bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 02 May 2007 15:44:06 From: Subject: Cyclist Road Rage I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Why would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? Are these people just suicidal or it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and just wait for a convenient time to pass?   Date: 05 May 2007 22:44:38 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <R0d%h.557$TE7.252@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes: > Brian Huntley wrote: >> On May 5, 1:47 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> When if ever will you cyclist Nazis get the point that it is illegal to >>> needlessly hold up traffic and can be ticketed if there are more than 5 >>> cars behind you??? Same rules, right? >> >> The OP said it was a 4-lane road. Unless this is a very odd road, that >> means there were two lanes in the direction he was travelling. >> Therefore, it was impossible for a bicyclist to hold up traffic, >> because they had another lane to pass in. No holdup except for the >> stubborn. >> > You forgot the part about the other lane being bumper to bumper. Not forever. > If > there was clear road in front of the bike and a jam behind him, doesn't > that kind of say move over and do the right thing? The OP wanted the cylist completely /off/ the road that the cyclist had a perfect right to. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 05 May 2007 22:41:40 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <a9d%h.558$TE7.145@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <1178417485.262279.109350@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> Brian Huntley <brian_huntley@hotmail.com> writes: >>> On May 5, 1:47 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> When if ever will you cyclist Nazis get the point that it is illegal to >>>> needlessly hold up traffic and can be ticketed if there are more than 5 >>>> cars behind you??? Same rules, right? >>> The OP said it was a 4-lane road. Unless this is a very odd road, that >>> means there were two lanes in the direction he was travelling. >>> Therefore, it was impossible for a bicyclist to hold up traffic, >>> because they had another lane to pass in. No holdup except for the >>> stubborn. >> >> For some reason the OP felt *compelled* to pass in >> the same lane as the cyclist was riding in. I wouldn't >> be surprised if he passed up opportunities to pass >> in the other lane, being loathe to cross over the line. >> So many drivers seem to think those lane lines are like >> railroad tracks that they /must/ stay between. >> >> In fairness, the OP stated the inside lane was full of >> traffic. But in my experience, traffic streams get >> broken-up into "dotted lines" by traffic lights, cars >> making turns, etc. I'm sure an opportunity to properly >> overtake the cyclist would have soon afforded itself to >> the OP. Probably sooner than it takes for a cyclist to >> get enough of a break in the traffic to cross a busy >> 4-lane arterial at a no-traffic-light intersection. >> >> It all boils down to a exercising a little patience. > > In real life, when I have been one of 'them' in a major traffic jam it > really is impossible to change lanes safely. Bullshit. Wait a while. Just like cyclists have to. > Most of my driving this > year has been as a passenger in a Lincoln Town car (read big) and yet > people in little import tin cans move up to block his attempt at > merging. Boo hoo. At least they're not cyclists. > People get stupid and aggressive when driving for some reason. That's their prob to deal with. If they can't, they shouldn't be driving. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 06 May 2007 18:05:32 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Tom Keats wrote: > In article <a9d%h.558$TE7.145@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes: >> Tom Keats wrote: >>> In article <1178417485.262279.109350@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >>> Brian Huntley <brian_huntley@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> On May 5, 1:47 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> When if ever will you cyclist Nazis get the point that it is illegal to >>>>> needlessly hold up traffic and can be ticketed if there are more than 5 >>>>> cars behind you??? Same rules, right? >>>> The OP said it was a 4-lane road. Unless this is a very odd road, that >>>> means there were two lanes in the direction he was travelling. >>>> Therefore, it was impossible for a bicyclist to hold up traffic, >>>> because they had another lane to pass in. No holdup except for the >>>> stubborn. >>> For some reason the OP felt *compelled* to pass in >>> the same lane as the cyclist was riding in. I wouldn't >>> be surprised if he passed up opportunities to pass >>> in the other lane, being loathe to cross over the line. >>> So many drivers seem to think those lane lines are like >>> railroad tracks that they /must/ stay between. >>> >>> In fairness, the OP stated the inside lane was full of >>> traffic. But in my experience, traffic streams get >>> broken-up into "dotted lines" by traffic lights, cars >>> making turns, etc. I'm sure an opportunity to properly >>> overtake the cyclist would have soon afforded itself to >>> the OP. Probably sooner than it takes for a cyclist to >>> get enough of a break in the traffic to cross a busy >>> 4-lane arterial at a no-traffic-light intersection. >>> >>> It all boils down to a exercising a little patience. >> In real life, when I have been one of 'them' in a major traffic jam it >> really is impossible to change lanes safely. > > Bullshit. Wait a while. Just like cyclists have to. You must live in a bubble. > >> Most of my driving this >> year has been as a passenger in a Lincoln Town car (read big) and yet >> people in little import tin cans move up to block his attempt at >> merging. > > Boo hoo. At least they're not cyclists. The problem is that they are cagers who don't even respect a large car, so what do you think they regard a bicycle as? > >> People get stupid and aggressive when driving for some reason. > > That's their prob to deal with. If they can't, they > shouldn't be driving. That will never happen unless we want all our taxes to go for police and make this a literal "Police state" country. I see people do royally stupid things in cars and never a cop in sight when they do it. > > Bill Baka   Date: 05 May 2007 22:35:48 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <nYc%h.556$TE7.163@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes: >>> Who did the studies? Some fat fools who were just doing another data >>> mining job in their secure cubicles? >>> Until bicycles are equipped with black boxes and cameras to snap every >>> second of a ride for the NHTSA to analyze then the only evidence that >>> comes in is hearsay. >> >> Here's one: >> http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm >> >> Think about the highest and lowest relative contributions >> of critical maneouvers to each type of "accident": >> >> >> TABLE A, From Pie Chart Figure 4. Relative Contribution >> of Each Accident Type >> >> Type of Accident Percent Critical >> Maneuver >> >> E: Cyclist Rode on Wrong Side of Street 14.32 cyclist >> F: Motorist Collided With Rear of Cyclist 4.17 motorist >> > I believe both of those numbers since the motorist might have a > subconscious thought that tapping the rear of a bike would push him > forward, not realizing the rear tire will get eaten by the bumper. > That's way out in left field, I know, but how bright is the average > motorist? Actually, if you study the study, you'll find many of those rear-enders happened to lightless riders on rural roads at night. The wrong-way-rider collisions just happened as] they would. > Many cyclists on the wrong side of the street are there for no good > reason or totally not competent. No, they were incorrectly /taught/ that. They car-centrically equate riding to walking. Or, rather, they were sold that line by car-centric instructors. >> By the way, taking the lane is not a default maneouver, >> it's a tactic to be applied to specific circumstances >> when they arise. > Correct. So why the knee-jerk reactions on your part about taking the lane? >> If you think cyclists enjoy road-hogging just for the heck >> of it, with a long train of loudly irate drivers stuck >> behind them, you're really barking up an imaginary tree. > Not so far out as you think. Yes. > I have known cyclists like that at work and > they were all around assholes. They do exist, fortunately not many. Bullshit. >> You should really learn to /ride/ before attempting to >> speak with any amount of authority on the subject. > True. A few miles in the other guys place puts a whole new perspective > on things. In that case, I invite you to accompany me along Vancouver's 41st Ave, from end to end, including where it diverts into Joyce St. On a Friday afternoon rush hour. Right after the kids get out of school. Boundary Road to UBC. You won't have to struggle too much to keep up with me, because I've learned to time the lights. Note how little you end up obstructing traffic, and how much traffic obstructs you. Did your dad teach you how to drive? It seems to me, in the past generations, road users were more attuned to sociably sharing the road, than they are now. But back then they could see each others' faces because they weren't hidden behind tinted glass. They could interact and say "howdie" to each other. No, I don't think your dad taught you how to drive. Or at least, how to behave on the road. Because if he did, he'd have taught you to respect your fellow road users. Well, that was then, and this is now. But the people on the roads are still human. Y'see, something horrible has happened since those times. Nowadays a traffic collision victim lies on the road and gets run over several more times by hit-&-runners before help arrives. That's the damage done by your precious cars to humanity. Cars hurt people in so many ways, and it's so totally haywire to elevate convenient transportation over human life. So go drool over your [Boyd Coddington's] American Hot Rod. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 06 May 2007 11:01:33 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Tom Keats wrote: > In article <nYc%h.556$TE7.163@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes: > >>>> Who did the studies? Some fat fools who were just doing another data >>>> mining job in their secure cubicles? >>>> Until bicycles are equipped with black boxes and cameras to snap every >>>> second of a ride for the NHTSA to analyze then the only evidence that >>>> comes in is hearsay. >>> Here's one: >>> http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm >>> >>> Think about the highest and lowest relative contributions >>> of critical maneouvers to each type of "accident": >>> >>> >>> TABLE A, From Pie Chart Figure 4. Relative Contribution >>> of Each Accident Type >>> >>> Type of Accident Percent Critical >>> Maneuver >>> >>> E: Cyclist Rode on Wrong Side of Street 14.32 cyclist >>> F: Motorist Collided With Rear of Cyclist 4.17 motorist >>> >> I believe both of those numbers since the motorist might have a >> subconscious thought that tapping the rear of a bike would push him >> forward, not realizing the rear tire will get eaten by the bumper. >> That's way out in left field, I know, but how bright is the average >> motorist? > > Actually, if you study the study, you'll find many of those > rear-enders happened to lightless riders on rural roads > at night. Cyclist's own stupidity gets him run down. The wrong-way-rider collisions just happened as] > they would. I find no reason for anyone to ride wrong way if it is safely possible to ride right way. I rode my "Wrong way" road yesterday all on the correct side since the big semi's had the day off. Regular traffic is reasonably safe. > >> Many cyclists on the wrong side of the street are there for no good >> reason or totally not competent. > > No, they were incorrectly /taught/ that. They car-centrically > equate riding to walking. Or, rather, they were sold that line > by car-centric instructors. Please tell that to Cal-Tran when they decide to lay down pavement on only one side of the road. It says "Bike lane" so people use it both ways. Yesterday, a one day sample I had to interact with 5 pedestrians and 2 bicycles going wrong way in an area that has no bike lanes at all. > >>> By the way, taking the lane is not a default maneouver, >>> it's a tactic to be applied to specific circumstances >>> when they arise. >> Correct. > > So why the knee-jerk reactions on your part about taking > the lane? Assuming I am in the mix here, taking the lane is not safe with the low quality of drivers we have. I think California has way more incompetent drivers than most states. I can take the lane in a residential area with no problem and pull to one side when it is safe to let the cage driver go by me. I'm out of the door zone which is the main reason I always take the lane in town, but not on the open highway. > >>> If you think cyclists enjoy road-hogging just for the heck >>> of it, with a long train of loudly irate drivers stuck >>> behind them, you're really barking up an imaginary tree. > >> Not so far out as you think. > > Yes. ????? > >> I have known cyclists like that at work and >> they were all around assholes. They do exist, fortunately not many. > > Bullshit. Non BS. There were 3 Brits at my job who rode together every day and were complete assholes, well 2 of them definitely. They sneered at my mountain bike and every day they would go out to mess with traffic while racing each other, and I would make a loop around a 900+ foot mountain road. > >>> You should really learn to /ride/ before attempting to >>> speak with any amount of authority on the subject. > >> True. A few miles in the other guys place puts a whole new perspective >> on things. > > In that case, I invite you to accompany me along Vancouver's > 41st Ave, from end to end, including where it diverts into > Joyce St. On a Friday afternoon rush hour. Right after the > kids get out of school. Boundary Road to UBC. You won't have > to struggle too much to keep up with me, because I've learned > to time the lights. Note how little you end up obstructing > traffic, and how much traffic obstructs you. That sounds like a good educational ride, kind of like what's close to me, except that you have to be going 30-35 MPH to catch all the lights right. The back road is so much better. > > Did your dad teach you how to drive? It seems to me, in the > past generations, road users were more attuned to sociably > sharing the road, than they are now. But back then they could > see each others' faces because they weren't hidden behind > tinted glass. They could interact and say "howdie" to > each other. No, I don't think your dad taught you how to > drive. Or at least, how to behave on the road. Because if > he did, he'd have taught you to respect your fellow road users. > > Well, that was then, and this is now. But the people on the > roads are still human. > > Y'see, something horrible has happened since those times. > Nowadays a traffic collision victim lies on the road and > gets run over several more times by hit-&-runners before > help arrives. WTF??? That's the damage done by your precious > cars to humanity. > > Cars hurt people in so many ways, and it's so totally > haywire to elevate convenient transportation over > human life. Yet cars kill about 50,000 people each year in the states. That was about the number I remember from 10-15 years ago. Cagers killing cagers. > > So go drool over your [Boyd Coddington's] American > Hot Rod. > > I know the above was meant for veg, but no matter what, you will never see the personal car go away. City dwellers may be fine with no car, but many people live too far from their work for a bike to be practical. A motorcycle would be a better alternative but people still tend to think of motorcycle riders as some kind of lawbreaking scofflaw. 100 motorcycles replacing 100 cars would clear up a lot of traffic jams. Single rider vehicles for those not in shape for riding. It isn't a perfect solution but I would much rather see commuters riding 250cc motorcycles (compromise size) than useless SUV's. Bill Baka   Date: 05 May 2007 19:43:43 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <1178417485.262279.109350@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, Brian Huntley <brian_huntley@hotmail.com > writes: > On May 5, 1:47 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>When if ever will you cyclist Nazis get the point that it is illegal to >> needlessly hold up traffic and can be ticketed if there are more than 5 >> cars behind you??? Same rules, right? > > The OP said it was a 4-lane road. Unless this is a very odd road, that > means there were two lanes in the direction he was travelling. > Therefore, it was impossible for a bicyclist to hold up traffic, > because they had another lane to pass in. No holdup except for the > stubborn. For some reason the OP felt *compelled* to pass in the same lane as the cyclist was riding in. I wouldn't be surprised if he passed up opportunities to pass in the other lane, being loathe to cross over the line. So many drivers seem to think those lane lines are like railroad tracks that they /must/ stay between. In fairness, the OP stated the inside lane was full of traffic. But in my experience, traffic streams get broken-up into "dotted lines" by traffic lights, cars making turns, etc. I'm sure an opportunity to properly overtake the cyclist would have soon afforded itself to the OP. Probably sooner than it takes for a cyclist to get enough of a break in the traffic to cross a busy 4-lane arterial at a no-traffic-light intersection. It all boils down to a exercising a little patience. BTW, that "5 or more vehicles behind" rule: it seems to me that the operator of the slow vehicle is allowed to decide on the safest opportunity to turn off, to allow the traffic behind to go by. I believe that rule pertains to narrow 2-lane roads with narrow lanes and a double, solid yellow stripe. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 06 May 2007 14:52:31 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Tom Keats wrote: > > BTW, that "5 or more vehicles behind" rule: it seems to > me that the operator of the slow vehicle is allowed to > decide on the safest opportunity to turn off, to allow > the traffic behind to go by. I believe that rule pertains > to narrow 2-lane roads with narrow lanes and a double, > solid yellow stripe. Some places don't have that rule, others exempt slow moving vehicles from the rule. The rule is to prevent purposefully going slow in order to purposefully impede people when you are actually capable of going faster. Once many years ago I was driving a van with a standard transmission and I couldn't get it out of 1st gear. I drove it back to the shop very slowly with the flashers on. A cop pulled me over to try and give me crap about impeding traffic, but I explained to him the rule. Like magic, I was able to proceed along. In recent years I've been pulled over by police 3 times on my bike for allegedly impeding traffic. Same result as above. Wayne       Date: 06 May 2007 13:03:15 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Wayne Pein wrote: > Tom Keats wrote: > >> >> BTW, that "5 or more vehicles behind" rule: it seems to >> me that the operator of the slow vehicle is allowed to >> decide on the safest opportunity to turn off, to allow >> the traffic behind to go by. I believe that rule pertains >> to narrow 2-lane roads with narrow lanes and a double, >> solid yellow stripe. > > Some places don't have that rule, others exempt slow moving vehicles > from the rule. The rule is to prevent purposefully going slow in order > to purposefully impede people when you are actually capable of going > faster. > > Once many years ago I was driving a van with a standard transmission and > I couldn't get it out of 1st gear. I drove it back to the shop very > slowly with the flashers on. A cop pulled me over to try and give me > crap about impeding traffic, but I explained to him the rule. Like > magic, I was able to proceed along. I understand that since I was pulled over with a sick car. That was my Friday 150 mile commute back home. > > In recent years I've been pulled over by police 3 times on my bike for > allegedly impeding traffic. Same result as above. I'm not even sure they can give you a ticket on a non-motor vehicle. The only time I have gotten a non-vehicle ticket was in L.A. when my car ran out of gas and I was walking to a gas station. I got a ticket for being a pedestrian on the freeway, even though he saw my car a half mile back. Most cops would have given me a ride, but this one was a perfect example of an asshole with a badge. > > Wayne > Such is life. Bill Baka     Date: 05 May 2007 21:51:24 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Tom Keats wrote: > In article <1178417485.262279.109350@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > Brian Huntley <brian_huntley@hotmail.com> writes: >> On May 5, 1:47 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> When if ever will you cyclist Nazis get the point that it is illegal to >>> needlessly hold up traffic and can be ticketed if there are more than 5 >>> cars behind you??? Same rules, right? >> The OP said it was a 4-lane road. Unless this is a very odd road, that >> means there were two lanes in the direction he was travelling. >> Therefore, it was impossible for a bicyclist to hold up traffic, >> because they had another lane to pass in. No holdup except for the >> stubborn. > > For some reason the OP felt *compelled* to pass in > the same lane as the cyclist was riding in. I wouldn't > be surprised if he passed up opportunities to pass > in the other lane, being loathe to cross over the line. > So many drivers seem to think those lane lines are like > railroad tracks that they /must/ stay between. > > In fairness, the OP stated the inside lane was full of > traffic. But in my experience, traffic streams get > broken-up into "dotted lines" by traffic lights, cars > making turns, etc. I'm sure an opportunity to properly > overtake the cyclist would have soon afforded itself to > the OP. Probably sooner than it takes for a cyclist to > get enough of a break in the traffic to cross a busy > 4-lane arterial at a no-traffic-light intersection. > > It all boils down to a exercising a little patience. In real life, when I have been one of 'them' in a major traffic jam it really is impossible to change lanes safely. Most of my driving this year has been as a passenger in a Lincoln Town car (read big) and yet people in little import tin cans move up to block his attempt at merging. People get stupid and aggressive when driving for some reason. One car was jockeying lanes to try to make it a car length ahead, yet we stayed in the slow lane nice and mellow and got to our turn well ahead of Mr. impatient. > > BTW, that "5 or more vehicles behind" rule: it seems to > me that the operator of the slow vehicle is allowed to > decide on the safest opportunity to turn off, to allow > the traffic behind to go by. I believe that rule pertains > to narrow 2-lane roads with narrow lanes and a double, > solid yellow stripe. Mostly. When my car blew the head gasket the trooper told me to get over on the shoulder of the freeway and limp it to the very first exit or else. That was exactly the time the engine blew up. Most narrow 2-lane roads I have been on have some kind of turn off, even if it is somebody's driveway. > > > cheers, > Tom > We still need a picture. Bill Baka       Date: 06 May 2007 15:55:13 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage People get stupid and aggressive when driving for some reason. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< and yet you still mouth off at at us cyclists. Pernicious dude.   Date: 05 May 2007 19:11:25 From: Brian Huntley Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 5, 1:47 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote: >When if ever will you cyclist Nazis get the point that it is illegal to > needlessly hold up traffic and can be ticketed if there are more than 5 > cars behind you??? Same rules, right? The OP said it was a 4-lane road. Unless this is a very odd road, that means there were two lanes in the direction he was travelling. Therefore, it was impossible for a bicyclist to hold up traffic, because they had another lane to pass in. No holdup except for the stubborn.     Date: 05 May 2007 21:42:30 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Brian Huntley wrote: > On May 5, 1:47 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> When if ever will you cyclist Nazis get the point that it is illegal to >> needlessly hold up traffic and can be ticketed if there are more than 5 >> cars behind you??? Same rules, right? > > The OP said it was a 4-lane road. Unless this is a very odd road, that > means there were two lanes in the direction he was travelling. > Therefore, it was impossible for a bicyclist to hold up traffic, > because they had another lane to pass in. No holdup except for the > stubborn. > You forgot the part about the other lane being bumper to bumper. If there was clear road in front of the bike and a jam behind him, doesn't that kind of say move over and do the right thing? Common courtesy kind of thing, not us versus them, because some of us is them from time to time. Bill Baka       Date: 06 May 2007 14:28:05 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Bill wrote: > You forgot the part about the other lane being bumper to bumper. If > there was clear road in front of the bike and a jam behind him, doesn't > that kind of say move over and do the right thing? > Common courtesy kind of thing, not us versus them, because some of us is > them from time to time. Bumper to bumper is illegal, and indicates too much motor traffic. That's not bicyclist's fault. It also indicates that traffic was slow, as was also evidenced by the bicyclist catching Mr. Veggie. Wayne         Date: 06 May 2007 12:56:38 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill wrote: > >> You forgot the part about the other lane being bumper to bumper. If >> there was clear road in front of the bike and a jam behind him, >> doesn't that kind of say move over and do the right thing? >> Common courtesy kind of thing, not us versus them, because some of us >> is them from time to time. > > Bumper to bumper is illegal, and indicates too much motor traffic. > That's not bicyclist's fault. It also indicates that traffic was slow, > as was also evidenced by the bicyclist catching Mr. Veggie. > > Wayne > Bumper to bumper may be illegal but most cars try to get within a few feet of the next car when it is a parking lot. Lots of fender benders and not a healthy place to ride. This time I mean lungs. All the studies I have read make note of the air quality and some have said that a New York jogger may be doing his lungs more damage than by just not breathing that much smoggy air. I would think that would apply to bicycles too. Bill Baka       Date: 06 May 2007 15:52:22 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Common courtesy kind of thing, not us versus them, because some of us is > them from time to time. > Bill Baka And common courtesy would be if the traffic is 5 miles per hour bumper to bumper let the cyclist pass them. Or since drivers all support each other the left signal light, left arm, and a visual of the cyclist should be enough to let the guy in. But did he try. not likely         Date: 06 May 2007 11:12:53 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage nash wrote: > Common courtesy kind of thing, not us versus them, because some of us is >> them from time to time. >> Bill Baka > > And common courtesy would be if the traffic is 5 miles per hour bumper to > bumper let the cyclist pass them. When it is bumper to bumper there tend to be a lot of rear enders from inattentive drivers with cell phones, changing the CD, or whatever. Would you really want to be between two cars like that? Not me. I find that in traffic jams people tend to yak on the cell phone to kill time or some other silliness. Soon, we will have a no cell phone law. > Or since drivers all support each other the left signal light, left arm, and > a visual of the cyclist should be enough to let the guy in. But did he try. > not likely > > All drivers do NOT support each other in rush hour. It is more like they are at war with the world every day in traffic. There's a good reason I don't 'cage' in heavy traffic and moved to what once was the sticks. Bill Baka   Date: 05 May 2007 18:33:48 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <463d2457$0$9969$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > It's totally wrong to single out a bicyclist for impeding traffic, or > being inconsiderate, or whatever disparaging motorist superiority drivel > one might conjure. Do motorists similarly condemn front loader drivers, > stopped delivery drivers or bus drivers? No. It's easy to pick on > bicycle drivers much the same way bullies pick on smaller people. I'm getting fed up with these accusations of cyclists indulging in wanton, prolonged road hoggery, just to annoy drivers. It just doesn't happen, at least not anywhere near the exaggerated extent described by complaining drivers. [snip] > Bicycle drivers should NEVER feel guilty about their slow speed. I've bought into Forester's treatment of "wide" and "narrow" roads, and how to deal with lane widths, as described in his book. In that light, I'm all for allowing drivers to safely overtake me whenever I can, without giving up my own right to proceed safely, conveniently and lawfully. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 06 May 2007 14:43:32 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Tom Keats wrote: > I've bought into Forester's treatment of "wide" and "narrow" > roads, and how to deal with lane widths, as described in his > book. In that light, I'm all for allowing drivers to safely > overtake me whenever I can, without giving up my own right to > proceed safely, conveniently and lawfully. > That works pretty well. Another consideration though is your speed and motorists' speed. The faster you are the more lane you need, and the faster motorists are the more lane you should use to compel caution. Another smart person, Jeremy Parker, said that bicyclists should ride so motorists think the lane is narrow. Wayne   Date: 05 May 2007 12:35:00 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <Ix4%h.589$LR5.105@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes: > Dennis P. Harris wrote: >> On 2 May 2007 19:23:35 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, >> veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> Great , becasue ONE person manages to survice unscathed after 8 years, >>> that makes it safe? Show me some scientific study with a large sample >>> population and then maybe Ill try it. >> >> there are a large number of studies but you obviously don't want >> to listen you just want to troll. PLONK. >> > Who did the studies? Some fat fools who were just doing another data > mining job in their secure cubicles? > Until bicycles are equipped with black boxes and cameras to snap every > second of a ride for the NHTSA to analyze then the only evidence that > comes in is hearsay. Here's one: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm Think about the highest and lowest relative contributions of critical maneouvers to each type of "accident": TABLE A, From Pie Chart Figure 4. Relative Contribution of Each Accident Type Type of Accident Percent Critical Maneuver E: Cyclist Rode on Wrong Side of Street 14.32 cyclist F: Motorist Collided With Rear of Cyclist 4.17 motorist By the way, taking the lane is not a default maneouver, it's a tactic to be applied to specific circumstances when they arise. If you think cyclists enjoy road-hogging just for the heck of it, with a long train of loudly irate drivers stuck behind them, you're really barking up an imaginary tree. You should really learn to /ride/ before attempting to speak with any amount of authority on the subject. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 05 May 2007 21:37:45 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Tom Keats wrote: > In article <Ix4%h.589$LR5.105@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes: >> Dennis P. Harris wrote: >>> On 2 May 2007 19:23:35 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, >>> veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>> Great , becasue ONE person manages to survice unscathed after 8 years, >>>> that makes it safe? Show me some scientific study with a large sample >>>> population and then maybe Ill try it. >>> there are a large number of studies but you obviously don't want >>> to listen you just want to troll. PLONK. >>> >> Who did the studies? Some fat fools who were just doing another data >> mining job in their secure cubicles? >> Until bicycles are equipped with black boxes and cameras to snap every >> second of a ride for the NHTSA to analyze then the only evidence that >> comes in is hearsay. > > Here's one: > http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm > > Think about the highest and lowest relative contributions > of critical maneouvers to each type of "accident": > > > TABLE A, From Pie Chart Figure 4. Relative Contribution > of Each Accident Type > > Type of Accident Percent Critical > Maneuver > > E: Cyclist Rode on Wrong Side of Street 14.32 cyclist > F: Motorist Collided With Rear of Cyclist 4.17 motorist > I believe both of those numbers since the motorist might have a subconscious thought that tapping the rear of a bike would push him forward, not realizing the rear tire will get eaten by the bumper. That's way out in left field, I know, but how bright is the average motorist? Many cyclists on the wrong side of the street are there for no good reason or totally not competent. > > By the way, taking the lane is not a default maneouver, > it's a tactic to be applied to specific circumstances > when they arise. Correct. > > If you think cyclists enjoy road-hogging just for the heck > of it, with a long train of loudly irate drivers stuck > behind them, you're really barking up an imaginary tree. Not so far out as you think. I have known cyclists like that at work and they were all around assholes. They do exist, fortunately not many. > > You should really learn to /ride/ before attempting to > speak with any amount of authority on the subject. > > True. A few miles in the other guys place puts a whole new perspective on things. Bill Baka     Date: 05 May 2007 20:41:59 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage It's totally wrong to single out a bicyclist for impeding traffic, or being inconsiderate, or whatever disparaging motorist superiority drivel one might conjure. Do motorists similarly condemn front loader drivers, stopped delivery drivers or bus drivers? No. It's easy to pick on bicycle drivers much the same way bullies pick on smaller people. Motorists don't condemn themselves for forcing traffic on a main road to come to a halt at a stop light so they can cross or enter the traffic stream. Mr. Veggie acknowledged he couldn't easily merge into the left lane because the traffic was preventing it, but his ire was not placed on those motorists for being there. Motorists don't recognize that the small amount of delay a bicyclist may cause is inconsequential relative to the delay they cause themselves. Heck, the bicyclist even caught up to Mr Veggie at a light. Obviously, the average speed of traffic, was about that of the bicyclist, which is consistent with actual data on some streets in urban areas, even those with 45 mph speed limits. The speed on some Manhattan streets is about 5 mph due to motorists delaying themselves. Bicycle drivers should NEVER feel guilty about their slow speed. Wayne   Date: 05 May 2007 00:28:10 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 15:44:06 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. NO > I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). and the law requires you to WAIT UNTIL IT IS SAFE TO PASS, OR TO CHANGE LANES. what part of the law do you not understand? the law does not allow you to honk the horn at a cyclist simply because he has taken the traffic lane, AS HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO, probably because the shoulder of the road is full of broken glass, gravel, and other debris. honking can startle a cyclist and even cause her/him to have an accident. > Why > would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit > just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping > drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. > and the person that hits him will be at fault. why would someone choose to create more traffic and pollution by driving a car during the rush hour instead of saving gas and pollution, staying fit and losing weight by riding a bike? in this age of supersized meals, why are all those people driving in cars alone so obese? they could easily have a heart attack while driving and cause an accident. your false concern for this cyclist sounds like a troll to me.     