Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

On Mar 4, 11:40 am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:02 am, " wrote:



In traffic it is impossible to leave enough distance for a drum-brake
pickup to stop in the same distance as a high-performance sports car.
If that large of a gap is left, it will be filled.

It's not impossible, Nate.

Frank, pay attention. You quoted me and responded to me, this has
nothing to do with Nate. You are correct it is not impossible, but it
is impractical. I'm not going to spend an extra 30 minutes per day
making sure I'm the slowest vehicle on the road.


You just slow down. The high-performance
sports car will vanish into the distance. If another car passes and
fills the gap that is left, he too will vanish into the distance. All
you have to do is continue going less than the prevailing speed of
traffic.

And there is no need for that. Simply maintain a safe following
distance. Like I said, the open and generous shoulder is one of the
factors to take into consideration when deciding what a safe following
distance is. The fact that I STILL did not rear-end this fool, even
with them trying to make me, is really all that needs to be said about
my following distance. If it had not been sufficient I'd have crashed
into the fool.


And if you're driving a vehicle that you know you can't stop very
well, that's what you should be doing.

My vehicle stops about average for all the vehicles on the road. I've
never rear-ended someone, even when they try to make me. That's
because I DO maintain a proper following distance. However, when
someone on the highway mashes the brake pedal to the floor at highway
speeds in their high-performance vehicle, it's going to muff things
up. That was the point of the post.


Hit someone behind, and the
legal system will gladly explain that to you in detail.

I'm aware of the rules. I've been rear-ended. More than once. Since
I am very observant when driving, and always maintain a safe following
distance, I don't anticipate ever being on the other end of the
collision, however.

On Mar 4, 8:54*am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:42 am, N8N wrote:



I get a definite vibe from the cycling group that their **** don't
stink - oooh, cagers break the law all the time but most cyclists are
responsible alert riders. *BS! *The average cyclist doesn't have a
clue, much like the average driver.

Your "definite vibe" is born in your own imagination. *It's easy to
find cyclists complaining about other law-flouting cyclists. *I'll do
it now, if you like, by agreeing with your final sentence. *The
average road user does a lot of truly stupid stuff.

The difference, which seems to confuse the r.a.d. boys, is that
cyclist stupidity only rarely damages anyone else's person or
vehicle. *Motorist stupidity kills over 100 people per day in the US,
and keeps over 200,000 auto body repairmen employed full-time, fixing
the cars that aren't totaled.

Don't pretend the consequences are equal.

And don't fall for your logical fallacy of the two wrongs.

Wrong is wrong, no matter what the vehicle.

E.P.

On Mar 3, 6:51*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Brent P? wrote:
In article , wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:12 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
In article , wrote:

On Mar 1, 9:09 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
In article , Tom Sherman wrote:

I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph...
Up hills.
(Sheesh.)
Not any of the hills around here.
:-) *Well THAT clears things up! *The hills in Chicago don't slow
trucks, therefore there are no hills anywhere that slow trucks!

Holy jump battman. I never said any such thing, but you know that.

I don't know why the highway departments around here wasted all the
money on those "7% grade" signs! *They should have checked with racer-
boy!

I dunno. The times I've driven through the hills and mountains on the way
to and from NC and WV I don't recall the trucks dropping to 55mph...
maybe my memory is off, that could be, but I think they kept it above
55mph for the most part. They certainly do through the hills of WI. Now
they do slow, but 55mph seems to be a floor speed. I suppose there are
some mountain roads out there where they slow to 45mph or something but
that is still the limit of their vehicles, I have rarely seen truckers
restrict themselves to 55mph.

In Colorado on I-70, I have passed trucks that were doing 15-20 mph
uphill. (I was doing about 40-45 mph, full throttle in 3rd gear, in a
Rabbit (Golf I).

Brent lives in the flatlands and has no idea what mountains are like.

Out here in the west, 18-wheelers often climb mt. passes at half the
SL or less. Mostly, they are nice about restricting themselves to the
right lane only.

Sometimes, they are jerks and micropass at 25 mph in the right lane,
and 27 mph in the left lane.

I'm sure one of those jerks used to be GPSturd.

E.P.

On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero wrote:
On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding wrote:


Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
(Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)

That's right, I don't. For a very good reason - the data don't
support it.

Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
lower. Hmmm.

Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
German driving and American driving? IOW, that American driving skill
equals that of Germans? If so, your thinking is extremely
simplistic. Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point,
very strongly.

Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decades,
yet fatality statistics are trending down

I think Stephen's data was much more complete than your simple
assertion. Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
past three decades? If nothing had changed at all but the invention
of CAT scans - for just _one_ example - the fatality statistics would
still be trending down.

"Speed kills" is a lie.

And so is the concept of kinetic energy, I suppose?

http://sggoodri.home.mindspring.com/...SpeedKills.htm

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 3, 6:34*pm, Stephen Harding wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:
On Mar 3, 12:53 pm, Stephen Harding wrote:

First you say this...

Just don't expect me to accelerate up
to 90 so you won't have to back off on the throttle.

...then you say this.

But I'm not going to change my driving speed, while adequately passing
someone, because somebody feels a public road is his private runway.

You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.

The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
explode.

LOL. *You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.

*I'M DOING THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT OR ABOVE BRENT!!*

Your speed and it's relation to whatever the legal limit is not at
issue. It's the attitude of "I don't need to change my behavior for
anyone" contrasted to "why doesn't that other **** slow the hell
down?" (As in "why doesn't the OTHER PERSON change their behavior for
me?")

You're being a hypocrite.

I'm not asking the person to do 50! *I'm only asking for the
period of time it take me to complete my pass that the car
back off on his desired speed.

But you shouldn't have to change yours. What makes you special, that
the world should bow to YOUR desires, and noboy elses' desires are
important?

