he fired a handgun at a bicyclist

Nate Nagel wrote:
Still Just Me - wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:51:30 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
wrote:

When there is an accident involving a cyclist it's
usually almost always the cyclist fault. If my department ever gets
funding for overtime cyclist enforcement, I'm signing up and writing
my 2 citation books worth.'

Typical cop attitude toward cyclists, IMHE.

I'm a *cyclist* and that's my attitude.

You're a relative noob, and a long time driver. I hardly think you're
impartial.


*most* cyclists (not pointing fingers at anyone here, mind you) are more
reckless, careless, and just plain scofflaws than any other road users,
and that's saying a lot, as **** poor as the average driver is.

The problem with "accident" reports (besides the implication in the
name) is that they're written by cops, a similarly biased source. Fact
is, cyclists aren't a hazard to motorists, but motorists are hazards to
bikes, pedestrians and other motorists. Ticketing cyclists is just so
much petty bull****. Your anti-cyclist attitude is just a pro-car bias,
typical in America's car dominated culture. Cyclists may be reckless,
motorists are homicidal. There's a vast difference.

The biggest single safety issue is speeding. Motorist compliance with
speed limits approaches 0 per cent. That's not even discussed, never
mind enforced. That's 100% "scofflaws" in my book (which would run out
of citation forms very quickly).

On Jul 28, 8:29*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Still Just Me - wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:51:30 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
wrote:

When there is an accident involving a cyclist it's
usually almost always the cyclist fault. If my department ever gets
funding for overtime cyclist enforcement, I'm signing up and writing
my 2 citation books worth.'

Typical cop attitude toward cyclists, IMHE.

I'm a *cyclist* and that's my attitude.

You're a relative noob, and a long time driver. I hardly think you're
impartial.

well, I was riding bikes on the street, and I don't mean suburban
neighborhoods, before I got my driver's license...


*most* cyclists (not pointing fingers at anyone here, mind you) are more
reckless, careless, and just plain scofflaws than any other road users,
and that's saying a lot, as **** poor as the average driver is.

The problem with "accident" reports (besides the implication in the
name) is that they're written by cops, a similarly biased source. Fact
is, cyclists aren't a hazard to motorists, but motorists are hazards to
bikes, pedestrians and other motorists. Ticketing cyclists is just so
much petty bull****. Your anti-cyclist attitude is just a pro-car bias,
typical in America's car dominated culture. Cyclists may be reckless,
motorists are homicidal. There's a vast difference.

No, they're not. It's a rare motorist who will deliberately cause a
collision. Yet I see cyclists engaging in actions every day (e.g.
running stop signs or red lights at full speed) that are guaranteed to
eventually result in a near-collision. Despite the current hysteria
over the supposed crisis of motorists running red lights etc. and the
resulting arguments for red light cameras (which I believe in most
cases is driven not by a desire to increase compliance or safety but
by a desire to get more sweet sweet revenue for minimal work) I really
don't see anything near the rate of noncompliance among motorists that
I do among cyclists. Heck, the cyclists have the motorists trained
now - whenever I ride on my local MUP and come to an intersection with
a road, invariably I will come to a stop or near-stop, and approaching
cars will stop for me and wave me on, because they have ASSumed that I
wasn't going to stop - even though I am legally required to do so, and
they are not. Had they but kept going, I could have slipped behind
them without unclipping, but they're so conditioned by the actions of
the majority of cyclists that it actually makes riding more difficult,
because expectations of the behavior of others based on legality and
expectations based on experience are completely different.


The biggest single safety issue is speeding. Motorist compliance with
speed limits approaches 0 per cent. That's not even discussed, never
mind enforced. That's 100% "scofflaws" in my book (which would run out
of citation forms very quickly).