Date: 05 May 2007 18:47:52 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Dennis P. Harris wrote: > On 2 May 2007 15:44:06 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > >> I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. > > NO > >> I >> drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I >> briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to >> pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). > > and the law requires you to WAIT UNTIL IT IS SAFE TO PASS, OR TO > CHANGE LANES. what part of the law do you not understand? the > law does not allow you to honk the horn at a cyclist simply > because he has taken the traffic lane, AS HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO, > probably because the shoulder of the road is full of broken > glass, gravel, and other debris. honking can startle a cyclist > and even cause her/him to have an accident. When if ever will you cyclist Nazis get the point that it is illegal to needlessly hold up traffic and can be ticketed if there are more than 5 cars behind you??? Same rules, right? > >> Why >> would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit >> just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping >> drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. >> > and the person that hits him will be at fault. why would someone > choose to create more traffic and pollution by driving a car > during the rush hour instead of saving gas and pollution, staying > fit and losing weight by riding a bike? Moron logic. It may not be possible or practical. Most people work to support a family and only a few lucky ones are close enough or have time enough to ride a bicycle. in this age of > supersized meals, why are all those people driving in cars alone > so obese? The food and their physical condition is their personal choice, since this is still a semi-free country. they could easily have a heart attack while driving > and cause an accident. It has happened here. A truck driver (big rig) had a heart attack while making a left turn in town and took out a Jack in the Box along with a few customers. 3 dead, 1 trucker and 2 customers inside the store. Just proof that shit happens and you might not be safe anywhere. > > your false concern for this cyclist sounds like a troll to me. > As a cyclist I will wait behind in my car and possibly give a short 'toot' to remind him that I am about a 100 feet behind. Cars don't have a low horn setting so a quick tap toot...toot is probably the best you can do. Mutual awareness is best for all. So far on the road, in the car I have had good interaction with the few cyclists I have encountered. While on the bike though I can pretty well say that about once a week I run into some jerks (mostly teenagers or red necks) on 2 lane country roads with plenty of room to pass and no traffic. It seems to be a game to them to ride up behind, honk 10 feet behind me, yell out the window, then gun it to give me a face full of fumes. This is when I am riding legally on the right on a non-semi road. Bill Baka   Date: 04 May 2007 18:54:05 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 4, 1:35 pm, "Pat" <P...@starrynight.com > wrote: > John, he's just trying to > 1. hijack the conversation to make it all about Billy and > 2. rationalize his poor choices. Well yes, but he does read the postings and also someone else may learn something > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 04 May 2007 13:23:35 From: DanKMTB@gmail.com Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 4, 4:01 pm, "Pat" <P...@starrynight.com > wrote: > A guy who used to work in a pawnshop told me that items are priced at 4 > times their expected payment. So, if the bike was priced at $400, the > pawnshop really wants to get at least $100 for it. You might make an offer > lower than the $400 and they would still take it. > > Pat in TX > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You know, I had that same thought. I also consider myself a decent negotiator. The Marin ful sus was priced very low, and the guy made it clear it would sit there for at least a week before the price came down - someone had already told him it was underpriced. In negotiation I ended up offering him most of the asking price in cash and he wouldn't budge, so I left. Didn't take me long to decide that bike wasn't going to last a day much less a week so I went back and bought it. Dude said he knew I'd be back, and as I was loading it up another kid from the shop next door came out to tell me congrats & I beat him to it. I got the impression that he would have snagged it on the next payday. I never even asked what he wanted for the Bianchi because I knew I'd just messed up the budget with the Marin & the better half would have been near impossible to pacify had I come home with TWO new bikes I couldn't afford. We were newly housebroke at the time, and $ was tight. I shouldn't' even have bought the Marin, but I fooled myself into thinking I'd clean it up & sell it. Yeah, right. I stopped back a couple weeks later and the place was bikeless - primarily a gold & jewelry pawn shop. Good to know the percentage factor. I'll keep it in mind with my future pawnshop shopping. Thanks.   Date: 04 May 2007 12:50:03 From: marian.rosenberg@gmail.com Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 4, 12:19 am, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote: > Also, you mention your perception that cycling in traffic is > inherently dangerous. To add to the meager statistics that have been > accumulation via this thread, I've been riding in traffic for almost > twenty years and have yet to have any bicycle/motor vehicle contact. > > <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> > > 44 years here My bike v. car incident happened because I went on to the shoulder (to let an impatient driver who refused to change lanes pass) and had an head-on collision with a van that was driving the wrong way. EVERY single vehicular accident that I've been involved in as a "driver" has involved someone (occasionally me) going against the legal flow of traffic (which in China may or may not be the actual flow of traffic). But despite the great fears of some of the people I know (some of whom are also riders) I've never once had an honest to goodness 'incident' that involved a car coming up behind me. And I log around 7000 road miles a year in China. The vehicular accident rate per driving hour and per driver makes even the US pale by comparison. Okay bu okay ma? -M   Date: 04 May 2007 12:26:19 From: marian.rosenberg@gmail.com Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 3, 12:14 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > Since I have ridden this street so many times, > been passed at this point hundreds and hundreds of times, unless someone is > very incompetant, I know they should be able to pass me safely. So I give > them an encouraging hand signal to help them get the courage to do so > appropriately. All but the most timid give it a go. It's better for me (it's And I find that it doesn't take that much of a hand signal to get even the most dimwitted driver to understand what is going on. Now I know that spandex warriors aren't common in China but the hand back "don't pass me now" when going downhill on a bendy road can get even Chinese drivers (who are accustomed to crossing the double yellows when passing on blind curves) to slow. There is one rider in the local club who I regularly argue with about on-road safety who is, at one and the same time, capable of being both amazed at the wide berth drivers generally give me (and they can't tell I'm a _foreign_ spandex warrior from behind) and of trying to convince me to hug the curb like him. (He also thinks I shouldn't go up the well lit in city overpass or highway bridge at night because I don't currently have a rear blinky.) > For the most part, too, I do use bike lanes, ride on the paved shoulder, and > otherwise allow cars to pass. That's being polite. It's no scratch off of my > nose to let you go on your merry way, while I go along on mine. For the most part I flat out refuse to use bike lanes, ride in the middle of the lane, and otherwise sit belligerently in front of large rural vehicles that have to cross the double yellows to pass safely due to vehicle width. But there will be that rare time when the driver is being sufficiently responsible on a narrow or dangerous road and I'll wave them forward and pull a bit to the side. > You learn when it is appropriate to take the lane, and when it isn't, > through experience. Part of the reason why riding transportationally is so > frightening at first is largely because you hug the curb too much of the > time. When you ride in the gutter, you get treated like something that > belongs there. When you ride like you belong on the road, you are treated > with respect. kept intact cause I agree -M   Date: 04 May 2007 10:33:32 From: DanKMTB@gmail.com Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 4, 12:31 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote: > Pawn shops are a good place to look for cheaper high value bikes. > Some probably stolen though. I agree with nash. Excuse me whilst I duck this pig... darn things are not exactly graceful with the newfound wings. Anyway, I got a decent bike for a song at a pawnshop a few months back. Needed air, lube and a spoke but still a great deal. The issue is knowing what to look for. The pawnshop I was at had a Marin, a Bianchi & a Mongoose (newer). They wanted more for the Mongoose than the Marin! Dan (still kicking myself for not grabbing that Bianchi too) K     Date: 04 May 2007 14:01:40 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage > I agree with nash. Excuse me whilst I duck this pig... darn things > are not exactly graceful with the newfound wings. Anyway, I got a > decent bike for a song at a pawnshop a few months back. Needed air, > lube and a spoke but still a great deal. The issue is knowing what to > look for. The pawnshop I was at had a Marin, a Bianchi & a Mongoose > (newer). They wanted more for the Mongoose than the Marin! > > Dan (still kicking myself for not grabbing that Bianchi too) K A guy who used to work in a pawnshop told me that items are priced at 4 times their expected payment. So, if the bike was priced at $400, the pawnshop really wants to get at least $100 for it. You might make an offer lower than the $400 and they would still take it. Pat in TX >   Date: 04 May 2007 09:29:55 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 3, 8:47 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > Zoot Katz wrote: > > On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:34:34 -0400, "Bob in CT" > > <ctvigge...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> I agree that driving is dangerous, but I'm personally more afraid for my > >> life while biking than while driving. > > > Driver's thoughts of safety begins and ends with crash survival.. > > > That's pat of the reason there's so many deadly stupid caged assholes > > clogging the roads. > > Zoot, > You got a brain? > Think about how long some commutes are in some cities and how in many > cases you couldn't possibly get to work without a car I don't know about the USA but StatsCan figures say that the median commuting distance in Canada for people 15 years and older is 7.2 km (4.5 miles). I believe distances are a bit higher in the USA but while you may not be able to commute other than by automobile it may be that a few million USAians can. >. When I lived in > Silicon valley I only lived within 'SAFE' bicycling range once. To avoid > the car traffic jams I rode mostly a motorcycle which allowed me to ride > on the 65 MPH parking lot between cars at 30 MPH. Bicycles are flat out > illegal on most California freeways and 30 miles each way is too damned > long on the city streets. Maybe you are happy to rent near a mediocre > job and ride to work but it doesn't work for 'normal' people who are > married and have kids. You may be judging from a biased sample. Silcon Valley does not sound representative of the USA as a whole. :) > Bill (married with kids and grandkids) Baka John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 04 May 2007 14:32:40 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage John Kane wrote: > On May 3, 8:47 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Zoot Katz wrote: >>> On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:34:34 -0400, "Bob in CT" >>> <ctvigge...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> I agree that driving is dangerous, but I'm personally more afraid for my >>>> life while biking than while driving. >>> Driver's thoughts of safety begins and ends with crash survival.. >>> That's pat of the reason there's so many deadly stupid caged assholes >>> clogging the roads. >> Zoot, >> You got a brain? >> Think about how long some commutes are in some cities and how in many >> cases you couldn't possibly get to work without a car > > > I don't know about the USA but StatsCan figures say that the median > commuting distance in Canada for people 15 years and older is 7.2 km > (4.5 miles). I believe distances are a bit higher in the USA but while > you may not be able to commute other than by automobile it may be that > a few million USAians can. > >> . When I lived in >> Silicon valley I only lived within 'SAFE' bicycling range once. To avoid >> the car traffic jams I rode mostly a motorcycle which allowed me to ride >> on the 65 MPH parking lot between cars at 30 MPH. Bicycles are flat out >> illegal on most California freeways and 30 miles each way is too damned >> long on the city streets. Maybe you are happy to rent near a mediocre >> job and ride to work but it doesn't work for 'normal' people who are >> married and have kids. > You may be judging from a biased sample. Silcon Valley does not sound > representative of the USA as a whole. :) No, but it is the area I have to get around in and I can't do a bike down there. Way too much traffic there. Bill Baka > >> Bill (married with kids and grandkids) Baka > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > >     Date: 04 May 2007 11:35:49 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage John, he's just trying to 1. hijack the conversation to make it all about Billy and 2. rationalize his poor choices.       Date: 04 May 2007 14:35:43 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Pat wrote: > John, he's just trying to > 1. hijack the conversation to make it all about Billy and > 2. rationalize his poor choices. > > > Billy will probably still be around to piss on your grave. If it is poor choices that keep me from getting flattened then I will continue to do so and you self righteous types can take your lanes. With inadequate or non-existent bike lanes improvisation is the necessity for my riding. Sorry you are one of the thick headed ones out there. Bill Baka         Date: 04 May 2007 18:53:00 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage > Pat wrote: >> John, he's just trying to >> 1. hijack the conversation to make it all about Billy and >> 2. rationalize his poor choices. >> >> >> > Billy will probably still be around to piss on your grave. > If it is poor choices that keep me from getting flattened then I will > continue to do so and you self righteous types can take your lanes. > With inadequate or non-existent bike lanes improvisation is the necessity > for my riding. > Sorry you are one of the thick headed ones out there. > Bill Baka You are a community of one, Billy. Even you, with your humongous ego, has to realize that! Give it a rest. We are tired of the Billy promoting Billy show.           Date: 05 May 2007 18:23:17 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Pat wrote: >> Pat wrote: >>> John, he's just trying to >>> 1. hijack the conversation to make it all about Billy and >>> 2. rationalize his poor choices. >>> >>> >>> >> Billy will probably still be around to piss on your grave. >> If it is poor choices that keep me from getting flattened then I will >> continue to do so and you self righteous types can take your lanes. >> With inadequate or non-existent bike lanes improvisation is the necessity >> for my riding. >> Sorry you are one of the thick headed ones out there. >> Bill Baka > > You are a community of one, Billy. Even you, with your humongous ego, has to > realize that! Give it a rest. We are tired of the Billy promoting Billy > show. > > > You and many of the others need to take a course in common sense. What you call "Poor choices" are really made on the basis of safety. If I am wrong side riding I don't stay on the road to confuse the driver. I pull off and wave and almost always get a wave back or a head nod. That actually makes the drivers MORE friendly to me than just seeing the ass of some ass blocking the lane. If you think that is a poor choice, then I am so sorry about your lack of intelligence. Bill Baka           Date: 05 May 2007 12:54:24 From: catzz66 Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Pat wrote: > > > You are a community of one, Billy. Even you, with your humongous ego, has to > realize that! Give it a rest. We are tired of the Billy promoting Billy > show. > > I filtered him a long time ago.             Date: 05 May 2007 19:13:03 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage catzz66 wrote: > Pat wrote: >> >> >> You are a community of one, Billy. Even you, with your humongous ego, >> has to realize that! Give it a rest. We are tired of the Billy >> promoting Billy show. >> >> > > I filtered him a long time ago. Fine with me. I'm not promoting me, but it sounds like many of you are so hung up on the bike you think you can mess with the other 99.9% who drive cars. I'm going riding as soon as I get done here, and I hope that is soon. Bill Baka   Date: 04 May 2007 09:19:39 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 3, 9:12 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > Pat wrote: > >> Not at all Bill, I try to avoid cars as much as possible. I also like > >> to ride safely when I cannot. The cyclist probably was riding in a > >> very safe manner though we probably would have to ride it ourselves to > >> make our own judgement is admittedly some small number of cyclists can > >> be almost as stupid as the average SUV driver. :) > > >> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > > John, you missed the part where Bill proudly proclaims he rides on the wrong > > side of the road, facing traffic, breaking the law. That's what he is so > > "proud" of. > > > Pat in TX > > I'm proud of being smart enough to know when I could be "dead" right and > ride the other side you flaming moron. A few days ago I was wrong way > riding coming back from the mountains and a semi actually came over the > white line into my wrong way bike lane to make way for a semi coming out > on the other side. Well of course he did. You were riding in a place the driver is not going to monitor since he "knows' that no one is going to be travelling in that direction on that side of the road. It's a bit like a North American visiting the UK. In central London they have signs painted on the streets saying LOOK RIGHT. We expect vehicles to come at us from the leftl > I had to go into the weeds. A few miles more and a > farm hand driving a combine thingy drove past me with a blade at neck > height and made no attempt to pull over, again forcing me into the > weeds. Since the drivers are usually unlicensed and Illegals the quality > of their skills can be questioned. If I had not seen that blade I would > have been decapitated right side or wrong. I at least saw it in time to > ditch the bike. > Bill (58 and still alive) Baka     Date: 04 May 2007 14:30:56 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage John Kane wrote: > On May 3, 9:12 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Pat wrote: >>>> Not at all Bill, I try to avoid cars as much as possible. I also like >>>> to ride safely when I cannot. The cyclist probably was riding in a >>>> very safe manner though we probably would have to ride it ourselves to >>>> make our own judgement is admittedly some small number of cyclists can >>>> be almost as stupid as the average SUV driver. :) >>>> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >>> John, you missed the part where Bill proudly proclaims he rides on the wrong >>> side of the road, facing traffic, breaking the law. That's what he is so >>> "proud" of. >>> Pat in TX >> I'm proud of being smart enough to know when I could be "dead" right and >> ride the other side you flaming moron. A few days ago I was wrong way >> riding coming back from the mountains and a semi actually came over the >> white line into my wrong way bike lane to make way for a semi coming out >> on the other side. > > Well of course he did. You were riding in a place the driver is not > going to monitor since he "knows' that no one is going to be > travelling in that direction on that side of the road. It's a bit > like a North American visiting the UK. In central London they have > signs painted on the streets saying LOOK RIGHT. We expect vehicles to > come at us from the leftl There is an almost bike lane on one side only and I made eye contact with the semi but he didn't want to slow down for me. He was empty and going back for a refill so he could have slowed down and gotten back up to speed easily. I guess he thought his schedule was more important than giving me some room. I have played this game with the semis for about 4 years and they show no sign of improving their manners towards me. Safety first, letter of the law somewhere in the middle. Until someone rides that road they will continue to think I can take the road from dozens of speeding semis. Not gonna happen. No death wish here. Bill Baka > >> I had to go into the weeds. A few miles more and a >> farm hand driving a combine thingy drove past me with a blade at neck >> height and made no attempt to pull over, again forcing me into the >> weeds. Since the drivers are usually unlicensed and Illegals the quality >> of their skills can be questioned. If I had not seen that blade I would >> have been decapitated right side or wrong. I at least saw it in time to >> ditch the bike. >> Bill (58 and still alive) Baka > >   Date: 04 May 2007 08:16:02 From: Brian Huntley Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 4, 8:48 am, Barnard Frederick <loco-m...@spamcast.net > wrote: > I always use the shoulder if I can. Road debris is a problem, but it > isn't as bad as most here make it out to be. Sure, you will get more > flats, but it is by no means a certainty. Watching what you are running > over helps. Getting a flat, even occasionally, on a road like the OP described, is a bigger hazard than riding in the lane. Standing still while replacing the tube dramatically increases your exposure time while decreasing your ability to avoid inattentive drivers. Plus, you're likely to be harder to see. "Watching what you are running over" is pointless in itself. Swerving suddenly to avoid something in your path, and into the path of another vehicle, is much higher risk that being in that path in the first place. > The tricky part about using the shoulder is passing through > intersections. Tricky doesn't begin to describe it. You have to come from "nowhere" (off the road) into the flow of traffic suddenly and, for most drivers, unexpectedly. And that's just for going straight.     Date: 04 May 2007 12:13:17 From: Barnard Frederick Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <1178291761.769398.84320@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, brian_huntley@hotmail.com says... > Getting a flat, even occasionally, on a road like the OP described, is > a bigger hazard than riding in the lane. Standing still while > replacing the tube dramatically increases your exposure time while > decreasing your ability to avoid inattentive drivers. Plus, you're > likely to be harder to see. > > "Watching what you are running over" is pointless in itself. Swerving > suddenly to avoid something in your path, and into the path of another > vehicle, is much higher risk that being in that path in the first > place. > > > The tricky part about using the shoulder is passing through > > intersections. > > Tricky doesn't begin to describe it. You have to come from > "nowhere" (off the road) into the flow of traffic suddenly and, for > most drivers, unexpectedly. And that's just for going straight. I think you are overstating both points by a wide margin. I ride through a minefield of road debris on the shoulder of one busy stretch I use for most of my rides. So far I have had no flats in that section of my ride. The one flat I have had this season was from a pebble on a clean stretch of road. I'm not saying it isn't risky, but it is possible to miss most of the debris without any swerving at all, and so far I have found the risk to be acceptable. Your choice of tire will make a big difference in how lucky you get. I use 25mm Michelin Pro Race, not an armor plated tire by any standard, but they are much better in regard to punctures than some others I have tried. Extra tough tires are commonplace if anyone finds they get too many punctures. Yes, getting through intersections while riding on the shoulder requires attention, but the problem isn't insurmountable. You just need to know what the cars around you are doing, and if you don't know, don't rush into the intersection. In most cases there will be no conflict. If you see that a car is making a right turn at the intersection you want to pass through, then that may be a good time to get into the driving lane to reduce confusion. Try to make eye contact or otherwise let drivers know of your presence. Use hand signals. At stop signs and stoplights, get into driving lanes if possible. If that isn't practical, behave like a pedestrian. This isn't rocket science. Motorists and cyclists don't have to sling snot at each other.   Date: 04 May 2007 07:48:16 From: DanKMTB@gmail.com Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 4, 10:32 am, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > This is too bad. A $50 Wal-Mart bike is designed to sit on someone's balcony > or hang in one's garage, collecting dust. From what I understand, this bike > is likely to be poorly assembled, unlikely to fit you properly, and made of > unsuitable (heavy, unsafe) components. > > The problem with this sort of bike is that if you ride it, you are much more > likely to find bicycling to be an unpleasant experience. So, if you do ride > it once, you say, "dang, this is awful!!" and then go back to your car. > > The question is -- is it better than nothing? I'm not so sure. If you had > nothing, then you could spend a little more, and buy yourself sometime > rideable. But your incentive now to do so is pretty limited, seeing how you > have a bike sitting on your balcony now. > > This sort of situation is not limited to bikes. You can spend a really small > amount on a guitar, or a sewing machine, or a telescope, because you aren't > sure if you're really going to like any of these items. But the fact you > spent so little makes it much harder to get the joy out of the activity that > you bought the item for. But you're not going to buy, say, a $400 sewing > machine when you have a $75 one sitting in your closet. > > The best you can do, I suppose, is ride the bike, knowing that the fact that > it is uncomfortable, heavy, and hard to move around, is not the fault of > cycling, but the fault of the bike. And then, after it inevitably breaks > down, get rid of it, and buy something better. I agree. Another option would be to ride it to a local bike shop and ask them about a test ride. As you've mentioned your "deep pockets" a decent bike should be a non-issue to your budget and I'm sure a shop would like to help you see the difference in a better bike. They may likely allow you to ride a decent bike that fits you hoping you'll drop the change & snag up a "real" bike. The only reason I even suggest riding it to the shop as opposed to driving is so you can experience the day & night difference. Also, if it's a full suspension $50 wal-mart bike, it's FAR worse than nothing at all. The cheapo full suspension bikes at those places are horrible - I'd rather walk than ride one.   Date: 04 May 2007 08:48:54 From: Barnard Frederick Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <1178145846.066277.223320@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >, veg_all@yahoo.com says... > I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Why > would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit > just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping > drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. > > So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to > explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for > his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? Are these people just > suicidal or it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and > just wait for a convenient time to pass? Wow, huge thread you started here. I haven't had time to read it all yet, but it seems to me that most of the cyclists posting aren't any more polite or reasonable than the motorist. I always use the shoulder if I can. Road debris is a problem, but it isn't as bad as most here make it out to be. Sure, you will get more flats, but it is by no means a certainty. Watching what you are running over helps. Don't some jurisdictions have laws to the effect that a bicyclist must use the shoulder if one is provided? However, cycling lore generally states that using the shoulder may in fact be less safe than using the lane. I don't know how true that is, but I think using the shoulder fosters greater goodwill between motorists and cyclists and it is a concession I make for motorists, partly because I am sometimes one myself. The tricky part about using the shoulder is passing through intersections. Great care must be taken there, but it can be done. If traffic is heavy, I will sometimes become a pedestrian if that is what seems prudent and just wait for a good time to cross. On busy city streets, cyclists can move about as fast as motorists, and in that situation using the driving lane is the only thing to do, especially if at some point a left turn must be made. Having said all that in favor of motorists, they should understand that honking the horn is very rude and unproductive. In other words, it is there for emergency situations, not to express frustration or to chastise cyclists. I get my share of honkers, and I almost never have any effing idea what the driver is honking for. Maybe they know me and they are being friendly. Maybe they think my clothes look funny. Maybe they are fellow cyclists (unlikely) giving a sort of greeting. Mostly it seems that the motorist is just being a jerk and are drunk with the arrogance that they are driving a larger vehicle than I am, and that they have more rights than I do. Somehow I strongly doubt that they find truckers who bully them on the road to be as acceptable as what they do to cyclists.     Date: 04 May 2007 14:42:45 From: dgk Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Fri, 4 May 2007 08:48:54 -0400, Barnard Frederick <loco-moto@spamcast.net > wrote: >In article <1178145846.066277.223320@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, >veg_all@yahoo.com says... > >Having said all that in favor of motorists, they should understand that >honking the horn is very rude and unproductive. In other words, it is >there for emergency situations, not to express frustration or to >chastise cyclists. I get my share of honkers, and I almost never have >any effing idea what the driver is honking for. Maybe they know me and >they are being friendly. Maybe they think my clothes look funny. Maybe >they are fellow cyclists (unlikely) giving a sort of greeting. Mostly >it seems that the motorist is just being a jerk and are drunk with the >arrogance that they are driving a larger vehicle than I am, and that >they have more rights than I do. Somehow I strongly doubt that they >find truckers who bully them on the road to be as acceptable as what >they do to cyclists. In many places, including New York City, it is illegal to honk unless to avoid imminent danger. That said, there are also several ways to honk. A quick beep beep, be careful, there is a car here, is very different from a BEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPP, get out of my way.       Date: 04 May 2007 15:06:52 From: Bob in CT Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:42:45 -0400, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2007 08:48:54 -0400, Barnard Frederick > <loco-moto@spamcast.net> wrote: > >> In article <1178145846.066277.223320@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, >> veg_all@yahoo.com says... >> > >> Having said all that in favor of motorists, they should understand that >> honking the horn is very rude and unproductive. In other words, it is >> there for emergency situations, not to express frustration or to >> chastise cyclists. I get my share of honkers, and I almost never have >> any effing idea what the driver is honking for. Maybe they know me and >> they are being friendly. Maybe they think my clothes look funny. Maybe >> they are fellow cyclists (unlikely) giving a sort of greeting. Mostly >> it seems that the motorist is just being a jerk and are drunk with the >> arrogance that they are driving a larger vehicle than I am, and that >> they have more rights than I do. Somehow I strongly doubt that they >> find truckers who bully them on the road to be as acceptable as what >> they do to cyclists. > > In many places, including New York City, it is illegal to honk unless > to avoid imminent danger. That said, there are also several ways to > honk. A quick beep beep, be careful, there is a car here, is very > different from a BEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPP, get out of my way. Ok, I would've believed this except that you said "New York City". As one who's spent a few nights sleeping there and hearing nothing but dueling horns, apparently no one knows about this law. -- Bob in CT   Date: 03 May 2007 20:29:49 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 3, 7:46 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > That's great! You'll find this newsgroup to be quite helpful to beginning > cyclists. Right now folks are pretty skeptical, but you put down a few > miles, and they'll come around. > > Do you have a bike? What kind of bike is it? > It is a cheap $50 walmart bike. It has been collecting dust for the past few years on my balcony. Ill see if I can resurrect it this summer. Plus $3+/gallon gas does make it more attractive..     