When to honk at a bicyclist

That's a good point. But it's academic. If the lane is
that wide, and the car and bike are comfortably
sharing it, there will be no conflict when the lane gets
even wider--unless the motorist or the cyclist decide
they WANT a conflict and throw up a "contrived
hindrance."

The ride-to-the-right rule exists because some
cyclists simply refuse to share the lane, no matter
how wide it is.

Robert


Who were these cyclists who refused to share the lane and where is your
supporting evidence that they shaped the law? I think you are making
things up.

The operate as far right as practicable rule is a refinement of the
operate on the right side of the road rule. That it has been further
refined to specifically target bicyclists in some places has nothing to
do with militant bicyclists asserting their right to the road, as you
assert, and likely everything to do with plain old ignorance and
discrimination against bicyclists.

Wayne

R15757 wrote:



As I said, I think we have Forester (and his sniveling
minions) to thank that things aren't much worse, in
terms of facilities and rules. On the other hand, I
believe that some militant vehicularists' complete
inabiliy to play nice in traffic won't help matters.


These so-called militant vehicularists, these Rosa Parks-on-wheels, who
have a complete inability to play nice: what are they doing and what is
your definition of not playing nice?

Wayne

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
24 Oct 2004 06:26:35 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

How about you just stick to addressing the issue? That is, your
attachment to fear has infected you so now you're propagating the
vengeful boogie-man myth.

The issue has been addressed. Another poster provided an example and
you refuse to accept it because it flies in the face of your bigoted,
one track mind.

It's an anecdote is all. BFD.

It was a fact. You cannot handle the truth even when it hits you
upside the head.


I've met vigilante type and menacing
scud jockeys too so I'm not denying there are assholes and whackadoos
in cages. I'm saying they're not going to assault you for what I do,
fukwit.

I'll have to conclude you are incapable of being even the least bit
rational as you constantly have resorted to the pubescent name calling
so often used by the un-educated bigots.

If they assault anyone it's because they think they can get
away with it. And they do all too frequently.

Now you're talking myth. You claim that nobody would assault
or harrass someone based on the actions of another, but
you also claim they would do it simply because they think they can
get away with it. You have a delusional disorder compounded by
your anti-social thought process.


You're emotionally attached to the myth because you think it excuses
those drivers' deplorable behaviour.

Like the myth that cyclists are being assulted for no other reason than
people think they can get away with it?

Since you hold on to that premise, show us some examples where
this has happened. Show me where someone assulted a cyclist
and admitted they did it solely because they thought they could get
away with it. Otherwise follow your own advice and STFU.

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:37:04 GMT,
,
"neil0502" wrote, in part:

How is your position any less 'anecdotal' than the anecdote that I presented

Because it's not happened with enough regularity to scare me into
spreading myths. Most scud jockeys don't even register my presence any
more than I register theirs. It's not practical to ride constantly
fearing the vengeful whackadoos. They're an anomaly.

Ah, but no one ever claimed it did happen with regularity.
You propped up that strawman.

Nobody suggested people ride in fear. You came up with that BS
trying to prove a point that wasn't even being made.
Now you're telling us that cagers assult cyclists simply
because they think they can get away with it. Zoot Katz is
the one spreading myths.

On 24 Oct 2004 16:41:04 GMT, (R15757) wrote:

The ride-to-the-right rule exists because some
cyclists simply refuse to share the lane, no matter
how wide it is.

We've located these three guys and they all live in your neighborhood. How
bizarre!

Should we apply a censure? Applaude their daring? Are they former Monty
Python Knights of the Round Table stunt players? (looking up on unruly
cyclists' dB) Yes, I _think_ they ARE, Constable!...

-B
We shall speak to them directly. TIA.

24 Oct 2004 15:14:37 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

Like the myth that cyclists are being assulted for no other reason than
people think they can get away with it?

Hey fukwit, you're getting boring.

The assholes who threw barbecue sauce at me and fled did it because -
chose the most plausible answer:
a) they figured they could get away wtih it.
b) they have a grudge against cyclists for the way you ride.

Not because of the way I was riding, idiot.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:

The assholes who threw barbecue sauce at me and fled did it because -
chose the most plausible answer:
a) they figured they could get away wtih it.
b) they have a grudge against cyclists for the way you ride.

c) they thought you were made of pork.

Bill "57 varieties of assault? I blame Terezzzzzzzzza" S.

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:25:33 -0400,
,
Badger_South wrote:


We've located these three guys and they all live in your neighborhood. How
bizarre!

I just watched videos of some Alley Cats in New York and Boston.
They're nutz. But the most insane riding was after the camera guy
clipped a mirror or slapped a car. The scud jockey chased him up onto
a boulevard and when the cyclist started riding against the flow the
raging cager kept following him on the other side. Finally the cyclist
got away but later the car pulled up to them at a checkpoint.
Since it was a non-issue for the biker at this point he just got his
card signed and kept racing. There were a few other couriers
expressing curiosity and approaching the car just as the camera guy
took off again. Wonder what happened. . .
--
zk

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:13:07 GMT,
, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
wrote:

c) they thought you were made of pork.

"long pig"
http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-...s/butcher.html
--
zk

(Tom Keats)

wrote in part:

The cyclist
encounters a transitory obstacle in the bike lane, such
as a running dog. He has to swerve out of the bike lane
and gets clobbered by a car. Then the dog is long gone,
so the cyclist has nothing to point to as reason for his
leftward manoeuver. By the letter of the law, the cyclist
has violated both the bike lane law and the keep right law.


cheers,
Tom

No he hasn't and the burden of proving that he had (that there was no dog)
would fall on the prosecution in a quasi-criminal case or on the insurance
company in a civil case.

Regards,
Bob Hunt