Balls. Speeding is a non-issue. The only reason the motorists are
"speeding" in the vast majority of cases is that the speed limit is
set at the 10th percentile or lower, when all safety experts, when
pressed, will state that the 85th should be used as a starting point,
and then the speed limit adjusted down only if there are non-obvious
hazards or other special conditions. Surely every road in the US
isn't so poorly designed that this has had to happen nearly
universally?

nate

N8N wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:29 am, Peter Cole wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Still Just Me - wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:51:30 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
wrote:
When there is an accident involving a cyclist it's
usually almost always the cyclist fault. If my department ever gets
funding for overtime cyclist enforcement, I'm signing up and writing
my 2 citation books worth.'
Typical cop attitude toward cyclists, IMHE.
I'm a *cyclist* and that's my attitude.
You're a relative noob, and a long time driver. I hardly think you're
impartial.

well, I was riding bikes on the street, and I don't mean suburban
neighborhoods, before I got my driver's license...

*most* cyclists (not pointing fingers at anyone here, mind you) are more
reckless, careless, and just plain scofflaws than any other road users,
and that's saying a lot, as **** poor as the average driver is.
The problem with "accident" reports (besides the implication in the
name) is that they're written by cops, a similarly biased source. Fact
is, cyclists aren't a hazard to motorists, but motorists are hazards to
bikes, pedestrians and other motorists. Ticketing cyclists is just so
much petty bull****. Your anti-cyclist attitude is just a pro-car bias,
typical in America's car dominated culture. Cyclists may be reckless,
motorists are homicidal. There's a vast difference.

No, they're not. It's a rare motorist who will deliberately cause a
collision. Yet I see cyclists engaging in actions every day (e.g.
running stop signs or red lights at full speed) that are guaranteed to
eventually result in a near-collision. Despite the current hysteria
over the supposed crisis of motorists running red lights etc. and the
resulting arguments for red light cameras (which I believe in most
cases is driven not by a desire to increase compliance or safety but
by a desire to get more sweet sweet revenue for minimal work) I really
don't see anything near the rate of noncompliance among motorists that
I do among cyclists. Heck, the cyclists have the motorists trained
now - whenever I ride on my local MUP and come to an intersection with
a road, invariably I will come to a stop or near-stop, and approaching
cars will stop for me and wave me on, because they have ASSumed that I
wasn't going to stop - even though I am legally required to do so, and
they are not. Had they but kept going, I could have slipped behind
them without unclipping, but they're so conditioned by the actions of
the majority of cyclists that it actually makes riding more difficult,
because expectations of the behavior of others based on legality and
expectations based on experience are completely different.

The biggest single safety issue is speeding. Motorist compliance with
speed limits approaches 0 per cent. That's not even discussed, never
mind enforced. That's 100% "scofflaws" in my book (which would run out
of citation forms very quickly).

Balls. Speeding is a non-issue. The only reason the motorists are
"speeding" in the vast majority of cases is that the speed limit is
set at the 10th percentile or lower, when all safety experts, when
pressed, will state that the 85th should be used as a starting point,
and then the speed limit adjusted down only if there are non-obvious
hazards or other special conditions. Surely every road in the US
isn't so poorly designed that this has had to happen nearly
universally?

OK, so cyclist non-compliance is rooted in anti-social attitudes, while
motorist non-compliance is driven by a deep understanding of physics.
That makes perfect sense.

On Jul 28, 1:02 pm, N8N wrote:
snip
Balls. Speeding is a non-issue. The only reason the motorists are
"speeding" in the vast majority of cases is that the speed limit is
set at the 10th percentile or lower, when all safety experts, when
pressed, will state that the 85th should be used as a starting point,
and then the speed limit adjusted down only if there are non-obvious
hazards or other special conditions. Surely every road in the US
isn't so poorly designed that this has had to happen nearly
universally?

Drivers will drive at a speed where they think their risks are
balanced by the benefits of getting there sooner. However on some
roads (most) motor vehicles are the hazard to other users, so what
seems like a safe speed to a driver is in fact dangerously fast for
everyone else on the road, or even close to the road. At this point
the 85th percentile is just statistical noise because it only accounts
for motor vehicles and ignores every other road user.

Data from the NHTSA shows that in motor vehicle v bike/ped collisions
the fatal ratio at 20 MPH is 5% with 50% more injured seriously enough
to require transport, but at 40 MPH 85% die and 15% more are injured
enough to require transport, at 60 MPH 99% die, usually at the scene.
So at 20 45% walk away, 40 and above nobody walks away, and at 60
almost nobody leaves outside of a bodybag. That's for the people not
inside cars or trucks. And the problem is that drivers can't get this
through their thick skulls when they are the hazard they have to slow
down.