Date: 04 May 2007 16:01:58 From: fluffy bunny Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <1178249389.444127.5630@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 3, 7:46 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> > wrote: > > > That's great! You'll find this newsgroup to be quite helpful to beginning > > cyclists. Right now folks are pretty skeptical, but you put down a few > > miles, and they'll come around. > > > > Do you have a bike? What kind of bike is it? > > > It is a cheap $50 walmart bike. It has been collecting dust for the > past few years on my balcony. Ill see if I can resurrect it this > summer. Plus $3+/gallon gas does make it more attractive.. Walmart bikes have a hard earned reputation and long history of quality materials, construction, and craftsmanship. The scientific name for that quality is "bad". Boiling the issue down to its simplest: they Just Don't Work. Stuff Breaks That Shouldn't, and they're Hard To Fix and Adjust. They Look Like Bicycles, But They Aren't, really. Walmart == HUffy == misery (and that includes all other bike brands made for walmart, incl "mongoose"). Your cycling experience will be >10X better if you go to your local bike shop and start at the $350 or so range. It might be well if you invested in basic flat repair kit and had the shop show you how to use it. etc. etc. The one ^h^h^h two pieces of advice i have beyond that are to learn how to spin your pedals faster than you might think you should ("spin fast") and pay attention to your hydration (carry water bottles) if you're out for more than an hour. .max     Date: 04 May 2007 10:13:04 From: catzz66 Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 3, 7:46 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> > wrote: > > >>Do you have a bike? What kind of bike is it? >> > > It is a cheap $50 walmart bike. It has been collecting dust for the > past few years on my balcony. Ill see if I can resurrect it this > summer. Plus $3+/gallon gas does make it more attractive.. > I hope you continue to ride and get more into the activity. I found that my awareness of things from a cycling point of view changed the more active I got into it. This is a very good group if you are open minded about things and don't feel you are getting ripped every time someone disagrees with you.     Date: 04 May 2007 14:32:08 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178249389.444127.5630@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On May 3, 7:46 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> > wrote: >> Do you have a bike? What kind of bike is it? >> > It is a cheap $50 walmart bike. It has been collecting dust for the > past few years on my balcony. Ill see if I can resurrect it this > summer. This is too bad. A $50 Wal-Mart bike is designed to sit on someone's balcony or hang in one's garage, collecting dust. From what I understand, this bike is likely to be poorly assembled, unlikely to fit you properly, and made of unsuitable (heavy, unsafe) components. The problem with this sort of bike is that if you ride it, you are much more likely to find bicycling to be an unpleasant experience. So, if you do ride it once, you say, "dang, this is awful!!" and then go back to your car. The question is -- is it better than nothing? I'm not so sure. If you had nothing, then you could spend a little more, and buy yourself sometime rideable. But your incentive now to do so is pretty limited, seeing how you have a bike sitting on your balcony now. This sort of situation is not limited to bikes. You can spend a really small amount on a guitar, or a sewing machine, or a telescope, because you aren't sure if you're really going to like any of these items. But the fact you spent so little makes it much harder to get the joy out of the activity that you bought the item for. But you're not going to buy, say, a $400 sewing machine when you have a $75 one sitting in your closet. The best you can do, I suppose, is ride the bike, knowing that the fact that it is uncomfortable, heavy, and hard to move around, is not the fault of cycling, but the fault of the bike. And then, after it inevitably breaks down, get rid of it, and buy something better. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky       Date: 04 May 2007 16:31:00 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Pawn shops are a good place to look for cheaper high value bikes. Some probably stolen though. "Claire Petersky" <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message news:ItH_h.6838$Ut6.5920@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1178249389.444127.5630@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> On May 3, 7:46 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> >> wrote: > >>> Do you have a bike? What kind of bike is it? >>> >> It is a cheap $50 walmart bike. It has been collecting dust for the >> past few years on my balcony. Ill see if I can resurrect it this >> summer. > > > This is too bad. A $50 Wal-Mart bike is designed to sit on someone's > balcony or hang in one's garage, collecting dust. From what I understand, > this bike is likely to be poorly assembled, unlikely to fit you properly, > and made of unsuitable (heavy, unsafe) components. > > The problem with this sort of bike is that if you ride it, you are much > more likely to find bicycling to be an unpleasant experience. So, if you > do ride it once, you say, "dang, this is awful!!" and then go back to your > car. > > The question is -- is it better than nothing? I'm not so sure. If you had > nothing, then you could spend a little more, and buy yourself sometime > rideable. But your incentive now to do so is pretty limited, seeing how > you have a bike sitting on your balcony now. > > This sort of situation is not limited to bikes. You can spend a really > small amount on a guitar, or a sewing machine, or a telescope, because you > aren't sure if you're really going to like any of these items. But the > fact you spent so little makes it much harder to get the joy out of the > activity that you bought the item for. But you're not going to buy, say, a > $400 sewing machine when you have a $75 one sitting in your closet. > > The best you can do, I suppose, is ride the bike, knowing that the fact > that it is uncomfortable, heavy, and hard to move around, is not the fault > of cycling, but the fault of the bike. And then, after it inevitably > breaks down, get rid of it, and buy something better. > > -- > Warm Regards, > > > Claire Petersky > http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ > See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky >     Date: 04 May 2007 01:34:44 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 3 May 2007 20:29:49 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: >On May 3, 7:46 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> >wrote: > >> That's great! You'll find this newsgroup to be quite helpful to beginning >> cyclists. Right now folks are pretty skeptical, but you put down a few >> miles, and they'll come around. >> >> Do you have a bike? What kind of bike is it? >> >It is a cheap $50 walmart bike. It has been collecting dust for the >past few years on my balcony. Ill see if I can resurrect it this >summer. Plus $3+/gallon gas does make it more attractive.. Judging from your tenacious attitude of vehicular superiority, I'd say that bicycling is too egalitarian as a means of transport to ever capture your heart. However: If you lived in my neighbourhood you'd know me as "that old bicycle guy". If you approached me about getting your bike running, or if I saw you struggling with a bike problem, I'd willingly help. If I saw you were serious about riding it we could even become friends. I might even give you a better bike. That's the true beauty of living a bicycling lifestyle. You're out and open to the world around you once unencumbered of your carapace. You're independent and free to speak to strangers. You learn the lessons of karma on every hill. As good as bicycling is for your body and our environment, it's even better for your spirit. P.S. Bicycles don't become inoperable according to the seasons. Riding is possible in all climates year round and is always rewarding. I think May is "bike month" in many areas of the U.S.A. If you live anywhere near civilisation you could possibly find the sorts of free activities that teach bike maintenance and traffic safety. bon route -- zk   Date: 03 May 2007 19:32:13 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <hnv_h.7857$j63.1976@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Claire Petersky" <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > writes: >> and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a >> path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy >> other motorists. > > > That's great! You'll find this newsgroup to be quite helpful to beginning > cyclists. Right now folks are pretty skeptical, but you put down a few > miles, and they'll come around. > > Do you have a bike? What kind of bike is it? Perhaps Mr veg_all might be interested in: Bicycle Information -- Pennsylvania Bicycle Driver's Manual http://tinyurl.com/33fgf8 in full: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBikePed.nsf/infoForward?OpenForm There are other on-line manuals, but this one is fairly popular an well-known, and has good diagrams. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 03 May 2007 19:45:59 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Tom Keats wrote: > In article <hnv_h.7857$j63.1976@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > "Claire Petersky" <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com> writes: > >>> and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a >>> path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy >>> other motorists. >> >> That's great! You'll find this newsgroup to be quite helpful to beginning >> cyclists. Right now folks are pretty skeptical, but you put down a few >> miles, and they'll come around. >> >> Do you have a bike? What kind of bike is it? > > Perhaps Mr veg_all might be interested in: > Bicycle Information -- Pennsylvania Bicycle Driver's Manual > > http://tinyurl.com/33fgf8 > in full: > http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBikePed.nsf/infoForward?OpenForm > > There are other on-line manuals, but this one is > fairly popular an well-known, and has good diagrams. > > > cheers, > Tom > That's a good start, but really depends on the length of the commute and family responsibilities. Maybe a start by riding on the weekends, alone, with spouse, kids, or even grandkids, but some kind of start. Anything is better than being slave to a car, but some people are really stuck with that. One of my friends is an expert factory electrician and mechanic, but has to commute 45 miles each way. That is the difference between minimum wage + a few dollars, or making $75,000 a year. Moving is not an option for him as his daughter has MS and he needs to live near her and her husband. Life is one big variable, kind of like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates analogy. Bill Baka   Date: 03 May 2007 14:25:34 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 3, 12:23 pm, "Bob in CT" <ctvigge...@comcast.net > wrote: > On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:19:46 -0400, nash <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> > wrote: > > > Also, you mention your perception that cycling in traffic is > > inherently dangerous. To add to the meager statistics that have been > > accumulation via this thread, I've been riding in traffic for almost > > twenty years and have yet to have any bicycle/motor vehicle contact. > > > <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> > > > 44 years here > > I'm not as lucky. I hit a car, which turned immediately in front of me. > I flipped over the front handlebars. Personally, I think cycling is quite > dangerous, because all it takes is one car/suv to hit you, and you're done. > > -- > Bob in CT And all it takes is a driver to hit black ice and he's done. Driving is dangerous.     Date: 03 May 2007 17:34:34 From: Bob in CT Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:25:34 -0400, John Kane <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 3, 12:23 pm, "Bob in CT" <ctvigge...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:19:46 -0400, nash <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> >> wrote: >> >> > Also, you mention your perception that cycling in traffic is >> > inherently dangerous. To add to the meager statistics that have been >> > accumulation via this thread, I've been riding in traffic for almost >> > twenty years and have yet to have any bicycle/motor vehicle contact. >> >> > <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> >> >> > 44 years here >> >> I'm not as lucky. I hit a car, which turned immediately in front of me. >> I flipped over the front handlebars. Personally, I think cycling is >> quite >> dangerous, because all it takes is one car/suv to hit you, and you're >> done. >> >> -- >> Bob in CT > > And all it takes is a driver to hit black ice and he's done. Driving > is dangerous. > Not really. You have to hit black ice and then immediately hit a tree or something else. I've hit black ice many, many times in my car and nothing has happened to me. Plus, my car has multiple air bags and a strong frame. Put it this way, I was rear ended while stopped by a guy who had to be doing at least 30-45 mph. He was driving a huge passenger van. My car had $11,000 in damage. (Sadly, I had the car for three days.) I had no damage to me. Zero. Now assume that I'm in the same accident while riding my racing bike. There is no doubt I'd be dead. In fact, in my town, a cyclist was riding a rode I ride on sometimes (very infrequently). A car took a left right into the cyclist and killed the cyclist. This was supposedly a slow speed crash. Put the cyclist in a car, and the story would likely be very different. I agree that driving is dangerous, but I'm personally more afraid for my life while biking than while driving. You might not be, and that's fine. -- Bob in CT       Date: 03 May 2007 14:50:53 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:34:34 -0400, "Bob in CT" <ctviggen.x@comcast.net > wrote: >I agree that driving is dangerous, but I'm personally more afraid for my >life while biking than while driving. Driver's thoughts of safety begins and ends with crash survival.. That's pat of the reason there's so many deadly stupid caged assholes clogging the roads. -- zk         Date: 04 May 2007 00:47:47 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Zoot Katz wrote: > On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:34:34 -0400, "Bob in CT" > <ctviggen.x@comcast.net> wrote: > >> I agree that driving is dangerous, but I'm personally more afraid for my >> life while biking than while driving. > > Driver's thoughts of safety begins and ends with crash survival.. > > That's pat of the reason there's so many deadly stupid caged assholes > clogging the roads. Zoot, You got a brain? Think about how long some commutes are in some cities and how in many cases you couldn't possibly get to work without a car. When I lived in Silicon valley I only lived within 'SAFE' bicycling range once. To avoid the car traffic jams I rode mostly a motorcycle which allowed me to ride on the 65 MPH parking lot between cars at 30 MPH. Bicycles are flat out illegal on most California freeways and 30 miles each way is too damned long on the city streets. Maybe you are happy to rent near a mediocre job and ride to work but it doesn't work for 'normal' people who are married and have kids. Bill (married with kids and grandkids) Baka   Date: 03 May 2007 14:20:33 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 10:29 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 7:21 pm, "treyno...@my-deja.com" > > <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In all honest, without actually seeing the situation it's hard to > > know. I don't know if there was adequate room on the right side of > > the road for him to safely ride in. You say there was but he probably > > felt there wasn't, since he took the lane. > > The shoulder was at least 5 ft wide. The only reason I could think for > not riding on it was it may have some small rocks and debris on it. > > > > > I can tell you that the first thought that goes through a cyclist's > > mind when a motorist honks at him, even a quick tap of the horn as you > > say you did, is that the motorist is an impatient creep who wants the > > cyclist to disappear. Most of the time it's true. In your case, > > giving you the benefit of the doubt, it wasn't. But please understand > > that the cyclist was probably expecting a confrontation when he caught > > up with you. > > I agree with you fully on this. > > > Your attitude that cycling is suicidal is flat wrong. I regularly > > commute across the city of San Diego at rush hour and have been doing > > so since 1982. Right now my commute is 25 miles each way. I stay > > alive by being more alert than motorists. There are skills to be > > built up, just like driving in traffic. You are being very close > > minded about accepting that. > > Again I am not convinced by a sample size of 1. Maybe our definitions > of safety is different. Compared with driving a car to commuting, my > gut feel is cycling is far more dangerous. Show me some studies with > large sample populations that prove me wrong. It is a fact that > pedestrians get hit all the time, as do motorcyclists. Well let's put it this way: A lot more drivers and passengers than cyclists end up dead each year in the USA. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ And yes the argument about rates, hours vs. mileage etc makes it much less clear but in raw numbers it does not look pretty. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 03 May 2007 13:26:34 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 3, 1:17 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On May 2, 6:35 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: > > >> Yeah, if you are that unskilled. > >> That would be a proper lesson for U. > > > what skills are needed to occupy a lane during rush hour traffic on a > > 45 mph lane that would save my life? Do experienced cyclists know when > > some cell phone yapping distracted driver is approaching? Please share > > your wisdom! > > There is little wisdom here, just overblown self importance and opinions. > The cyclist was an idiot, period. > Now the self important "Experts" on here will start flaming me, for > being logical and avoiding cars. > Bill Baka Not at all Bill, I try to avoid cars as much as possible. I also like to ride safely when I cannot. The cyclist probably was riding in a very safe manner though we probably would have to ride it ourselves to make our own judgement is admittedly some small number of cyclists can be almost as stupid as the average SUV driver. :) John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 03 May 2007 18:19:46 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage > > Not at all Bill, I try to avoid cars as much as possible. I also like > to ride safely when I cannot. The cyclist probably was riding in a > very safe manner though we probably would have to ride it ourselves to > make our own judgement is admittedly some small number of cyclists can > be almost as stupid as the average SUV driver. :) > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada John, you missed the part where Bill proudly proclaims he rides on the wrong side of the road, facing traffic, breaking the law. That's what he is so "proud" of. Pat in TX >       Date: 04 May 2007 01:12:51 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Pat wrote: >> Not at all Bill, I try to avoid cars as much as possible. I also like >> to ride safely when I cannot. The cyclist probably was riding in a >> very safe manner though we probably would have to ride it ourselves to >> make our own judgement is admittedly some small number of cyclists can >> be almost as stupid as the average SUV driver. :) >> >> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > John, you missed the part where Bill proudly proclaims he rides on the wrong > side of the road, facing traffic, breaking the law. That's what he is so > "proud" of. > > Pat in TX > > I'm proud of being smart enough to know when I could be "dead" right and ride the other side you flaming moron. A few days ago I was wrong way riding coming back from the mountains and a semi actually came over the white line into my wrong way bike lane to make way for a semi coming out on the other side. I had to go into the weeds. A few miles more and a farm hand driving a combine thingy drove past me with a blade at neck height and made no attempt to pull over, again forcing me into the weeds. Since the drivers are usually unlicensed and Illegals the quality of their skills can be questioned. If I had not seen that blade I would have been decapitated right side or wrong. I at least saw it in time to ditch the bike. Bill (58 and still alive) Baka         Date: 04 May 2007 06:09:39 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Bill wrote: :: Pat wrote: :::: Not at all Bill, I try to avoid cars as much as possible. I also :::: like to ride safely when I cannot. The cyclist probably was :::: riding in a very safe manner though we probably would have to ride :::: it ourselves to make our own judgement is admittedly some small :::: number of cyclists can be almost as stupid as the average SUV :::: driver. :) :::: :::: John Kane, Kingston ON Canada ::: ::: John, you missed the part where Bill proudly proclaims he rides on ::: the wrong side of the road, facing traffic, breaking the law. ::: That's what he is so "proud" of. ::: ::: Pat in TX ::: ::: :: I'm proud of being smart enough to know when I could be "dead" right :: and ride the other side you flaming moron. A few days ago I was :: wrong way riding coming back from the mountains and a semi actually :: came over the white line into my wrong way bike lane to make way for :: a semi coming out on the other side. I had to go into the weeds. A :: few miles more and a farm hand driving a combine thingy drove past :: me with a blade at neck height and made no attempt to pull over, :: again forcing me into the weeds. Since the drivers are usually :: unlicensed and Illegals the quality of their skills can be :: questioned. If I had not seen that blade I would have been :: decapitated right side or wrong. I at least saw it in time to ditch :: the bike. :: Bill (58 and still alive) Baka They are out to get you, Candyass Billyballless T. Bass   Date: 03 May 2007 13:23:53 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 7:40 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 6:35 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: > > > Yeah, if you are that unskilled. > > That would be a proper lesson for U. > > what skills are needed to occupy a lane during rush hour traffic on a > 45 mph lane that would save my life? Do experienced cyclists know when > some cell phone yapping distracted driver is approaching? Please share > your wisdom! http://www.gonecycling.com/canbike/canbike.html If you're in the USA I believe the equivalent is Effective Cycling. Other countries are likely to have similar programs John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 03 May 2007 13:20:59 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 3, 2:05 pm, "Bob in CT" <ctvigge...@comcast.net > wrote: > On Thu, 03 May 2007 13:00:36 -0400, bdbafh <bdb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 2, 10:53 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On May 2, 5:56 pm, "Grolch" <hjwilkeremovenos...@telus.net> wrote: > > >> > In MOST jurisdictions the cyclist had EVERY RIGHT to "take" a lane > >> when a > >> > reasonable legal alternate pathway is not available. Taking the lane, > >> and > >> > thereby forcing drivers to change lanes to go around is in most cases > >> far > >> > safer than leaving it up to the discretion of the driver to judge > >> whether > >> > there is sufficient room for 2 lanes of traffic AND a cyclist. Get > >> used to > >> > it, and be patient. > > >> Common sense always takes precedence over the law. In this case there > >> was a wide 5-6 foot shoulder he could have used, but chose not to. > >> Just because the law lets him use the road, doesnt mean he should. We > >> all use common sense to drive below the minimum posted speed limit on > >> highways in bad weather. So during rush hour traffic, this guy should > >> have taken extra care to use the shoulder. > > > and be prepared to fix flats frequently. > > How is it that I can ride 1000+ miles without a flat on road, but ride > > a mile on the shoulder and flat? > > > no thanks. > > pass me in the other lane when it is safe for you to do so. > > > I make every effort to use roads that are less traveled, as I don't > > enjoy the tension of being passed closely by a large truck any more > > than a motorist in a sub-compact enjoys being boxed in by trucks > > ahead, behind and beside in a work zone on the PA Turnpike in between > > the Jersey barriers. I've been moved off of the road while driving by > > an 18 wheeler + trailer that decided he was going to change lanes. Its > > no fun in a car at 55 mph and a whole lot less fun at 25 mph on a > > bicycle. > > Perhaps you might hop on the bike and ride the same route with 23 mm > > tires and no spare tubes and no patch kit, and see how far you get. > > > -bdbafh > > If I had a 5 foot shoulder, I personally would ride in the shoulder. It's > a moot point here, though, as there are no shoulders. > > -- > Bob in CT Once you get them you're viewpoint can change. :) Some shoulders work well and some are terrible as earlier posters have pointed out. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 03 May 2007 16:29:51 From: Bob in CT Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Thu, 03 May 2007 16:20:59 -0400, John Kane <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 3, 2:05 pm, "Bob in CT" <ctvigge...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 03 May 2007 13:00:36 -0400, bdbafh <bdb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On May 2, 10:53 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> On May 2, 5:56 pm, "Grolch" <hjwilkeremovenos...@telus.net> wrote: >> >> >> > In MOST jurisdictions the cyclist had EVERY RIGHT to "take" a lane >> >> when a >> >> > reasonable legal alternate pathway is not available. Taking the >> lane, >> >> and >> >> > thereby forcing drivers to change lanes to go around is in most >> cases >> >> far >> >> > safer than leaving it up to the discretion of the driver to judge >> >> whether >> >> > there is sufficient room for 2 lanes of traffic AND a cyclist. Get >> >> used to >> >> > it, and be patient. >> >> >> Common sense always takes precedence over the law. In this case there >> >> was a wide 5-6 foot shoulder he could have used, but chose not to. >> >> Just because the law lets him use the road, doesnt mean he should. We >> >> all use common sense to drive below the minimum posted speed limit on >> >> highways in bad weather. So during rush hour traffic, this guy should >> >> have taken extra care to use the shoulder. >> >> > and be prepared to fix flats frequently. >> > How is it that I can ride 1000+ miles without a flat on road, but ride >> > a mile on the shoulder and flat? >> >> > no thanks. >> > pass me in the other lane when it is safe for you to do so. >> >> > I make every effort to use roads that are less traveled, as I don't >> > enjoy the tension of being passed closely by a large truck any more >> > than a motorist in a sub-compact enjoys being boxed in by trucks >> > ahead, behind and beside in a work zone on the PA Turnpike in between >> > the Jersey barriers. I've been moved off of the road while driving by >> > an 18 wheeler + trailer that decided he was going to change lanes. Its >> > no fun in a car at 55 mph and a whole lot less fun at 25 mph on a >> > bicycle. >> > Perhaps you might hop on the bike and ride the same route with 23 mm >> > tires and no spare tubes and no patch kit, and see how far you get. >> >> > -bdbafh >> >> If I had a 5 foot shoulder, I personally would ride in the shoulder. >> It's >> a moot point here, though, as there are no shoulders. >> >> -- >> Bob in CT > > Once you get them you're viewpoint can change. :) Some shoulders > work well and some are terrible as earlier posters have pointed out. > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > Some of them are bad (I used to ride in AZ, which actually had nice shoulders). I agree there, but I'd rather take my chances on a smooth shoulder than trying to come into traffic. I personally minimize the time I actually come into the traffic lane, and it's mainly because many, many drivers act as if a cyclist is from another planet. For instance, I ride a very heavily trafficed road to get from work to home. One time, I couldn't quite figure out why no cars were passing me. When I finally went to take a left, and I looked in my rearview mirror, I saw a lady in a car who refused to pass me. At the same time, I was afraid to pull out infront of her. So, I ended up sitting there while about 30 cars passed me. I finally was able to take a left. I've had tons of cars beep at me for no apparent reason (that I can decipher). It scares the crap out of me when they beep, and I don't know what they hell they're doing. One person kept beeping and beeping until they finally passed me. I was as far to the right as possible (again, a narrow CT road). Just pass me, dang it! For these reasons, I try to not irk people, and many people seem more irked when there's a cyclist in the lane as opposed to the far right side. -- Bob in CT       Date: 03 May 2007 18:18:45 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage I've had tons of cars beep at me > for no apparent reason (that I can decipher). It scares the crap out of > me when they beep, and I don't know what they hell they're doing. One > person kept beeping and beeping until they finally passed me. I was as > far to the right as possible (again, a narrow CT road). Just pass me, > dang it! For these reasons, I try to not irk people, and many people seem > more irked when there's a cyclist in the lane as opposed to the far right > side. > > -- > Bob in CT Did you notice that when I asked the OP why he honked his horn--he didn't answer the question? Instead, he quibbled about perhaps how loudly he had honked. Why DO they honk? Once, I was riding through a park on a two lane road (no shoulder, just a bar ditch there) and this guy behind me kept honking. I am thinking, "What does he expect me to do? Dive in the bar ditch? What? Why is he honking? Pat in TX         Date: 05 May 2007 00:44:56 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Thu, 3 May 2007 18:18:45 -0600 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Pat" <Pat@starrynight.com > wrote: > Once, I was riding through a park on a two lane > road (no shoulder, just a bar ditch there) and this guy behind me kept > honking. I am thinking, "What does he expect me to do? Dive in the bar > ditch? What? Why is he honking? Somebody did that to me once, so I slowed down and stopped in front of him, turned part way around, and yelled "I'M LEGAL. WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?" and then started again. His girl friend was busy trying to hunker down in the seat, she was so embarassed.           Date: 05 May 2007 15:33:30 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Dennis P. Harris" <NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net > wrote in message news:8tgo331uaslhkbtkhsp45f42ug9jgqq1pp@4ax.com... > On Thu, 3 May 2007 18:18:45 -0600 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Pat" > <Pat@starrynight.com> wrote: > >> Once, I was riding through a park on a two lane >> road (no shoulder, just a bar ditch there) and this guy behind me kept >> honking. I am thinking, "What does he expect me to do? Dive in the bar >> ditch? What? Why is he honking? > > Somebody did that to me once, so I slowed down and stopped in > front of him, turned part way around, and yelled "I'M LEGAL. > WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?" and then started again. His girl friend > was busy trying to hunker down in the seat, she was so > embarassed. He was probably just getting a kick out of harassing you and showing off to the girl friend. "You" impressed the hell out of "her" though.       Date: 03 May 2007 21:25:27 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Bob in CT" <ctviggen.x@comcast.net > wrote in message news:op.trrpv1bf3plkkk@esq03.mfh.com... > On Thu, 03 May 2007 16:20:59 -0400, John Kane <jrkrideau@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 3, 2:05 pm, "Bob in CT" <ctvigge...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Thu, 03 May 2007 13:00:36 -0400, bdbafh <bdb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > On May 2, 10:53 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >> On May 2, 5:56 pm, "Grolch" <hjwilkeremovenos...