Explain the contradiction, if you will. I'd love to hear your
rationale.

E.P.

On Mar 3, 6:39*pm, Stephen Harding wrote:
Stephen Harding wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:

You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.

The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
explode.

LOL. *You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.

*I'M DOING THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT OR ABOVE BRENT!!*

Sorry. *All you characters are beginning to merge into one
driver madly flashing their headlights, doing 90 mph and
thinking they don't really need to abide by speed limits
or traffic stops.

Straw man.

Your position is weak when you need to engage in logical fallacy.

E.P.

Tom Sherman wrote:
Stephen Harding wrote:

[...]
Well the problem is we're actually not all on the same page,
although your call for basic conversation and interchange of
thoughts is really what NGs are all about.

Many decry cross-posted threads when those groups have
inherent antagonisms towards one another; both regard the
other as a form of mindless road danger.

Cross-posting makes for better flame wars.

I was thinking of that when I made the post but left it out.
Soooo true though.

But I have also had confirmed my beliefs that many basically
good people do indeed become jerks once behind the wheel of
their motor vehicle. The old saying about the "nut behind
the wheel" seems confirmed.

I do not believe it is the motor vehicle per say, but the isolation the
steel and glass cage provides.

My belief exactly.

Somewhat similar to exchanges on the internet as well, where
someone practically out of the blue says "You know you're a
real dickhead!" Huh???

Protected by networks of wires carrying bits around makes the
whimpiest of nerds a veritable Ahhnold ["I be baaack"]!

Nothing to get too bent out of shape over. Hey, it's only
a NG (or two).

Hey, you are not supposed to mention 'bents on RBM!

The bent up 'bent seemed relevant for this thread!


SMH

Nate Nagel wrote:
Stephen Harding wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Ed Pirrero wrote:

You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.

The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
explode.

LOL. You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.



*I'M DOING THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT OR ABOVE BRENT!!*



Sorry. All you characters are beginning to merge into one
driver madly flashing their headlights, doing 90 mph and
thinking they don't really need to abide by speed limits
or traffic stops.

I guess it's an instance of "Ed" rather than "Brent".


Not at all. We're just sick of being stuck in the passing lane behind
some old guy in a Buick doing 64 "passing" some other old guy in a Buick
doing 63.9999998.

The VAST majority of LLBs aren't even passing anyone, they're either
just camping out in the left lane for no apparent reason, or even worse,
pacing the car next to them not either in front of or far enough behind
to slip through without some really squidly driving.

That said, I can understand your frustration, but put yourself in the
seat of the guy behind you. He's *expecting* you to do actively hold
him up, because you're driving slow (relatively) in the passing lane and
that's the behavior he's come to expect from other motorists. If you
pass promtply and move over quickly, he'll be pleasantly surprised and
might even acknowledge your courtesy with a wave as he passes. If you
actively block him, you're just another of the rude and/or clueless
masses that make everyday driving unpleasant.

The problem on the Mass Pike, which I drive most often, is that people
are indeed parked in the left lane. They *generally* are passing
vehicles in the middle lane with a variable speed differential. As
someone else noted, sometimes they are actually going slower than middle
or right lanes, but I find that only for short periods of time.

And sometimes, you simply can't get back into the middle lane. It's too
crowded and you'd be cutting someone off or outright committing suicide
to do so.

I honestly believe it doesn't really bother most people in the left
[passing] lane to be honest. They are resigned to being stuck behind a
line of cars ahead of them that aren't going to pull over and it's
generally the best lane to be in speed-wise from what is available.

Not a great way to run a highway, but that's reality on the Pike and
probably anywhere else in the US with a congested highway.

Heck even the Germans are increasingly driving that way when the
autobahn passes by larger cities. If it happens to the Germans, there's
no hope for the rest of us!!!


SMH

In article ,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article
, Doc
O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
(Brent P) wrote:

Oh, you're being a usenet assclown... I wasn't bitching about seeing
properly lit bicyclists or peds of any kind.

Then please restate your argument, because you seem to have changed it
from "unlighted wrong ways" to "everyday physics" to who knows what. If
you just hate other people, simply say so. Classic road rage like that
is nothing new, although you seem to be going to elaborate lengths to
justify it. Again, and concisely, what's your issue?

Geebus... you really like to mix stuff up don't you. You people are sick.
You go around doing things in traffic and on usenet to intentionally ****
people off then you scream 'road rager! road rager!' when someone gets
****ed off. Grow up.

It is you who is acting immature. *I* am not the cyclist that somehow
****ed you off in traffic. I'm just a guy on Usenet spending too much
time trying to figure out what your particular, individual problem is.
You are the one who keeps getting mixed up on what point it is you're
trying to make, devolving into personal insults, and now you've gotten
lost into generalizing a population. Your posts drip with prejudice and
bigotry. I'm done with you.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org

On Mar 4, 9:01*am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero wrote:

On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding wrote:

Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
(Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)

That's right, I don't. *For a very good reason - the data don't
support it.

Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
lower. *Hmmm.

Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
German driving and American driving? *IOW, that American driving skill
equals that of Germans? *If so, your thinking is extremely
simplistic. *Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point,
very strongly.

Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.

Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decades,
yet fatality statistics are trending down

I think Stephen's data was much more complete than your simple
assertion.

Faltalities for VMT are down, even as speeds go up. If speed kills,
where's the carnage?

*Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
past three decades? *If nothing had changed at all but the invention
of CAT scans - for just _one_ example - the fatality statistics would
still be trending down.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, Frank. The old saw of "speed kils" is
just not true.

"Speed kills" is a lie.

And so is the concept of kinetic energy, I suppose?

Nice straw man.

Logic, much?

E.P.