And just for the record the truck that hit me was doing an estimated
65 MPH. Yes I know I'm lucky, yes I got brain damage, and yes I'm
still ****ed they never even looked for the guy that tried to kill me.
I used to have a pretty good life, now I got ****.

On Jul 28, 9:16*am, Peter Cole wrote:
N8N wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:29 am, Peter Cole wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Still Just Me - wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:51:30 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
wrote:
When there is an accident involving a cyclist it's
usually almost always the cyclist fault. If my department ever gets
funding for overtime cyclist enforcement, I'm signing up and writing
my 2 citation books worth.'
Typical cop attitude toward cyclists, IMHE.
I'm a *cyclist* and that's my attitude.
You're a relative noob, and a long time driver. I hardly think you're
impartial.

well, I was riding bikes on the street, and I don't mean suburban
neighborhoods, before I got my driver's license...

*most* cyclists (not pointing fingers at anyone here, mind you) are more
reckless, careless, and just plain scofflaws than any other road users,
and that's saying a lot, as **** poor as the average driver is.
The problem with "accident" reports (besides the implication in the
name) is that they're written by cops, a similarly biased source. Fact
is, cyclists aren't a hazard to motorists, but motorists are hazards to
bikes, pedestrians and other motorists. Ticketing cyclists is just so
much petty bull****. Your anti-cyclist attitude is just a pro-car bias,
typical in America's car dominated culture. Cyclists may be reckless,
motorists are homicidal. There's a vast difference.

No, they're not. *It's a rare motorist who will deliberately cause a
collision. *Yet I see cyclists engaging in actions every day (e.g.
running stop signs or red lights at full speed) that are guaranteed to
eventually result in a near-collision. *Despite the current hysteria
over the supposed crisis of motorists running red lights etc. and the
resulting arguments for red light cameras (which I believe in most
cases is driven not by a desire to increase compliance or safety but
by a desire to get more sweet sweet revenue for minimal work) I really
don't see anything near the rate of noncompliance among motorists that
I do among cyclists. *Heck, the cyclists have the motorists trained
now - whenever I ride on my local MUP and come to an intersection with
a road, invariably I will come to a stop or near-stop, and approaching
cars will stop for me and wave me on, because they have ASSumed that I
wasn't going to stop - even though I am legally required to do so, and
they are not. *Had they but kept going, I could have slipped behind
them without unclipping, but they're so conditioned by the actions of
the majority of cyclists that it actually makes riding more difficult,
because expectations of the behavior of others based on legality and
expectations based on experience are completely different.

The biggest single safety issue is speeding. Motorist compliance with
speed limits approaches 0 per cent. That's not even discussed, never
mind enforced. That's 100% "scofflaws" in my book (which would run out
of citation forms very quickly).

Balls. *Speeding is a non-issue. *The only reason the motorists are
"speeding" in the vast majority of cases is that the speed limit is
set at the 10th percentile or lower, when all safety experts, when
pressed, will state that the 85th should be used as a starting point,
and then the speed limit adjusted down only if there are non-obvious
hazards or other special conditions. *Surely every road in the US
isn't so poorly designed that this has had to happen nearly
universally?

OK, so cyclist non-compliance is rooted in anti-social attitudes, while
motorist non-compliance is driven by a deep understanding of physics.
That makes perfect sense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Speeding and bike safety find a happy marriage in Germany. You can
bike on great bike facilities and you can go fast in a car... in
certain places. As I walk out my door, though, the speeding limit is
30mph, but 40 or even 50 is the norm.

That's BAD, REAL BAD, and only some overhaul of the system can change
that.

On Jul 28, 1:21*pm, Still Just Me -
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Opus
wrote:



And just for the record the truck that hit me was doing an estimated
65 MPH. Yes I know I'm lucky, yes I got brain damage, and yes I'm
still ****ed they never even looked for the guy that tried to kill me.