@telus.net> wrote: >>> >>> >> > In MOST jurisdictions the cyclist had EVERY RIGHT to "take" a lane >>> >> when a >>> >> > reasonable legal alternate pathway is not available. Taking the >>> lane, >>> >> and >>> >> > thereby forcing drivers to change lanes to go around is in most >>> cases >>> >> far >>> >> > safer than leaving it up to the discretion of the driver to judge >>> >> whether >>> >> > there is sufficient room for 2 lanes of traffic AND a cyclist. Get >>> >> used to >>> >> > it, and be patient. >>> >>> >> Common sense always takes precedence over the law. In this case there >>> >> was a wide 5-6 foot shoulder he could have used, but chose not to. >>> >> Just because the law lets him use the road, doesnt mean he should. We >>> >> all use common sense to drive below the minimum posted speed limit on >>> >> highways in bad weather. So during rush hour traffic, this guy should >>> >> have taken extra care to use the shoulder. >>> >>> > and be prepared to fix flats frequently. >>> > How is it that I can ride 1000+ miles without a flat on road, but ride >>> > a mile on the shoulder and flat? >>> >>> > no thanks. >>> > pass me in the other lane when it is safe for you to do so. >>> >>> > I make every effort to use roads that are less traveled, as I don't >>> > enjoy the tension of being passed closely by a large truck any more >>> > than a motorist in a sub-compact enjoys being boxed in by trucks >>> > ahead, behind and beside in a work zone on the PA Turnpike in between >>> > the Jersey barriers. I've been moved off of the road while driving by >>> > an 18 wheeler + trailer that decided he was going to change lanes. Its >>> > no fun in a car at 55 mph and a whole lot less fun at 25 mph on a >>> > bicycle. >>> > Perhaps you might hop on the bike and ride the same route with 23 mm >>> > tires and no spare tubes and no patch kit, and see how far you get. >>> >>> > -bdbafh >>> >>> If I had a 5 foot shoulder, I personally would ride in the shoulder. >>> It's >>> a moot point here, though, as there are no shoulders. >>> >>> -- >>> Bob in CT >> >> Once you get them you're viewpoint can change. :) Some shoulders >> work well and some are terrible as earlier posters have pointed out. >> >> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >> > > Some of them are bad (I used to ride in AZ, which actually had nice > shoulders). I agree there, but I'd rather take my chances on a smooth > shoulder than trying to come into traffic. I personally minimize the time > I actually come into the traffic lane, and it's mainly because many, many > drivers act as if a cyclist is from another planet. For instance, I ride > a very heavily trafficed road to get from work to home. One time, I > couldn't quite figure out why no cars were passing me. When I finally > went to take a left, and I looked in my rearview mirror, I saw a lady in a > car who refused to pass me. At the same time, I was afraid to pull out > infront of her. So, I ended up sitting there while about 30 cars passed > me. I finally was able to take a left. I've had tons of cars beep at me > for no apparent reason (that I can decipher). It scares the crap out of > me when they beep, and I don't know what they hell they're doing. One > person kept beeping and beeping until they finally passed me. I was as > far to the right as possible (again, a narrow CT road). Just pass me, > dang it! For these reasons, I try to not irk people, and many people seem > more irked when there's a cyclist in the lane as opposed to the far right > side. > > -- > Bob in CT You have to do more bike miles to train them is why. Lots of fun and good luck.   Date: 03 May 2007 13:16:30 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 3, 10:46 am, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > Roger Zoul wrote: > > I seriously doubt if Mr. Deep Pockets will be commuting to work in > > this > lifetime. > > this link is for you and for the many others who replied on this > thread:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > > and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a > path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy > other motorists. But once you're on a bike it is no longer "other' motorists because you are no longer a motorist.   Date: 03 May 2007 12:39:02 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Roger Zoul wrote: > A speed limit of 45 mph does not make the road unsafe for cyclists. Even if it causes a traffic jam behind the cyclist?     Date: 04 May 2007 01:01:01 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > Roger Zoul wrote: >> A speed limit of 45 mph does not make the road unsafe for cyclists. > > Even if it causes a traffic jam behind the cyclist? > Zoul is one of the zealots here. The law for California states that if you are holding up 5 people or more you MUST pull over and let them pass. He apparently thinks a bicycle puts him above the law. A nice juicy traffic ticket for impeding traffic might change his mind. Bill Baka       Date: 04 May 2007 06:07:24 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Bill wrote: :: veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: ::: Roger Zoul wrote: :::: A speed limit of 45 mph does not make the road unsafe for cyclists. ::: ::: Even if it causes a traffic jam behind the cyclist? ::: :: Zoul is one of the zealots here. The law for California states that :: if you are holding up 5 people or more you MUST pull over and let :: them pass. He apparently thinks a bicycle puts him above the law. :: A nice juicy traffic ticket for impeding traffic might change his :: mind. Bill Baka Candyass Billyballless T. Bass     Date: 03 May 2007 18:22:27 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage in message news:1178221142.217994.306370@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Roger Zoul wrote: >> A speed limit of 45 mph does not make the road unsafe for cyclists. > > Even if it causes a traffic jam behind the cyclist? There you go again, assigning different values of belonging on the roadway to different types of vehicles. Why can't you see that? You seem to have the idea that whatever you want is paramount and the others just have to get out of the way. Pat in TX >     Date: 03 May 2007 16:34:29 From: Rich Clark Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178221142.217994.306370@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Roger Zoul wrote: >> A speed limit of 45 mph does not make the road unsafe for cyclists. > > Even if it causes a traffic jam behind the cyclist? If it were a construction vehicle or an Amish buggy, where would you be complaining? Meanwhile, you are exaggerating for effect. The *vast* majority of traffic jams -- as you perfectly well know -- are caused by TOO MANY CARS. Most of the rest are caused by drivers doing something stupid, or by roads obstructed by something other than a cyclist. But you can't complain effectively about any of those things. The number of real traffic jams that are not ignorably transient that are caused by bicycles is simply infinitesimal. You *can* do something about "too many cars." Stop driving yours, and ride a bike instead. R     Date: 03 May 2007 19:42:47 From: Kristian M Zoerhoff Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2007-05-03, veg_all@yahoo.com <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote: > Roger Zoul wrote: >> A speed limit of 45 mph does not make the road unsafe for cyclists. > > Even if it causes a traffic jam behind the cyclist? Correct. Traffic jams are safe by definition, as no one is going anywhere :-) -- __o Kristian Zoerhoff _'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com (_)/ (_)   Date: 03 May 2007 12:10:19 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Pat wrote: > No, the cyclists are asserting they are right--they are asserting they are > equal in the law's eyes to you as you drive in a car. You are trying to > separate us into people who have more or fewer rights depending upon > whether they are driving a car/truck or riding a bicycle. We don't have a > second-class citizenry here where the wishes of the majority eliminate the > rights of the minority. Or, are you not in the U.S.A? That would certainly > explain your attitude. All laws are evaluated in their context and are not black or white. Just becaause the law says they are equal to other vehicles doesnt mean it applies to very busy roads. For 95% of the roads, cycling is probably safe for both motorists and cyclist. I have read through the reports people have posted here and it makes sense. My contention is why persist to do it when it is not safe for both cyclists and motorists, i.e the remaining 5% of roads? Can you answer that for me without making personal attacks?     Date: 03 May 2007 16:28:17 From: Rich Clark Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178219419.540987.127090@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > My contention is why persist to do it when it is not safe for both > cyclists and motorists, i.e the remaining 5% of roads? You say that with no support for your contention. The statistical evidence on cyclist road fatalities doesn't support a contention that it's more dangerous to ride on some particular 5% of roads versus any other roads. So all you're doing is substituting your feelings and perceptions for facts and evidence. You've been presented with a great deal of evidence that it's as safe, if not safer (in terms of life expectancy), to commute via bike instead of by car. Where's your evidence that it's less safe on some hypothetical "5% of roads"? Since you have none, there's no need to respond. R     Date: 03 May 2007 13:38:08 From: Larry Farrell Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > Pat wrote: >> No, the cyclists are asserting they are right--they are asserting > they are > equal in the law's eyes to you as you drive in a car. You > are trying to > separate us into people who have more or fewer > rights depending upon > whether they are driving a car/truck or > riding a bicycle. We don't have a > second-class citizenry here > where the wishes of the majority eliminate the > rights of the > minority. Or, are you not in the U.S.A? That would certainly >> explain your attitude. > > All laws are evaluated in their context and are not black or white. > Just becaause the law says they are equal to other vehicles doesnt > mean it applies to very busy roads. For 95% of the roads, cycling is > probably safe for both motorists and cyclist. I have read through the > reports people have posted here and it makes sense. > > My contention is why persist to do it when it is not safe for both > cyclists and motorists, i.e the remaining 5% of roads? Can you answer > that for me without making personal attacks? > Why is it not safe for the motorist? Simply having to slow down a bit does not make driving unsafe. Simply having to assure that the other lane is clear of traffic before passing the bicyclist does not make it unsafe. Why is it not safe for the bicyclist? Since it is illegal, immoral, etc., for a motorist to hit a bicyclist simply because the bicyclist is going slower than the motorist wishes to move, one would think that simple legalistic considerations would mean that the bicyclist is safe. Since the bicyclist *has the same right to the road that the motorist does,* he should be safe no matter what the traffic conditions, as long as he takes the lane appropriately and obeys all of the relevant traffic laws. I have followed this thread from its beginning and reading your posts makes it pretty clear that you began the topic because you were surprised that anyone would have the gall to call you on something that was out of line [honking at a bicyclist who was riding in a perfectly legal and responsible manner simply because you were in a hurry (although I think it is highly amusing that he caught up with you at the next stop so he could point out the issue to you; being in a hurry certainly accomplished a lot in terms of getting you down the road, didn't it?)] and you posted here in the hope that other bicyclists would support your position. You seem surprised to find that has not been the case, but you still don't plan to change your position that you were perfectly within your rights to honk at the bicyclist and attempt to push him out of your lane in order to exercise your right to drive just a little faster than he was going. This thread is dead, as far as I am concerned. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 03 May 2007 15:31:04 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: :: All laws are evaluated in their context and are not black or white. :: Just becaause the law says they are equal to other vehicles doesnt :: mean it applies to very busy roads. For 95% of the roads, cycling is :: probably safe for both motorists and cyclist. I have read through the :: reports people have posted here and it makes sense. :: :: My contention is why persist to do it when it is not safe for both :: cyclists and motorists, i.e the remaining 5% of roads? Can you answer :: that for me without making personal attacks? Have you not noticed that some roads are controlled access? Cyclist aren't allowed on those roads due to high-speed traffic. However, on any other kind of road they are allowed. So, why do you suppose that you get to decide what is safe and what is not? A speed limit of 45 mph does not make the road unsafe for cyclists. If you don't want personal attacks, perhaps you should be more reasonable and not appear in a cycling newgroup acting like a troll?   Date: 03 May 2007 10:59:03 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch wrote: > You've got a point there. Your driving pollutes my air, clogs my > roads, makes my environment noisy, even drives up my health care costs. > So why do you do that? Don't you realize that you are inconveniencing and > annoying cyclists? We live in a world where the perceptions of society dictates right and wrong. If 99% of the population feels that driving home from work is ok, then yes the cyclist is inconveniencing and annoying motorists. If the cyclist is really interested in promoting the environment then he is not going to win many supporters with his tactics of annoying rush hour commuters.. If you expect the world to yield to one persons vision of how the world should work, it is not going to happen ever... Everybody thinks they are right ( as seen by the self consumed replies to this thread ).     Date: 05 May 2007 01:07:20 From: nada Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 3 May 2007 10:59:03 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > If 99% of the population feels that driving home from work > is ok, then yes the cyclist is inconveniencing and annoying > motorists. oh, just FUCK YOU selfish twit.       Date: 05 May 2007 19:10:21 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage nada wrote: > On 3 May 2007 10:59:03 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > >> If 99% of the population feels that driving home from work >> is ok, then yes the cyclist is inconveniencing and annoying >> motorists. > > oh, just FUCK YOU selfish twit. > It seems that the selfish twit here is not the motorist who may not be aware of the proper way to interact with a cyclist, but rather the cycle Nazi's we have. To quote from Rodney King "Can't we all just get along?". Bill Baka     Date: 04 May 2007 15:30:25 From: Leo Lichtman Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote: (clip)Everybody thinks they are right ( as seen by the self consumed replies to this thread.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I guess "everybody" includes you ( as seen by YOUR self consumed replies to this thread.)     Date: 03 May 2007 13:56:11 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178215143.132011.253020@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch wrote: >> You've got a point there. Your driving pollutes my air, clogs > my > roads, makes my environment noisy, even drives up my health care > costs. > So why do you do that? Don't you realize that you are > inconveniencing and > annoying cyclists? > > We live in a world where the perceptions of society dictates right > and wrong. If 99% of the population feels that driving home from work > is ok, then yes the cyclist is inconveniencing and annoying > motorists. If the cyclist is really interested in promoting the > environment then he is not going to win many supporters with his > tactics of annoying rush hour commuters.. > > If you expect the world to yield to one persons vision of how the > world should work, it is not going to happen ever... Everybody thinks > they are right ( as seen by the self consumed replies to this thread > ). No, the cyclists are asserting they are right--they are asserting they are equal in the law's eyes to you as you drive in a car. You are trying to separate us into people who have more or fewer rights depending upon whether they are driving a car/truck or riding a bicycle. We don't have a second-class citizenry here where the wishes of the majority eliminate the rights of the minority. Or, are you not in the U.S.A? That would certainly explain your attitude. Pat in TX >       Date: 03 May 2007 15:25:48 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Pat wrote: :: :: No, the cyclists are asserting they are right--they are asserting :: they are equal in the law's eyes to you as you drive in a car. You :: are trying to separate us into people who have more or fewer rights :: depending upon whether they are driving a car/truck or riding a :: bicycle. We don't have a second-class citizenry here where the :: wishes of the majority eliminate the rights of the minority. Or, are :: you not in the U.S.A? That would certainly explain your attitude. :: :: Pat in TX Aren't I correct in saying that cyclist have a right to use the roads while drivers of motor vehicles do not.     Date: 03 May 2007 14:08:26 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: :: D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch wrote: ::: You've got a point there. Your driving pollutes my air, clogs :: my > roads, makes my environment noisy, even drives up my health care :: costs. > So why do you do that? Don't you realize that you are :: inconveniencing and > annoying cyclists? :: :: We live in a world where the perceptions of society dictates right :: and wrong. If 99% of the population feels that driving home from work :: is ok, then yes the cyclist is inconveniencing and annoying :: motorists. If the cyclist is really interested in promoting the :: environment then he is not going to win many supporters with his :: tactics of annoying rush hour commuters.. :: :: If you expect the world to yield to one persons vision of how the :: world should work, it is not going to happen ever... Everybody thinks :: they are right ( as seen by the self consumed replies to this thread :: ). You really are a troll. A stupid one, too.   Date: 03 May 2007 10:34:19 From: treynolds@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 7:29 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 7:21 pm, "treyno...@my-deja.com" > > <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In all honest, without actually seeing the situation it's hard to > > know. I don't know if there was adequate room on the right side of > > the road for him to safely ride in. You say there was but he probably > > felt there wasn't, since he took the lane. > > The shoulder was at least 5 ft wide. The only reason I could think for > not riding on it was it may have some small rocks and debris on it. > If, in fact, he had a clean 5 ft wide curb to ride on and he insisted on riding in the bike lane then the cyclist certainly was in the wrong. He would be in violation of California vehicle code in this state. Your state likely has similar laws. > > ......... > > Your attitude that cycling is suicidal is flat wrong. I regularly > > commute across the city of San Diego at rush hour and have been doing > > so since 1982. Right now my commute is 25 miles each way. I stay > > alive by being more alert than motorists. There are skills to be > > built up, just like driving in traffic. You are being very close > > minded about accepting that. > > Again I am not convinced by a sample size of 1. Maybe our definitions > of safety is different. Compared with driving a car to commuting, my > gut feel is cycling is far more dangerous. Show me some studies with > large sample populations that prove me wrong. It is a fact that > pedestrians get hit all the time, as do motorcyclists. Would you be convinced if I showed you a study that tracked 1000 cyclists for three months, logging 50,000 cumulative miles on bikes, and showed that cycling is no more dangerous than driving? You call my case an example of one but it is one person cycling over 25 years logging much more than 50,000 miles (I put in 6-10K mile/ year). If your "gut feel" is correct the statistics should have caught up with me by now. It has not. Can you call into question your "gut feel"? Aristotle said that the mark of an educated mind is the ability to consider an idea without necessarily accepting it. Please consider this. Tom     Date: 03 May 2007 17:40:32 From: Kristian M Zoerhoff Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2007-05-03, treynolds@my-deja.com <thomas.treynolds@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 2, 7:29 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: >> On May 2, 7:21 pm, "treyno...@my-deja.com" >> >> <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > In all honest, without actually seeing the situation it's hard to >> > know. I don't know if there was adequate room on the right side of >> > the road for him to safely ride in. You say there was but he probably >> > felt there wasn't, since he took the lane. >> >> The shoulder was at least 5 ft wide. The only reason I could think for >> not riding on it was it may have some small rocks and debris on it. >> > > If, in fact, he had a clean 5 ft wide curb to ride on and he insisted > on riding in the bike lane then the cyclist certainly was in the > wrong. He would be in violation of California vehicle code in this > state. Your state likely has similar laws. Don't be so sure about that. While Wisconsin explicitly allows bikes on shoulders, Illinois & Michigan do not, so riding on the shoulder is in fact illegal here (though you'd be hard-pressed to find a cop willing to give such a ticket). Vehicle laws are far more varied than you'd think. In any event, others have already given plenty of reasons for not using the shoulder. Patchwork vehicle laws are merely another nail in that coffin. -- __o Kristian Zoerhoff _'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com (_)/ (_)   Date: 03 May 2007 10:00:36 From: bdbafh Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 10:53 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 5:56 pm, "Grolch" <hjwilkeremovenos...@telus.net> wrote: > > > In MOST jurisdictions the cyclist had EVERY RIGHT to "take" a lane when a > > reasonable legal alternate pathway is not available. Taking the lane, and > > thereby forcing drivers to change lanes to go around is in most cases far > > safer than leaving it up to the discretion of the driver to judge whether > > there is sufficient room for 2 lanes of traffic AND a cyclist. Get used to > > it, and be patient. > > Common sense always takes precedence over the law. In this case there > was a wide 5-6 foot shoulder he could have used, but chose not to. > Just because the law lets him use the road, doesnt mean he should. We > all use common sense to drive below the minimum posted speed limit on > highways in bad weather. So during rush hour traffic, this guy should > have taken extra care to use the shoulder. and be prepared to fix flats frequently. How is it that I can ride 1000+ miles without a flat on road, but ride a mile on the shoulder and flat? no thanks. pass me in the other lane when it is safe for you to do so. I make every effort to use roads that are less traveled, as I don't enjoy the tension of being passed closely by a large truck any more than a motorist in a sub-compact enjoys being boxed in by trucks ahead, behind and beside in a work zone on the PA Turnpike in between the Jersey barriers. I've been moved off of the road while driving by an 18 wheeler + trailer that decided he was going to change lanes. Its no fun in a car at 55 mph and a whole lot less fun at 25 mph on a bicycle. Perhaps you might hop on the bike and ride the same route with 23 mm tires and no spare tubes and no patch kit, and see how far you get. -bdbafh     Date: 03 May 2007 14:05:25 From: Bob in CT Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Thu, 03 May 2007 13:00:36 -0400, bdbafh <bdbafh@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 2, 10:53 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: >> On May 2, 5:56 pm, "Grolch" <hjwilkeremovenos...@telus.net> wrote: >> >> > In MOST jurisdictions the cyclist had EVERY RIGHT to "take" a lane >> when a >> > reasonable legal alternate pathway is not available. Taking the lane, >> and >> > thereby forcing drivers to change lanes to go around is in most cases >> far >> > safer than leaving it up to the discretion of the driver to judge >> whether >> > there is sufficient room for 2 lanes of traffic AND a cyclist. Get >> used to >> > it, and be patient. >> >> Common sense always takes precedence over the law. In this case there >> was a wide 5-6 foot shoulder he could have used, but chose not to. >> Just because the law lets him use the road, doesnt mean he should. We >> all use common sense to drive below the minimum posted speed limit on >> highways in bad weather. So during rush hour traffic, this guy should >> have taken extra care to use the shoulder. > > and be prepared to fix flats frequently. > How is it that I can ride 1000+ miles without a flat on road, but ride > a mile on the shoulder and flat? > > no thanks. > pass me in the other lane when it is safe for you to do so. > > I make every effort to use roads that are less traveled, as I don't > enjoy the tension of being passed closely by a large truck any more > than a motorist in a sub-compact enjoys being boxed in by trucks > ahead, behind and beside in a work zone on the PA Turnpike in between > the Jersey barriers. I've been moved off of the road while driving by > an 18 wheeler + trailer that decided he was going to change lanes. Its > no fun in a car at 55 mph and a whole lot less fun at 25 mph on a > bicycle. > Perhaps you might hop on the bike and ride the same route with 23 mm > tires and no spare tubes and no patch kit, and see how far you get. > > -bdbafh > If I had a 5 foot shoulder, I personally would ride in the shoulder. It's a moot point here, though, as there are no shoulders. -- Bob in CT   Date: 03 May 2007 07:46:57 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Roger Zoul wrote: > I seriously doubt if Mr. Deep Pockets will be commuting to work in this > lifetime. this link is for you and for the many others who replied on this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy other motorists.     Date: 04 May 2007 05:07:45 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage >> I seriously doubt if Mr. Deep Pockets will be commuting to work in > this > lifetime. > > this link is for you and for the many others who replied on this > thread: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > > and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a > path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy > other motorists. That doesn't have to be a dream... it can be real. But it takes time for good people to convince the local officials and politicans that there's a need. The concept is called "Complete Streets" and envisions roadways that are designed, from the ground up, to accommodate more than just people traveling in cars. Pedestrians, motorcyclists, bicyclists... all are legit road users who need a way to get from point-a to point-b. In the meantime, the case can be made that the more you act like a car, the safer you are. That bicyclist that you believe was holding you up? You *did* see him. Because he was right where you'd normally be looking... right where a car would otherwise be. Had he been hugging the shoulder, *besides* being at risk for flat tires and even crashing due to road debris, he'd also be at dramatically greater risk of cars making right hand turns in front of him. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com     Date: 04 May 2007 00:46:05 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178203617.469341.190830@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Roger Zoul wrote: >> I seriously doubt if Mr. Deep Pockets will be commuting to work in > this > lifetime. > > this link is for you and for the many others who replied on this > thread: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > > and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a > path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy > other motorists. That's great! You'll find this newsgroup to be quite helpful to beginning cyclists. Right now folks are pretty skeptical, but you put down a few miles, and they'll come around. Do you have a bike? What kind of bike is it? -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky     Date: 04 May 2007 00:27:08 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > Roger Zoul wrote: >> I seriously doubt if Mr. Deep Pockets will be commuting to work in > this > lifetime. > > this link is for you and for the many others who replied on this > thread: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > > and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a > path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy > other motorists. > A voice of sanity, from a "Cager". "Safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy other motorists." The sanest thing I've heard here, and it was from a non-cyclist. Bill Baka       Date: 04 May 2007 06:03:18 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Bill wrote: :: veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: ::: Roger Zoul wrote: :::: I seriously doubt if Mr. Deep Pockets will be commuting to work in :::: this > lifetime. ::: ::: this link is for you and for the many others who replied on this ::: thread: ::: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ::: ::: and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find ::: a path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy ::: other motorists. ::: :: A voice of sanity, from a "Cager". :: "Safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy :: other motorists." :: The sanest thing I've heard here, and it was from a non-cyclist. :: Bill Baka Candyass Billballless T. Bass.     Date: 03 May 2007 16:34:12 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a > path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy > other motorists. And there you have it, fellow cyclists. Our raison d'etre is to make sure we don't "inconvenience/annoy" motorists. Bill __o     Date: 03 May 2007 09:33:26 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a > path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy > other motorists. Total BS. Post a pic of yourself commuting and I'll take it back. Troll...     Date: 03 May 2007 11:02:05 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: :: and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a :: path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy :: other motorists. Good luck with that.       Date: 03 May 2007 11:15:24 From: Bob in CT Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:02:05 -0400, Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote: > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > > :: and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a > :: path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy > :: other motorists. > > Good luck with that. > > Yeah, 'cause those paths don't exist. I was riding a training ride one morning, in the semi-dark with tons of flashing lights on me. I went to take a left on a turn where it's fairly blind, in that I have a hard time seeing around the turn for oncoming traffic. A truck was well behind me when I initially tried to make the left turn. However, a car flew around the corner toward me in the oncoming lane, and I had to stay in my lane longer than I thought. This caused some amount of consternation to the driver of the truck, who laid on the horn a good minute plus, even after I was able to take my left. You have to realize that this is 6-6:30 in the morning, with almost no traffic, and I caused this guy less than one minute of delay (if that much). You can't please all people -- someone is going to get mad at you. -- Bob in CT         Date: 03 May 2007 16:16:35 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Bob in CT" <ctviggen.x@comcast.net > wrote in message news:op.trrbbywj3plkkk@esq03.mfh.com... > On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:02:05 -0400, Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> :: and yes, i will probably try cycle commuting to work, if I can find a >> :: path that is safe, not stressful and doesn't inconvenience/annoy >> :: other motorists. >> >> Good luck with that. >> >> > > Yeah, 'cause those paths don't exist. I was riding a training ride one > morning, in the semi-dark with tons of flashing lights on me. I went to > take a left on a turn where it's fairly blind, in that I have a hard time > seeing around the turn for oncoming traffic. A truck was well behind me > when I initially tried to make the left turn. However, a car flew around > the corner toward me in the oncoming lane, and I had to stay in my lane > longer than I thought. This caused some amount of consternation to the > driver of the truck, who laid on the horn a good minute plus, even after I > was able to take my left. You have to realize that this is 6-6:30 in the > morning, with almost no traffic, and I caused this guy less than one > minute of delay (if that much). You can't please all people -- someone is > going to get mad at you. > > -- > Bob in CT Add to that the city will not listen to cyclists needs and every driver has a silver spoon in his mouth and and you have what use to be called the feudal system. George Carlin, (had to get in somewhere) had a spiel about the only difference between man today and the caveman is electricity. Take away electricity and you have 1400 escaped mental patients, murders, etc at your door telling you they are lined up to have their way with your lady after they drink all your beer. Have fun with that.           Date: 04 May 2007 00:31:16 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage nash wrote: > > Add to that the city will not listen to cyclists needs and every driver has > a silver spoon in his mouth and and you have what use to be called the > feudal system. > George Carlin, (had to get in somewhere) had a spiel about the only > difference between man today and the caveman is electricity. Take away > electricity and you have 1400 escaped mental patients, murders, etc at your > door telling you they are lined up to have their way with your lady after > they drink all your beer. > Have fun with that. > > Sadly, Carlin was right. Without electricity to entertain them (TV, computer, games) most people would probably be out of their houses with bad attitudes. Welcome to modern day overcrowded life. Bill Baka   Date: 03 May 2007 07:45:58 From: DanKMTB@gmail.com Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 6:44 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Why > would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit > just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping > drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. > > So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to > explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for > his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? Are these people just > suicidal or it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and > just wait for a convenient time to pass? Most points I would make have been covered already, so just mark me down int he "riding's safe, I do it, lane is legal and shoulders are often dangerous" crowd. There is something I'd like to add: Have you ever been harassed by another motorist who wanted to drive faster than you, when you were driving the legal speed limit? Did it annoy you? How did you react? I've been doing some serious work around the house lately, and sometimes have to take my loaded to capacity truck to the dump. My truck doesn't need the abuse of pedal-to-the-floor acceleration with a full load, and doesn't stop as well with half a ton or more in the bed as your average passenger car. This results in my starting off slower than I normally would, leaving a larger gap in front of me to the next car and slowing earlier for stops & turns. People sometimes come up behind me and start to honk or flash their lights, clearly concerned about their 0-35 time before that next stop a hundred yards down the road. If I do anything at all in response to the harassment behind me, I drive even slower and more cautiously. This is partially for safety as I now have another potential threat or hazard to deal with, and partially "well blank you too buddy". You may have had the same response when being tailgated, honked at and otherwise harassed while driving the speed limit. You may think "I'm within my rights, obeying the law and being reasonable. I won't change that for your impatience". You may have even slowed down a touch more to make your point - I know I sometimes do. The cyclist is also doing the right and legal thing, and is likely to feel the same way. By honking your horn, you are liable to annoy the cyclist and put him in the "well blank you too" mindset. When I ride, I prefer the shoulder when it's decent. I almost always ride far to the right, and only take a lane when it's necessary. Once no longer necessary, I move back to the shoulder. If, however, a motorist decides to honk at me, yell at me, tailgate me or in any other way harass me and take issue with my use of the lane, I assure you they will stay behind me significantly longer than they would if they'd just waited like they would have for any slow moving vehicle (i.e. trash truck, school bus, tractor, street sweeper, etc). I'll sometimes block them to the next stop or light so that I can have a chat with them. Sometimes colorful, sometimes logical, and sometimes hysterical these chats almost always put a nice break into my ride. You should also know that "unnecessary use of horn" and "harassment with horn" tend to be illegal, so your honk could get you held up by LEO & fined as well as held up by a now-annoyed cyclist. A guy got tagged for that by honking at me when I waited the full 3 seconds at a stop sign taking my drivers test. I forget the fine now, but the officer that got out of my passenger seat to cite the guy told me at the time. Unless swept often, a 4 lane 45mph roadway is not going to have good shoulders, so I can understand a cyclist needing the lane at least some of the time. If the vehicle in the rightmost lane is moving slower than you wish to be moving, I suggest moving left a lane and passing said vehicle in a different lane. That vehicle being a bicycle, motorcycle, pickup truck, car, horse drawn buggy or a police escorted house-on-a-trailer makes no difference.   Date: 03 May 2007 07:41:34 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage After reading through the reports on bicycle safety I am convinced it is relatively safe. I still think it is rather selfish to choose to commute on a 45 mph road during rush hour when there are alternate routes ( but longer ) that go through quiet neighborhoods. Why do something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ?     Date: 05 May 2007 01:06:01 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 3 May 2007 07:41:34 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > Why do > something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ? your commuting in a car inconveniences and annoys more people. now just go away.       Date: 05 May 2007 19:07:56 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Dennis P. Harris wrote: > On 3 May 2007 07:41:34 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Why do >> something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ? > > your commuting in a car inconveniences and annoys more people. > now just go away. > This, being a Democracy, means that the majority rules and makes the decisions. Do you think that riding a bike is supposed to give you some God like right to inconvenience the other 99% of people on the road? Something like 0.001% are complete nut jobs and may well take you out. Take the lane, be my guest, die healthy. Bill Baka     Date: 03 May 2007 14:44:50 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 3 May 2007 07:41:34 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com continued to whine: \ >Why do >something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ? You canned scum are constantly inconveniencing, annoying and endangering each other simply by being on the roads. You also present a menace, inconvenience and annoyance to other road users who have not bought into the myths you've swallowed whole. I ride my bicycle everywhere simply because it's the fastest way to go about my business. You apparently think I'm slowing you down when in fact you and your ilk are your own greatest impediments. "The typical American male devotes more than 1,600 hours a year to his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it and to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for petrol, tolls, insurance, taxes and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen waking hours on the road or gathering resources for it. And this figure does not take account of the time consumed by other activities dictated by transport: time spent in hospitals, traffic courts and garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy. The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: less than five miles an hour." - Ivan Illich Quit snivelling. You've made your bed now lay in it, sucker. -- zk       Date: 04 May 2007 01:03:45 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Zoot Katz wrote: > On 3 May 2007 07:41:34 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com continued to whine: > \ >> Why do >> something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ? > > You canned scum are constantly inconveniencing, annoying and > endangering each other simply by being on the roads. > > You also present a menace, inconvenience and annoyance to other road > users who have not bought into the myths you've swallowed whole. > > I ride my bicycle everywhere simply because it's the fastest way to > go about my business. You apparently think I'm slowing you down when > in fact you and your ilk are your own greatest impediments. > > "The typical American male devotes more than 1,600 hours a year to > his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He > parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it > and to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for petrol, > tolls, insurance, taxes and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen > waking hours on the road or gathering resources for it. And this > figure does not take account of the time consumed by other activities > dictated by transport: time spent in hospitals, traffic courts and > garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending > consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy. > The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: > less than five miles an hour." - Ivan Illich > > Quit snivelling. You've made your bed now lay in it, sucker. Zoot, You forgot the average American is going for the job that pays $100,000 and not just the $20,000 job that he can bike to. Get over yourself. Bill Baka         Date: 03 May 2007 21:12:30 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:03:45 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >Zoot, >You forgot the average American is going for the job that pays $100,000 >and not just the $20,000 job that he can bike to. >Get over yourself. >Bill Baka Go stuff yourself Baka. I know a plastic surgeon who rides their bike to four different hospitals and their private practice. The cost of the 24/7 365 reserved parking alone covered the price of their DeKerf. I also know two lawyers and a neuro-surgeon who ride to work everyday. $100K annually probably means they spent six months slacking off in the Caribbean. I've also know guys who would borrow lunch money from me because they put their last five dollars in the gas tank so they could get to work on pay day. -- zk           Date: 03 May 2007 22:49:35 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Zoot Katz wrote: > On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:03:45 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Zoot, >> You forgot the average American is going for the job that pays $100,000 >> and not just the $20,000 job that he can bike to. >> Get over yourself. >> Bill Baka > > Go stuff yourself Baka. > > I know a plastic surgeon who rides their bike to four different > hospitals and their private practice. The cost of the 24/7 365 > reserved parking alone covered the price of their DeKerf. You are amazing at showing YOUR ignorance. You know ONE doctor who uses a bike. What an impressive statistic. Now, how many doctors drive Mercedes or BMW's? > > I also know two lawyers and a neuro-surgeon who ride to work > everyday. Wow. 2 lawyers out of thousands, again with the Mercedes for the others. > > $100K annually probably means they spent six months slacking off in > the Caribbean. For a neuro-surgeon that means he spent about 9 months goofing off. > > I've also know guys who would borrow lunch money from me because they > put their last five dollars in the gas tank so they could get to work > on pay day. That, dip shit, is the true reality. I hate arguing with opinionated dimwits, but Zoot is not the only one, alas. Bill (living in the real world) Baka             Date: 03 May 2007 23:32:27 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Thu, 03 May 2007 22:49:35 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: \ >>> You forgot the average American is going for the job that pays $100,000 >>> and not just the $20,000 job that he can bike to. >>> Get over yourself. >>> Bill Baka \ >> I've also known guys who would borrow lunch money from me because they >> put their last five dollars in the gas tank so they could get to work >> on pay day. > >That, dip shit, is the true reality. Yeah breeze, the higher wage earners live in the city where they can cycle to work. The plastic surgeon has a SAAB convertible in his garage and one of those small Asian 4X4's for his wife.The neuro surgeon has a Volvo wagon for the family. Neither of the two lawyers even owns a car but they do own lots of condos. One has a sail boat. Sure it's only an anecdote and sort of anomalous but there's a lot of lower income people who could readily improve their lifestyle if they got rid of their cars. * Problem is they're either too stupid or lazy to figure out how. * I acknowledge that certain trades and sales persons do need motorised transport to do their jobs though many of the car-enslaved office and service workers don't. Mortgage enslaved sprawl dwellers better hope their SUVs are big enough to sleep in. -- zk               Date: 04 May 2007 09:23:00 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Zoot Katz wrote: :: * I acknowledge that certain trades and sales persons do need :: motorised transport to do their jobs though many of the car-enslaved :: office and service workers don't. Mortgage enslaved sprawl dwellers :: better hope their SUVs are big enough to sleep in. :: -- :: zk You do seem to have a rather low opinion of your fellow humans, Zoot. It's understandable in the case of Candyass Billyballless T. Bass, though.                 Date: 04 May 2007 23:27:01 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Fri, 4 May 2007 09:23:00 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote: >Zoot Katz wrote: > >:: * I acknowledge that certain trades and sales persons do need >:: motorised transport to do their jobs though many of the car-enslaved >:: office and service workers don't. Mortgage enslaved sprawl dwellers >:: better hope their SUVs are big enough to sleep in. >:: -- >:: zk > >You do seem to have a rather low opinion of your fellow humans, Zoot. It's >understandable in the case of Candyass Billyballless T. Bass, though. > BB is a frickin' ET. Though in all honesty, my fellow humans and me don't seem we've necessarily been all that successful as a species. I mean, we humans aren't the only species on earth - we just act like it. -- zk                   Date: 05 May 2007 18:31:09 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Zoot Katz wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2007 09:23:00 -0400, "Roger Zoul" > <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Zoot Katz wrote: >> >> :: * I acknowledge that certain trades and sales persons do need >> :: motorised transport to do their jobs though many of the car-enslaved >> :: office and service workers don't. Mortgage enslaved sprawl dwellers >> :: better hope their SUVs are big enough to sleep in. >> :: -- >> :: zk Zoot kind of has it right though, for where I live in California. The few houses near the good paying jobs have price tags from $500,000 up to over a $Million. Kind of makes it hard to actually live near work and have enough money to buy a house and have a family. It may be different in other states but this one is getting to the overflow point, and more cars seem to be the answer to many people. >> >> You do seem to have a rather low opinion of your fellow humans, Zoot. It's >> understandable in the case of Candyass Billyballless T. Bass, though. >> This "Candyass" would probably put your face in the pavement in person. Maybe not Chalo, but most others. > > BB is a frickin' ET. Because I am not as stupid as you??? > > Though in all honesty, my fellow humans and me don't seem we've > necessarily been all that successful as a species. I mean, we humans > aren't the only species on earth - we just act like it. That part actually made sense. Judging from the extinction rate we may be the only surviving species bigger than a pampered dairy cow in the near future. Bill Baka     Date: 03 May 2007 16:59:20 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > Why do > something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ? You've got a point there. Your driving pollutes my air, clogs my roads, makes my environment noisy, even drives up my health care costs. So why do you do that? Don't you realize that you are inconveniencing and annoying cyclists? Bill, cycling for 46 years. __o     Date: 03 May 2007 09:57:06 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > After reading through the reports on bicycle safety I am convinced it > is relatively safe. I still think it is rather selfish to choose to > commute on a 45 mph road during rush hour when there are alternate > routes ( but longer ) that go through quiet neighborhoods. Why do > something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ? Troll.     Date: 03 May 2007 16:20:34 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178203294.153511.288680@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > After reading through the reports on bicycle safety I am convinced it > is relatively safe. I still think it is rather selfish to choose to > commute on a 45 mph road during rush hour when there are alternate > routes ( but longer ) that go through quiet neighborhoods. Why do > something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ? You mean like you.     Date: 03 May 2007 11:05:10 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: :: After reading through the reports on bicycle safety I am convinced it :: is relatively safe. I still think it is rather selfish to choose to :: commute on a 45 mph road during rush hour when there are alternate :: routes ( but longer ) that go through quiet neighborhoods. Why do :: something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ? Well, if you choose not to take the same route as the guy you're complaining about, I don't think anyone here is going to object to it. I would never advise any cyclist to do something s/he doesn't feel comfortable doing. That includes you too. Why do you assume this other guy is purposely trying to inconvenience and annoy others? Especialy after you blew your horn at him?       Date: 03 May 2007 11:19:28 From: Bob in CT Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:05:10 -0400, Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote: > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > :: After reading through the reports on bicycle safety I am convinced it > :: is relatively safe. I still think it is rather selfish to choose to > :: commute on a 45 mph road during rush hour when there are alternate > :: routes ( but longer ) that go through quiet neighborhoods. Why do > :: something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ? > > Well, if you choose not to take the same route as the guy you're > complaining > about, I don't think anyone here is going to object to it. I would never > advise any cyclist to do something s/he doesn't feel comfortable doing. > That includes you too. > > Why do you assume this other guy is purposely trying to inconvenience and > annoy others? Especialy after you blew your horn at him? > > I think this is called "projection", where one projects ones own thoughts onto others. Plus, many times the 45 mph route is safer for a bicyclist. The last thing I want to do is ride through "quiet neighborhoods" where the cars don't stop for stop signs, they back out without paying attention to you, etc. It's safer to be on the other street. -- Bob in CT         Date: 04 May 2007 00:56:08 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Bob in CT wrote: > On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:05:10 -0400, Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: >> :: After reading through the reports on bicycle safety I am convinced it >> :: is relatively safe. I still think it is rather selfish to choose to >> :: commute on a 45 mph road during rush hour when there are alternate >> :: routes ( but longer ) that go through quiet neighborhoods. Why do >> :: something that purposely inconveniences and annoys many people ? >> >> Well, if you choose not to take the same route as the guy you're >> complaining >> about, I don't think anyone here is going to object to it. I would never >> advise any cyclist to do something s/he doesn't feel comfortable doing. >> That includes you too. >> >> Why do you assume this other guy is purposely trying to inconvenience and >> annoy others? Especialy after you blew your horn at him? >> >> > > I think this is called "projection", where one projects ones own > thoughts onto others. Plus, many times the 45 mph route is safer for a > bicyclist. The last thing I want to do is ride through "quiet > neighborhoods" where the cars don't stop for stop signs, they back out > without paying attention to you, etc. It's safer to be on the other > street. > > --Bob in CT As a cyclist in a more country setting I have had an occasional 'toot' behind me to warn of a car approaching. I will move over a bit to give them more clearance and wave just to encourage a motorist to get along with a cyclist, me or others. Someone said that you can always hear a car coming from behind but that is not strictly true on new pavement and with a new car with smooth street tires. I have been passed sometimes by cars that make less noise than the birds. As for quiet neighborhoods and stop signs I have been very near some intersections where the driver drove through a stop sign at 35 MPH in a 25 zone, totally ignoring a known stop sign. They seem to think that since there is no cop there they can do it every day. There are 2 intersections in a new housing development where I have seen the same driver blow through a stop sign at full speed more than once. I flat out stop and look both ways even though I am at a 4 way stop. Bill Baka   Date: 03 May 2007 14:18:04 From: John Everett Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 15:44:06 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: >I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I >drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I >briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to >pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Something that hasn't been mention yet on this thread is that most cyclists know a car is there long before the driver thinks to honk their horn. Sitting in your moving car you're not aware of the incredible amount of tire-to-road noise you're producing. I recall once someone I already knew was behind me decided to use their horn to let me know they were there. We both stopped next to each other at the next red light. Since his windows were down I said something like, "You know, I could hear your tire noise long before you blew your horn." His response, "What's wrong with my tires?". Before I could explain further the light changed and he drove away. Bottom line, after years of cycling and getting honked at by cars I already know are behind me I sometimes get irritated. Perhaps you were just the final straw for the cyclist in question. Also, you mention your perception that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous. To add to the meager statistics that have been accumulation via this thread, I've been riding in traffic for almost twenty years and have yet to have any bicycle/motor vehicle contact. -- jeverett3<AT >sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)     Date: 04 May 2007 11:34:22 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Thu, 03 May 2007 14:18:04 GMT, John Everett wrote: > Something that hasn't been mention yet on this thread is that most > cyclists know a car is there long before the driver thinks to honk > their horn. Sitting in your moving car you're not aware of the > incredible amount of tire-to-road noise you're producing. The exception to that is buses. If I'm riding at a decent speed with a bus coasting behind me, the rear engine means I'm often not aware of it, or notice its shadow first. So I don't think tyre/road noise is the dominant sound. -- Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw     Date: 03 May 2007 16:19:46 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Also, you mention your perception that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous. To add to the meager statistics that have been accumulation via this thread, I've been riding in traffic for almost twenty years and have yet to have any bicycle/motor vehicle contact. <<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>> 44 years here       Date: 03 May 2007 12:23:37 From: Bob in CT Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:19:46 -0400, nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: > Also, you mention your perception that cycling in traffic is > inherently dangerous. To add to the meager statistics that have been > accumulation via this thread, I've been riding in traffic for almost > twenty years and have yet to have any bicycle/motor vehicle contact. > > <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> > > 44 years here > > I'm not as lucky. I hit a car, which turned immediately in front of me. I flipped over the front handlebars. Personally, I think cycling is quite dangerous, because all it takes is one car/suv to hit you, and you're done. -- Bob in CT   Date: 03 May 2007 02:44:15 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 15:44:06 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote, in part: >So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to >explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for >his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? I've read the whole thread and can say you've been treated quite gently. You've been given sound, sensitive and educational responses. I generally believe all drivers are assholes or idiots until they prove themselves otherwise. It's part of what keeps me alive. Over 400,000 people were killed last year in traffic collisions. Some deaths were caused by the crappy attitudes drivers acquire inside their plushy scuds. Their fluffy squishy flesh is stuffed inside an impervious carapace that gives them more horsepower than their quarter-horsepower brains can handle. With their sippy drinks, cell phones, stereos and other distractions they feel like they're alone at home so can act more rudely than they would in a public place like our roads. Certainly the larger number of those deaths was caused drivers' outright incompetence, inattention and ignorance or misapprehension of their traffic laws. Let's not ignore all those upstanding citizens who regularly drive while impaired with over-the-counter and/or prescription medications, sleep deprivation, alcohol and illicit dope. Couple this with drivers' sense of exclusive entitlement because they erroneously believe the money their precious car is sucking from their wallets pays for the roads. They regularly fail to grasp the fact that cyclists too pay taxes. In the overall accounting, that includes policing you bunch of petulant brats, cyclists end up subsidising you same scuds slaves who are threatening our lives by your very presence. Drivers are regularly pissed-off about _anything_ "in their way" of attaining that dream they'd bought from the advertisements, sucker. Yeah, I love you guys. NOW SHOVE THAT HORN UP YOUR ASS BEFORE I DO! -- zk     Date: 03 May 2007 16:02:18 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote in message news:qeaj339llqgegutt8npoqe34efv20anb9u@4ax.com... > On 2 May 2007 15:44:06 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote, in part: > >>So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to >>explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for >>his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? > > I've read the whole thread and can say you've been treated quite > gently. You've been given sound, sensitive and educational responses. > > I generally believe all drivers are assholes or idiots until they > prove themselves otherwise. It's part of what keeps me alive. > > Over 400,000 people were killed last year in traffic collisions. > > Some deaths were caused by the crappy attitudes drivers acquire > inside their plushy scuds. Their fluffy squishy flesh is stuffed > inside an impervious carapace that gives them more horsepower than > their quarter-horsepower brains can handle. > > With their sippy drinks, cell phones, stereos and other distractions > they feel like they're alone at home so can act more rudely than they > would in a public place like our roads. > > Certainly the larger number of those deaths was caused drivers' > outright incompetence, inattention and ignorance or misapprehension > of their traffic laws. > > Let's not ignore all those upstanding citizens who regularly drive > while impaired with over-the-counter and/or prescription medications, > sleep deprivation, alcohol and illicit dope. > > Couple this with drivers' sense of exclusive entitlement because they > erroneously believe the money their precious car is sucking from > their wallets pays for the roads. > > They regularly fail to grasp the fact that cyclists too pay taxes. In > the overall accounting, that includes policing you bunch of petulant > brats, cyclists end up subsidising you same scuds slaves who are > threatening our lives by your very presence. > > Drivers are regularly pissed-off about _anything_ "in their way" of > attaining that dream they'd bought from the advertisements, sucker. > > Yeah, I love you guys. > > NOW SHOVE THAT HORN UP YOUR ASS BEFORE I DO! > -- > zk Luz you Zoot. Glad to hear from you again. Where you been?   Date: 02 May 2007 22:20:22 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 11:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > were possible) to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. Even if > cycling were more dangerous than driving (and even that isn't a > given), it's acceptably safe. Your "gut feeling" is simply wrong. I did go through the study and agree that biking is safer than it is perceived. However, the study did not just look at commuting on a busy 4-lane 45mph during rush hour. So I am not changed in feeling that cycling in such conditions is unsafe. > in traffic. And of course, the cyclist is much less likely to kill > another person, compared to a car driver like yourself. the bicyclist is impeding traffic and creating situations where a car could get hit trying to pass it since hte passing lane is going 45 mph. Since you have cars backed up behind you it is difficult to see far back enough to safely pull out and pass. > That statement really brings you down, in my eyes. Anyone with a > working conscience would worry about the damage that they do to their > victim, rather than the possible loss of some of their excess material > baggage. What's done is done , worrying about it is not going to do anything. My hard earned money is not disposable to pay for people's selfish and foolhardy decisions. > One final thought: If a cyclist delays you for even 30 seconds (a > rare event, you must agree) what would you have done with that time? > Odds are you're not a super-hero. again, i was in no hurry. you are barking at the wrong dog, since I am also a very athletic person and enjoy cycling. I just think cycling in the conditions I cited are not prudent. And the elephant skinned byclist to get so confrontational seems highly illogical. Who said the world was logical, so ill just chalk this up for experience..     Date: 05 May 2007 00:33:18 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 22:20:22 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > I just think cycling in > the conditions I cited are not prudent. and you are WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. get it? you are WRONG. Cycling in 45 MPH traffic is NOT dangerous. Write that 100 times on the blackboard, because it's true. get over it.       Date: 05 May 2007 18:53:24 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Dennis P. Harris wrote: > On 2 May 2007 22:20:22 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > >> I just think cycling in >> the conditions I cited are not prudent. > > and you are WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. get it? > > you are WRONG. > > Cycling in 45 MPH traffic is NOT dangerous. Write that 100 times > on the blackboard, because it's true. > > get over it. > We don't have a helicopter view picture so who knows. Taking the lane in rush hour on a 45 MPH road is really provoking someone to "Not see" you. The obnoxious "I'm right so screw you in the car" may win the Darwin contest. Around here and even more in the S.F. bay area you wouldn't last a week trying to take the lane from hundreds of pissed off motorists. You can be the poster boy for the "Dead right" campaign in your state. Bill Baka     Date: 05 May 2007 00:31:48 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 22:20:22 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > the bicyclist is impeding traffic no, the bicyclist IS traffic. get used to it. there will be a lot more of us as gas prices go up.     Date: 05 May 2007 11:38:48 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 22:20:22 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > I did go through the study and agree that biking is safer than it is > perceived. However, the study did not just look at commuting on a busy > 4-lane 45mph during rush hour. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of speed limits. They specify /maximum/ speed for road users, not /minimum/. Roads with minimum limits explicitly exclude cyclists here. -- Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw     Date: 03 May 2007 13:35:09 From: Patrick Lamb Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 11:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> were possible) to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. Even if >> cycling were more dangerous than driving (and even that isn't a >> given), it's acceptably safe. Your "gut feeling" is simply wrong. > > the bicyclist is impeding traffic and creating situations where a car > could get hit trying to pass it since hte passing lane is going 45 > mph. Since you have cars backed up behind you it is difficult to see > far back enough to safely pull out and pass. Hard to see how he "impeded" you, since he caught up to you at the next light. >> That statement really brings you down, in my eyes. Anyone with a >> working conscience would worry about the damage that they do to their >> victim, rather than the possible loss of some of their excess material >> baggage. > > What's done is done , worrying about it is not going to do anything. > My hard earned money is not disposable to pay for people's selfish and > foolhardy decisions. It's your hard earned money which will, in fact, be on the line (either directly or in higher insurance premiums) should you decide to remain selfish and make foolhardy decisions like running over cyclists at rush hour, where there's likely to be four lanes of witnesses. Not to mention the delays of waiting for a cop and ambulance, or suffering the inconvenience of being hauled off if you decide to hit and run. >> One final thought: If a cyclist delays you for even 30 seconds (a >> rare event, you must agree) what would you have done with that time? >> Odds are you're not a super-hero. > > again, i was in no hurry. you are barking at the wrong dog, since I am > also a very athletic person and enjoy cycling. I just think cycling in > the conditions I cited are not prudent. And the elephant skinned > byclist to get so confrontational seems highly illogical. Who said the > world was logical, so ill just chalk this up for experience.. Does that mean you'll try to learn something from this experience? Pat       Date: 03 May 2007 14:39:52 From: catzz66 Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>again, i was in no hurry. you are barking at the wrong dog, since I am >>also a very athletic person and enjoy cycling. I just think cycling in >>the conditions I cited are not prudent. And the elephant skinned >>byclist to get so confrontational seems highly illogical. Who said the >>world was logical, so ill just chalk this up for experience.. > > Considering your comments, it is hard to believe that you ride a bike very much or that you have been riding for very long. Maybe you ought to hang back and read how other cyclists feel before sticking with your initial opinion. As you can see, almost nobody here agrees with you, for various good reasons.         Date: 03 May 2007 18:15:55 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage >>>again, i was in no hurry. you are barking at the wrong dog, since I am >>>also a very athletic person and enjoy cycling. I just think cycling in >>>the conditions I cited are not prudent. And the elephant skinned >>>byclist to get so confrontational seems highly illogical. Who said the >>>world was logical, so ill just chalk this up for experience.. >> >> > > Considering your comments, it is hard to believe that you ride a bike very > much or that you have been riding for very long. Maybe you ought to hang > back and read how other cyclists feel before sticking with your initial > opinion. As you can see, almost nobody here agrees with you, for various > good reasons. yeah, especially after he wrote in his initial post that he wasn't a cyclist.....     Date: 03 May 2007 10:11:02 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <1178169621.980018.95730@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >, veg_all@yahoo.com says... > On May 2, 11:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > That statement really brings you down, in my eyes. Anyone with a > > working conscience would worry about the damage that they do to their > > victim, rather than the possible loss of some of their excess material > > baggage. > > What's done is done , worrying about it is not going to do anything. > My hard earned money is not disposable to pay for people's selfish and > foolhardy decisions. Then just keep that in mind while you're driving, so you won't make the selfish and foolhardy decision to risk someone else's life for your convenience. -- josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/ > Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >     Date: 03 May 2007 14:13:34 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178169621.980018.95730@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > I did go through the study and agree that biking is safer than it is > perceived. However, the study did not just look at commuting on a busy > 4-lane 45mph during rush hour. So I am not changed in feeling that > cycling in such conditions is unsafe. When I first started riding my bike to work on a regular basis, I rode on the street I always used to drive on. While the posted speed limit there is 35, the reality is, most motorists (me too), drive it at 40 - 50 mph. It took me a while to realize that there were two minor arterials that paralleled this street that might be better alternatives. While these streets were slower in a car, due to lower speed limits, they were no slower on a bike, and were a lot less stressful. I don't know where this 45 mph speed limit road is, but if there are other routes that have fewer cars or lower speed limits, I would recommend to you to try these when you begin riding your bike to work. If there's no alternative, then I think it's time you talked to your city's transportation department, and work for better streets for cycling. If nothing else, you would be less likely to be delayed for a second or two the next time you had to pass a cyclist on that road. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky       Date: 04 May 2007 00:25:06 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Claire Petersky wrote: > <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1178169621.980018.95730@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > >> I did go through the study and agree that biking is safer than it is >> perceived. However, the study did not just look at commuting on a busy >> 4-lane 45mph during rush hour. So I am not changed in feeling that >> cycling in such conditions is unsafe. > > > When I first started riding my bike to work on a regular basis, I rode on > the street I always used to drive on. While the posted speed limit there is > 35, the reality is, most motorists (me too), drive it at 40 - 50 mph. It > took me a while to realize that there were two minor arterials that > paralleled this street that might be better alternatives. While these > streets were slower in a car, due to lower speed limits, they were no slower > on a bike, and were a lot less stressful. > > I don't know where this 45 mph speed limit road is, but if there are other > routes that have fewer cars or lower speed limits, I would recommend to you > to try these when you begin riding your bike to work. If there's no > alternative, then I think it's time you talked to your city's transportation > department, and work for better streets for cycling. If nothing else, you > would be less likely to be delayed for a second or two the next time you had > to pass a cyclist on that road. > Biking is much safer than perceived on side roads and low traffic areas, but not so on busy roads where drivers are not exactly looking out for bicycles. Mostly they are looking for the bigger cars and trucks so THEY won't be the victim of a larger cager. Finding a bike in the middle of the road unexpectedly can short circuit many drivers' brains. California once had a slogan along the lines of being in the right but not pushing it so far as to be "Dead right.", and this was for car drivers. Safety first, absolutely legal and obnoxious near last. Bill Baka       Date: 03 May 2007 09:32:28 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Claire Petersky wrote: > I don't know where this 45 mph speed limit road is, but if there are > other routes that have fewer cars or lower speed limits, I would > recommend to you to try these when you begin riding your bike to > work. If there's no alternative, then I think it's time you talked to > your city's transportation department, and work for better streets > for cycling. If nothing else, you would be less likely to be delayed > for a second or two the next time you had to pass a cyclist on that > road. Claire, the OP is A) a moron; B) a troll; and/or C) lazy. (After all, his name is "veg".) I doubt he'd be caught dead on a bike. Period.         Date: 03 May 2007 17:36:46 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Bill Sornson wrote: > Claire Petersky wrote: > >> I don't know where this 45 mph speed limit road is, but if there are >> other routes that have fewer cars or lower speed limits, I would >> recommend to you to try these when you begin riding your bike to >> work. If there's no alternative, then I think it's time you talked to >> your city's transportation department, and work for better streets >> for cycling. If nothing else, you would be less likely to be delayed >> for a second or two the next time you had to pass a cyclist on that >> road. > > Claire, the OP is A) a moron; B) a troll; and/or C) lazy. (After all, his > name is "veg".) I doubt he'd be caught dead on a bike. Period. > > Vegetarian? The very first post was actually a civil question before everyone took up the "Bike are good, cars are bad" mantra. Cars are a necessity in some situations and I would not move to be near my job because jobs come and go with the health of the company. Electronics for me so I have seen the ups and downs of working for startups with huge stock options, and the dot com bust that made so many of those wallpaper stock. Maybe a nice routine government job would fit some people and works for them, but everyone has to work somewhere, and not all jobs are guaranteed for life. Bill Baka         Date: 03 May 2007 16:57:33 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message news:463a0e9e$0$5673$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Claire Petersky wrote: > >> I don't know where this 45 mph speed limit road is, but if there are >> other routes that have fewer cars or lower speed limits, I would >> recommend to you to try these when you begin riding your bike to >> work. If there's no alternative, then I think it's time you talked to >> your city's transportation department, and work for better streets >> for cycling. If nothing else, you would be less likely to be delayed >> for a second or two the next time you had to pass a cyclist on that >> road. > > Claire, the OP is A) a moron; B) a troll; and/or C) lazy. (After all, his > name is "veg".) I doubt he'd be caught dead on a bike. Period. Or the first time would be his last because he is dead.       Date: 03 May 2007 10:39:57 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Claire Petersky wrote: :: <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message :: news:1178169621.980018.95730@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... :: ::: I did go through the study and agree that biking is safer than it is ::: perceived. However, the study did not just look at commuting on a ::: busy 4-lane 45mph during rush hour. So I am not changed in feeling ::: that cycling in such conditions is unsafe. :: :: :: When I first started riding my bike to work on a regular basis, I :: rode on the street I always used to drive on. While the posted speed :: limit there is 35, the reality is, most motorists (me too), drive it :: at 40 - 50 mph. It took me a while to realize that there were two :: minor arterials that paralleled this street that might be better :: alternatives. While these streets were slower in a car, due to lower :: speed limits, they were no slower on a bike, and were a lot less :: stressful. :: :: I don't know where this 45 mph speed limit road is, but if there are :: other routes that have fewer cars or lower speed limits, I would :: recommend to you to try these when you begin riding your bike to :: work. If there's no alternative, then I think it's time you talked :: to your city's transportation department, and work for better :: streets for cycling. If nothing else, you would be less likely to be :: delayed for a second or two the next time you had to pass a cyclist :: on that road. :: I seriously doubt if Mr. Deep Pockets will be commuting to work in this lifetime.     Date: 03 May 2007 07:25:51 From: Gooserider Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178169621.980018.95730@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 11:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> were possible) to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. Even if >> cycling were more dangerous than driving (and even that isn't a >> given), it's acceptably safe. Your "gut feeling" is simply wrong. > > I did go through the study and agree that biking is safer than it is > perceived. However, the study did not just look at commuting on a busy > 4-lane 45mph during rush hour. So I am not changed in feeling that > cycling in such conditions is unsafe. > >> in traffic. And of course, the cyclist is much less likely to kill >> another person, compared to a car driver like yourself. > > the bicyclist is impeding traffic and creating situations where a car > could get hit trying to pass it since hte passing lane is going 45 > mph. Since you have cars backed up behind you it is difficult to see > far back enough to safely pull out and pass. > >> That statement really brings you down, in my eyes. Anyone with a >> working conscience would worry about the damage that they do to their >> victim, rather than the possible loss of some of their excess material >> baggage. > > What's done is done , worrying about it is not going to do anything. > My hard earned money is not disposable to pay for people's selfish and > foolhardy decisions. > Your hard earned money is disposable to pay for YOUR foolhardy or selfish decision if you hit a cyclist and are in the wrong. Would you blame a slower driver if you were tailgating and rear ended him? But, he was "impeding traffic", etc.     Date: 03 May 2007 07:19:16 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: :: On May 2, 11:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: ::: were possible) to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. Even ::: if cycling were more dangerous than driving (and even that isn't a ::: given), it's acceptably safe. Your "gut feeling" is simply wrong. :: :: I did go through the study and agree that biking is safer than it is :: perceived. However, the study did not just look at commuting on a :: busy 4-lane 45mph during rush hour. So I am not changed in feeling :: that cycling in such conditions is unsafe. That's because you sense your own unwillingness to behave in a responsible manner. :: ::: in traffic. And of course, the cyclist is much less likely to kill ::: another person, compared to a car driver like yourself. :: :: the bicyclist is impeding traffic and creating situations where a car :: could get hit trying to pass it since hte passing lane is going 45 :: mph. Since you have cars backed up behind you it is difficult to see :: far back enough to safely pull out and pass. Is there a minimum speed limit posted? If so, then you are correct. If not, then you're wrong yet again. If you can't safely change lanes, then you don't. Who fault is it if you get hit because you made a risky move to change lanes? Why are you shifting the responsibility for the driver's actions on the the cyclist? It could have been one of many slow-moving vehicles impeding traffic. :: ::: That statement really brings you down, in my eyes. Anyone with a ::: working conscience would worry about the damage that they do to ::: their victim, rather than the possible loss of some of their excess ::: material baggage. :: :: What's done is done , worrying about it is not going to do anything. :: My hard earned money is not disposable to pay for people's selfish :: and foolhardy decisions. But it is disposable to pay for your own selfish and foolhardy decisions. :: ::: One final thought: If a cyclist delays you for even 30 seconds (a ::: rare event, you must agree) what would you have done with that time? ::: Odds are you're not a super-hero. :: :: again, i was in no hurry. you are barking at the wrong dog, since I :: am also a very athletic person and enjoy cycling. I just think :: cycling in the conditions I cited are not prudent. Then don't do it. What gives you the right to project what you think is bad onto someone else? And the elephant :: skinned byclist to get so confrontational seems highly illogical. :: Who said the world was logical, so ill just chalk this up for :: experience.. But your actions are also illogical, since you can't bother to be inconvenienced, as if you think you own the roads....   Date: 02 May 2007 21:58:51 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 3, 12:15 am, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 10:53 pm, Camilo <campasc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I appreciate you entering into this discussion, and hope it makes > > sense to you. > > Yes it does make more sense now. I can understand now why he was > driving on the road and why he was so confrontational from the honk. Good. Learning is a good thing. > Only thing I am still not convinced about is the whole safety issue. I > can understand if someone has a passion for cycling and placing their > personal safety as a secondary consideration. You said earlier that you had a "gut feeling" that cycling was dangerous. In your defense, I'll say that many people think cycling is very dangerous, so you're not alone. OTOH, you're wrong, at least in any practical sense. As mentioned in the article I pointed to earlier, there's an average of about 15 million miles ridden between bike fatalities. Even a dedicated cyclist would have to ride for thousands of years (if that were possible) to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. Even if cycling were more dangerous than driving (and even that isn't a given), it's acceptably safe. Your "gut feeling" is simply wrong. You may think that bike commuting - as opposed to riding on bike trails or something - is dangerous. But that's wrong, too. Sorry I don't have a precise citation now, but there have been studies published in scientific journals pointing out that cycle commuters live longer than car commuters. Even if there is an increase in danger from biking, it's definitely offset by the health benefits. Aside from the benefits of exercise, it's been shown that those cycling in traffic have lower blood CO levels than those driving cars in traffic. And of course, the cyclist is much less likely to kill another person, compared to a car driver like yourself. Personally, I think the world's in a sad state when people (like you) feel they have to be enclosed in a steel-and-glass can to move about safely. You miss so much! There's a large, interesting world outside your steel-and-glass can. But it's gotten to the point that most Americans never experience it! > It would be shame to > hit someone and then I would also have to worry about being sued ... I > do have deep pockets which any greedy victim would love to go after... That statement really brings you down, in my eyes. Anyone with a working conscience would worry about the damage that they do to their victim, rather than the possible loss of some of their excess material baggage. One final thought: If a cyclist delays you for even 30 seconds (a rare event, you must agree) what would you have done with that time? Odds are you're not a super-hero. You really aren't going to save the world with that 30 seconds. You aren't going to earn any significant money, nor do any significant good for the world in general. In the best realistic case, you're probably going to watch 30 more seconds of Oprah or Dr. Phil. In this case, it wasn't even that much. You ended up sitting at a traffic light. So get realistic, get control of your impatience, and chill. The cyclist really does have a right to the road, and it's not going to hurt you to respect that. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 02 May 2007 21:33:17 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 11:39 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 10:11 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> > wrote: > > > While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in > > 1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they were > > sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around. > > These stats are misleading and are just trying to provoke a reaction > from stupid people. First compaing deaths to hospitilizations are two > completely different things . Second society spends a gazillion man- > hours ever year engaging in sleeping, relaxing, and lying around. > However the cycling man hours are tiny fraction of that... So the > ratio of injury to time spent doing these activities needs to reported. OK, try http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm There's information in there on injury rates, per hour exposure. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 02 May 2007 21:15:22 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 10:53 pm, Camilo <campasc...@yahoo.com > wrote: > I appreciate you entering into this discussion, and hope it makes > sense to you. Yes it does make more sense now. I can understand now why he was driving on the road and why he was so confrontational from the honk. Only thing I am still not convinced about is the whole safety issue. I can understand if someone has a passion for cycling and placing their personal safety as a secondary consideration. It would be shame to hit someone and then I would also have to worry about being sued ... I do have deep pockets which any greedy victim would love to go after...     Date: 03 May 2007 07:08:09 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: :: On May 2, 10:53 pm, Camilo <campasc...@yahoo.com > wrote: :: ::: I appreciate you entering into this discussion, and hope it makes ::: sense to you. :: :: Yes it does make more sense now. I can understand now why he was :: driving on the road and why he was so confrontational from the honk. :: :: Only thing I am still not convinced about is the whole safety issue. :: I can understand if someone has a passion for cycling and placing :: their personal safety as a secondary consideration. It would be :: shame to hit someone and then I would also have to worry about being :: sued ... I do have deep pockets which any greedy victim would love :: to go after... And I think they would be deserving of your deep pockets if you were so damn inconsiderate as to hit someone merely because you couldn't slow down and/or change lanes. You do realize that you're supposed to be paying attention and in control of your vehicle at all times, right?     Date: 02 May 2007 21:40:36 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 10:53 pm, Camilo <campasc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I appreciate you entering into this discussion, and hope it makes >> sense to you. > > Yes it does make more sense now. I can understand now why he was > driving on the road and why he was so confrontational from the honk. > > Only thing I am still not convinced about is the whole safety issue. I > can understand if someone has a passion for cycling and placing their > personal safety as a secondary consideration. It would be shame to > hit someone and then I would also have to worry about being sued ... I > do have deep pockets which any greedy victim would love to go after... Classic.   Date: 02 May 2007 20:53:19 From: Camilo Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 6:53 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > Common sense always takes precedence over the law. In this case there > was a wide 5-6 foot shoulder he could have used, but chose not to. > Just because the law lets him use the road, doesnt mean he should. We > all use common sense to drive below the minimum posted speed limit on > highways in bad weather. So during rush hour traffic, this guy should > have taken extra care to use the shoulder. What appears to be common sense to the non-cyclist isn't necessarily the safest and best thing for the bicyclist. I have NO idea what the situation was in this case - not from your perspective, but from the cyclist's. It's not your observations and assessment of common sense that counts, it's the cyclist's. In my experience, the some of the most likely POSSIBLE reasons not to use the shoulder are: Shoulders often (almost ALWAYS) have much more debris than the road: gravel, stones, broken glass, sticks, pieces of metal fallen off vehicles, trash, cans, etc. etc. This is VERY common. These things do not say long on the land surface because the action of thousands of tires either pulverizes them or blasts it off the road. This does not happen on the shoulder, and that stuff is there. Debris that has no effect on a car, might not even be noticable to someone driving a car can cause a bike to have a flat tire, or at worst, crash. Sometimes shoulders are clean enough to ride, but without notice transition into sections that aren't. It would be unsafe for a cyclist to move from the shoulder to the lane when this happens - these moves would have to be made suddenly and unexpectedly when debris is encountered. Therefore, the safest thing is to just ride in the lane. Sometimes shoulders are sporadic - they are wide here, but narrow to nothing up ahead. You might not even notice this driving a car. But, again, it is not safe for a cyclist to suddenly move from the shoulder to the lane when the shoulder runs out. Therefore, again, it is safest just to be consistent and stay in the lane. Rumble strips. As someone else pointed out, once the decision is made to not use the shoulder, "taking" the lane to force safe passing is the "common sense" action. These are the ones that come to mind right now. Personally, I ride the shoulder when ever I can, but do not if it's "dirtier" than the lane. It's just not safe. I appreciate you entering into this discussion, and hope it makes sense to you.     Date: 03 May 2007 04:24:33 From: Leo Lichtman Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Camilo" wrote: (clip) As someone else pointed out, once the decision is made to not use the > shoulder, "taking" the lane to force safe passing is the "common > sense" action. (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ When Veg blew the horn at him, the message was, "GET OUT OF THE WAY." Or maybe if it was a gentle tap, the message was, "Please get out of the way." In either case, he chose not to, and it was his decision to make. Your toot on the horn was legally and ethically equivalent to honking at pedestrians in a crosswalk. They are where they have a right to be, even though it may slow you down. This cyclist was probably riding at a pretty good clip, in an effort not to impede traffic more than he had to. To hit the shoulder at that speed could have been disastrous. And where would you have been, at 45 MPH? Half a block down the road, and unaware that anything had happened. Next time this happens, just pretent it's a tractor, and wait for a chance to change lanes. When he pulls up to you at the next signal, smile, and say, "Nice day."   Date: 02 May 2007 20:40:54 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 10:19 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > He doesn't HAVE to "hug the rightmost part of the lane". The law in most > areas says the cyclist has to stay as far right as practicable. That means > as much as is safe. He probably purposely didnt hug the right to force people to pass him on the other lane. This seems dangerous to me since many people will still try and pass in the same lane since the other lane is full of traffic..     Date: 11 May 2007 13:18:24 From: Mark Mitchell Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2007-05-03, veg_all@yahoo.com <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote: > On May 2, 10:19 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > >> He doesn't HAVE to "hug the rightmost part of the lane". The law in most >> areas says the cyclist has to stay as far right as practicable. That means >> as much as is safe. > > He probably purposely didnt hug the right to force people to pass him > on the other lane. This seems dangerous to me since many people will > still try and pass in the same lane since the other lane is full of > traffic.. > For once, you're exactly right. If he was smart, he *was* purposely riding far enough to the left to prevent being passed. If you *could* still pass, then he was doing it wrong. Mark     Date: 07 May 2007 21:17:35 From: fred Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 10:19 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > >> He doesn't HAVE to "hug the rightmost part of the lane". The law in most >> areas says the cyclist has to stay as far right as practicable. That means >> as much as is safe. > > He probably purposely didnt hug the right to force people to pass him > on the other lane. This seems dangerous to me since many people will > still try and pass in the same lane since the other lane is full of > traffic.. > Y'all didn't mention where y'all are. Here in Winnipeg (C-eh-N-eh-D-eh) after the winter there's a lot of sand (and rubbish along the side of the road. Riding less than two feet out from the curb would have me riding on sand and gravel and rubbish, none of which makes for good riding. The other thing I like about riding a couple of feet out from the curb is that it gives me some room to move to the right if some moron in a vehicle (I've come to the conclusion that all drivers other than me - and sometimes even me - are morons) comes too close on my left. If I'm only 5 or 6 inches from the curb and they come to close, I've nowhere to go. I've driven in rush hour in 5 countries, in many cities and I've very rarely encountered a street so busy that I could not change lanes within, say 20-30 seconds. It does happen, but it's rare. As a cyclist, I try to avoid really busy streets, not because I do not have the right to use them but because I'd rather not be where all the morons are.     Date: 03 May 2007 13:26:57 From: Patrick Lamb Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 10:19 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > >> He doesn't HAVE to "hug the rightmost part of the lane". The law in most >> areas says the cyclist has to stay as far right as practicable. That means >> as much as is safe. > > He probably purposely didnt hug the right to force people to pass him > on the other lane. Bingo. Sounds like he was a knowledgeable, skilled cyclist, who knew that forcing other traffic to change lanes to pass him was the safest way to proceed. > This seems dangerous to me since many people will > still try and pass in the same lane since the other lane is full of > traffic.. Experienced cyclists find otherwise. Seems to me many trolls will come in and argue that they're not trolls, since they don't want to admit they're wrong. Pat     Date: 03 May 2007 06:11:43 From: Gooserider Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178163654.368179.9650@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 10:19 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > >> He doesn't HAVE to "hug the rightmost part of the lane". The law in most >> areas says the cyclist has to stay as far right as practicable. That >> means >> as much as is safe. > > He probably purposely didnt hug the right to force people to pass him > on the other lane. This seems dangerous to me since many people will > still try and pass in the same lane since the other lane is full of > traffic.. The cyclist was doing the right thing.     Date: 03 May 2007 05:08:37 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 10:19 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > >> He doesn't HAVE to "hug the rightmost part of the lane". The law in most >> areas says the cyclist has to stay as far right as practicable. That means >> as much as is safe. > > He probably purposely didnt hug the right to force people to pass him > on the other lane. This seems dangerous to me since many people will > still try and pass in the same lane since the other lane is full of > traffic.. > That is one example of the idiotic "Take the lane" strategy that some of the more suicidal bicyclists take. You may read about him in the obituaries. I ride but do NOT take the lane do to the semi-truck risk and teenagers in pick ups. Some cyclists are way too self righteous if you listen in on this group, rec.bicycles.misc Good luck with that commute. Bill (wrong way, still alive) Baka   Date: 02 May 2007 20:39:34 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 10:11 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in > 1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they were > sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around. > These stats are misleading and are just trying to provoke a reaction from stupid people. First compaing deaths to hospitilizations are two completely different things . Second society spends a gazillion man- hours ever year engaging in sleeping, relaxing, and lying around. However the cycling man hours are tiny fraction of that... So the ratio of injury to time spent doing these activities needs to reported.     Date: 04 May 2007 05:22:30 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage >> While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in >> 1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they were >> sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around. >> > > These stats are misleading and are just trying to provoke a reaction > from stupid people. So, by responding to your queries, are we all, by definition, part of the club of "stupid people?" --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com       Date: 04 May 2007 06:11:41 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: :::: While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in :::: 1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they :::: were sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around. :::: ::: ::: These stats are misleading and are just trying to provoke a reaction ::: from stupid people. :: :: So, by responding to your queries, are we all, by definition, part :: of the club of "stupid people?" Everyone, except, Candyass Billyballless T. Bass.     Date: 03 May 2007 13:48:30 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178163574.636268.7060@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 10:11 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> > wrote: >> While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in >> 1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they were >> sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around. >> > > These stats are misleading and are just trying to provoke a reaction > from stupid people. As Bill S. would say, "whoosh!" -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky     Date: 02 May 2007 21:42:27 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 10:11 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> > wrote: >> While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in >> 1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they >> were sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around. >> > > These stats are misleading and are just trying to provoke a reaction > from stupid people. First compaing deaths to hospitilizations are two > completely different things . Second society spends a gazillion man- > hours ever year engaging in sleeping, relaxing, and lying around. > However the cycling man hours are tiny fraction of that... So the > ratio of injury to time spent doing these activities needs to > reported. It's official. You're either a moron or a troll. Whichever, go away.   Date: 02 May 2007 20:36:02 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 10:33 pm, Alex Colvin <a...@TheWorld.com > wrote: > >> I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > > Most motorists aren't aware how loud their horns are outside the car. The > cyclist was probably startled. > > Hava a friend honk when you're standing in front of the car sometime. It > nearly made me jump out of my shoes. > > -- > mac the na=EFf I think Torn hit the nail on the head when he wrote: I can tell you that the first thought that goes through a cyclist's mind when a motorist honks at him, even a quick tap of the horn as you say you did, is that the motorist is an impatient creep who wants the cyclist to disappear. Most of the time it's true. In your case, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it wasn't. But please understand that the cyclist was probably expecting a confrontation when he caught up with you.   Date: 02 May 2007 19:53:05 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 5:56 pm, "Grolch" <hjwilkeremovenos...@telus.net > wrote: > In MOST jurisdictions the cyclist had EVERY RIGHT to "take" a lane when a > reasonable legal alternate pathway is not available. Taking the lane, and > thereby forcing drivers to change lanes to go around is in most cases far > safer than leaving it up to the discretion of the driver to judge whether > there is sufficient room for 2 lanes of traffic AND a cyclist. Get used to > it, and be patient. Common sense always takes precedence over the law. In this case there was a wide 5-6 foot shoulder he could have used, but chose not to. Just because the law lets him use the road, doesnt mean he should. We all use common sense to drive below the minimum posted speed limit on highways in bad weather. So during rush hour traffic, this guy should have taken extra care to use the shoulder.   Date: 02 May 2007 19:50:14 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 8:04 pm, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kea...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Let's say, instead of a bicyclist it was a slow moving garbage truck. What > would you have done? It is moving slow, is it dangerous for the truck? For > you? Do you have trouble slowing for the truck? Do you think people might > run into the truck? This is why brightly lit and garbed bicyclist feel > safe in the lane, they are pretty sure the drivers will see them. Drivers > won't run into either a bicyclist or a garbage truck. So no, they don't get > hit easily because drivers don't hit them. In this case , there was a wide 5-6 ft shoulder for him to use. Also instead of hugging the right most part of the lane, he was drifting 2-3 ft in from the edge. So one could not stay in the same lane to pass. And since it was rush hour, the other lane was impossible to get into.     Date: 03 May 2007 07:46:36 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178160613.968770.226110@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 8:04 pm, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kea...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Let's say, instead of a bicyclist it was a slow moving garbage truck. >> What >> would you have done? It is moving slow, is it dangerous for the truck? >> For >> you? Do you have trouble slowing for the truck? Do you think people >> might >> run into the truck? This is why brightly lit and garbed bicyclist feel >> safe in the lane, they are pretty sure the drivers will see them. >> Drivers >> won't run into either a bicyclist or a garbage truck. So no, they don't >> get >> hit easily because drivers don't hit them. > > In this case , there was a wide 5-6 ft shoulder for him to use. Also > instead of hugging the right most part of the lane, he was drifting > 2-3 ft in from the edge. So one could not stay in the same lane to > pass. And since it was rush hour, the other lane was impossible to get > into. Okay, again, pretend he was a garbage truck. How would you go about getting around a slow moving garbage truck? Would you try and stay in the same lane to pass? What if the garbage truck was only taking half the lane, as he was picking up garbage. Would you still try and pass in his lane? Bicycles are vehicles, just like garbage trucks, and construction vehicles, and tractors. There are many types vehicles using our roads, even during rush hour, that might not be moving as fast as you'd like. Just take a deep breath, as pretend he's a garbage truck. There, feel better now? As a former member of our cities bicycle advisory committee I found out some interesting things. Namely, shoulders are not legally bike lanes. They have to be marked as bike lanes to be bike lanes. I believe by not calling them bike lanes the powers that be are not required to keep them clear. Either way, if you hit the bike you would be at fault. Unfortunately for bicyclist, if you harmed him your prison sentence would likely be short, but you would likely lose your license for at least some amount of time. Then he could go after your assets. So yeah, hitting the bicyclist would be about as good an idea as ramming the garbage truck.     Date: 03 May 2007 06:40:19 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: :: On May 2, 8:04 pm, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kea...@yahoo.com > wrote: :: ::: Let's say, instead of a bicyclist it was a slow moving garbage ::: truck. What would you have done? It is moving slow, is it ::: dangerous for the truck? For you? Do you have trouble slowing for ::: the truck? Do you think people might run into the truck? This ::: is why brightly lit and garbed bicyclist feel safe in the lane, ::: they are pretty sure the drivers will see them. Drivers won't run ::: into either a bicyclist or a garbage truck. So no, they don't get ::: hit easily because drivers don't hit them. :: :: In this case , there was a wide 5-6 ft shoulder for him to use. Also :: instead of hugging the right most part of the lane, he was drifting :: 2-3 ft in from the edge. So one could not stay in the same lane to :: pass. And since it was rush hour, the other lane was impossible to :: get into. Questions: Was the shoulder clear of debris? How far was the shoulder available? Sometimes shoulders stop and if a cyclist is there, he can't get back in traffic easily because of CARS moving quickly in that lane. Hence, he may have realized this fact and was establishing himself as part of normal traffic. If the lane he was riding in was wide enough, it might have been safe for him to ride on the white line to let other cars pass in this lane. If it is not, then it would be unwise for him to do. Finally, it's his life. He needs to ride based on what he feels is safe for him. You nor I can be the judge of that.     Date: 03 May 2007 04:34:30 From: Leo Lichtman Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote: (clip) And since it was rush hour, the other lane was impossible to get into. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Really??! Then how is it that *he* caught up with *you* at the next signal?     Date: 03 May 2007 00:16:48 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > In this case , there was a wide 5-6 ft shoulder for him to use. Really? Was the shoulder reasonably clean, or was it full of broken bottles? Was it paved, or gravel? These considerations make a difference, and most cyclists would prefer to use a clean hard shoulder on a road like that. > Also > instead of hugging the right most part of the lane, he was drifting > 2-3 ft in from the edge. So one could not stay in the same lane to > pass. So change lanes. And since it was rush hour, the other lane was impossible to get > into. Impossible? Rarely is it "impossible" to change lanes, even in rush hour, to pass. You _might_ have to wait a few seconds, but come on, we've all been there, it is _not_ impossible. You would rather not, and feel somehow justified in running down another human being because you would rather not move over. Well, don't expect much validation of that. -- David L. Johnson "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson       Date: 03 May 2007 06:45:00 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage David L. Johnson wrote: :: Impossible? Rarely is it "impossible" to change lanes, even in rush :: hour, to pass. You _might_ have to wait a few seconds, but come on, :: we've all been there, it is _not_ impossible. You would rather not, :: and feel somehow justified in running down another human being :: because you would rather not move over. Well, don't expect much :: validation of that. I have met many drivers who admit that they find cycling dangerous because of their own reactions to cyclists they encounter in traffic. The inconvenience they feel is imposed upon them induces a rage that they themselves would be fearful off. Even though many of them don't do it, they do feel somehow justified in running down anoher human being due to a mere few seconds on inconvenience. I remember a phrase from the past: "Check yourself." I think it applies here.     Date: 02 May 2007 23:19:11 From: Gooserider Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178160613.968770.226110@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 8:04 pm, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kea...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Let's say, instead of a bicyclist it was a slow moving garbage truck. >> What >> would you have done? It is moving slow, is it dangerous for the truck? >> For >> you? Do you have trouble slowing for the truck? Do you think people >> might >> run into the truck? This is why brightly lit and garbed bicyclist feel >> safe in the lane, they are pretty sure the drivers will see them. >> Drivers >> won't run into either a bicyclist or a garbage truck. So no, they don't >> get >> hit easily because drivers don't hit them. > > In this case , there was a wide 5-6 ft shoulder for him to use. Also > instead of hugging the right most part of the lane, he was drifting > 2-3 ft in from the edge. So one could not stay in the same lane to > pass. And since it was rush hour, the other lane was impossible to get > into. He doesn't HAVE to "hug the rightmost part of the lane". The law in most areas says the cyclist has to stay as far right as practicable. That means as much as is safe.       Date: 03 May 2007 04:14:17 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message news:463954ae$0$27031$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1178160613.968770.226110@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> On May 2, 8:04 pm, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kea...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Let's say, instead of a bicyclist it was a slow moving garbage truck. >>> What >>> would you have done? It is moving slow, is it dangerous for the truck? >>> For >>> you? Do you have trouble slowing for the truck? Do you think people >>> might >>> run into the truck? This is why brightly lit and garbed bicyclist >>> feel >>> safe in the lane, they are pretty sure the drivers will see them. >>> Drivers >>> won't run into either a bicyclist or a garbage truck. So no, they don't >>> get >>> hit easily because drivers don't hit them. >> >> In this case , there was a wide 5-6 ft shoulder for him to use. Also >> instead of hugging the right most part of the lane, he was drifting >> 2-3 ft in from the edge. So one could not stay in the same lane to >> pass. And since it was rush hour, the other lane was impossible to get >> into. > > He doesn't HAVE to "hug the rightmost part of the lane". The law in most > areas says the cyclist has to stay as far right as practicable. That means > as much as is safe. Generally, I try to help motorists with passing me. I get passed by scores of cars every day on my way to work; they may pass a bicyclist once a week. I have lots of experience with getting passed; they have very little experience passing someone like me. For example, as I am coming up an uptick on156th, cars will very predictably (because of traffic patterns and the duration of the signal) pass me as the road both bends and curves. Some motorists freak out at this point -- the road appears to narrow, and the motorists become nervous. Since I have ridden this street so many times, been passed at this point hundreds and hundreds of times, unless someone is very incompetant, I know they should be able to pass me safely. So I give them an encouraging hand signal to help them get the courage to do so appropriately. All but the most timid give it a go. It's better for me (it's nerve-racking to be followed at >10 mph up the hill), and it's a lot better for them. Me riding along there I figure is also pretty good for the surrounding community, as it encourages the motorists to slow down appropriately as they come off of the freeway and enter the residential neighborhood's streets. For the most part, too, I do use bike lanes, ride on the paved shoulder, and otherwise allow cars to pass. That's being polite. It's no scratch off of my nose to let you go on your merry way, while I go along on mine. However, having said that, there are certain places where it is important for my safety, as a cyclist, to control the the lane. This is particularly true at intersections. I need to be where I can be seen and where I will not get right hooked. If you use a turn signal and let me know you want to turn right, I will scootle to the left. Then you can get around me on my right, you can take your free right turn, and we'll both be happier. But I'm not going to ride in the gutter just so you get pole position. It's a much more dangerous place for me, and I'm not going to trade your convenience for my safety. Further, there are places where I won't ride in the shoulder, or the bike lane, again, for my own safety. I don't use the bike lane west-bound on Dearborn, for example: my downhill speed is relatively high, and motorists tend to misjudge how fast I am moving when making right turns. I don't use the shoulder on a section of Eastgate Way because too much sand, gravel and other hazards have built up, and the city hasn't gotten around to sweeping it yet. You learn when it is appropriate to take the lane, and when it isn't, through experience. Part of the reason why riding transportationally is so frightening at first is largely because you hug the curb too much of the time. When you ride in the gutter, you get treated like something that belongs there. When you ride like you belong on the road, you are treated with respect. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky   Date: 02 May 2007 19:29:12 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 7:21 pm, "treyno...@my-deja.com" <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com > wrote: > In all honest, without actually seeing the situation it's hard to > know. I don't know if there was adequate room on the right side of > the road for him to safely ride in. You say there was but he probably > felt there wasn't, since he took the lane. The shoulder was at least 5 ft wide. The only reason I could think for not riding on it was it may have some small rocks and debris on it. > > I can tell you that the first thought that goes through a cyclist's > mind when a motorist honks at him, even a quick tap of the horn as you > say you did, is that the motorist is an impatient creep who wants the > cyclist to disappear. Most of the time it's true. In your case, > giving you the benefit of the doubt, it wasn't. But please understand > that the cyclist was probably expecting a confrontation when he caught > up with you. I agree with you fully on this. > Your attitude that cycling is suicidal is flat wrong. I regularly > commute across the city of San Diego at rush hour and have been doing > so since 1982. Right now my commute is 25 miles each way. I stay > alive by being more alert than motorists. There are skills to be > built up, just like driving in traffic. You are being very close > minded about accepting that. Again I am not convinced by a sample size of 1. Maybe our definitions of safety is different. Compared with driving a car to commuting, my gut feel is cycling is far more dangerous. Show me some studies with large sample populations that prove me wrong. It is a fact that pedestrians get hit all the time, as do motorcyclists.     Date: 03 May 2007 06:33:12 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: :: On May 2, 7:21 pm, "treyno...@my-deja.com" :: <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com > wrote: :: ::: In all honest, without actually seeing the situation it's hard to ::: know. I don't know if there was adequate room on the right side of ::: the road for him to safely ride in. You say there was but he ::: probably felt there wasn't, since he took the lane. :: :: The shoulder was at least 5 ft wide. The only reason I could think :: for not riding on it was it may have some small rocks and debris on :: it. :: :: ::: ::: I can tell you that the first thought that goes through a cyclist's ::: mind when a motorist honks at him, even a quick tap of the horn as ::: you say you did, is that the motorist is an impatient creep who ::: wants the cyclist to disappear. Most of the time it's true. In ::: your case, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it wasn't. But ::: please understand that the cyclist was probably expecting a ::: confrontation when he caught up with you. :: :: I agree with you fully on this. :: ::: Your attitude that cycling is suicidal is flat wrong. I regularly ::: commute across the city of San Diego at rush hour and have been ::: doing so since 1982. Right now my commute is 25 miles each way. I ::: stay alive by being more alert than motorists. There are skills to ::: be built up, just like driving in traffic. You are being very close ::: minded about accepting that. :: :: Again I am not convinced by a sample size of 1. Maybe our definitions :: of safety is different. Compared with driving a car to commuting, my :: gut feel is cycling is far more dangerous. Show me some studies with :: large sample populations that prove me wrong. It is a fact that :: pedestrians get hit all the time, as do motorcyclists. It's fully understandable as to why you feel this way....as you are one that a cyclist should be fearful of. Since you pose a hazard to any cyclist on the road, you naturally feel that cycling is hazardous. I meet people like you all the time. You think you have a god-given right to the road that is greater than other users of the road. And you don't feel you should have to slow down and wait on other traffic. There is not much difference between you and four-legged creatures that roam the earth.   Date: 02 May 2007 19:23:35 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 6:46 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > You appear to have made up your mind that it is too dangerous. It *is* > frightening at first, just as it is frightening when you first learn how to > drive. It takes a while to learn how to handle yourself in traffic. The more > you do it, though, the better you get at it. > Great , becasue ONE person manages to survice unscathed after 8 years, that makes it safe? Show me some scientific study with a large sample population and then maybe Ill try it.     Date: 05 May 2007 00:51:34 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 19:23:35 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > Great , becasue ONE person manages to survice unscathed after 8 years, > that makes it safe? Show me some scientific study with a large sample > population and then maybe Ill try it. there are a large number of studies but you obviously don't want to listen you just want to troll. PLONK.       Date: 05 May 2007 12:03:09 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Dennis P. Harris wrote: > On 2 May 2007 19:23:35 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Great , becasue ONE person manages to survice unscathed after 8 years, >> that makes it safe? Show me some scientific study with a large sample >> population and then maybe Ill try it. > > there are a large number of studies but you obviously don't want > to listen you just want to troll. PLONK. > Who did the studies? Some fat fools who were just doing another data mining job in their secure cubicles? Until bicycles are equipped with black boxes and cameras to snap every second of a ride for the NHTSA to analyze then the only evidence that comes in is hearsay. Bill Baka     Date: 03 May 2007 03:11:52 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178159015.768109.25320@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > Great , becasue ONE person manages to survice unscathed after 8 years, > that makes it safe? Show me some scientific study with a large sample > population and then maybe Ill try it. You may be interested in this page, which I feel does a fairly thorough examination of the topic: http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm You are probably a USAian, but you also might be interested in a large study done in Britain. The question is, how dangerous is bicycling compared to other activities of daily life? A 1999 study of emergency room incidents came up with these statistics: While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in 1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they were sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around. Here's more: "The trend was balanced only by the drop in injuries inflicted by armchairs, down from 18,690 to 16,662. Nevertheless, armchair injuries 'leave little room for complacency', New Scientist said, adding that injuries inflicted by vegetables 'remain unacceptably high' at 13,132. Hospital admissions caused by socks and tights rose from 9,843 to 10,773, while birdbath accidents almost trebled to 311." You should also note that tea cozy injuries nearly doubled, from 20 to an alarming 37. 5,945 people were hospitalized after trouser-related accidents. 146 were seriously hurt using bread bins and 329 from toilet roll holder related injuries. So, what are you going to do? Vaguely worry about the dangers of cycling while being stuck in some malordorous steel box in an interminable line of cars, fuming at your sorry situation? Or be on your bike, out on God's Green Earth and be free! -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky       Date: 03 May 2007 05:21:33 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Claire Petersky wrote: > <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1178159015.768109.25320@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > >> Great , becasue ONE person manages to survice unscathed after 8 years, >> that makes it safe? Show me some scientific study with a large sample >> population and then maybe Ill try it. > > You may be interested in this page, which I feel does a fairly thorough > examination of the topic: http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm > > You are probably a USAian, but you also might be interested in a large study > done in Britain. The question is, how dangerous is bicycling compared to > other activities of daily life? A 1999 study of emergency room incidents > came up with these statistics: While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in > 1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they were > sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around. > > > > Here's more: > > > > "The trend was balanced only by the drop in injuries inflicted by armchairs, > down from 18,690 to 16,662. Nevertheless, armchair injuries 'leave little > room for complacency', New Scientist said, adding that injuries inflicted by > vegetables 'remain unacceptably high' at 13,132. Hospital admissions caused > by socks and tights rose from 9,843 to 10,773, while birdbath accidents > almost trebled to 311." > > > > You should also note that tea cozy injuries nearly doubled, from 20 to an > alarming 37. 5,945 people were hospitalized after trouser-related accidents. > 146 were seriously hurt using bread bins and 329 from toilet roll holder > related injuries. > > > > So, what are you going to do? Vaguely worry about the dangers of cycling > while being stuck in some malordorous steel box in an interminable line of > cars, fuming at your sorry situation? > > > > Or be on your bike, out on God's Green Earth and be free! > > Claire, People die of heart attacks in bed. Does that make sleeping more hazardous than cycling? Give it a rest. Taking the lane in rush hour is for idiots. Are you a sane cyclist or a pompous idiot? I'm not name calling, just asking. Bill Baka         Date: 11 May 2007 12:58:55 From: Mark Mitchell Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2007-05-03, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > People die of heart attacks in bed. Does that make sleeping more > hazardous than cycling? > Give it a rest. First he says; > Taking the lane in rush hour is for idiots. Then, (skipping one line); > I'm not name calling, just asking. > Bill Baka Wow, that's bad. Even by BB standards. Just. Wow. Bill, me hat's off to ya. I'm not sure what to call that, but it's something. Mark         Date: 03 May 2007 06:24:09 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Bill wrote: :: Claire Petersky wrote: ::: <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message ::: news:1178159015.768109.25320@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... ::: :::: Great , becasue ONE person manages to survice unscathed after 8 :::: years, that makes it safe? Show me some scientific study with a :::: large sample population and then maybe Ill try it. ::: ::: You may be interested in this page, which I feel does a fairly ::: thorough examination of the topic: ::: http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm ::: ::: You are probably a USAian, but you also might be interested in a ::: large study done in Britain. The question is, how dangerous is ::: bicycling compared to other activities of daily life? A 1999 study ::: of emergency room incidents came up with these statistics: While ::: 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in 1999, 96,000 were ::: hospitalized from accidents occurring while they were sleeping, ::: relaxing, sitting or lying around. ::: ::: ::: ::: Here's more: ::: ::: ::: ::: "The trend was balanced only by the drop in injuries inflicted by ::: armchairs, down from 18,690 to 16,662. Nevertheless, armchair ::: injuries 'leave little room for complacency', New Scientist said, ::: adding that injuries inflicted by vegetables 'remain unacceptably ::: high' at 13,132. Hospital admissions caused by socks and tights ::: rose from 9,843 to 10,773, while birdbath accidents almost trebled ::: to 311." ::: ::: ::: ::: You should also note that tea cozy injuries nearly doubled, from 20 ::: to an alarming 37. 5,945 people were hospitalized after ::: trouser-related accidents. 146 were seriously hurt using bread bins ::: and 329 from toilet roll holder related injuries. ::: ::: ::: ::: So, what are you going to do? Vaguely worry about the dangers of ::: cycling while being stuck in some malordorous steel box in an ::: interminable line of cars, fuming at your sorry situation? ::: ::: ::: ::: Or be on your bike, out on God's Green Earth and be free! ::: ::: :: Claire, :: People die of heart attacks in bed. Does that make sleeping more :: hazardous than cycling? :: Give it a rest. :: Taking the lane in rush hour is for idiots. :: Are you a sane cyclist or a pompous idiot? :: I'm not name calling, just asking. :: Bill Baka I thought you had balls, bills. Perhpas we should call you "Billyballless".           Date: 04 May 2007 00:05:33 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Roger Zoul wrote: > Bill wrote: > :: Claire, > :: People die of heart attacks in bed. Does that make sleeping more > :: hazardous than cycling? > :: Give it a rest. > :: Taking the lane in rush hour is for idiots. > :: Are you a sane cyclist or a pompous idiot? > :: I'm not name calling, just asking. > :: Bill Baka > > I thought you had balls, bills. > > Perhpas we should call you "Billyballless". > > Alive and not stupid. I'm still an adrenaline junkie, but not to the point of playing chicken with an unknown driver in a car or truck. The road less traveled is often the better choice. Bill Baka           Date: 03 May 2007 09:53:35 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Roger Zoul wrote: > Bill wrote: >>> People die of heart attacks in bed. Does that make sleeping more >>> hazardous than cycling? >>> Give it a rest. >>> Taking the lane in rush hour is for idiots. >>> Are you a sane cyclist or a pompous idiot? >>> I'm not name calling, just asking. >>> Bill Baka > I thought you had balls, bills. > > Perhpas we should call you "Billyballless". LOL "Billyballless T. Bass" LOL             Date: 04 May 2007 00:10:55 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Bill Sornson wrote: > Roger Zoul wrote: >> Bill wrote: > >>>> People die of heart attacks in bed. Does that make sleeping more >>>> hazardous than cycling? >>>> Give it a rest. >>>> Taking the lane in rush hour is for idiots. >>>> Are you a sane cyclist or a pompous idiot? >>>> I'm not name calling, just asking. >>>> Bill Baka > >> I thought you had balls, bills. >> >> Perhpas we should call you "Billyballless". > > LOL "Billyballless T. Bass" LOL > > Sore Knee, Do you consider a six-pack and a bug-zapper entertainment? Bill Baka           Date: 03 May 2007 08:54:33 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage > > I thought you had balls, bills. > > Perhpas we should call you "Billyballless". What he has is a desire to be the center of attention at all times. A normal person would say, "this doesn't apply to me so I won't jump in with a response." Billy wants to be the center of attention and is trying to hijack the entire conversation to achieve this aim. It's sad, but there it is. Pat in TX > >             Date: 04 May 2007 00:10:08 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Pat wrote: >> I thought you had balls, bills. >> >> Perhpas we should call you "Billyballless". > > What he has is a desire to be the center of attention at all times. A normal > person would say, "this doesn't apply to me so I won't jump in with a > response." Billy wants to be the center of attention and is trying to > hijack the entire conversation to achieve this aim. It's sad, but there it > is. > > Pat in TX >> > > Sad is you clowns who are so damned self-righteous you can't realize how stupid it is to propose that the cyclist take the lane no matter what, where, when, or how. In light to moderate traffic you can take the lane on a 25-35 MPH road. Doing so on a busy road at rush hour is just plain stupid, even if legal. Cyclists are outnumbered by at least a thousand to one and should realize that one (or more) of those is very likely to have an attitude problem, or cell phone, or too old, or too drunk, to see you or even care. You are playing bad odds. Bill Baka         Date: 03 May 2007 06:41:39 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <xje_h.19968$JZ3.639@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > Claire Petersky wrote: > > <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1178159015.768109.25320@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > >> Great , becasue ONE person manages to survice unscathed after 8 years, > >> that makes it safe? Show me some scientific study with a large sample > >> population and then maybe Ill try it. > > > > You may be interested in this page, which I feel does a fairly thorough > > examination of the topic: > > http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm > > > > You are probably a USAian, but you also might be interested in a large > > study > > done in Britain. The question is, how dangerous is bicycling compared to > > other activities of daily life? A 1999 study of emergency room incidents > > came up with these statistics: While 172 cyclists in Britain were killed in > > 1999, 96,000 were hospitalized from accidents occurring while they were > > sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around. > > > > > > > > Here's more: > > > > > > > > "The trend was balanced only by the drop in injuries inflicted by > > armchairs, > > down from 18,690 to 16,662. Nevertheless, armchair injuries 'leave little > > room for complacency', New Scientist said, adding that injuries inflicted > > by > > vegetables 'remain unacceptably high' at 13,132. Hospital admissions caused > > by socks and tights rose from 9,843 to 10,773, while birdbath accidents > > almost trebled to 311." > > > > > > > > You should also note that tea cozy injuries nearly doubled, from 20 to an > > alarming 37. 5,945 people were hospitalized after trouser-related > > accidents. > > 146 were seriously hurt using bread bins and 329 from toilet roll holder > > related injuries. > > > > > > > > So, what are you going to do? Vaguely worry about the dangers of cycling > > while being stuck in some malordorous steel box in an interminable line of > > cars, fuming at your sorry situation? > > > > > > > > Or be on your bike, out on God's Green Earth and be free! > > > > > Claire, > People die of heart attacks in bed. Does that make sleeping more > hazardous than cycling? > Give it a rest. > Taking the lane in rush hour is for idiots. > Are you a sane cyclist or a pompous idiot? > I'm not name calling, just asking. > Bill Baka Curious...I take the lane in rush hour when necessary, most notably moving to the centre of the right lane on a particular somewhat blind curve on a rather busy part of my commute. It's clear that this is the safest alternative, since otherwise the trucks are tempted to pass within my lane, and they end up off-tracking me onto the sidewalk (which isn't safe either, because that's where the pedestrians and oncoming cyclists are riding, and it's even more blind than the road). Anyways, I'm not dead, and not especially pompous. My other vices more than make up for it. Don't even do Critical Mass rides, -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos           Date: 04 May 2007 00:03:01 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Ryan Cousineau wrote: > Curious...I take the lane in rush hour when necessary, most notably > moving to the centre of the right lane on a particular somewhat blind > curve on a rather busy part of my commute. It's clear that this is the > safest alternative, since otherwise the trucks are tempted to pass > within my lane, and they end up off-tracking me onto the sidewalk (which > isn't safe either, because that's where the pedestrians and oncoming > cyclists are riding, and it's even more blind than the road). > > Anyways, I'm not dead, and not especially pompous. My other vices more > than make up for it. > > Don't even do Critical Mass rides, > All I am really stating is that there are times and places where you can take the lane pretty safely, like in a 25 MPH residential zone, and places where it is not too bright to ride at all, like 45 MPH main roads. Bill Baka   Date: 02 May 2007 22:11:01 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). You should not pass any other vehicle, car or bike, while staying in the same lane. It is a 4-lane road. Change lanes to pass. -- David L. Johnson "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson   Date: 02 May 2007 21:42:57 From: Gooserider Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178145846.066277.223320@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). You are not required to stay in the same lane. Pass a cyclist like you would pass a tractor or horse-drawn buggy. I got hit by a motorist who tried to pass "while staying in the same lane". Why > would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit > just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping > drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. Cyclists are traffic. > So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to > explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for > his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? Are these people just > suicidal or it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and > just wait for a convenient time to pass? You are supposed to wait for a safe time to pass. Here in Florida it's the law that motorists MUST pass cyclists by at least three feet.   Date: 02 May 2007 17:57:13 From: limeylew@gmail.com Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Why > would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit > just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping > drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. > > So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to > explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for > his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? Are these people just > suicidal or it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and > just wait for a convenient time to pass? I'm a 66 year old retiree and have been 'car-free' for 3 years. During this time I have encountered many people like you. People who 'just don't get it'. Rather than trying to write you a long explanation, I'd like to give you a quote from Khalil Gibran:- "For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, none is possible". Lewis. *****   Date: 02 May 2007 17:29:20 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Why > would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit > just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping > drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. > > So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to > explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for > his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? Are these people just > suicidal or it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and > just wait for a convenient time to pass? There's a big (HUGE) difference between a "courtesy beep" to let a cyclist know you're behind him or her, and HONKING TO GET THE HELL OUT YOUR WAY. Think about it.   Date: 02 May 2007 17:21:40 From: treynolds@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 3:44 pm, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote: > I am ....... > just wait for a convenient time to pass? I have read the other responses as well as your replies. I, for one, appreciate the fact you are asking. I'll try to be civil in my reply. In all honest, without actually seeing the situation it's hard to know. I don't know if there was adequate room on the right side of the road for him to safely ride in. You say there was but he probably felt there wasn't, since he took the lane. Please keep in mind that your perspective is not the same as his. Yes, there are jackass cyclist, just like there are jackass drivers. I would have had to have been there to really know if he was one. I can tell you that the first thought that goes through a cyclist's mind when a motorist honks at him, even a quick tap of the horn as you say you did, is that the motorist is an impatient creep who wants the cyclist to disappear. Most of the time it's true. In your case, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it wasn't. But please understand that the cyclist was probably expecting a confrontation when he caught up with you. Your attitude that cycling is suicidal is flat wrong. I regularly commute across the city of San Diego at rush hour and have been doing so since 1982. Right now my commute is 25 miles each way. I stay alive by being more alert than motorists. There are skills to be built up, just like driving in traffic. You are being very close minded about accepting that. Tom   Date: 02 May 2007 17:14:30 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <1178145846.066277.223320@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >, veg_all@yahoo.com writes: > I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to Car horns are pretty loud and startling, especially when you're not in a car. > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Where does it say you have to pass in the same lane? Use the other lane, just as you would to pass any other vehicle. You typically don't even have to go all the way over the line to allow sufficient clearance. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 02 May 2007 16:40:06 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 6:35 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote: > Yeah, if you are that unskilled. > That would be a proper lesson for U. > > what skills are needed to occupy a lane during rush hour traffic on a 45 mph lane that would save my life? Do experienced cyclists know when some cell phone yapping distracted driver is approaching? Please share your wisdom!     Date: 05 May 2007 00:47:30 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 16:40:06 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > what skills are needed to occupy a lane during rush hour traffic on a > 45 mph lane that would save my life? go to your library and check out a copy of "effective cycling" by john forester. it describes exactly the skills that you need, because cycling in traffic is safer than driving in traffic. national stats show that over and over, even if you don't believe it.       Date: 05 May 2007 18:55:48 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Dennis P. Harris wrote: > On 2 May 2007 16:40:06 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > >> what skills are needed to occupy a lane during rush hour traffic on a >> 45 mph lane that would save my life? > > go to your library and check out a copy of "effective cycling" by > john forester. it describes exactly the skills that you need, > because cycling in traffic is safer than driving in traffic. > national stats show that over and over, even if you don't believe > it. > Do the stats mention anything specifically about taking the lane in 45 MPH rush hour traffic? Bill Baka     Date: 03 May 2007 05:17:17 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 6:35 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: > >> Yeah, if you are that unskilled. >> That would be a proper lesson for U. >> >> > > what skills are needed to occupy a lane during rush hour traffic on a > 45 mph lane that would save my life? Do experienced cyclists know when > some cell phone yapping distracted driver is approaching? Please share > your wisdom! > There is little wisdom here, just overblown self importance and opinions. The cyclist was an idiot, period. Now the self important "Experts" on here will start flaming me, for being logical and avoiding cars. Bill Baka       Date: 03 May 2007 08:51:46 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage >> > There is little wisdom here, just overblown self importance and opinions. > The cyclist was an idiot, period. > Now the self important "Experts" on here will start flaming me, for being > logical and avoiding cars. > Bill Baka No, Bill, they'll just sigh and wish you would grow up.         Date: 03 May 2007 17:18:19 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Pat wrote: >> There is little wisdom here, just overblown self importance and opinions. >> The cyclist was an idiot, period. >> Now the self important "Experts" on here will start flaming me, for being >> logical and avoiding cars. >> Bill Baka > > No, Bill, they'll just sigh and wish you would grow up. > > I don't think I can grow up any more. Each of you cycling "Experts" thinks that because you can take the lane in your commute that all cyclists should follow by your example. Getting rear ended in a car is very common due to the number of cars packed together. Put an equal amount of cyclists in the mix and the number of Darwin events will rise to a sudden peak. Getting hit by a car is bad enough when you are in a car, so now just take a second and think if you want to be rear-ended on a bike while you are in traffic. Not me. I analyze things from a point of sanity, and taking the lane does not fit into any equation that fits all roads at all times. Suicidal, period. Bill Baka           Date: 04 May 2007 11:33:13 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage >> > I don't think I can grow up any more. Each of you cycling "Experts" thinks > that because you can take the lane in your commute that all cyclists > should follow by your example. Getting rear ended in a car is very common > due to the number of cars packed together. Put an equal amount of cyclists > in the mix and the number of Darwin events will rise to a sudden peak. > Getting hit by a car is bad enough when you are in a car, so now just take > a second and think if you want to be rear-ended on a bike while you are in > traffic. > Not me. > I analyze things from a point of sanity, and taking the lane does not fit > into any equation that fits all roads at all times. > Suicidal, period. > Bill Baka The "cycling experts" on the newsgroup just believe in obeying the law. Until you do that, your voice is just static.             Date: 05 May 2007 00:49:08 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On Fri, 4 May 2007 11:33:13 -0600 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Pat" <Pat@starrynight.com > wrote: > The "cycling experts" on the newsgroup just believe in obeying the law. > Until you do that, your voice is just static. > most of us have baka killfiled because he's always trying to tell folks to ride against traffic, which is both stupid and against the law.               Date: 05 May 2007 18:59:55 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Dennis P. Harris wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2007 11:33:13 -0600 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Pat" > <Pat@starrynight.com> wrote: > >> The "cycling experts" on the newsgroup just believe in obeying the law. >> Until you do that, your voice is just static. >> > most of us have baka killfiled because he's always trying to tell > folks to ride against traffic, which is both stupid and against > the law. > I am not 'telling' people to ride against traffic unless it is absolutely necessary. There is one road where I have to do it because of a really bad road and lots of barely competent big rig drivers. I follow all laws except this one and only on a 3 mile stretch of really bad road. I'd rather be kill filed than actually killed by a truck. Bill Baka             Date: 04 May 2007 14:37:27 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Pat wrote: >> I don't think I can grow up any more. Each of you cycling "Experts" thinks >> that because you can take the lane in your commute that all cyclists >> should follow by your example. Getting rear ended in a car is very common >> due to the number of cars packed together. Put an equal amount of cyclists >> in the mix and the number of Darwin events will rise to a sudden peak. >> Getting hit by a car is bad enough when you are in a car, so now just take >> a second and think if you want to be rear-ended on a bike while you are in >> traffic. >> Not me. >> I analyze things from a point of sanity, and taking the lane does not fit >> into any equation that fits all roads at all times. >> Suicidal, period. >> Bill Baka > > The "cycling experts" on the newsgroup just believe in obeying the law. > Until you do that, your voice is just static. > > I am not obeying any law that puts me in danger just to be correct in your rather narrow point of view. Bill Baka     Date: 02 May 2007 21:45:12 From: Gooserider Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178149206.587812.180820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 6:35 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: > >> Yeah, if you are that unskilled. >> That would be a proper lesson for U. >> >> > > what skills are needed to occupy a lane during rush hour traffic on a > 45 mph lane that would save my life? Do experienced cyclists know when > some cell phone yapping distracted driver is approaching? Please share > your wisdom! Do you know when some cell phone distracted driver is going to T-bone you in an intersection? People die in their cars every day---lots of them.   Date: 02 May 2007 16:36:59 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him?     Date: 11 May 2007 13:10:03 From: Mark Mitchell Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2007-05-02, veg_all@yahoo.com <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote: > Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? > So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? > There's a simple reason for that. Every one of us has been in exactly that cyclists' position. Hundreds, maybe thousands of times. All of us are still here to tell the tale. I'd be surprised to find that more than a handfull of us have ever been hit from behind while taking the lane (riding in the right tire wipe). That's the difference between you and us, we've been in both situations and can accurately gauge the danger level on both parts. You've only experienced the driver's side. We know what we're talking about. You don't. Mark       Date: 11 May 2007 19:29:36 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage > veg_all@yahoo.com <> wrote: >> Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? >> So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? > There's a simple reason for that. Every one of us has been in exactly > that cyclists' position. Hundreds, maybe thousands of times. All of > us are still here to tell the tale. Mark Nah, that's not his "worry." He is hiding behind the cyclist's safety as an excuse to say that the cyclist doesn't belong on the road, period. He's only concerned about not being delayed one second. Pat in TX     Date: 05 May 2007 00:54:28 From: Dennis P. Harris Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 16:36:59 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? > So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? look, why don't you just stop driving during rush hour. i really don't think that you're safe on the road, and i don't understand why you take all that risk when you could take the bus. fucking troll. go away already.     Date: 03 May 2007 12:38:14 From: Robert Larson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? > So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? > I'll address that. The cyclist would be in no danger using the entire lane (as he/she is legally entitled) if the car(s) behind him stayed legally behind him and didn't honk. Scares the *^$% out of me to hear a horn honk close to me - short or long honk. I don't know about the "shoulder" you referred to in another post, but I won't ride on the shoulder of many roads. Loose gravel, debris, etc. In the City where I ride I also want to avoid being "doored". Another thing to think about . . . the more cyclists on the road the less the roads will be congested and your commute will be better! Or better yet, try a bicycle commute - I wish I had started earlier than at 54 years old - great exercise. Robert     Date: 03 May 2007 08:56:39 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote > Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? > So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? No, you aren't interested in his safety. You are trying to justify your ridiculous attitude towards cyclists by claiming to be interested in his safety. We all see that you are only interested in not being delayed a few seconds and not being sued for your money. Now, you jump in and say you are interested about his safety? You're not. It shows. Pat in TX >     Date: 03 May 2007 06:53:05 From: fluffy bunny Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <1178149019.085195.191430@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? > So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? Why are you paranoid? Are you not in control of your car? .max       Date: 03 May 2007 07:40:21 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage fluffy bunny wrote: :: In article <1178149019.085195.191430@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, :: veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: :: ::: Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists ::: safety? So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? :: :: Why are you paranoid? Are you not in control of your car? :: :: .max He was paranoid because he realized his likelihood of killing someone due to his own faults and biases. And if he did so, his deep pockets could potentially be not so deep, due to the fact that someone inconvenienced him.     Date: 03 May 2007 05:22:56 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? > So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? > Ask Gooserider. Bill Baka       Date: 03 May 2007 06:13:51 From: Gooserider Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:Qke_h.19969$JZ3.14901@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: >> Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? >> So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? >> > Ask Gooserider. > Bill Baka If I had taken more of the lane I don't believe I would have been hit.     Date: 02 May 2007 21:45:55 From: Gooserider Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178149019.085195.191430@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? > So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? If you pass him safely there's no chance of you hitting him. Go into the next lane.     Date: 03 May 2007 10:09:48 From: mtbnewbie Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com Wrote: > Interesting how no one has addressed the issue of the cyclists safety? > So maybe I am just being paranoid about hitting him? Is the cyclist at risk? Yes they are, especially with certain types o drivers, but it is a risk we accept and must live with as best we can However if drivers were more educated about the rules of the road an were made aware of the cyclists right to use the road it would make i much safer for everyone. Statistics have shown that cyclist who ride close to the curb or on th shoulder are far more likely to be hit. Most often because the drive thinks he can squeeze past when in fact the can't. I tend to take up about 1/3 of the lane -- mtbnewbie   Date: 02 May 2007 16:35:09 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 5:53 pm, "Rich Clark" <rdclark2S...@TRAPcomcast.net > wrote: > <veg_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message t wait for a convenient time to pass? > > You need to understand that cyclists _are_ traffic, and that whatever risk > exists is being created by you. The law gives the cyclist the right to the > lane, and *requires* you to pass safely and legally, or not at all. well i guess not at all is the solution in this case. > If you're In that much of a hurry, a little self-examination might be in > order. i was in no hurry.   Date: 02 May 2007 16:33:32 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 6:25 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > > I suggest that you ride a bike to and from work every day for the next > month, and find out why. > So I can get killed in 30 days?     Date: 03 May 2007 10:39:06 From: catzz66 Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 6:25 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> > wrote: > > >>I suggest that you ride a bike to and from work every day for the next >>month, and find out why. >> > > > > So I can get killed in 30 days? > (no answer)... ------------------- Robber to Jack Benny: "Your money or your life!" Benny, after pause: "I'm thinking! I'm thinking!"     Date: 02 May 2007 21:44:19 From: Gooserider Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178148812.005808.151610@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 6:25 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> > wrote: > >> >> I suggest that you ride a bike to and from work every day for the next >> month, and find out why. >> > > > So I can get killed in 30 days? You have an EXCELLENT chance of dying behind the wheel of your car.     Date: 02 May 2007 23:46:40 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178148812.005808.151610@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 6:25 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> > wrote: > >> I suggest that you ride a bike to and from work every day for the next >> month, and find out why. > > So I can get killed in 30 days? I have managed to ride to/from work for the last eight years without serious injury. You appear to have made up your mind that it is too dangerous. It *is* frightening at first, just as it is frightening when you first learn how to drive. It takes a while to learn how to handle yourself in traffic. The more you do it, though, the better you get at it. You're too afraid, though, to try. From my viewpoint, it's sort of sad. It's like when you have a friend who is in an abusive relationship, but she doesn't have the courage to leave her husband. But hey, it's up to you. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky     Date: 02 May 2007 23:35:54 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178148812.005808.151610@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 6:25 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> > wrote: > >> >> I suggest that you ride a bike to and from work every day for the next >> month, and find out why. >> > > > So I can get killed in 30 days? Yeah, if you are that unskilled. That would be a proper lesson for U. >   Date: 02 May 2007 16:32:49 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 5:54 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote: > Which helped you how? Did another lane magically appear so that he > could get out of your way? > there was shoulder he could have ridden on.     Date: 03 May 2007 06:52:22 From: fluffy bunny Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage In article <1178148769.886371.57390@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 5:54 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote: > > > Which helped you how? Did another lane magically appear so that he > > could get out of your way? > > > there was shoulder he could have ridden on. So could have you. shoulders are completely unsuitable, they are not roadways and they are strewn with tire-puncturing debris. The average bike would not make it 3 miles down the shoulder of a busy 45 mph 4-lane road before getting a puncture. Your suggestion is about as appealing as suggesting that one make out with one's sister. .max       Date: 03 May 2007 15:58:16 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "fluffy bunny" <betatron@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:betatron-F78813.01501903052007@news.west.earthlink.net... > In article <1178148769.886371.57390@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On May 2, 5:54 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote: >> >> > Which helped you how? Did another lane magically appear so that he >> > could get out of your way? >> > >> there was shoulder he could have ridden on. > > So could have you. > > shoulders are completely unsuitable, they are not roadways and they are > strewn with tire-puncturing debris. The average bike would not make it 3 > miles down the shoulder of a busy 45 mph 4-lane road before getting a > puncture. > > Your suggestion is about as appealing as suggesting that one make out > with one's sister. > > .max Hey, I think we are getting somewhere. Very persuasive depending on his genes.     Date: 03 May 2007 16:18:58 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 16:32:49 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > there was shoulder he could have ridden on. Do you cheerfully take the risk of driving on shoulders when people want to pass you? No? Then why should anyone else? -- Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw       Date: 03 May 2007 15:54:17 From: nash Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message news:r7wpdgoli2qz$.1edkz9l0g8ynq$.dlg@40tude.net... > On 2 May 2007 16:32:49 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > >> there was shoulder he could have ridden on. > > Do you cheerfully take the risk of driving on shoulders when people want > to > pass you? No? Then why should anyone else? > > -- > Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw That's true. It is not safe for drivers so they should all know that already. Self righteous bullies. Sorry, but you are damned for trying in this group, as if.     Date: 02 May 2007 22:15:06 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 5:54 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote: > >> Which helped you how? Did another lane magically appear so that he >> could get out of your way? >> > there was shoulder he could have ridden on. As well as another lane you could have used to pass. -- David L. Johnson "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson   Date: 02 May 2007 16:32:08 From: Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On May 2, 6:53 pm, "Pat" <P...@starrynight.com > wrote: > I would like to ask why you honked your horn at him. What did you expect him > to do upon hearing the blaring of the horn? I didnt blare the horn, just very briefly used it. > Please explain why you think a cyclist does not belong on the road. because they can get hit very easily and get injured far more easily then any other mode of transportation on the road.     Date: 11 May 2007 13:15:00 From: Mark Mitchell Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2007-05-02, veg_all@yahoo.com <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote: > On May 2, 6:53 pm, "Pat" <P...@starrynight.com> wrote: > >> I would like to ask why you honked your horn at him. What did you expect him >> to do upon hearing the blaring of the horn? > > I didnt blare the horn, just very briefly used it. That's not what you were asked. Why did you honk your horn AT ALL? >> Please explain why you think a cyclist does not belong on the road. > > because they can get hit very easily and get injured far more easily > then any other mode of transportation on the road. > Wrong. Compare bicycling to motorcycling. Mark     Date: 02 May 2007 22:13:47 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 2, 6:53 pm, "Pat" <P...@starrynight.com> wrote: > >> I would like to ask why you honked your horn at him. What did you expect him >> to do upon hearing the blaring of the horn? > > I didnt blare the horn, just very briefly used it. Do you honk at other drivers as you pass them? > >> Please explain why you think a cyclist does not belong on the road. > > because they can get hit very easily and get injured far more easily > then any other mode of transportation on the road. That is an explanation for why you should be careful. It's damn easy for me to hit your shiny new car with my old junker, too. Maybe I should? Heck, my car wouldn't get damaged, since it's already dented up, so why shouldn't I? Is that your logic here? -- David L. Johnson "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson     Date: 02 May 2007 18:04:19 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178148728.440032.325010@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 6:53 pm, "Pat" <P...@starrynight.com> wrote: > >> I would like to ask why you honked your horn at him. What did you expect >> him >> to do upon hearing the blaring of the horn? > > I didnt blare the horn, just very briefly used it. > >> Please explain why you think a cyclist does not belong on the road. > > because they can get hit very easily and get injured far more easily > then any other mode of transportation on the road. Let's say, instead of a bicyclist it was a slow moving garbage truck. What would you have done? It is moving slow, is it dangerous for the truck? For you? Do you have trouble slowing for the truck? Do you think people might run into the truck? This is why brightly lit and garbed bicyclist feel safe in the lane, they are pretty sure the drivers will see them. Drivers won't run into either a bicyclist or a garbage truck. So no, they don't get hit easily because drivers don't hit them.   Date: 02 May 2007 23:25:03 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178145846.066277.223320@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > I drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). My question to you, dear Veg All, is, what was your purpose in honking at the cyclist? > Why > would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit > just so he can bike home after work? I suggest that you ride a bike to and from work every day for the next month, and find out why. > I tried to > explain it was very easy to hit him I believe this cyclist is aware that stupid and impatient drivers are dangerous, yes. > it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and > just wait for a convenient time to pass? Different vehicles hold up traffic at rush hour, depending on circumstances. When I'm heading north out of downtown, motor vehicles form a critical mass, preventing me from bicycling at the speeds to which I am accustomed. If all the motorists were instead on bicycles, then we all would be able to move at 15 - 20 mph. Instead we are forced to creep and crawl a few feet at a time. Is it perfectly normal for them to hold up non-motorized traffic at rush hour? Yes. Do I have a temper tantrum, ring my little bell, and then condescendingly lecture them at the error of their ways? I admit it occasionally crosses my mind, but I don't think that they would appreciate it. So, Veg All, what happens when other vehicles hold you up? You do some deep breathing exercises. You do what is safe. You getting home is not more important than the lives of other people. You do not have a greater right to the road than other people, no matter if you are in a car or a on bicycle. That you have chosen to drive gives you no more greater rights to anything than if you choose to bicycle, and vice versa. We're all getting home from work. I enjoy riding. You might enjoy driving (probably because you don't know any better, but it isn't right for me to assume -- maybe you're disabled or something). >I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. You did not. But thank you for asking. Since it looks like you need a little remedial review: WHEN TO HONK AT A BICYCLIST 1. When someone is facing imminent death, and you think that honking might somehow avert a fatal accident. 2. When you're my good friend, and you want to catch my attention so we can wave at each other. (Hi Kathy!) 3. When you want me and probably everyone in the immediate vicinity to know that you are a complete, brain-dead, total, doofus. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky   Date: 02 May 2007 22:56:00 From: Grolch Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178145846.066277.223320@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Why > would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit > just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping > drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. > > So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to > explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for > his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? Are these people just > suicidal or it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and > just wait for a convenient time to pass? > In MOST jurisdictions the cyclist had EVERY RIGHT to "take" a lane when a reasonable legal alternate pathway is not available. Taking the lane, and thereby forcing drivers to change lanes to go around is in most cases far safer than leaving it up to the discretion of the driver to judge whether there is sufficient room for 2 lanes of traffic AND a cyclist. Get used to it, and be patient.   Date: 03 May 2007 08:24:38 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage On 2 May 2007 15:44:06 -0700, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote: > I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Which helped you how? Did another lane magically appear so that he could get out of your way? -- Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw     Date: 03 May 2007 03:33:19 From: Alex Colvin Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage >> I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I Most motorists aren't aware how loud their horns are outside the car. The cyclist was probably startled. Hava a friend honk when you're standing in front of the car sometime. It nearly made me jump out of my shoes. -- mac the naïf   Date: 02 May 2007 17:53:57 From: Pat Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage ... >I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Why > would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit > just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping > drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. > > So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to > explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for > his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? Are these people just > suicidal or it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and > just wait for a convenient time to pass? I would like to ask why you honked your horn at him. What did you expect him to do upon hearing the blaring of the horn? It seems to me that you wanted him off of "Your" road and you are hiding behind "his safety." All he was doing--at the most--was causing you to slow down a bit. It is important for you to get out of the lane when passing because your right-side rear view mirror could hit the cyclist in the head. Please explain why you think a cyclist does not belong on the road. Pat in TX     Date: 02 May 2007 21:47:02 From: Gooserider Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Pat" <Pat@starrynight.com > wrote in message news:59sj4mF2m5vk6U1@mid.individual.net... > > ... >>I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I >> drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I >> briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to >> pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Why >> would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit >> just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping >> drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. >> >> So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to >> explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for >> his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? Are these people just >> suicidal or it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and >> just wait for a convenient time to pass? > > > I would like to ask why you honked your horn at him. What did you expect > him to do upon hearing the blaring of the horn? > > It seems to me that you wanted him off of "Your" road and you are hiding > behind "his safety." All he was doing--at the most--was causing you to > slow down a bit. It is important for you to get out of the lane when > passing because your right-side rear view mirror could hit the cyclist in > the head. > > Please explain why you think a cyclist does not belong on the road. > I will testify to the truthfulness of Pat's word----mirrors HURT. I'm grateful I was wearing my helmet. Motorists need to pass with MORE SPACE. > >       Date: 02 May 2007 21:45:30 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Gooserider wrote: > ---mirrors HURT. I'm grateful I was wearing my helmet. Here we go... <eg >         Date: 03 May 2007 05:11:35 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Bill Sornson wrote: > Gooserider wrote: > >> ---mirrors HURT. I'm grateful I was wearing my helmet. > > Here we go... <eg> > > Getting run over with a helmet on still hurts.;<) Take the lane from a full cement truck and see how much the helmet saves your life. Hah! Bill Baka           Date: 03 May 2007 06:13:15 From: Gooserider Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:bae_h.19966$JZ3.10240@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > Bill Sornson wrote: >> Gooserider wrote: >> >>> ---mirrors HURT. I'm grateful I was wearing my helmet. >> >> Here we go... <eg> > Getting run over with a helmet on still hurts.;<) > Take the lane from a full cement truck and see how much the helmet saves > your life. > Hah! > Bill Baka I took a direct mirror hit to the head. Helmet worked.             Date: 04 May 2007 00:00:46 From: Bill Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage Gooserider wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:bae_h.19966$JZ3.10240@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... >> Bill Sornson wrote: >>> Gooserider wrote: >>> >>>> ---mirrors HURT. I'm grateful I was wearing my helmet. >>> Here we go... <eg> >> Getting run over with a helmet on still hurts.;<) >> Take the lane from a full cement truck and see how much the helmet saves >> your life. >> Hah! >> Bill Baka > > I took a direct mirror hit to the head. Helmet worked. > > Yeah, Mirror to the head is one thing, but what if he had been a foot more to the right. Remember that you only have to be 16 and pass an absurdly simple test to get a license in the states. Many drivers are so poorly trained they can't change their own tire. Just think of the average competence level in those cars and trucks. Bill Baka   Date: 02 May 2007 18:53:27 From: Rich Clark Subject: Re: Cyclist Road Rage <veg_all@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178145846.066277.223320@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >I am not a cyclist so would like to know if I did the right thing. I > drove home at 5:30 which is rush hour on a 45MPH speed limit road. I > briefly honked the horn at a cyclist because it was not possible to > pass him while staying in the same lane ( this is a 4-lane road ). Why > would somoene chose to hold up traffic and risk getting himself hit > just so he can bike home after work? In this age of cell-phone yapping > drivers, I could easily see him getting hit. > > So he pulls up to me at the light and was quite mad. I tried to > explain it was very easy to hit him and he should be more careful for > his own safety, but he would have nothing of it? Are these people just > suicidal or it perfectly normal to hold up traffic at rush hour and > just wait for a convenient time to pass? You need to understand that cyclists _are_ traffic, and that whatever risk exists is being created by you. The law gives the cyclist the right to the lane, and *requires* you to pass safely and legally, or not at all. If you're In that much of a hurry, a little self-examination might be in order. R