You'd rather have 8 cars on the road
taking up space than two bicycles that together don't even take up the
space of one car. Seems insane to me.

[Brent P]

Hey Scott, I ran into an actual arrogant pedalcyclist today.

I am waiting in a queue at a traffic light. About 6th in line, I'm in the
center of the lane behind a minivan. A guy on a mountain bike passes me
in the gutter and starts passing the motor vehicles ahead... the light
turns green and he nearly gets right hooked twice. He cuts through the
intersection in front of the minivan that I am behind. Now the minivan is
slowed to his speed, and thusly so am I. In a few seconds, the minivan
was able to pass, and then I got to pass mr. mountain bike.

I said to him 'lovely gutter passing', He responded with an arrogant
"Whatever".

[Mike Latondresse]

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> But let's examine your aruguement another way. It would be ok in
> your eyes for him to have his 5 cars and my 3 cars on the road at
> the same time, but not our two bicycles? You'd rather have 8 cars
> on the road taking up space than two bicycles that together don't
> even take up the space of one car. Seems insane to me.
>
Well Jim's logic seems to verge on that. Hope most of the rec.autos
type people are a little more sane.

[Bill Baka]

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Wayne Pein > wrote:
>
>>As far as I know, freeze-thaw damage only occurs when cracks are first
>>formed in the surface from heavy vehicle use and water enters these and
>>freezes.
>
>
> Freezing not only works from the surface, but from the soil beneath
> and around the road. Frost heaves can damage the surface themselves,
> and also cause cracking allowing further damage.
>
>
>>I've never seen heat buckling in my neck of the woods here in
>>NC, but I can't discount that it might happen elsewhere. I suspect that
>>it occurs when heavy vehicles operate on the hot surface and is not a
>>function of mere heat.
>
>
> You'd be wrong. Enough heat can force segments of concrete highways
> above neighboring ones.
>
>
>>by deterioration, which implies slow degregation. Any natural disaster
>>can destroy roads, but the culprit of deterioration is not age from just
>>sitting there but use from motor vehicles, and more precisely heavy ones.
>
>
> This is true on a road which is used by heavy vehicles, because that's
> the fastest method of deterioration from such roads. An unused
> Interstate-quality highway will last a good long time, because its
> base is too deep to allow vegetation to get a foothold, and it's
> well-drained (hopefully) and generally very thick. But eventually it
> will deteriorate. Lesser-quality roads will deteriorate much faster,
> particularly where freezes occur.


How about just plain crappy asphalt prepping and laying in too big a
hurry? I nice field in my area has turned into a thousand+ housing
development and they rushed the roads in and paved them with very little
prepping. Before the concrete was dry on the first few house foundations
some of the pavement was buckling up to 18" above the surrounding areas
by way of water pressure underground. It's California so it is a no
freeze zone. Some of the buckled areas were about ten feet in diameter
and they had to re-pave in a hurry since people from Silicon valley were
coming up and buying the houses just by looking at the floor plans and
two sample houses that had been built earlier (but just as shoddy). The
brand new buckled pavement would have been a dead give away how badly
the entire development was built. I never could get any information from
the workers, since not a one spoke English and I don't understand Spanish.
Maybe if it was a properly done county road it would have been better.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

Brent P wrote:
> Hey Scott, I ran into an actual arrogant pedalcyclist today.
>
> I am waiting in a queue at a traffic light. About 6th in line, I'm in the
> center of the lane behind a minivan. A guy on a mountain bike passes me
> in the gutter and starts passing the motor vehicles ahead... the light
> turns green and he nearly gets right hooked twice. He cuts through the
> intersection in front of the minivan that I am behind. Now the minivan is
> slowed to his speed, and thusly so am I. In a few seconds, the minivan
> was able to pass, and then I got to pass mr. mountain bike.
>
> I said to him 'lovely gutter passing', He responded with an arrogant
> "Whatever".
>
>
That guy needed about a quart of oil in front of him, then let's hear
his "Whatever". He gives us MTB guys a bad name. I ride in the middle of
the lane with the cars at lights, it's the only sane way to get across a
light controlled intersection. Once across I can safely pull over to the
bike lane and let the cars go by. The only time something went wrong was
when I didn't trip the metal mass detector and got all the cars behind
me stopped because of it thinking I was the last car. Sorry gas guys.
Bill Baka

[Brent P]

In article >, Mike Latondresse wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> But let's examine your aruguement another way. It would be ok in
>> your eyes for him to have his 5 cars and my 3 cars on the road at
>> the same time, but not our two bicycles? You'd rather have 8 cars
>> on the road taking up space than two bicycles that together don't
>> even take up the space of one car. Seems insane to me.
>>
> Well Jim's logic seems to verge on that. Hope most of the rec.autos
> type people are a little more sane.

Most are. I'm also one of them. I'm not welcome in the bicycling NG's
anymore because of my views on speed limits, etc.

[Mark Hickey]

(Brent P) wrote:

>Hey Scott, I ran into an actual arrogant pedalcyclist today.
>
>I am waiting in a queue at a traffic light. About 6th in line, I'm in the
>center of the lane behind a minivan. A guy on a mountain bike passes me
>in the gutter and starts passing the motor vehicles ahead... the light
>turns green and he nearly gets right hooked twice. He cuts through the
>intersection in front of the minivan that I am behind. Now the minivan is
>slowed to his speed, and thusly so am I. In a few seconds, the minivan
>was able to pass, and then I got to pass mr. mountain bike.
>
>I said to him 'lovely gutter passing', He responded with an arrogant
>"Whatever".

I've done this many times, but will only do so when there's a bicycle
lane or wide enough road that I won't be in the way of the cars I
pass. One of my riding rules is "never make anything slow down to
pass you twice".

Normally in a situation like this, I'll fall in behind one of the cars
in line and follow the parade through the light. It's safer and less
obtrusive to the cars. I always position myself so they can see me in
their rear-view mirror so they know they don't have to worry about
flattening me (not that all of 'em would worry).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Jim Yanik]

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> You pay for each and every auto you use on public roads.
>> You don't get to pay for one and the rest go for free.
>> Even motorcycles must pay for each MC used on the roads.
>> You haven't paid for any of your bikes.
>> Yet you expect the same priveleges as autos.
>
> Are you going to pay the taxes to collect a fair bicycle tax? I'll pay
> my annual 75 cents if you'll pay the dollar or more in collection
> costs.

Why would a bicycle tax cost any more than the auto tax to collect?
The agency is already established;the motor vehicle department.
(it just needs renaming)
It would be enforced just like autos are;by the existing police department.

Also,why would you assume that a USER fee would only be $.75? In most
states,there's a minimum fee for any auto regardless of weight or
size.Maybe around $25.00.

>
> But let's examine your aruguement another way. It would be ok in your
> eyes for him to have his 5 cars and my 3 cars on the road at the same
> time, but not our two bicycles? You'd rather have 8 cars on the road
> taking up space than two bicycles that together don't even take up the
> space of one car. Seems insane to me.
>
>

* 8 cars that have paid their usage fee.
They are not paying for any "space" they take up,just the *use* of the
road.
It's a USER fee.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 20 May 2005 22:36:19 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote in message
>:

>For my part, I've had an extremely pleasant week. Since I stopped
>driving to work, I haven't encountered any arrogant pedalcyclists,
>arrogant motorists, MFFYs, or other unpleasant people. ;)

Amazingly, neither have the people who live and work around you and
your usual routes.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[[email protected]]

Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> It's a USER fee.

Well, Jim, if you're serious about road taxes for bicycles, I suggest
you quit wasting your time here. Stop haranguing us. Start haranguing
your legislators.

When they dismiss you as a crackpot, you can put your energy into
running for office. Make bicycle taxes the centerpiece of your
campaign.

And when the voters dismiss you as a crackpot, I suggest growing long
hair and a long beard, wearing a robe, and parading the streets with a
sign on a stick.

- Frank Krygowski

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You pay for each and every auto you use on public roads.
>>> You don't get to pay for one and the rest go for free.
>>> Even motorcycles must pay for each MC used on the roads.
>>> You haven't paid for any of your bikes.
>>> Yet you expect the same priveleges as autos.
>>
>> Are you going to pay the taxes to collect a fair bicycle tax? I'll pay
>> my annual 75 cents if you'll pay the dollar or more in collection
>> costs.

> Why would a bicycle tax cost any more than the auto tax to collect?

It wouldn't. A fair tax would be less than the cost of collection.

> The agency is already established;the motor vehicle department.
> (it just needs renaming)

It still doesn't function at zero cost.

> It would be enforced just like autos are;by the existing police department.
>
> Also,why would you assume that a USER fee would only be $.75? In most
> states,there's a minimum fee for any auto regardless of weight or
> size.Maybe around $25.00.

So you want a puntive tax on bicyclists. Like cigarettes or alcohol.

Your agenda isn't fairness, it's punishment.

>>
>> But let's examine your aruguement another way. It would be ok in your
>> eyes for him to have his 5 cars and my 3 cars on the road at the same
>> time, but not our two bicycles? You'd rather have 8 cars on the road
>> taking up space than two bicycles that together don't even take up the
>> space of one car. Seems insane to me.

> * 8 cars that have paid their usage fee.
> They are not paying for any "space" they take up,just the *use* of the
> road.
> It's a USER fee.

All 8 cars can legally be on the road at the same time. You clearly
prefer 8 cars on the road over 2 bicyclists. Why I have no clue, other
than an irrational hate of bicyclists.

[what does THIS button do?]

wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> >
> > It's a USER fee.
>
> Well, Jim, if you're serious about road taxes for bicycles, I suggest
> you quit wasting your time here. Stop haranguing us. Start
haranguing
> your legislators.

I would GLADLY pay oh... 5% of what car drivers pay (a gross, vast,
incredibly disproportionate overpayment), priviso they Shut The Hell Up
Forever, and queue up behind my muscular spandexed ass for my new
morning commute along Kirk Road and Fabyan Parkway
<http://tinyurl.com/7zumr>

Heck -- I'll pay 2X what an "average" Lincoln Navigator contributes to
do that. It would be so worth it. "Oh ****, they're paying to be here
-- what now?"

..max

[Brent P]

In article . com>, what does THIS button do? wrote:
> wrote:
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> >
>> > It's a USER fee.
>>
>> Well, Jim, if you're serious about road taxes for bicycles, I suggest
>> you quit wasting your time here. Stop haranguing us. Start
> haranguing
>> your legislators.
>
> I would GLADLY pay oh... 5% of what car drivers pay (a gross, vast,
> incredibly disproportionate overpayment), priviso they Shut The Hell Up
> Forever, and queue up behind my muscular spandexed ass for my new
> morning commute along Kirk Road and Fabyan Parkway
><http://tinyurl.com/7zumr>
>
> Heck -- I'll pay 2X what an "average" Lincoln Navigator contributes to
> do that. It would be so worth it. "Oh ****, they're paying to be here
> -- what now?"

If I have to pay, I'll pay the same as IL requires for my cars. Then I'll
take the lane always. I paid for the entire lane, and thusly I'll use the
entire lane and they'll have to find their way around me just like they
have to do with the countless senior citizens who often driver slower
than I bike.

[John David Galt]

what does THIS button do? wrote:
> I would GLADLY pay oh... 5% of what car drivers pay (a gross, vast,
> incredibly disproportionate overpayment), priviso they Shut The Hell Up
> Forever, and queue up behind my muscular spandexed ass for my new
> morning commute along Kirk Road and Fabyan Parkway
> <http://tinyurl.com/7zumr>
>
> Heck -- I'll pay 2X what an "average" Lincoln Navigator contributes to
> do that. It would be so worth it. "Oh ****, they're paying to be here
> -- what now?"

I'd say, "Now at least you're equally qualified to be here -- provided
you follow the rules like the rest of us do. Such as letting us pass
if you're not going to go as fast as we want to!"

[what does THIS button do?]

How am i supposed to know how fast you want to go? Based on my 2X,
i'd say i'm twice as qualified to be there.

Besides, the route i spec'd out in my URL is two lanes each way. Go
around.

..max

[Nate Nagel]

John David Galt wrote:

> what does THIS button do? wrote:
>
>> I would GLADLY pay oh... 5% of what car drivers pay (a gross, vast,
>> incredibly disproportionate overpayment), priviso they Shut The Hell Up
>> Forever, and queue up behind my muscular spandexed ass for my new
>> morning commute along Kirk Road and Fabyan Parkway
>> <http://tinyurl.com/7zumr>
>>
>> Heck -- I'll pay 2X what an "average" Lincoln Navigator contributes to
>> do that. It would be so worth it. "Oh ****, they're paying to be here
>> -- what now?"
>
>
> I'd say, "Now at least you're equally qualified to be here -- provided
> you follow the rules like the rest of us do. Such as letting us pass
> if you're not going to go as fast as we want to!"

The problem, of course, is that it's impossible to get *drivers* to do
that... now I haven't had much problem with bicyclists but that is
probably because only the hardest of core ride on the roads around here...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

[Jim Yanik]

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You pay for each and every auto you use on public roads.
>>>> You don't get to pay for one and the rest go for free.
>>>> Even motorcycles must pay for each MC used on the roads.
>>>> You haven't paid for any of your bikes.
>>>> Yet you expect the same priveleges as autos.
>>>
>>> Are you going to pay the taxes to collect a fair bicycle tax? I'll
>>> pay my annual 75 cents if you'll pay the dollar or more in
>>> collection costs.
>
>> Why would a bicycle tax cost any more than the auto tax to collect?
>
> It wouldn't. A fair tax would be less than the cost of collection.

"fair"? Fair would be bicycles paying to use the roads just like any auto
does.And such autos fees begin usually at $25 per year.

>
>> The agency is already established;the motor vehicle department.
>> (it just needs renaming)
>
> It still doesn't function at zero cost.
>
>> It would be enforced just like autos are;by the existing police
>> department.
>>
>> Also,why would you assume that a USER fee would only be $.75? In most
>> states,there's a minimum fee for any auto regardless of weight or
>> size.Maybe around $25.00.
>
> So you want a puntive tax on bicyclists. Like cigarettes or alcohol.

Why is it "punitive"? Every auto pays it,even the tiniest ones.
Motorcycles pay it.Only BICYCLES don't.

>
> Your agenda isn't fairness, it's punishment.

Fair is *all* road users paying the fee.
If bicycles want to use the road,then fairness would be them paying the
fee.Not punishment by any means.


>
>>>
>>> But let's examine your aruguement another way. It would be ok in
>>> your eyes for him to have his 5 cars and my 3 cars on the road at
>>> the same time, but not our two bicycles? You'd rather have 8 cars on
>>> the road taking up space than two bicycles that together don't even
>>> take up the space of one car. Seems insane to me.
>
>> * 8 cars that have paid their usage fee.
>> They are not paying for any "space" they take up,just the *use* of
>> the road.
>> It's a USER fee.
>
> All 8 cars can legally be on the road at the same time. You clearly
> prefer 8 cars on the road over 2 bicyclists. Why I have no clue, other
> than an irrational hate of bicyclists.

well,it certainly is not hate of bicyclists per se. Only when they are
using roads and slowing down traffic(which they DO do).



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

[Brent P]

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You pay for each and every auto you use on public roads.
>>>>> You don't get to pay for one and the rest go for free.
>>>>> Even motorcycles must pay for each MC used on the roads.
>>>>> You haven't paid for any of your bikes.
>>>>> Yet you expect the same priveleges as autos.
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to pay the taxes to collect a fair bicycle tax? I'll
>>>> pay my annual 75 cents if you'll pay the dollar or more in
>>>> collection costs.
>>
>>> Why would a bicycle tax cost any more than the auto tax to collect?
>>
>> It wouldn't. A fair tax would be less than the cost of collection.
>
> "fair"? Fair would be bicycles paying to use the roads just like any auto
> does.And such autos fees begin usually at $25 per year.

Fair. as in based on wear and tear done, space taken up, etc. You want to
charge bicycles the same as a the smallest of cars which are more than 50
times heavier and take up a full lane. I'll wager you won't allow
bicyclists a full lane all the time under this scheme. You want a
punitive tax.

>>
>>> The agency is already established;the motor vehicle department.
>>> (it just needs renaming)
>>
>> It still doesn't function at zero cost.
>>
>>> It would be enforced just like autos are;by the existing police
>>> department.
>>>
>>> Also,why would you assume that a USER fee would only be $.75? In most
>>> states,there's a minimum fee for any auto regardless of weight or
>>> size.Maybe around $25.00.
>>
>> So you want a puntive tax on bicyclists. Like cigarettes or alcohol.

> Why is it "punitive"? Every auto pays it,even the tiniest ones.
> Motorcycles pay it.Only BICYCLES don't.

Because it's way out of proportion. Motorcycles get a full lane all the
time. Motorcycles get to use interstates and other limited access
highways. Motorcycles get a lot more.

>> Your agenda isn't fairness, it's punishment.

> Fair is *all* road users paying the fee.
> If bicycles want to use the road,then fairness would be them paying the
> fee.Not punishment by any means.

I said I'd gladly pay my annual 75 cents. If you want me to pay more, I
expect to ride down the center of any lane I choose on any road I choose
just like the other vehicles.


>>>>
>>>> But let's examine your aruguement another way. It would be ok in
>>>> your eyes for him to have his 5 cars and my 3 cars on the road at
>>>> the same time, but not our two bicycles? You'd rather have 8 cars on
>>>> the road taking up space than two bicycles that together don't even
>>>> take up the space of one car. Seems insane to me.
>>
>>> * 8 cars that have paid their usage fee.
>>> They are not paying for any "space" they take up,just the *use* of
>>> the road.
>>> It's a USER fee.
>>
>> All 8 cars can legally be on the road at the same time. You clearly
>> prefer 8 cars on the road over 2 bicyclists. Why I have no clue, other
>> than an irrational hate of bicyclists.
>
> well,it certainly is not hate of bicyclists per se. Only when they are
> using roads and slowing down traffic(which they DO do).

Clearly why you want a punitive tax. Because you don't want bicycles on
the road. Traffic is slowed by incompetent drivers far more than bicyclists.