Sorry to hear. The motorist that tried to kill me did it by cutting me
off and stopping in front of me. Fortunately, the fact that they were
stopped allowed them to be identified in the police report. It still
****ed me off just a wee bit that the cop who arrived at the scene
immediately made disparaging remarks about cyclists to the car driver
and refused to put our statements at the scene into the accident
report.

A semi just tried to off me the other day, or at least severely damage
me, by forcing me into the curb. I had maybe an inch or two of
clearance left when he finished passing me.

I used to have a pretty good life, now I got ****.

You might want to read about this guy for a little motivation. Read
his detailed story on his "accidents". Ignore the formality of his
current web site and his apparent success and look at where he came
from and what he accomplished by controlling his focus.

http://www.wmitchell.com/

Sorry, Opus, I never noticed that post with the story. It's mighty
common in America to find the hit and runs, JUST TO ADD INSULT TO
INJURY.

Your website is a great denunciation of the system and ultimately
JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...d2f41a1?hl=en#

"Just Me" accidents though fall in another category altogether...
EXISTENTIALISM.* You exist (you know this by looking at yourself in
the mirror) but drivers IGNORE you as if you don't exist. Yes, they
have cut me off right in my face, but I know damn well I exist!

I'll check into that last website too.

*NOUN: A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of
the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe,
regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of
choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

Still Just Me - wrote:
[...]
You might want to read about this guy for a little motivation. Read
his detailed story on his "accidents". Ignore the formality of his
current web site and his apparent success and look at where he came
from and what he accomplished by controlling his focus.

http://www.wmitchell.com/


I hate inspirational stories. People that get a raw deal should be angry
and bitter.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Positive psychology, which claims to be able to engineer
happiness and provides the psychological tools for enforcing
corporate conformity, is to the corporate state what eugenics
was to the Nazis. - Chris Hedges

On Jul 28, 9:47*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Still Just Me - wrote: [...]
You might want to read about this guy for a little motivation. Read
his detailed story on his "accidents". Ignore the formality of his
current web site and his apparent success and look at where he came
from and what he accomplished by controlling his focus.

http://www.wmitchell.com/

I hate inspirational stories. People that get a raw deal should be angry
and bitter.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Positive psychology, which claims to be able to engineer
happiness and provides the psychological tools for enforcing
corporate conformity, is to the corporate state what eugenics
was to the Nazis. - Chris Hedges

Someone whose signature is that weird can only hate like the Nazis.
The truth is nice and simple:

PEOPLE LIVE IN FEAR OF RIDING A BIKE OR ELSE THEY WOULD BE ENJOYING
BIKING EVERYWHERE.

Go by Key West, and you will see a microcosm of what America could be.
Yes, bicycles (lots of them), scooters (lots of them), motorcycles
(mostly from outside), some SUVs (mostly from outside) and many EVs
all coexisting in relative peace.

ComandanteBanana wrote:

Go by Key West, and you will see a microcosm of what America could be.
Yes, bicycles (lots of them), scooters (lots of them), motorcycles
(mostly from outside), some SUVs (mostly from outside) and many EVs
all coexisting in relative peace.

If we just believe with all our hearts, then we can all be gay! On
bikes! Wearing Speedos and drinking girl drinks in relative peace!

Chalo

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
Still Just Me - wrote:
[...]
You might want to read about this guy for a little motivation. Read
his detailed story on his "accidents". Ignore the formality of his
current web site and his apparent success and look at where he came
from and what he accomplished by controlling his focus.
http://www.wmitchell.com/


I hate inspirational stories. People that get a raw deal should be angry
and bitter.

I am with Tom Sherman on the above. There is nothing wrong with being
permanently ****ed off at the world as long as you don't show it. When you
show it, you just make the world that much worse.

Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Positive psychology, which claims to be able to engineer
happiness and provides the psychological tools for enforcing
corporate conformity, is to the corporate state what eugenics
was to the Nazis. - Chris Hedges

The above is quite correct also. Happiness cannot be engineered. Humans were
not designed by nature to be happy. We were designed to be miserable at
least 95% of our lives. If you get your 5% of happiness, that is enough for
any human being.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota