A Trackstand Saved My Life!

Zoot Katz wrote:

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:37:36 GMT, Bill wrote:

If we're talking B.C. it used to be pretty nice back in 1978 when I went
up that way. From what I have heard they have an immigrant problem now,
so maybe it isn't that nice any more. 28 years could make a big difference.

Yeah Bill, our immigrant "problem" is primarily Koreans and Chinese
coming here, buying up whole blocks and sending real estate prices
through the roof. Neither can they drive worth ****.

Having lived in China and Korea, I can understand the way the Chinese
and Koreans drive when they come to the US. It's so absurd at rush
hour over there that I;d dream of the wide-open, structured traffic of
NYC at rush hour (and I'm not kidding). Essentially, if there was a
car-size space on the road, there was a car in it. Gridlock was the
norm, and the "rules" were apparently even less binding than they are
in the US.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:52:05 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:


In the end, polititians tend to care only about what directly benefits
them - if they feel there is a political benefit to spending our money
on bicycle facilities, they'll do so.



How does a law that, for instance, makes it ilegal to ride a unicycle,
or to require cyclists to use the shoulder even if unpaved, or any
other number of anti-cyclist measures, benefit a politician other than
by appeasing the interests of the moneyed and motored classes?

Zoot Katz wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:37:36 GMT, Bill wrote:

If we're talking B.C. it used to be pretty nice back in 1978 when I went
up that way. From what I have heard they have an immigrant problem now,
so maybe it isn't that nice any more. 28 years could make a big difference.

Yeah Bill, our immigrant "problem" is primarily Koreans and Chinese
coming here, buying up whole blocks and sending real estate prices
through the roof. Neither can they drive worth ****.

There is also a problem with violence among Asian youth gangs but
they keep it to their own communities. Some will point to the
Honduran crack sellers around Main & Hastings but they're not
immigrants, they're illegal aliens or refugees awaiting a hearing
before deportation.

Asian gangs are a problem here too. I have been watching the news and
per capita they seem to commit 10X the crime of the Mexican population.
The legitimate Chinese seem to be intent on buying real estate, but at
least here they are decent drivers.
Same kind of problems, different causes.
Bill Baka

Mark Hickey wrote:
Zoot Katz wrote:

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:37:36 GMT, Bill wrote:

If we're talking B.C. it used to be pretty nice back in 1978 when I went
up that way. From what I have heard they have an immigrant problem now,
so maybe it isn't that nice any more. 28 years could make a big difference.
Yeah Bill, our immigrant "problem" is primarily Koreans and Chinese
coming here, buying up whole blocks and sending real estate prices
through the roof. Neither can they drive worth ****.

Having lived in China and Korea, I can understand the way the Chinese
and Koreans drive when they come to the US. It's so absurd at rush
hour over there that I;d dream of the wide-open, structured traffic of
NYC at rush hour (and I'm not kidding). Essentially, if there was a
car-size space on the road, there was a car in it. Gridlock was the
norm, and the "rules" were apparently even less binding than they are
in the US.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark,
Have you ever driven in Mexico? I drove from Tijuana down to Ensenada on
the only road down the Baja peninsula and the drivers down there are
near suicidal. The big trucks will run even a full sized American car
off the road and have no regard for rules.
When I got back I actually appreciated American drivers (for a while).
Bill Baka

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:52:05 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:


In the end, polititians tend to care only about what directly benefits
them - if they feel there is a political benefit to spending our money
on bicycle facilities, they'll do so.



How does a law that, for instance, makes it ilegal to ride a unicycle,
or to require cyclists to use the shoulder even if unpaved, or any
other number of anti-cyclist measures, benefit a politician other than
by appeasing the interests of the moneyed and motored classes?

That is because most of the tax payers are drivers. happy driver equals a
vote possibly.
If they changed rules in cyclists favor after the election and changed back
before the next one that would be a worthwhile tactic for everyone.

In article ,
Zoot Katz writes:

We're looking for a sticker to say, "I have to wear my helmet so you
can drive like an idiot."

That's what I've been saying all along. Bicycle helmets
are for the comforts of drivers. The most vocal proponents
are drivers.

Note I'm not ranting about helmets per se. I'm just
disgusted with being expected to genuflect to drivers'
demands that operating 1.5+ tons of mass at speed in
populated areas be dumbed-down for 'em.

A particular stretch of road or a bridge incurs so many
collisions, and it's the road's/bridge's fault. It takes
30 minutes to traverse 10 inter-urban miles, and it's an
unconscionable travesty (that's pretty good headway for a
non-driver.) Remind drivers that cyclists have a right to
the road too, and they threateningly respond with that hoary
old "dead right" cliche.

We're up against a brick wall of arragnorance. It's an
opportunity to be a /real/ Don Quixote. But I don't
recommend bashing one's head against a brick wall.
There are better things to bash against a brick wall.


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

In article ,
(Tom Keats) writes:

We're up against a brick wall of arragnorance.
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oops, I misspelt. That should be: arrognorance.

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

In article ,
writes:

I wonder if drivers subconsciously consider helmet wearing as an admission
that cycling is inherently dangerous, a dunce cap, almost a punishment,
like using training wheels; a way of branding bicycles as 'toys' or
something.

The drivers resent us riders for getting to use the streets & roads
"for free", when they've gotta pay. They forget they have the same
freedom to bicycle on those same streets & roads as anyone else.
If they don't want to, that's usually their own self-inflicted decision.

Now I actually like wearing a helmet and if I forget mine as I walk out the
door, will stop and go back and get it. Modern helmets look pretty cool,
actually.

They have their uses. I generally wear mine too. With the
rain cover on it, it makes a pretty good waterproof hat.

But for drivers it's as though they're thinking 'ok, you're already doing
something hazardous and getting in the way, the nerve not to wear a helmet
so that you'll bounce when we hit you.' ;-)

That's pretty much it. In fact, that's exactly it.


cheers,
Tom

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

In article ,
writes:

Here's another one for ya: there's a "pedestrian safety" blitz going
on here right now. Among the usual safety tips, the Authorities are
admonishing pedestrians to only use /marked/ crosswalks. But here,
every intersection is a crosswalk, and drivers (although most probably
don't know this) are legally obligated to respect them as such, whether
they're marked or not.


Most people who have money (and thus political influence) drive
motorcars much more than they walk or cycle.

They view pedestrians and cyclists as obstructions.

And yet /everyone/ ultimately is a pedestrian.


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

wrote:

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:52:05 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

In the end, polititians tend to care only about what directly benefits
them - if they feel there is a political benefit to spending our money
on bicycle facilities, they'll do so.

How does a law that, for instance, makes it ilegal to ride a unicycle,
or to require cyclists to use the shoulder even if unpaved, or any
other number of anti-cyclist measures, benefit a politician other than
by appeasing the interests of the moneyed and motored classes?

First, I know of no areas with such restrictions. There may be some,
but even so, it's the (rare) exception that would require a bike to
ride on an unpaved shoulder (not even going to speculate on the
unicycle ban).

Second, you use "moneyed" and "motored" like they're synonymous.
While having a car is a pipe dream for most of the world's poor, in
the US the vast majority can have a car (if they choose to, of
course).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame