bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 20 Aug 2007 14:52:54 From: Paul Berg Subject: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle ~ In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states have the same or similar requirements. With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume traffic areas. The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their vehicles do. ~   Date: 02 Sep 2007 00:28:38 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fbc6cg$goi$1@blue.rahul.net >, John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us > writes: > Arif Khokar wrote: >> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because >> they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give >> cyclists a full lane when passing them. > > A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because he > won't wait. The drivers behind an incompetent driver will lose time, waiting to pass a bicyclist, because the lead incompetent driver will feel compelled to make an issue out of the fact that there's a cyclist on the road. Such a driver will refuse to pass the cyclist, despite the cyclist giving the car drivers every opportunity to pass. No, the leading incompetent driver will take the presence of a cyclist as a chance to indulge in his own road-hoggery to inflict his own passive-aggressiveness on the drivers behind him, while having the cyclist ahead of him to lay blame onto. How convenient. We cyclists /want/ you impatient boneheads to be ahead of us, and we give you every opportunity to do so. But do you take those opportunities? Noooooo! You've gotta make a stoopid point about: "Oh, dear -- there's a cyclist on the road", and hold-up a bunch of other people in the process. Nobody wants to be stuck with the loudmouthed, self-important likes of you riding our collective ass. You wanna get ahead of us? Go ahead. Please! Try not to hurt or kill anybody in the process. Especially in lower speed zones, like around parks, playgrounds and schools. > No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business on > the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows the > maximum number of other people through. What a crock of shit. > Those who see it as drivers' > problem when they delay drivers SHOULD be run down, or at least beat up, > until they and others like them learn their lesson. It's disturbingly telling, when drivers gleefully talk about running people down. Look at the shameful thing you've become. Y'know what? Considering the attitude you express in your post, I wouldn't be surprised if you were also a cutter-offer in traffic, and a butt-insky in bank or fast food restaraunt queues. You make it sound like cyclists actually /want/ to perturb irate, violent, self-centered people like yourself. Nothing could be further from the truth. The further you are from us, and from civil society in general, the better. Otherwise you just drag everybody around you down. -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 01 Sep 2007 20:03:17 From: Luke Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <8373-46CA0D36-1081@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net >, Paul Berg <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote: > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should > catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that > the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some > type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their > vehicles do. Around here bicycles DO have minimum requirements. They must have lights (at night), brakes, and a bell/horn, etc... A cyclist is expected to aware of, and observe the rules of the world. He is considered a vehicle under the law. Because *you* considered the bicycle as 'basically a recreational vehicle for children' never relegated it to such a limited function. The fact is the bicycle can be many things: a toy for kids of all ages, a pay cheque, a route to physical fitness, a objet d'art, a cargo vehicle, a source of transportation, etc... You undermine the value of the instrument by characterizing one of its lesser roles, the most frivolous by far, as its defining essence. Rubbish. Your statement reveals little of a bicycle's nature and more about your, thus far, blinkered perspective. Glad to see you're acknowledging reality and shedding your misconceptions. A sketchbook and pencils in the hands of a child can be a source of amusement; in the hands of da Vinci, a means of amusement as well as profound expression. Pity the infantile renaissance man, playing with with scribbling toys.     Date: 01 Sep 2007 20:12:03 From: Luke Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <010920072003178454%lucasiragusa@rogers.com >, Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote: > Around here bicycles DO have minimum requirements. They must have > lights (at night), brakes, and a bell/horn, etc... A cyclist is > expected to aware of, and observe the rules of the world Heh heh, that should read 'rules of the road'. Obeying the rules of the world is also appreciated.   Date: 01 Sep 2007 16:33:52 From: The poster last in PDX in 2003 Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle?are long gone On Sep 1, 1:45 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Paul Berg writes: > > In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a > > motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This > > supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules > > of the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It > > is also required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle > > helmet and have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be > > registered and meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure > > most other states have the same or similar requirements. > > With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means > > of commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a > > serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance > > requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume > > traffic areas. > > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws > > should catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the > > public that the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas > > are meeting some type of minimum requirements as the motorists, > > motorcyclists and their vehicles do. > > With increasing numbers of pedestrians crossing streets and walking on > roads in urban areas, registration and approved helmets because should > be required, otherwise they are a liability to vehicle operators in > front of whom they might step. > > This kind of thinking fits the GWB big brother syndrome but where will > it stop? Guantanamo? > > Jobst Brandt You're insane. You can't get there on a bicycle!   Date: 01 Sep 2007 16:32:56 From: The poster last in PDX in 2003 Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Sep 1, 11:07 am, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us > wrote: > Arif Khokar wrote: > > A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because > > they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give > > cyclists a full lane when passing them. > > A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because he > won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business on > the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows the > maximum number of other people through. Those who see it as drivers' > problem when they delay drivers SHOULD be run down, or at least beat up, > until they and others like them learn their lesson. I limit that to a couple lights where I NEED to be in the middle of things and have been in peril to many times. Yes, I whoop and holler if need be as bleeding is more annoying and swearing worse.   Date: 01 Sep 2007 19:45:24 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle?are long gone Paul Berg writes: > In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a > motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This > supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules > of the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It > is also required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle > helmet and have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be > registered and meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure > most other states have the same or similar requirements. > With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means > of commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a > serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance > requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume > traffic areas. > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws > should catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the > public that the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas > are meeting some type of minimum requirements as the motorists, > motorcyclists and their vehicles do. With increasing numbers of pedestrians crossing streets and walking on roads in urban areas, registration and approved helmets because should be required, otherwise they are a liability to vehicle operators in front of whom they might step. This kind of thinking fits the GWB big brother syndrome but where will it stop? Guantanamo? Jobst Brandt   Date: 28 Aug 2007 00:42:41 From: Picachu is a recovering sex slave Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 28, 12:24 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > It's > > specifically at intersections that bike lanes confuse things, > > If one is Easily confused. Apparently you are. He's not CONFUSED, he's OUT OF QUARTERS!   Date: 28 Aug 2007 00:41:47 From: Picachu is a recovering sex slave Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 28, 12:23 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net > wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Lobby Dosser wrote: > >> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: > > >>> Lobby Dosser wrote: > >>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote: > > >>>>> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote: > >>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser > >>>>>>> <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every > >>>>>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you > >>>>>>>> unbelted. > >>>>>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much > >>>>>>> different in their effectiveness. > >>>>>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws. > > >>>>>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on > >>>>>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car > >>>>>>> crashes. > >>>>>> Wrong. > > >>>>>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a > >>>>>>> disembodied head (no body mass driving the collision) in a > >>>>>>> simple linear collision (not the more damaging rotational > >>>>>>> accelerations) at a mere 14 mph (much less than the impact speed > >>>>>>> of, say, a "left hook" collision with a car). > >>>>>> You want to volunteer for testing? > > >>>>>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being > >>>>>>> far too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to > >>>>>>> replicate a "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell > >>>>>>> engineers correctly claimed that anything that would protect > >>>>>>> against a really serious crash would be unwearable. > >>>>>> So MC helmets are worthless.... > >>>>> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF > >>>>> do MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that? > >>>> Apparently they are unwearable. > >>> Motorcycle helmets are unwearable on a HUMAN POWERED BICYCLE in warm > >>> to hot weather for extended periods. Duh. > > >>>>> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a > >>>>> foam bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in > >>>>> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to > >>>>> wear on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in > >>>>> anything but winter weather. > >>>> You've done it? > >>> Done what? Indefinite pronouns strike again! > > >> Worn a MC helmet while bicycling, you bloody fool. > > > No, I am not that stupid. The motorcycle helmet makes my head > > significantly warmer, so its effect on a day when wearing even a > > bicycle foam hat feels almost to much would be obvious. Well, maybe > > not obvious to "Lobby Dosser". > > So, which is it? Yes you tried or no you did not? He should wear it in the winter only! ROTFLMAO++   Date: 27 Aug 2007 21:08:01 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 27, 2:16 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > So, what is "hugely beneficial" about that stripe? It's never done me > > any good that I could tell. > > Well, at least here in Oregon, it is illegal for a car to drive or park > in the bike lane (with a few exceptions, like for mail delivery). Not > that you'd notice from the way drivers disobey the restriction, but > that's an enforcement problem. With a striped bike path, you are > guaranteed a section of pavement that you do not have to share with a > car except at intersections. > > I routinely ride the Cornell road corridor between Hillsboro and > Portland, almost the entire length of which is a striped bike lane. > Aside from the inevitable road debris that accumulates there, it is the > easiest section of road for a biker to travel - which is why I use it. Interesting! Because even though I'm not from that area, I've ridden that road. The last time I rode it from Hillsboro to downtown Portland, it was to attend the Blues Festival one year. And interestingly, it was on that road - not far from the wooded part of the West Hills, IIRC - that a couple dudes in a compact car yelled obscenities at me and told me to "Get off the *#@! road!!" despite my being in the bike lane. But anyway: What is the benefit of the stripe? If the stripe were magically removed, you'd still have pavement wide enough for safe passing. You would not have the glass and "inevitable road debris" because random motion of cars, when bikes are absent, would sweep it clean. You could keep cars from parking on the pavement by putting up signs that say .... wait for it.... "No Parking." And your statement that you don't have to share with cars "except at intersections" should give you a clue as to another weakness. It's specifically at intersections that bike lanes confuse things, and it's specifically at intersections that most car-bike crashes happen. I'll admit that Portland's bike lanes are better designed than those I've ridden in other places - like those in Columbus, Ohio for example. But that makes them only less objectionable, not beneficial. And as always, the benefits compared to unstriped pavement of the same width seem imaginary. Certainly, I have no trouble cycling on those Portland area streets that have no bike lanes, provided they have equivalent width. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 28 Aug 2007 06:24:37 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > It's > specifically at intersections that bike lanes confuse things, If one is Easily confused. Apparently you are.       Date: 28 Aug 2007 08:02:02 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:24:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in <FcPAi.51$CO5.3@trndny01>: >> It's >> specifically at intersections that bike lanes confuse things, >If one is Easily confused. Apparently you are. Ah, another subject on which you pontificate aggressively without the benefit of any actual knowledge. Might have known. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound   Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:50:45 From: amakyonin Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 24, 7:18 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu > wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > > When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when there's a > > NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often dangerous to do > > so. > > Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike > like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>? People like Bill enjoy being stomped on (right hooked) and won't bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist.     Date: 04 Sep 2007 12:13:14 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1188233445.361929.81780@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >, amakyonin <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com > wrote: > >bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when >appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or >feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a >cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their >destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist. They'll lose those few seconds at best. They could miss the next light as a result. At which point the bicyclist will often pass the stopped motorist, run the light, and then block the motorist again. Repeat as often as desired. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.       Date: 04 Sep 2007 18:10:14 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <xYadnXWkG5C3D0DbnZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > In article <1188233445.361929.81780@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > amakyonin <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when >>appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or >>feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a >>cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their >>destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist. > > They'll lose those few seconds at best. No. The few seconds timing a pass of a bicyclist is still moving very close to the speed one would have been moving if the bicyclist were not there. > They could miss the next light as a result. I miss more lights due to other drivers when I am driving and drivers when I am bicycling than because of bicyclists somewhere around a factor of 10,000. > At which point the bicyclist will often pass the stopped > motorist, run the light, and then block the motorist again. Repeat as > often as desired. I have no love of them and usually I'll make a comment to them if I am biking at the time. They are slow... I always catch them when bicycling myself.         Date: 04 Sep 2007 20:04:11 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <CLWdnTIGidJLeEDbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com > wrote: >In article <xYadnXWkG5C3D0DbnZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >> In article <1188233445.361929.81780@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >> amakyonin <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when >>>appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or >>>feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a >>>cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their >>>destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist. >> >> They'll lose those few seconds at best. > >No. The few seconds timing a pass of a bicyclist is still moving very >close to the speed one would have been moving if the bicyclist were not >there. You mean doing 10mph as opposed to 30mph? I think not. >> They could miss the next light as a result. > >I miss more lights due to other drivers when I am driving Which is not relevant. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.           Date: 04 Sep 2007 21:08:41 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <K4adnfvEOvMWnUPbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > In article <CLWdnTIGidJLeEDbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote: >>In article <xYadnXWkG5C3D0DbnZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >>> In article <1188233445.361929.81780@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >>> amakyonin <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when >>>>appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or >>>>feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a >>>>cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their >>>>destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist. >>> >>> They'll lose those few seconds at best. >> >>No. The few seconds timing a pass of a bicyclist is still moving very >>close to the speed one would have been moving if the bicyclist were not >>there. > > You mean doing 10mph as opposed to 30mph? I think not. No, I mean doing at worst 25mph instead of 30mph. Often it's doing 35mph instead of 30mph. luck of the draw wether I have to speed up or slow down to time a pass of a bicyclist. >>> They could miss the next light as a result. >> >>I miss more lights due to other drivers when I am driving > Which is not relevant. It damn well is. If someone slowing down a driver is the problem, address the bigest bang for buck first, the sloth driver. When I was biking Irving Park Road today I had the fastest average speed of any vehicle on the road. IPR has a a very wide curb lane that is effectively blocked to motor vehicles during the afternoon by on street parking. However there is still an 8 foot space to ride. I can ride there and for the most part not be slowed by drivers.             Date: 05 Sep 2007 20:17:18 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <kJidnXRkqso0kkPbnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com >, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com > wrote: >In article <K4adnfvEOvMWnUPbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >> In article <CLWdnTIGidJLeEDbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>In article <xYadnXWkG5C3D0DbnZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >>>> In article <1188233445.361929.81780@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >>>> amakyonin <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when >>>>>appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or >>>>>feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a >>>>>cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their >>>>>destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist. >>>> >>>> They'll lose those few seconds at best. >>> >>>No. The few seconds timing a pass of a bicyclist is still moving very >>>close to the speed one would have been moving if the bicyclist were not >>>there. >> >> You mean doing 10mph as opposed to 30mph? I think not. > >No, I mean doing at worst 25mph instead of 30mph. It's never necessary to slow to less than 25mph to pass a lane-blocking bicyclist? Again, I think not. >> Which is not relevant. > >It damn well is. If someone slowing down a driver is the problem, address >the bigest bang for buck first, the sloth driver. If they are both problems, there is no need to address them in a strict hierarchical order. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.               Date: 05 Sep 2007 23:46:41 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <v5SdnT-KT9iDyELbnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > In article <kJidnXRkqso0kkPbnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com>, > Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote: >>In article <K4adnfvEOvMWnUPbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >>> In article <CLWdnTIGidJLeEDbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >>> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>In article <xYadnXWkG5C3D0DbnZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >>>>> In article <1188233445.361929.81780@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> amakyonin <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when >>>>>>appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or >>>>>>feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a >>>>>>cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their >>>>>>destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist. >>>>> >>>>> They'll lose those few seconds at best. >>>> >>>>No. The few seconds timing a pass of a bicyclist is still moving very >>>>close to the speed one would have been moving if the bicyclist were not >>>>there. >>> >>> You mean doing 10mph as opposed to 30mph? I think not. >> >>No, I mean doing at worst 25mph instead of 30mph. > It's never necessary to slow to less than 25mph to pass a > lane-blocking bicyclist? Again, I think not. I see you're trying to change this into something I did write. I've never had to adjust my speed more than about 5mph to pass a bicyclist. >>> Which is not relevant. >> >>It damn well is. If someone slowing down a driver is the problem, address >>the bigest bang for buck first, the sloth driver. > If they are both problems, there is no need to address them in a > strict hierarchical order. The bicyclist isn't a problem, it's the idiot driver who cannot figure out how to pass smoothly. Both 'problems' are the drivers. I don't have a problem passing bicyclists and I drive congested roads of the city and country variety. Tonight's 'problem driver' when I was bicycling... I am riding up to a RED signal in the right lane... the left lane has a longer queue. This woman decides to move fast down the left lane and as I am to start passing the last car in the left lane queue she cuts me off.... I can't avoid hitting her by braking alone as she is now on her brakes to avoid rear ending the car in the right lane queue and my braking doesn't allow for the distance being shortened. I keep sounding my air horn and sail by her on the right as she didn't accelerate when the light turned green.... guess what? she was slothing a right hand turn. The bitch either wanted me to wait for her or was intending to right hook me. I don't know which. Of course had she just moved behind me, she would have lost no time and there would have been no collision risk... just another asshole driver who *had* to pass the bicyclist.... If I had been driving she would not have pulled that asshattery and if she had there might have been bent sheet metal as per insurance rules, those sort of things will be side impacts.       Date: 04 Sep 2007 17:26:29 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > They'll lose those few seconds at best. They could miss the next light as > a result. At which point the bicyclist will often pass the stopped > motorist, run the light, and then block the motorist again. Repeat as > often as desired. Then time your pass so that you don't end up at the cyclist's speed for an "inordinate" amount of time. For instance, if there's oncoming traffic and I'm catching up to a cyclist, I'll reduce speed (say from 40 to 30 mph), wait for traffic to pass, move to left and pass the cyclist, without losing much time at all. All it requires is a degree of situational awareness.         Date: 04 Sep 2007 23:21:27 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu > wrote: > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > >> They'll lose those few seconds at best. They could miss the next >> light as a result. At which point the bicyclist will often pass the >> stopped motorist, run the light, and then block the motorist again. >> Repeat as often as desired. > > Then time your pass so that you don't end up at the cyclist's speed > for an "inordinate" amount of time. For instance, if there's oncoming > traffic and I'm catching up to a cyclist, I'll reduce speed (say from > 40 to 30 mph), wait for traffic to pass, move to left and pass the > cyclist, without losing much time at all. All it requires is a degree > of situational awareness. > And when you stop at the light, don't leave room for the cyclist to pass.     Date: 30 Aug 2007 16:25:03 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle amakyonin wrote: > On Aug 24, 7:18 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote: >> Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike >> like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>? > People like Bill enjoy being stomped on (right hooked) and won't > bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when > appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or > feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a > cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their > destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist. A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give cyclists a full lane when passing them. Getting back to the picture I posted, the point I was trying to make is that the bike lane pictured is too narrow to ride in safely, therefore I take the lane.       Date: 01 Sep 2007 10:07:39 From: John David Galt Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Arif Khokar wrote: > A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because > they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give > cyclists a full lane when passing them. A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because he won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business on the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows the maximum number of other people through. Those who see it as drivers' problem when they delay drivers SHOULD be run down, or at least beat up, until they and others like them learn their lesson.         Date: 03 Sep 2007 20:57:53 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle John David Galt wrote: > Arif Khokar wrote: >> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because >> they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give >> cyclists a full lane when passing them. > A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because he > won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business on > the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows the > maximum number of other people through. So why don't those motor vehicles get off the road instead of block me when I'm riding? I ride through an area where there are a lot of intersecting crosswalks and pedestrian traffic. Inevitably, I'm behind one of those vehicles that stops for pedestrians not within the crosswalk and doesn't take the opportunity to go when there's a break in pedestrian traffic. Those motor vehicles are blocking my progress, since I, on a bicycle can easily ride through small gaps in pedestrian traffic and be well on my way. I don't see you saying that those motor vehicles have no business being on the road.           Date: 04 Sep 2007 08:41:26 From: John David Galt Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Arif Khokar wrote: > John David Galt wrote: >> Arif Khokar wrote: > >>> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because >>> they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give >>> cyclists a full lane when passing them. > >> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because >> he won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business >> on the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows >> the maximum number of other people through. > > So why don't those motor vehicles get off the road instead of block me > when I'm riding? I ride through an area where there are a lot of > intersecting crosswalks and pedestrian traffic. Inevitably, I'm behind > one of those vehicles that stops for pedestrians not within the > crosswalk and doesn't take the opportunity to go when there's a break in > pedestrian traffic. Those motor vehicles are blocking my progress, > since I, on a bicycle can easily ride through small gaps in pedestrian > traffic and be well on my way. > > I don't see you saying that those motor vehicles have no business being > on the road. Motor vehicles have the higher throughput because of their higher potential speed. Besides, drivers pay for the road, so they are who it's for. Duh.             Date: 05 Sep 2007 06:46:28 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us > wrote in message news:fbjuep$g63$1@blue.rahul.net... > Besides, drivers pay for the road, so they are who it's for. Duh. The road is paid for through general taxes, ie, property and sales taxes, duh. The roadways that are only partly paid for by fuel taxes are state and federal highways that I legally or logistically can't use with my bike, duh. Since I buy things and own a house, I have paid for the road, no matter if I ride my bike, walk, or drive a car, duh. Meanwhile, the cars much more heavily destroy the roads, duh. Bikes don't cause all those potholes, duh. And motorists, when they crash into things, create much more harm than me on my bike, duh. Therefore, I am paying disproportionately in EMT services for those motorists, duh. Bicyclists also subsidize those motorists because, generally, they're in better physical condition, duh. So we subsidize their medical treatments because they're fat and out of shape, duh. I've only scratched the surface in the ways that bicyclists subsidize motorists and their use of the road, duh. Meanwhile, there's a lot of cars on MY road when I'm trying to ride home after work. I still don't see why I have to be delayed by all of them. Why can't they just drive on the sidewalk!? Or walk?! (idiots, mutter mutter) -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky             Date: 04 Sep 2007 16:07:41 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle John David Galt wrote: > Arif Khokar wrote: >> So why don't those motor vehicles get off the road instead of block me >> when I'm riding? I ride through an area where there are a lot of >> intersecting crosswalks and pedestrian traffic. Inevitably, I'm behind >> one of those vehicles that stops for pedestrians not within the >> crosswalk and doesn't take the opportunity to go when there's a break in >> pedestrian traffic. Those motor vehicles are blocking my progress, >> since I, on a bicycle can easily ride through small gaps in pedestrian >> traffic and be well on my way. >> >> I don't see you saying that those motor vehicles have no business being >> on the road. > Motor vehicles have the higher throughput because of their higher potential > speed. Potential speed doesn't equal higher throughput unless the vehicle is going that speed. A bicycle going 15 to 20 mph has higher throughput as compared to a motor vehicle going 0 mph. Therefore, motor vehicles have lower throughput and they should get off the road.             Date: 04 Sep 2007 11:04:18 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fbjuep$g63$1@blue.rahul.net >, John David Galt wrote: > Motor vehicles have the higher throughput because of their higher potential > speed. Then why do I find myself in at least one if not several backups of motor vehicles most times that I bike? Most people operating a motor vehicle don't know how to get through an intersection in a timely manner. This results in the backups. > Besides, drivers pay for the road, so they are who it's for. Duh. I pay for the roads, I'll use them with the vehicle of my choosing. Then again, by your logic I should get to pass all the motor vehicles that delay me when I am bicycling.           Date: 03 Sep 2007 17:36:09 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Arif Khokar wrote: > John David Galt wrote: > >> Arif Khokar wrote: > > >>> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because >>> they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give >>> cyclists a full lane when passing them. > > >> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because >> he won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business >> on the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows >> the maximum number of other people through. > > > So why don't those motor vehicles get off the road instead of block me > when I'm riding? I ride through an area where there are a lot of > intersecting crosswalks and pedestrian traffic. Inevitably, I'm behind > one of those vehicles that stops for pedestrians not within the > crosswalk and doesn't take the opportunity to go when there's a break in > pedestrian traffic. Those motor vehicles are blocking my progress, > since I, on a bicycle can easily ride through small gaps in pedestrian > traffic and be well on my way. > > I don't see you saying that those motor vehicles have no business being > on the road. I'd argue that those DRIVERS shouldn't be on the road... nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel             Date: 03 Sep 2007 17:43:46 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote in message news:fbhuo901nkh@news2.newsguy.com... >> So why don't those motor vehicles get off the road instead of block me >> when I'm riding? In particular, why don't they just get off the road during rush hour. It's a real problem. All those damn cars, going at 5 mph or less, when I could fly down 2nd Ave at 20 mph if they were all out of my way. I'm tired of those slow-ass motorists - they don't even pay proportional taxes for all the public services they consume, including for the damn road -- I'm tired of subsidizing them with my hard-earned tax money. I'd wish they'd just stay off of so I could ride as fast as I'd like, as is my god-given right as a bicyclist. I mean, the nerve of those people. Don't they know that the road belongs to ME???!?! -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky         Date: 02 Sep 2007 22:02:21 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle John David Galt wrote: > A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because he > won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business on > the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows the > maximum number of other people through. Those who see it as drivers' > problem when they delay drivers SHOULD be run down, or at least beat up, > until they and others like them learn their lesson. You're a hoot. If what you say is true, you should stop driving a private motor vehicle because it has less throughput than a bicycle. Wayne         Date: 01 Sep 2007 20:00:38 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle John David Galt wrote: > Arif Khokar wrote: >>A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because >>they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give >>cyclists a full lane when passing them. > A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because he > won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business on > the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows the > maximum number of other people through. Those who see it as drivers' > problem when they delay drivers SHOULD be run down, or at least beat up, > until they and others like them learn their lesson. Sheesh! Any pedestrian pushing the "WALK" signal button better damn sure watch out if you're on the road. Those things tend to stop lots of traffic. No doubt they should be run down in their crosswalks for having the audacity of delaying motorists. Peace and justice,         Date: 01 Sep 2007 21:21:57 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fbc6cg$goi$1@blue.rahul.net >, John David Galt wrote: > Arif Khokar wrote: >> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because >> they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give >> cyclists a full lane when passing them. > A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because he > won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business on > the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows the > maximum number of other people through. So why aren't you always driving at 10/10ths when there is nobody in front of you? > Those who see it as drivers' > problem when they delay drivers SHOULD be run down, or at least beat up, > until they and others like them learn their lesson. Funny when I drive I don't have trouble passing bicyclists like myself. Yet, for years you've had this difficulty and then form this rage against the bicyclists. I think you should really beat yourself up because it really is your problem that you don't know how to drive properly. Not every vehicle is going to be able to do as yours does, even if they are at ten/tenths. It takes very little skill to pass a bicyclist safely without any measurable delay. The last bicycle rider to even cause me a few seconds at low speed was one of these side-street changing POB's. He had passed on the sidewalk and when the light went green went into the lane on the other side of the intersection. This slowed traffic slightly for a very short period of time. I did not leave the lane for him because his actions were assholish. I"ve biked through that intersection many times and I take the lane and hold my spot in the queue. I can usually hold even or better with the car in the left lane next to me for a block. Where I either turn right or go straight but by then the traffic has spaced out and thined. (many people turn either at the intersection or within that first block)         Date: 01 Sep 2007 23:30:03 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us > wrote: > Arif Khokar wrote: >> A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because >> they're much easier to pass, as compared to wider vehicles. I give >> cyclists a full lane when passing them. > > A competent driver won't lose time waiting to pass a cyclist because > he won't wait. No one, regardless of mode of transport, has business > on the road unless he's willing to use the road in the way that allows > the maximum number of other people through. Those who see it as > drivers' problem when they delay drivers SHOULD be run down, or at > least beat up, until they and others like them learn their lesson. > 4.3     Date: 27 Aug 2007 10:03:55 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone amakyonin anonymously snipes: > On Aug 24, 7:18 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote: >> Bill Sornson wrote: >>> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when >>> there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often >>> dangerous to do so. >> Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike >> like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>? > People like Bill enjoy being stomped on (right hooked) and won't > bother to stand up for their rights. 21,000 miles, no accidents, falls or crashes. Being a good driver as well as an experienced cyclist (off-road before going skinny tire), I recognize many dangerous situations before they unfold and act accordingly. But don't let facts and information interfere with your cowardly sniping. > Taking the lane *when > appropriate* is every bicyclists right. Of course it is, as I've stated repeatedly throughout these threads. (Even above, I used the caveat "when there's no need or reason to take the lane" -- inferring of course that often there IS need and/or reason.) > No bicyclist should have, or > feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a > cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their > destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist. In other breaking news, grass is green. Yawn...   Date: 26 Aug 2007 15:16:59 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <TkmAi.968$j23.616@trndny06 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > writes: >> When we do stuff out of blind obiesence to The Law, we become >> less than Human. We'd become non-creative, routine ants. >> >> The Law is sometimes dehumanizing. >> >> Having to wear a helmet is dehumanizing. > > Good Grief!! Your self esteem must not rise to the level of your ankles! I don't care about self esteem. I care about other-people esteem. I recommend you try it sometime. Anyways, go "obey the law" your officious self. -- No esteem for you! I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 27 Aug 2007 00:00:28 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tkeats2005@hotmail.tom (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <TkmAi.968$j23.616@trndny06>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> writes: > >>> When we do stuff out of blind obiesence to The Law, we become >>> less than Human. We'd become non-creative, routine ants. >>> >>> The Law is sometimes dehumanizing. >>> >>> Having to wear a helmet is dehumanizing. >> >> Good Grief!! Your self esteem must not rise to the level of your >> ankles! > > I don't care about self esteem. That says it all!   Date: 26 Aug 2007 12:51:57 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone god damned Canadians never can shut up   Date: 26 Aug 2007 03:28:52 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <85hraf.701.ln@vcn.bc.ca >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > "Obey the law ..." > > I could resort to some Vancouver East Ender language here, > but I won't this time. I shall rise above temptation, and > be a better person than I might descend to. ^^^^^^^^^^ I shouldn't have said that. There's no shame or degradation in being a Vancouver East Ender. In fact, I think we East Enders have developed a certain intercultural sociability that the rest of the world could learn from. Heck, Van East /is/ pretty much the whole human world all rolled up into one area. If/when I descend into bad stuff, it'll be done by me, personally & individually, without representing anybody else. It is important to me that my fellow East Enders are not adversely implicated, affected or impugned by my own conduct. Lotsa bike ridin' goes on here, too. Much of which ain't legal. Obey The Law -- yeah, right. Toe the line. cheers, Tom -- Cedar Cottage Rulz! I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 26 Aug 2007 02:29:12 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46d0f9d8$0$15360$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > writes: >>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >>>> >>>> Obey the law. >>> >>> What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded >>> Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers >>> in order to walk around like everybody else? >> >> OK, we Finally got to the Nazi reference!! > > Isn't wearing a plastic bike lid comparable to being herded on trains and > starved and gassed? If I, in my local jurisdiction, get pulled-over, hassled and fined for not wearing a helmet, it would cost me at least $280 Cdn. Lots of cyclists here get by without (being ticketed for not wearing) legislated egg carton hats. Others don't. That's how she goes, eh. Even in a total MHL zone like British Columbia, enforcement is arbitrary and inconsistent. When laws are enforced inconsistently, they should especially be reconsidered. > After all, HITLER WORE A HELMET!!! He didn't (have to) wear a Magen David on his lapel. Nor did the assholes who voted for him. And he was pretty bare-headed at his shrieking Nuremburg diatribe. No helmet there. Come to think of it, I don't think ol' Addy even rode a bike. He just stood up in a slow-moving convertible MB through Vienna, one arm stiltedly extended outward, and the other hand gripping onto the top of the windshield for dear life. "Obey the law ..." I could resort to some Vancouver East Ender language here, but I won't this time. I shall rise above temptation, and be a better person than I might descend to. When we do stuff out of blind obiesence to The Law, we become less than Human. We'd become non-creative, routine ants. The Law is sometimes dehumanizing. Having to wear a helmet is dehumanizing. Yer out on the street, looking like RoboCop. Not like a guy out to fetch some groceries or a paycheque from the temp labour office. Note how bike helmet colours are so generally so robot-ly metallic. I guess those metallic colours give the impression that bike helmets are more significantly durable than they really are. They look like they're made out of titanium, like the outer skin of an SR-1, to sustain extreme pressures and temperatures. If you wanna wear such an egg carton that thinks it's armour-plated, that's fine with me. Go for it. How are you about me opting not to, like when I need my freshly washed hair to air-dry, even though The Law says I must wear the styrofoam in order to legally ride? Am I a criminal? A Bad Influence? A ruiner of moral conduct? Well, I indeed am all those things, but it doesn't have anything to do with robotic-looking bike helmets. klahowia, Tom -- Legalize it. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 26 Aug 2007 21:33:39 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <46d0f9d8$0$15360$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes: > >>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >>>>> >>>>> Obey the law. >>>> >>>> What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded >>>> Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers >>>> in order to walk around like everybody else? >>> >>> OK, we Finally got to the Nazi reference!! >> >> Isn't wearing a plastic bike lid comparable to being herded on trains >> and starved and gassed? > > If I, in my local jurisdiction, get pulled-over, hassled > and fined for not wearing a helmet, it would cost me at > least $280 Cdn. > > Lots of cyclists here get by without (being ticketed > for not wearing) legislated egg carton hats. > Others don't. > > That's how she goes, eh. Even in a total MHL zone like > British Columbia, enforcement is arbitrary and inconsistent. > > When laws are enforced inconsistently, they should especially > be reconsidered. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Another turnip rolling in the road!! ALL laws are arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced. Particularly traffic laws. Odds are if you are not wearing a helmet, but otherwise acting responsibly you will not get a ticket. > >> After all, HITLER WORE A HELMET!!! > > He didn't (have to) wear a Magen David on his lapel. > > Nor did the assholes who voted for him. > > And he was pretty bare-headed at his shrieking > Nuremburg diatribe. No helmet there. > > Come to think of it, I don't think ol' Addy even > rode a bike. He just stood up in a slow-moving > convertible MB through Vienna, one arm stiltedly > extended outward, and the other hand gripping onto > the top of the windshield for dear life. > > "Obey the law ..." > > I could resort to some Vancouver East Ender language here, > but I won't this time. I shall rise above temptation, and > be a better person than I might descend to. > > When we do stuff out of blind obiesence to The Law, we become > less than Human. We'd become non-creative, routine ants. > > The Law is sometimes dehumanizing. > > Having to wear a helmet is dehumanizing. Good Grief!! Your self esteem must not rise to the level of your ankles! > Yer out on the street, looking like RoboCop. Oh the Humanity!! > Not like a guy out to fetch some groceries > or a paycheque from the temp labour office. > > Note how bike helmet colours are so generally > so robot-ly metallic. > > I guess those metallic colours give the impression > that bike helmets are more significantly durable > than they really are. They look like they're made > out of titanium, like the outer skin of an SR-1, > to sustain extreme pressures and temperatures. > > If you wanna wear such an egg carton that thinks > it's armour-plated, that's fine with me. Go for it. > > How are you about me opting not to, like when I > need my freshly washed hair to air-dry, even > though The Law says I must wear the styrofoam > in order to legally ride? Am I a criminal? > A Bad Influence? A ruiner of moral conduct? > > Well, I indeed am all those things, but it > doesn't have anything to do with robotic-looking > bike helmets. > > > klahowia, > Tom > > -- > Legalize it. > I'm really at: > tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca > > >   Date: 25 Aug 2007 20:49:58 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 25, 9:40 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net > wrote: > tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>, > > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> writes: > >> russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > > >>> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>, > >>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote: > >>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 > >>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 > >>>>rec.autos.driving:685079 > > >>>>russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > > >>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what > >>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? > >>>>> Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special > >>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than > >>>>> all other forms of risk? > > >>>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, > >>>>every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you > >>>>unbelted. > > >>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what > >>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? > > >> Obey the law. > > > What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded > > Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers > > in order to walk around like everybody else? > > OK, we Finally got to the Nazi reference!! > > Bye. That WAS fucked.   Date: 25 Aug 2007 18:47:12 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > writes: > russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > >> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>, >> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 >>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 >>>rec.autos.driving:685079 >>> >>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>>> >>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is >>>> it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special >>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all >>>> other forms of risk? >>> >>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >>>state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted. >> >> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must >> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? > > Obey the law. What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers in order to walk around like everybody else? What if The Law said you had to either get on a ship and go to some other country or countries that might not accept you, or suffer the consequences of sticking around? > If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of us > don't pay for Any related head injury. Even if a car driver sets out to purposefully run-over any unhelmeted cyclists they see? What if there are non-head injuries (which are more probable?) What if you "accidentally"/negligently run over from behind, an unhelmeted cyclist while more-or-less trying to aim your overweight chariot? You and your stupid notions are an especially evil bane on civil society. There are reasons to wear bike helmets, with a spectrum of neccessity. But you haven't addressed any of them. All you can come up with is: "obey the law". In these car vs bike threads, they invariably begin with complaints about riders not obeying the law -- blowing stop signs, etc. But that's always just an "in" to complain about bikes being on the road at all, and the discussions degenerate into complaints about how hard it is to pass a bicycle. And if you're such an impatient asshole, the rider /wants/ you to be ahead of him/her. Meanwhile I regularly see drivers' flagrant violations of speed zones, Right-Turn-Only, Do-Not-Enter, No-Left-Turn, not stopping at the sidewalk when they egress back-alleys or lanes, etc. And they especially do those things just to blow ahead of the cyclist ahead of them. Obey the law <sneer >? Yeah, sure. I used some salty language at the top of this thread (when Paul Berg suggested bike licensing,) and now I regret it, because I try to respect r.b.m as a family ng. I'm sure tempted to use even saltier language now. But the product of the extremes ... And you're not worth the artistry. So, go crawl back into your hole. Maybe put a bike helmet on, in case the earth caves-in on ya. In the meantime, be fruitful, multiply, and go forth. Maybe some of your offspring will eventually get it right. I have no hopes, but what can ya hope for? Obeying the law for the sake of obeying the law is slavery. -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 26 Aug 2007 03:40:58 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> writes: >> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >> >>> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>, >>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 >>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 >>>>rec.autos.driving:685079 >>>> >>>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >>>>> Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special >>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than >>>>> all other forms of risk? >>>> >>>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, >>>>every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you >>>>unbelted. >>> >>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >> >> Obey the law. > > What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded > Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers > in order to walk around like everybody else? OK, we Finally got to the Nazi reference!! Bye.       Date: 25 Aug 2007 20:56:02 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Lobby Dosser wrote: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > >> In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>, >> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> writes: >>> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>> >>>> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>, >>>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 >>>>> or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 >>>>> rec.autos.driving:685079 >>>>> >>>>> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >>>>>> Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special >>>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than >>>>>> all other forms of risk? >>>>> >>>>> It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, >>>>> every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you >>>>> unbelted. >>>> >>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >>> >>> Obey the law. >> >> What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded >> Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers >> in order to walk around like everybody else? > > OK, we Finally got to the Nazi reference!! Isn't wearing a plastic bike lid comparable to being herded on trains and starved and gassed? After all, HITLER WORE A HELMET!!! Thread-ender invoked...........BS   Date: 25 Aug 2007 23:25:49 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 25, 6:08 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net > wrote: > > > Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of us > don't pay for Any related head injury. How much do you imagine you've paid for other bicyclists' head injuries? How many dollars? Do you have a realistic, numerical estimate? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 26 Aug 2007 00:15:35 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 25, 6:08 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> > wrote: >> >> >> Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest >> of us don't pay for Any related head injury. > > How much do you imagine you've paid for other bicyclists' head > injuries? How many dollars? Do you have a realistic, numerical > estimate? The cost is not the issue. Is it.       Date: 26 Aug 2007 08:30:36 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:15:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in <HC3Ai.2093$7p6.1630@trnddc01 >: >The cost is not the issue. Is it. Make your mind up. You're the one who raised that issue. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound         Date: 26 Aug 2007 07:40:59 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:15:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in > <HC3Ai.2093$7p6.1630@trnddc01>: > >>The cost is not the issue. Is it. > > Make your mind up. You're the one who raised that issue. Does Everything need to be explained? The PRINCIPLE.           Date: 04 Sep 2007 11:28:39 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <f8aAi.1423$0_2.1153@trndny07 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: >"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote: > >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:15:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser >> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in >> <HC3Ai.2093$7p6.1630@trnddc01>: >> >>>The cost is not the issue. Is it. >> >> Make your mind up. You're the one who raised that issue. > >Does Everything need to be explained? The PRINCIPLE. You said it was a political issue. Doesn't that pretty much throw principle out the window? -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.             Date: 04 Sep 2007 23:19:18 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <f8aAi.1423$0_2.1153@trndny07>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:15:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser >>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in >>> <HC3Ai.2093$7p6.1630@trnddc01>: >>> >>>>The cost is not the issue. Is it. >>> >>> Make your mind up. You're the one who raised that issue. >> >>Does Everything need to be explained? The PRINCIPLE. > > You said it was a political issue. Doesn't that pretty much throw > principle out the window? No.           Date: 26 Aug 2007 21:16:41 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:40:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in <f8aAi.1423$0_2.1153@trndny07 >: >Does Everything need to be explained? The PRINCIPLE. Sure. The PRINCIPLE is that you should not start using ridiculous analogies like bracelets when there is absolutely no credible evidence that the intervention you propose has ever led to a measurable reduction in head injury rates in any real cyclist population. You appear to be the one proposing an intervention here - helmets - so the onus is firmly on you to prove your case. That is the PRINCIPLE here. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound             Date: 26 Aug 2007 21:35:47 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:40:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in > <f8aAi.1423$0_2.1153@trndny07>: > >>Does Everything need to be explained? The PRINCIPLE. > > Sure. The PRINCIPLE is that you should not start using ridiculous > analogies like bracelets when there is absolutely no credible > evidence that the intervention you propose has ever led to a > measurable reduction in head injury rates in any real cyclist > population. That is irrelevant. Totally. > > You appear to be the one proposing an intervention here I'm not. I'm proposing personal responsibility. > - helmets - > so the onus is firmly on you to prove your case. That is the > PRINCIPLE here. > > Guy               Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:52:17 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:35:47 GMT, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in <TmmAi.969$j23.957@trndny06 >: >> Sure. The PRINCIPLE is that you should not start using ridiculous >> analogies like bracelets when there is absolutely no credible >> evidence that the intervention you propose has ever led to a >> measurable reduction in head injury rates in any real cyclist >> population. >That is irrelevant. Totally. To you, maybe, but you're the one advocating an irrational approach, I'm kind of wondering what evidential basis you are working from. In my world, making bizarre statements about what other people should be expected to do requires some pretty robust evidence. >> You appear to be the one proposing an intervention here >I'm not. I'm proposing personal responsibility. Like drivers taking personal responsibility for the substantial danger they pose to others, you mean? Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound                 Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:10:53 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:35:47 GMT, Lobby Dosser > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in > <TmmAi.969$j23.957@trndny06>: > >>> Sure. The PRINCIPLE is that you should not start using ridiculous >>> analogies like bracelets when there is absolutely no credible >>> evidence that the intervention you propose has ever led to a >>> measurable reduction in head injury rates in any real cyclist >>> population. > >>That is irrelevant. Totally. > > To you, maybe, but you're the one advocating an irrational approach, Personal Responsibility is irrational? > I'm kind of wondering what evidential basis you are working from. In > my world, making bizarre statements about what other people should > be expected to do requires some pretty robust evidence. You need to get out more. All it requires is convincing someone with influence. > >>> You appear to be the one proposing an intervention here >>I'm not. I'm proposing personal responsibility. > > Like drivers taking personal responsibility for the substantial > danger they pose to others, you mean? They do. Insurance and Civil Suits.                   Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:43:14 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:10:53 GMT, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in <NTmAi.5564$yv3.3321@trndny01 >: >>>> Sure. The PRINCIPLE is that you should not start using ridiculous >>>> analogies like bracelets when there is absolutely no credible >>>> evidence that the intervention you propose has ever led to a >>>> measurable reduction in head injury rates in any real cyclist >>>> population. >>>That is irrelevant. Totally. >> To you, maybe, but you're the one advocating an irrational approach, >Personal Responsibility is irrational? No, nothing wrong with personal responsibility, but your proposed approach is irrational. It lacks a credible evidential basis. >> I'm kind of wondering what evidential basis you are working from. In >> my world, making bizarre statements about what other people should >> be expected to do requires some pretty robust evidence. >You need to get out more. All it requires is convincing someone with >influence. Like when we defeated a helmet law in the UK, you mean? The approach we used was showing that helmet laws don't work, and the evidence is weak and contradictory. The comparison with the partial evidence produced by the pro-helmet crowd was said to be quite marked by some of the politicians involved. >>>> You appear to be the one proposing an intervention here >>>I'm not. I'm proposing personal responsibility. >> Like drivers taking personal responsibility for the substantial >> danger they pose to others, you mean? >They do. Insurance and Civil Suits. That's offloading the responsibility onto others. Some countries have laws which place the burden of evidence on the driver to prove they were not at fault when a non-driver is injured. The thing is, though, that the majority of serious head trauma is suffered by car drivers. If your version of personal responsibility were a valid one, then you should be exhorting car drivers to wear helmets. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound                     Date: 27 Aug 2007 22:45:14 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:10:53 GMT, Lobby Dosser > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in > <NTmAi.5564$yv3.3321@trndny01>: > >>>>> Sure. The PRINCIPLE is that you should not start using ridiculous >>>>> analogies like bracelets when there is absolutely no credible >>>>> evidence that the intervention you propose has ever led to a >>>>> measurable reduction in head injury rates in any real cyclist >>>>> population. >>>>That is irrelevant. Totally. >>> To you, maybe, but you're the one advocating an irrational approach, >>Personal Responsibility is irrational? > > No, nothing wrong with personal responsibility, but your proposed > approach is irrational. It lacks a credible evidential basis. > >>> I'm kind of wondering what evidential basis you are working from. In >>> my world, making bizarre statements about what other people should >>> be expected to do requires some pretty robust evidence. > >>You need to get out more. All it requires is convincing someone with >>influence. > > Like when we defeated a helmet law in the UK, you mean? Prove it. > The > approach we used was showing that helmet laws don't work, and the > evidence is weak and contradictory. The comparison with the partial > evidence produced by the pro-helmet crowd was said to be quite > marked by some of the politicians involved. > >>>>> You appear to be the one proposing an intervention here >>>>I'm not. I'm proposing personal responsibility. > >>> Like drivers taking personal responsibility for the substantial >>> danger they pose to others, you mean? > >>They do. Insurance and Civil Suits. > > That's offloading the responsibility onto others. No, it is not. Apparently you don't understand Insurance. As you are a Brit, I can understand why. Do look it up. > Some countries > have laws which place the burden of evidence on the driver to prove > they were not at fault when a non-driver is injured. Some countries have some bloody silly laws. > > The thing is, though, that the majority of serious head trauma is > suffered by car drivers. If your version of personal responsibility > were a valid one, then you should be exhorting car drivers to wear > helmets. Why? You don't seem to understand Personal Responsibility. As you live in a Welfare State that might be understandable. Here is a site you might want to visit: http://www.coping.org/growth/accept.htm HTH                       Date: 28 Aug 2007 08:06:50 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:45:14 GMT, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in <_tIAi.8$Pa5.2@trndny09>: >> Like when we defeated a helmet law in the UK, you mean? >Prove it. No helmet law in this country. >>>> Like drivers taking personal responsibility for the substantial >>>> danger they pose to others, you mean? >>>They do. Insurance and Civil Suits. >> That's offloading the responsibility onto others. >No, it is not. Apparently you don't understand Insurance. As you are a >Brit, I can understand why. Do look it up. Sure, we have no compulsory insurance when driving. Oh, wait, we do! Amazing. >> Some countries >> have laws which place the burden of evidence on the driver to prove >> they were not at fault when a non-driver is injured. >Some countries have some bloody silly laws. Yup, and some have really sensible ones like those which place the onus on the person bringing all the danger to the situation. Ever looked at Holland's cyclist injury rates? Vastly lower than the US. >> The thing is, though, that the majority of serious head trauma is >> suffered by car drivers. If your version of personal responsibility >> were a valid one, then you should be exhorting car drivers to wear >> helmets. >Why? Because the vast majority of serious head trauma is suffered by motorists. And actually motorists can get helmets which *are* designed for that kind of crash. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound     Date: 26 Aug 2007 00:34:40 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:25:49 -0000, frkrygow@gmail.com said in <1188084349.968853.319890@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >: >How much do you imagine you've paid for other bicyclists' head >injuries? How many dollars? Do you have a realistic, numerical >estimate? And that's before you factor in how many genuinely serious injuries might be preventable by helmets. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound   Date: 25 Aug 2007 13:34:22 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 25, 9:30 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote: > > >ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 rec.autos.driving:685079 > > >russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > > >> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must > >> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is it > >> refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special danger > >> which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all other > >> forms of risk? > > >It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every > >state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted. > > Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must > a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? > -- > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one. tell him it doesn't go with their eyes   Date: 24 Aug 2007 19:48:55 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 24, 5:22 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net > wrote: > "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote: > > Marz wrote: > >> On Aug 24, 11:46 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote: > > >>> /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane. > > >> Do they exist? I've never seen one around here (Texas), where folks > >> consider everywhere to the right of that white line the appropiate > >> place to dump beer bottles, stolen cars and bbqs (ok only ever one > >> bbq). Bike lanes, segmented sections of the highways as opposed to > >> bike paths (which are of some use), do NOTHING for cyclist's safety. > >> In fast moving traffic (>30mph) how do handle a left hand turn from a > >> righthand side cycle lane? > > > In San Diego County, our bike lanes are wonderful (with rare > > exceptions, of course). Others have said similar things about their > > locales (Arizona comes to mind). > > Many places in Oregon. > > > > > > > Must suck to live where they're lousy. (Sounds more like a shoulder > > line than a true bike lane, btw.)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Sounds like an interstate overpass/interchange that you never use a bike lane on if you don't want to be bugshit on the side on a semitrailer. I've been on the pedestrian walk and seen my own "death" enough times to know better. For all of you who don't want me on a hardly used sidewalk I offer that the locals, especially high school kids are spooked by riders and may even tell them to use the sidewalk. For every advance there is a de-evolution with each generation. It takes a while (maybe tickets) for them to figure it out. The best thing would be that the kids are getting into blues and jazz more and are sick of Disney.   Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:08:39 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net > wrote: > Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every > state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted. Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much different in their effectiveness. Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car crashes. Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear collision (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a mere 14 mph (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left hook" collision with a car). This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being far too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to replicate a "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell engineers correctly claimed that anything that would protect against a really serious crash would be unwearable. Not surprising that the helmets haven't been found to do much good, is it? If you want a good analogy for a bike helmet, replace your seat belt with some party ribbon. Replace your airbag with a party balloon. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 25 Aug 2007 01:55:11 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> > wrote: >> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted. > Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much different in > their effectiveness. [ ... ] > If you want a good analogy for a bike helmet, replace your seat belt > with some party ribbon. Replace your airbag with a party balloon. An FMVSS 108 compliant airbag is a good analogy for a bike helmet. Neither of them are really effective, and both can be detrimental to safety.     Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:29:05 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted. > > Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much different in > their effectiveness. But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws. > > Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on > collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car crashes. Wrong. > > Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied > head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear collision > (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a mere 14 mph > (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left hook" collision with > a car). You want to volunteer for testing? > > This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being far > too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to replicate a > "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell engineers correctly > claimed that anything that would protect against a really serious > crash would be unwearable. So MC helmets are worthless. > > Not surprising that the helmets haven't been found to do much good, is > it? But they have. > > If you want a good analogy for a bike helmet, replace your seat belt > with some party ribbon. Replace your airbag with a party balloon. You think the legislature would require those? > > - Frank Krygowski > >       Date: 24 Aug 2007 21:46:49 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted. >> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much different in >> their effectiveness. > > But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws. > >> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on >> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car crashes. > > Wrong. > >> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied >> head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear collision >> (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a mere 14 mph >> (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left hook" collision with >> a car). > > You want to volunteer for testing? > >> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being far >> too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to replicate a >> "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell engineers correctly >> claimed that anything that would protect against a really serious >> crash would be unwearable. > > So MC helmets are worthless.... Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF do MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that? An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a foam bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to wear on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in anything but winter weather. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 25 Aug 2007 22:05:54 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote: > Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote: >> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you >>>> unbelted. >>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much different >>> in their effectiveness. >> >> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws. >> >>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on >>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car crashes. >> >> Wrong. >> >>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied >>> head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear >>> collision (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a mere >>> 14 mph (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left hook" >>> collision with a car). >> >> You want to volunteer for testing? >> >>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being far >>> too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to replicate a >>> "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell engineers correctly >>> claimed that anything that would protect against a really serious >>> crash would be unwearable. >> >> So MC helmets are worthless.... > > Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF do > MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that? Apparently they are unwearable. > > An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a foam > bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in > effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to wear > on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in anything > but winter weather. You've done it? >           Date: 27 Aug 2007 20:26:47 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Lobby Dosser wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote: > >> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote: >>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you >>>>> unbelted. >>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much different >>>> in their effectiveness. >>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws. >>> >>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on >>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car crashes. >>> Wrong. >>> >>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied >>>> head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear >>>> collision (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a mere >>>> 14 mph (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left hook" >>>> collision with a car). >>> You want to volunteer for testing? >>> >>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being far >>>> too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to replicate a >>>> "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell engineers correctly >>>> claimed that anything that would protect against a really serious >>>> crash would be unwearable. >>> So MC helmets are worthless.... >> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF do >> MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that? > > Apparently they are unwearable. Motorcycle helmets are unwearable on a HUMAN POWERED BICYCLE in warm to hot weather for extended periods. Duh. >> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a foam >> bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in >> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to wear >> on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in anything >> but winter weather. > > You've done it? Done what? Indefinite pronouns strike again! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com             Date: 28 Aug 2007 03:23:34 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote: >> >>> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote: >>>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >>>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you >>>>>> unbelted. >>>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much >>>>> different in their effectiveness. >>>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws. >>>> >>>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on >>>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car >>>>> crashes. >>>> Wrong. >>>> >>>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied >>>>> head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear >>>>> collision (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a >>>>> mere 14 mph (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left >>>>> hook" collision with a car). >>>> You want to volunteer for testing? >>>> >>>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being >>>>> far too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to >>>>> replicate a "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell >>>>> engineers correctly claimed that anything that would protect >>>>> against a really serious crash would be unwearable. >>>> So MC helmets are worthless.... >>> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF >>> do MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that? >> >> Apparently they are unwearable. > > Motorcycle helmets are unwearable on a HUMAN POWERED BICYCLE in warm > to hot weather for extended periods. Duh. > >>> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a foam >>> bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in >>> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to >>> wear on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in >>> anything but winter weather. >> >> You've done it? > > Done what? Indefinite pronouns strike again! > Worn a MC helmet while bicycling, you bloody fool.               Date: 27 Aug 2007 22:30:50 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Lobby Dosser wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote: > >> Lobby Dosser wrote: >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote: >>>>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >>>>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you >>>>>>> unbelted. >>>>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much >>>>>> different in their effectiveness. >>>>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws. >>>>> >>>>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on >>>>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car >>>>>> crashes. >>>>> Wrong. >>>>> >>>>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied >>>>>> head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear >>>>>> collision (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a >>>>>> mere 14 mph (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left >>>>>> hook" collision with a car). >>>>> You want to volunteer for testing? >>>>> >>>>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being >>>>>> far too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to >>>>>> replicate a "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell >>>>>> engineers correctly claimed that anything that would protect >>>>>> against a really serious crash would be unwearable. >>>>> So MC helmets are worthless.... >>>> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF >>>> do MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that? >>> Apparently they are unwearable. >> Motorcycle helmets are unwearable on a HUMAN POWERED BICYCLE in warm >> to hot weather for extended periods. Duh. >> >>>> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a foam >>>> bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in >>>> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to >>>> wear on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in >>>> anything but winter weather. >>> You've done it? >> Done what? Indefinite pronouns strike again! >> > > Worn a MC helmet while bicycling, you bloody fool. No, I am not that stupid. The motorcycle helmet makes my head significantly warmer, so its effect on a day when wearing even a bicycle foam hat feels almost to much would be obvious. Well, maybe not obvious to "Lobby Dosser". -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 28 Aug 2007 06:23:02 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote: >> >>> Lobby Dosser wrote: >>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote: >>>>>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser >>>>>>> <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >>>>>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you >>>>>>>> unbelted. >>>>>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much >>>>>>> different in their effectiveness. >>>>>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on >>>>>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car >>>>>>> crashes. >>>>>> Wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a >>>>>>> disembodied head (no body mass driving the collision) in a >>>>>>> simple linear collision (not the more damaging rotational >>>>>>> accelerations) at a mere 14 mph (much less than the impact speed >>>>>>> of, say, a "left hook" collision with a car). >>>>>> You want to volunteer for testing? >>>>>> >>>>>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being >>>>>>> far too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to >>>>>>> replicate a "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell >>>>>>> engineers correctly claimed that anything that would protect >>>>>>> against a really serious crash would be unwearable. >>>>>> So MC helmets are worthless.... >>>>> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF >>>>> do MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that? >>>> Apparently they are unwearable. >>> Motorcycle helmets are unwearable on a HUMAN POWERED BICYCLE in warm >>> to hot weather for extended periods. Duh. >>> >>>>> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a >>>>> foam bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in >>>>> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to >>>>> wear on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in >>>>> anything but winter weather. >>>> You've done it? >>> Done what? Indefinite pronouns strike again! >>> >> >> Worn a MC helmet while bicycling, you bloody fool. > > No, I am not that stupid. The motorcycle helmet makes my head > significantly warmer, so its effect on a day when wearing even a > bicycle foam hat feels almost to much would be obvious. Well, maybe > not obvious to "Lobby Dosser". > So, which is it? Yes you tried or no you did not?   Date: 24 Aug 2007 22:44:32 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 24, 1:28 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > > > Just delete the reasons why bicycle lanes suck > > Bzzt. ALL bike lanes? Most are perfectly fine and hugely beneficial; a > very few are substandard and even rarely unsafe. Would you please explain why you think bike lanes are "hugely beneficial" compared to the same amount of pavement without the bike lane stripe? The stripe doesn't generate any extra room. The pavement is either there or it's not. IME, if a lane is wide enough to consider "partitioning" a few feet as a bike lane, it's already fine for cycling. Cars pass easily with plenty of room, which is all the cyclist and the motorist need. All the stripe accomplishes is to give a place for broken glass, gravel, and other trash to sit. It also fools some cyclists into riding in the door zone, which is unsafe. And it fools some motorists and cyclists into thinking cyclists must never leave that lane, even for left turns, or to avoid right-turn-only lanes. So, what is "hugely beneficial" about that stripe? It's never done me any good that I could tell. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 27 Aug 2007 11:16:00 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > So, what is "hugely beneficial" about that stripe? It's never done me > any good that I could tell. > Well, at least here in Oregon, it is illegal for a car to drive or park in the bike lane (with a few exceptions, like for mail delivery). Not that you'd notice from the way drivers disobey the restriction, but that's an enforcement problem. With a striped bike path, you are guaranteed a section of pavement that you do not have to share with a car except at intersections. I routinely ride the Cornell road corridor between Hillsboro and Portland, almost the entire length of which is a striped bike lane. Aside from the inevitable road debris that accumulates there, it is the easiest section of road for a biker to travel - which is why I use it.       Date: 27 Aug 2007 14:14:55 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fav4d2$pd0$2@registered.motzarella.org >, Festivus wrote: > Well, at least here in Oregon, it is illegal for a car to drive or park > in the bike lane (with a few exceptions, like for mail delivery). Not > that you'd notice from the way drivers disobey the restriction, but > that's an enforcement problem. With a striped bike path, you are > guaranteed a section of pavement that you do not have to share with a > car except at intersections. HA! I've encountered many a motor vehicle on bicycle paths. Now I'll disregard the smaller vehicles like golf carts and the specialized garbage collecting vehicles that chicago uses to empty the trash cans, just stick with typical vehicles one sees on the road. On chicago's lake front bicycle path it is not uncommon to across a police cruiser on the trail. I'm talking crown vic here btw. Many years ago there was a section of lake front path I refered to as the 'cliff'. To the lake side there was a 2-4ft straight drop on to concrete. On the land side there was 3 foot wall. Standard width bike path. Well I'm riding along and here comes a police cruiser right through there.... cop going slow trying to keep the car from scraping the wall or falling off the edge... fucking moron cops. People climbing over the wall or jumping down to avoid the police cruiser. I took the dirt path to by-pass that area because it was dangerous. The path was eventually rerouted to follow the dirt path. I've seen ranger pickups on the forest preserve paths, I've seen private autos and police vehicles on a street parallel path. beyond that, street parallel paths are just glorified sidewalks. They have all the same dangers as sidewalks, all the same users as sidewalks. There are countless intersections with driveways and side streets. many intersections can have blind approaches wrt the bike path. > I routinely ride the Cornell road corridor between Hillsboro and > Portland, almost the entire length of which is a striped bike lane. > Aside from the inevitable road debris that accumulates there, it is the > easiest section of road for a biker to travel - which is why I use it. If the stripe wasn't there but the pavement was it would still be easy to ride.   Date: 24 Aug 2007 12:48:40 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 24, 12:53 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > Bill Sornson wrote: > > >> One danger that exists while road riding is the inattentive (drunk, > >> distracted, stroke victim, etc.) driver. MORE likely to hit or > >> brush you out in the lane than off to the side, of course, but > >> equally deadly to both. If you're so afraid of that happening in > >> "Pein's World Of Paranoia" {tm}, then you should stay inside or > >> stick to bike paths or trails. > > > Ignoramus, > > > YOU are the paranoid bike lane apologist. > > Apologist? They're great. > > > Arguing with you is like wallpapering fog. > > So stop. > > HTH Go to the principal's office.   Date: 24 Aug 2007 12:48:05 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 24, 12:52 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > In article <46cf1524$0$6479$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson > > wrote: > >> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) -- > >> numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES > >> SUCK (cuz they don't). > > But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't > > pro taking the lane 100% of the time. > > When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when there's a > NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often dangerous to do > so. > > Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a clue. What planet are you from, asshole? Oh yeah, Planet Kali. You must be the inescapeable, ever present vizier/soothsayer/sage/drunken egomanic pussy who claims to know more that those who are too wise to just bump you. I hope your group is NEVER the source of all things bicycle or we are doomed. Kindly shut your mentally superior piehole and let the other kids play. It's amazing that in nearly eight years on Usenet I haven't met all of your kind (or gotten blood poisoning). Yet another meaningless flamefest over shit that DOES NOT MATTER. Get off the computer an USE the bike, morons!   Date: 24 Aug 2007 12:36:46 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 24, 11:24 am, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > > Wayne Pein wrote: > > >>"Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane. > > > Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike > > lane. > > >>Other > >>people buzz you when you ride on the far right because they think they > >>can squeeze by when they shouldn't. > > > /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane. > > > Glad we could clear this up for you! :-P > > Ignoramus, > > Then how is it that motorists strike bicyclists from behind in bike lanes? > > http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf > See Figure 34. HTH She had nice tits, think it did.   Date: 24 Aug 2007 17:14:02 From: Marz Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 24, 11:46 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote: > > /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane. Do they exist? I've never seen one around here (Texas), where folks consider everywhere to the right of that white line the appropiate place to dump beer bottles, stolen cars and bbqs (ok only ever one bbq). Bike lanes, segmented sections of the highways as opposed to bike paths (which are of some use), do NOTHING for cyclist's safety. In fast moving traffic ( >30mph) how do handle a left hand turn from a righthand side cycle lane?     Date: 24 Aug 2007 10:31:59 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Marz wrote: > On Aug 24, 11:46 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote: >> >> /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane. > > > Do they exist? I've never seen one around here (Texas), where folks > consider everywhere to the right of that white line the appropiate > place to dump beer bottles, stolen cars and bbqs (ok only ever one > bbq). Bike lanes, segmented sections of the highways as opposed to > bike paths (which are of some use), do NOTHING for cyclist's safety. > In fast moving traffic (>30mph) how do handle a left hand turn from a > righthand side cycle lane? In San Diego County, our bike lanes are wonderful (with rare exceptions, of course). Others have said similar things about their locales (Arizona comes to mind). Must suck to live where they're lousy. (Sounds more like a shoulder line than a true bike lane, btw.)       Date: 24 Aug 2007 23:22:34 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote: > Marz wrote: >> On Aug 24, 11:46 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote: >>> >>> /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane. >> >> >> Do they exist? I've never seen one around here (Texas), where folks >> consider everywhere to the right of that white line the appropiate >> place to dump beer bottles, stolen cars and bbqs (ok only ever one >> bbq). Bike lanes, segmented sections of the highways as opposed to >> bike paths (which are of some use), do NOTHING for cyclist's safety. >> In fast moving traffic (>30mph) how do handle a left hand turn from a >> righthand side cycle lane? > > In San Diego County, our bike lanes are wonderful (with rare > exceptions, of course). Others have said similar things about their > locales (Arizona comes to mind). Many places in Oregon. > > Must suck to live where they're lousy. (Sounds more like a shoulder > line than a true bike lane, btw.) > > >   Date: 24 Aug 2007 04:51:13 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 5:29 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1187903572.851818.146...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > On Aug 23, 3:43 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: > >> In article <1187897455.139304.126...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > >> > On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > >> > wrote: > >> >> In article <1187891932.773972.28...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com > >> >> History deleted the thread is getting too long. > > >> Yeah, just delete all the context. > > Scroll up or expand the comments if you need to read the long winded > > discussion. > > I see you think everyone uses google's web interface. This is usenet, not > some web forum. Deleting context and then making a response is simply to > ignore the previous points, which you did. Google is well designed and works great. You need to get a more up to date interface. One that allows you to scroll easily between messages and keep things in context. It will reduce the chances of your becoming confused in the future on simple topics like this. > > > > > > >> > Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own. Most of them > >> > would seem to be self evident - such as there are a lot of > >> > bicyclists, bicyclists do get head injuries and the information about > >> > helmets reducing the chance of serious head injury. > > >> We are free people, we don't need you or any other control freaks making > >> decisions for us. You make the decision to wear a foam hat, fine, dandy, > >> I'm not telling you to. Stop trying to make it such that I will be forced > >> to wear one using the hammer of government and its enforcers. > > >> I can read the studies and the information. I can understand the > >> standards to which the foam hats are designed and what they will do. I > >> can make a fair judgement of the risks I face. My cost/benefit/risk > >> analysis tells me that wearing a foam hat while biking is not required. > > >> What drives you people that you need to control others? There's no > >> reasonable threshold that is reached to require micromanagment. It simply > >> isn't required period. > > Yes, as I thought safety has nothing to do with it. It's a civil > > rights issue - the right to not wear a helmet, not wear a seat belt, > > not put your child in a child seat. The right to wittingly increase > > the risk of serious injury when there are obvious and simple ways to > > reduce that risk > > The right not to have you or anyone else playing parent. Control > freakism is disease, a cancer. It takes many forms, from the neo-con > desire to listen in on everyone's phone calls and open their mail to the > socialists that want to control how much bread or gasoline or anything > else we can have. But the worst form of control freakism is the > 'do-gooder'. > > I don't agree with *YOUR* judgement of what the risks are and the ways to > reduce them. But you and your ilk are always there to empose your > judgement on the rest of us. You feel the need to tell us how to live our > lives, make decisions for us, micro-manage things for other people. You > have no such right sir. Oh but you are completely wrong on that point my friend. As a member of society I do have a right to make such a judgement as long as that judgement is concurred with and implemented by society. Don't like our rules to make a civilized and safer society - just leave. Or get enough votes to change the rules. But don't just whine on incessantly on some news group about how your rights to do stupid things have been abriged by rules most of us consider to be sensible. > Crap deleted.     Date: 24 Aug 2007 21:29:07 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Gurgle Gropes (was The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational John S? wrote: > ... > Google is well designed and works great. You need to get a more up to > date interface. One that allows you to scroll easily between messages > and keep things in context. It will reduce the chances of your > becoming confused in the future on simple topics like this.... When my news-feed temporarily went down, I reverted to Gurgle Gropes [1], and the slow speed, screwed up format of attribution names, munging of headers and worst of all, the limits on how many posts could be sent annoyed the hell out of me. [1] gene-speak for Google Groups. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 24 Aug 2007 07:59:22 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187956273.888477.73910@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, John S. wrote: >> I see you think everyone uses google's web interface. This is usenet, not >> some web forum. Deleting context and then making a response is simply to >> ignore the previous points, which you did. > Google is well designed and works great. You need to get a more up to > date interface. One that allows you to scroll easily between messages > and keep things in context. It will reduce the chances of your > becoming confused in the future on simple topics like this. No, you need to get with the program and stop using excuses for what amounts to bad form. If you don't have a real reply, don't reply instead of deleting all quoted material and inserting a propaganda spew. >> > Yes, as I thought safety has nothing to do with it. It's a civil >> > rights issue - the right to not wear a helmet, not wear a seat belt, >> > not put your child in a child seat. The right to wittingly increase >> > the risk of serious injury when there are obvious and simple ways to >> > reduce that risk >> The right not to have you or anyone else playing parent. Control >> freakism is disease, a cancer. It takes many forms, from the neo-con >> desire to listen in on everyone's phone calls and open their mail to the >> socialists that want to control how much bread or gasoline or anything >> else we can have. But the worst form of control freakism is the >> 'do-gooder'. >> I don't agree with *YOUR* judgement of what the risks are and the ways to >> reduce them. But you and your ilk are always there to empose your >> judgement on the rest of us. You feel the need to tell us how to live our >> lives, make decisions for us, micro-manage things for other people. You >> have no such right sir. > Oh but you are completely wrong on that point my friend. As a member > of society I do have a right to make such a judgement as long as that > judgement is concurred with and implemented by society. You have no right to impose your judgement on other people. None. There is liberty where we live our lives with our own judgement, and tyranny where others impose their their judgement upon us. It's obvious you don't like others making judgements for you. You rejected wearing the knee pads to walk on the sidewalk. > Don't like > our rules to make a civilized and safer society - just leave. It's civilized to live by your demands. Yes, control freaks often think that. In reality what is civilized is liberty. Command and control is rather primitive. It assumes that the people are animals or at best children and need the guiding light of the control freaks to have civilization. > Or get enough votes to change the rules. Tyranny of the majority. Sorry buddy, there's this thing called liberty it is each person's birthright, you do not get to violate it. > But don't just whine on incessantly > on some news group about how your rights to do stupid things have been > abriged by rules most of us consider to be sensible. Translation: The rules the control freaks come up define sensible and reasonable, only the control freaks define such things and feel because most people are too lazy to fight them they have majority approval. In reality the majority just ignore them. > Crap deleted. Hits a little too close to home eh? "Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis   Date: 23 Aug 2007 20:32:04 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 8:18 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > > >> Maybe. But when Wayne the Pain takes a lane, it's because he's just > >> as good as any car and they can pass him when he's good and ready to > >> let them. > > > Ignoramus, > > > I'm better than any car. > > You sure emit more than most. You smell bad too. Wipe   Date: 23 Aug 2007 20:30:35 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 7:32 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <1hqzi.16262$4K6.4405@trnddc02>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote: > > >tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > > >> In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: > > >>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated > >>> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? > > >> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it > >> through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs > >> that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power. > > >IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to > >let others pay for your care. > > As partial compensation for my employment, my employer pays a premium > to an insurance company so that in the event I become injured or ill, > the insurance company will pay for my care. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA FUCKING JOLLY HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA WHOOPY HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA WHAT HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA A BIG HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA MAROON HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA > Is there some reason I should forgo this benefit if I am injured while > riding a bicycle without a helmet? As opposed to if I am injured > driving, skydiving, rock climbing, playing football, or base jumping? > > Note that it is NOT a feature of the insurance policy that I limit my > risks to what other policyholders consider "reasonable". > -- > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one.   Date: 23 Aug 2007 20:23:36 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 6:25 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > > Paying to turn and baste the likes of you for fifty years. > > Do you ever have anything constructive to post? ever? Si! I have no patience or sympathy myself.   Date: 23 Aug 2007 20:17:14 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 3:30 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1187903647.357081.84...@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > See the message below. > > We are not all using google groups.... this is usenet not some webforum > get with the program. Get to a conclusion then! Leave only your bike group in the list and quit bothering us, you communist.   Date: 24 Aug 2007 03:06:45 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 3:30 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com > wrote: > On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: > > > In article <1187891932.773972.28...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com > > History deleted the thread is getting too long. > > Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own. Rather, here is some propaganda you copied from a site that advocates mandatory helmets for everyone, of all ages, everywhere. But let's look at them in context. It will tell you a lot about how the helmet promotion game is played. > There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US. OK. Different people get different numbers, depending on their definition of "bicycle rider." (Once a week? Once every ten years?) But OK. > 784 bicyclists died on US roads in 2005. 92% of them died in crashes > with motor vehicles (720). Yep. That compares with roughly 720,000 from heart disease, 540,000 from cancer, 150,000 from strokes, 114,000 from lung diseases - all of which bicycling can help prevent. Oh, you want just accidental deaths? Roughly 40,000 motorist deaths. 16,000 from falls. 8,400 from solid or liquid poison. 4,000 drownings. 3,700 from fires or burns. 3,200 from choking. 900 _accidental_ firearm deaths. What's closest to cycling's number? The fatalities from poison gases, around 600 or so. (Source: World Almanac) How much fearmongering do you hear about poison gas deaths? Do you go around saying "Always wear your gas mask"? > > About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every > year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have > injuries serious enough to be hospitalized. Yep. And nearly 700,000 basketball players visit ER rooms every year. Do you warn everyone about the fact that basketball is many times more dangerous than bicycling, per hour? And as I pointed out in an earlier thread, "head injuries" is usually inflated by including any scrape or cut above the neck, literally including scratched ears. Also, note that the 27,000 hospitalized are for _all_ injuries, not just head injuries, as they're hoping you'll not notice. > Bicycle crashes and injuries are under-reported, since the majority > are not serious enough for emergency room visits. ??? And we are supposed to worry because most bike crashes involve nothing but a skinned knee? The only people who worry about missing the skinned knees are those who wish to inflate the numbers even more! > 1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain injury. Unlikely, unless you extend the definition of "brain injury" down to "briefly dazed." And I'd like to see a source for that number. Because Stutts, et. al, "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data," Transportation Research Record #1168, found that only 6% of ER- visiting cyclists had "moderate or worse" injuries to the head. And those injuries must include some moderate or worse injuries that did not involve the brain - for example, broken facial bones. Your source website must have ignored Stutts' data. > Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury. This is often portrayed as being unique to bicycling. In fact, it's not at all unique. For example, a 1990s German study found that roughly 75% of motorist fatalities were from traumatic brain injury. (Sorry, no citation now; I'll dig for it if you want.) > A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by > a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent. And, of course, those "estimates" have never materialized in the real world. (BTW, one notorious paper used Thompson & Rivara's "85% reduction in [mostly minor] head injuries" to claim that therefore helmets would prevent 85% of _fatalities_. A specious claim indeed! But you can be sure your site will cheerfully use that claim! > Many years of potential life are lost because about half of the deaths > are children under 15 years old. Mayer Hillman, of the Policy Studies Institute of London, has calculated that 20 years of life are _gained_ for every year of life lost through bicycling. The gains occur because of less obesity, less heart disease, less diabetes, less pollution, fewer deaths of people hit by cars (since cyclists almost never kill pedestrians or motorists), etc. > Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are > estimated at $81 million each year. Such "costs" are universally based on Thompson & Rivara's "85%" claim, and are therefore trash. But that "cost" is absolutely dwarfed by costs associated with ailments and injuries that cycling helps prevent! Look at those death numbers I listed earlier - they give you an idea of where society's medical money is really going! Again, bicycling is off the bottom of the list. FWIW, An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in Western Australia by Delia Hendrie et. al., in a paper presented at the Conference on Road Safety, by the Insurance Commission of Western Australia, 2000 (IIRC), found that the mandatory helmet law that caused helmet use to rise to roughly 90% was almost certainly a money-loser for society. That is, the cost of helmets, promotion and enforcement probably exceeded the value of the minor reduction in head injuries. And as the authors noted, that didn't even account for the costs due to less cycling - those costs being worse public health, more pollution, etc. > Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are > estimated at $2.3 billion each year. Same comment. And beware the "are estimated" phrase. Who, exactly, has done the estimating? How was it done? What was there agenda? And most importantly, how does that number rank compared with other, much more significant problems? > Helmet use in the US varies by orders of magnitude in different areas > and different sectors of our society. White collar commuters probably > reach 80 per cent, ... because, of course, white collar commuters read Buycycling magazine and all the rest of the propaganda. IOW, so what? > while inner city kids and rural kids would be 10 > per cent or less. Because they _don't_ read the propaganda, and have to develop sharp judgment about what is really a necessary expense and what is not. > Overall, our best wild guess is probably no more than 25 per cent. "Wild guess" does characterize much of the data on that site! > Sommers Point, NJ, where a state helmet law is in > effect, found that only 24 of the 359 students who rode to school in > one week of the Winter of 2002 wore helmets (6 per cent) until the > School District adopted a helmet rule. North Carolina observed 17 per > cent statewide before their law went into effect in 2001. This is terrible news, IF your objective is to sell helmets - and that is the objective of that site. But really, if 335 out of 359 families judge that a helmet isn't necessary, why are you trying to convince them otherwise? Are you _really_ smarter than all of them? If you really want to give terrible news, list the number of permanently or fatally brain injured cyclists per year in those areas. But of course, they won't do that. Such tiny numbers would send the wrong message! > Helmets are cheap. The typical discount store price has risen from > under $10 to about $15, but there are still models available for under > $10 at major retailers. And our bicycle club has given away police-recovered bikes to many low income families who couldn't afford even a thrift store bike. There really, really are people out there who can't waste $10 on a helmet - and trust me, they know it would be a waste! Overall, helmet promoters thrive on giving scary numbers taken out of context. America is a huge country; it's easy to find large-sounding numbers. They mean very little unless you make comparisons. Want more numbers? Try this: Visit http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm and take the quiz. It's all about numbers in context. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 24 Aug 2007 00:44:21 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 1:10 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com > wrote: > On Aug 22, 5:21 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I know this will be hard for you to understand, but: I do wear a > > helmet when I ride my motorcycle. The situations appear equivalent > > only to people who don't understand the data - that is, people who > > don't do numbers. > > > Are you such a person? If not, here's a project: Find the number of > > bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists and motorcyclists who are being > > cared for because of permanent brain damage. Report back. > > > Can't find that? Then try for the number of brain injury fatalities > > per hour exposure for each of those groups. > > > Or try for the number of brain injury fatalities per year in the US > > for each of those groups. > > > Why am I asking for such data? Because your phrase "when you sustain > > permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall" > > is superstitious nonsense. It's based on the idea that most (?) or > > many(?) bicyclists will suffer such damage. > > That's a perfect example of carrying an argument to an absurd extreme > and I'm sure you know it. If we based the decision to use safety > equiment solely on whether most users would suffer injury in their > absence we would have very few pieces of saffety equipment. The kind > and severity of injury clearly is the deciding criteria in prescribing > safety equipment. For example the number of children injured by > burning clothing has always been quite small when compared to the > total population of children. And yet when it occurs the > conseqnences are tragic, sometimes life threatening and usually > permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll > children. You are absolutely wrong on several points. First, safety gear are not prescribed based only on the potential "kind and severity of injury," as you claim. For example, the consequences of an airliner crash would include death, or dismemberment, or mutilating burns, or (of course) debilitating brain injury. But airline passengers are not even given helmets, let alone parachutes! Why? Because we _don't_ make these decisions based on the horrible injuries we visualize; we decide based on a combination of the _likelihood_ of injury, and the effectiveness of the safety measure, in addition to the severity of any likely injury. Briefly, you can't protect against everything (despite the modern fashion of attempting to do so). If the injuries are too mild, too unlikely, or can't be effectively protected, you should not waste money on protection. > The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who > receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when > they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and > usuallly have permanent consequences. There's your other major mistake. When cyclists receive "unprotected head injuries" they are certainly NOT "usually tragic." You've fallen for the helmet promotion scam of equating "head injury" with "serious brain injury." They are NOT the same. For example: Read the original 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper, the darling source of propaganda for helmeteers, the source of the "85%" claim. Of the 235 "head injuries" they found, 111 were merely scrapes, cuts and bruises of the forehead. They even state in a footnote, ""Forehead injuries (abrasions and lacerations) are classified by the AIS system as facial injuries; in the present work they were classified as head injuries." Nothing like inflating numbers to scare people! Furthermore, of the 235, there were 102 scalp injuries. Those are never debilitating, just messy. And a further 19 were mere scrapes and cuts to the ears. Got that? A cut ear was called a "head injury." Of the actual brain injuries, 98 were either AIS 1 ("mild") or AIS 2 ("moderate"). Of the total 235 "head" injuries, only 28 were rated "serious" or above. When "head injuries" happen to cyclists, they are usually AIS 0, according to Thompson & Rivara - although the official AIS scale doesn't even reach as low as zero. The people who invented the AIS injury scale understand that there are many injuries too trivial to worry about. Too bad the helmet promoters don't admit that! And too bad that helmet fans don't understand it! Regarding the rest of your fearmongering: > And please accept my advance condolences if a fall > results in permanent paralysis of some body parts... > > When applied to the individual > who has the right side of his body payalyzed after an unprotected a > fall from a cycle the benefit/cost ratio you quoted likely approaches > zero. Having fun with math yet???? Let me describe something that's happened a few times in these discussions. We've had several posts from doctors, from psychologists, and from others whose work consists of caring for people with serious, permanent brain injury. In fact, one member of our bicycle club was employed in such work. All of those people said "If you could see what I see, you'd wear a helmet." I asked each of those people - including our bike club member - how many of your permanently brain injured clients got their injuries while cycling? They all either admitted the same thing, or simply refused to answer. The answer from my fellow club member was typical: "Well, there was only one. He was a bicycle racer." Note that as a bicycle racer, he was probably wearing a helmet; they're required in all American races, whether or not they do any good. When I asked where the other clients come from, the answer was "Car crashes, mostly. A few motorcycle crashes, and other stuff." She could have added more detail. I've looked at national data, and it turns out that falls around the home are the second most common cause. There are also a fair number from near-drownings, it seems, although I haven't yet located a number for that. All of these people, when pressed, admitted that bicyclists just don't make up any significant portion of their case load. My club friend said she'd worked full time in the field for seven years and only encountered that one cyclist. Check the national data. Find a comprehensive list of sources of serious brain injury. Cycling is usually not even on the list. In fact, cyclists are literally less than 1% of the head injury fatalities in America. Basically, John, you've bought into the propaganda completely. You've read websites that declare their objective is to mandate helmets for all ages everywhere, and you've believed the out-of-context numbers they throw up in order to scare you. But you've been duped. If you want to prevent needless tragedy, work on the 99% of the head injury problem that has nothing to do with bicycling! Bicycling does NOT carry an unusual risk of head injury. Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. Frank Krygowski   Date: 24 Aug 2007 00:03:15 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 7:52 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net > wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > -snip- > > >>Oh well, at least they got to feel the wind in their hair during their > >>last moments on earth. > > And yet a motorcycle helmet actually does something, but a bicycle helmet > > is well, just a piece of styrofoam. > > A motorcycle helmet is basically just a piece of styrofoam. > > The hard shell is just there to prevent penetration by sharp or pointy > things[1] and to protect the inner foam against day to day damage and > abrasion[2]. The hard shell also distributes impact forces over a much wider area of the styrofoam. And it prevents the common failure mode of bike helmets, where the "microshell" is insufficiently strong to keep the helmet in one piece. (A shattered helmet is scant, if any, protection.) > I suppose it also allows the head to slide along the > pavement rather than being jerked to an abrupt stop and twisted sideways > which might occur if the smooth outer shell wasn't there. Absolutely. And that very mechanism - the jerking, twisting rotational acceleration when the soft foam and thin microshell grip pavement - may be important. It is one of the causes proposed to partially explain the observed ineffectiveness of bike helmets. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 23 Aug 2007 14:14:07 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 3:17 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1187892419.593446.58...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > On Aug 23, 1:51 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: > >> So, if for the common good a bunch of control freaks got together and had > >> it legislated that everyone walking on a paved surface had to wear knee > >> pads, elbow pads, and a helmet for their safety, for the common good, > >> you'd go along right? > > Nope, because the risk of serious injury is negligible. And you > > argument is another example of carrying to a logical absurdity, but > > I'm sure you know that. > > So you don't like others telling you that you have to wear annoying > protective equipment when *YOU THINK* the risk of serious injury is > negligible, that the cost/risk/benefit calculation says the equipment is > not needed. However, on the other hand you want to *FORCE* others to > wear annoying protective equioment when *YOU THINK* the risk/cost/benefit > calculation makes it worth it. > > That sounds like a control freak to me. How about this, we all get to > determine our own risk/cost/benefit and decide for ourselves what > protective equipment we will wear for whatever activity we wish to do? See the message below. > > You stay out of my life, and I'll stay out of yours. It's that simple. > Stop trying to use government as a means to force me to live the way you > want me to live. > > >>You wouldn't feel the least bit bothered that? > >> Having the government be used to force you to wear annoying gear thats > >> your own personal risk assessment says is not needed.- Hide quoted text - > > High on the list for my favorite control freaks is good old tobacco, > > that american staple. It's production, sale and consumption should be > > eliminated entirely. > > Because prohibition of things you don't like and forcing other people not > to use them has worked so well in the past. What exactly drives people > like you? Does it give you a thrill to control other people? I don't and > will never understand the need to control other people's lives.     Date: 23 Aug 2007 16:30:40 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187903647.357081.84820@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com >, John S. wrote: > See the message below. We are not all using google groups.... this is usenet not some webforum get with the program.   Date: 23 Aug 2007 14:12:52 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 3:43 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1187897455.139304.126...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: > >> In article <1187891932.773972.28...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com > >> History deleted the thread is getting too long. > > Yeah, just delete all the context. Scroll up or expand the comments if you need to read the long winded discussion. > > > Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own. Most of them > > would seem to be self evident - such as there are a lot of > > bicyclists, bicyclists do get head injuries and the information about > > helmets reducing the chance of serious head injury. > > We are free people, we don't need you or any other control freaks making > decisions for us. You make the decision to wear a foam hat, fine, dandy, > I'm not telling you to. Stop trying to make it such that I will be forced > to wear one using the hammer of government and its enforcers. > > I can read the studies and the information. I can understand the > standards to which the foam hats are designed and what they will do. I > can make a fair judgement of the risks I face. My cost/benefit/risk > analysis tells me that wearing a foam hat while biking is not required. > > What drives you people that you need to control others? There's no > reasonable threshold that is reached to require micromanagment. It simply > isn't required period. Yes, as I thought safety has nothing to do with it. It's a civil rights issue - the right to not wear a helmet, not wear a seat belt, not put your child in a child seat. The right to wittingly increase the risk of serious injury when there are obvious and simple ways to reduce that risk.     Date: 23 Aug 2007 16:29:37 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187903572.851818.146880@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, John S. wrote: > On Aug 23, 3:43 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> In article <1187897455.139304.126...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: >> > On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> > wrote: >> >> In article <1187891932.773972.28...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >> >> History deleted the thread is getting too long. >> >> Yeah, just delete all the context. > Scroll up or expand the comments if you need to read the long winded > discussion. I see you think everyone uses google's web interface. This is usenet, not some web forum. Deleting context and then making a response is simply to ignore the previous points, which you did. >> > Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own. Most of them >> > would seem to be self evident - such as there are a lot of >> > bicyclists, bicyclists do get head injuries and the information about >> > helmets reducing the chance of serious head injury. >> >> We are free people, we don't need you or any other control freaks making >> decisions for us. You make the decision to wear a foam hat, fine, dandy, >> I'm not telling you to. Stop trying to make it such that I will be forced >> to wear one using the hammer of government and its enforcers. >> >> I can read the studies and the information. I can understand the >> standards to which the foam hats are designed and what they will do. I >> can make a fair judgement of the risks I face. My cost/benefit/risk >> analysis tells me that wearing a foam hat while biking is not required. >> >> What drives you people that you need to control others? There's no >> reasonable threshold that is reached to require micromanagment. It simply >> isn't required period. > Yes, as I thought safety has nothing to do with it. It's a civil > rights issue - the right to not wear a helmet, not wear a seat belt, > not put your child in a child seat. The right to wittingly increase > the risk of serious injury when there are obvious and simple ways to > reduce that risk The right not to have you or anyone else playing parent. Control freakism is disease, a cancer. It takes many forms, from the neo-con desire to listen in on everyone's phone calls and open their mail to the socialists that want to control how much bread or gasoline or anything else we can have. But the worst form of control freakism is the 'do-gooder'. I don't agree with *YOUR* judgement of what the risks are and the ways to reduce them. But you and your ilk are always there to empose your judgement on the rest of us. You feel the need to tell us how to live our lives, make decisions for us, micro-manage things for other people. You have no such right sir. I can make decisions for myself regarding risks. I can educate myself. I have on seatbelts and bicycle helmets. My conclusion is to wear a seatbelt but not a foam hat. Just because you're a control freak doesn't give you the power to demand I wear a foam hat because *YOU* think they are effective and simple. Just as you don't want to wear un-needed protection to walk down the street that some other control freak thinks are needed and effective and simple, I don't want to wear a foam hat. What is it that drives you people? What defect is it, that you feel the need to tell everyone how to live their lives? It is of no concern of yours. "Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis       Date: 24 Aug 2007 00:22:25 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1187903572.851818.146880@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > John S. wrote: >> On Aug 23, 3:43 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> wrote: >>> In article <1187897455.139304.126...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>> John S. wrote: >>> > On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>> > wrote: >>> >> In article <1187891932.773972.28...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >>> >> History deleted the thread is getting too long. >>> >>> Yeah, just delete all the context. >> Scroll up or expand the comments if you need to read the long winded >> discussion. > > I see you think everyone uses google's web interface. This is usenet, > not some web forum. Deleting context and then making a response is > simply to ignore the previous points, which you did. > >>> > Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own. Most of >>> > them would seem to be self evident - such as there are a lot of >>> > bicyclists, bicyclists do get head injuries and the information >>> > about helmets reducing the chance of serious head injury. >>> >>> We are free people, we don't need you or any other control freaks >>> making decisions for us. You make the decision to wear a foam hat, >>> fine, dandy, I'm not telling you to. Stop trying to make it such >>> that I will be forced to wear one using the hammer of government and >>> its enforcers. >>> >>> I can read the studies and the information. I can understand the >>> standards to which the foam hats are designed and what they will do. >>> I can make a fair judgement of the risks I face. My >>> cost/benefit/risk analysis tells me that wearing a foam hat while >>> biking is not required. >>> >>> What drives you people that you need to control others? There's no >>> reasonable threshold that is reached to require micromanagment. It >>> simply isn't required period. > >> Yes, as I thought safety has nothing to do with it. It's a civil >> rights issue - the right to not wear a helmet, not wear a seat belt, >> not put your child in a child seat. The right to wittingly increase >> the risk of serious injury when there are obvious and simple ways to >> reduce that risk > > The right not to have you or anyone else playing parent. Control > freakism is disease, a cancer. It takes many forms, from the neo-con > desire to listen in on everyone's phone calls and open their mail to > the socialists that want to control how much bread or gasoline or > anything else we can have. But the worst form of control freakism is > the 'do-gooder'. > > I don't agree with *YOUR* judgement of what the risks are and the ways > to reduce them. But you and your ilk are always there to empose your > judgement on the rest of us. You feel the need to tell us how to live > our lives, make decisions for us, micro-manage things for other > people. You have no such right sir. Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?         Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:39:08 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09 >, Lobby Dosser wrote: > Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated > prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power. The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways. Although with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes good health and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle helmets had some measurable benefit with regard to head injuries (I have not seen any convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes), bicycling without said helmet is still a net positive. The 'group' always sees a lower cost due to its bicycling members regardless of their hat wearing status.           Date: 24 Aug 2007 01:13:33 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: > >> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated >> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? > > Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it > through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs > that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power. IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to let others pay for your care. > > The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways. Although > with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes good health > and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle helmets had some > measurable benefit with regard to head injuries (I have not seen any > convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes), bicycling without said > helmet is still a net positive. The 'group' always sees a lower cost > due to its bicycling members regardless of their hat wearing status. Not proven.             Date: 23 Aug 2007 20:39:46 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1hqzi.16262$4K6.4405@trnddc02 >, Lobby Dosser wrote: > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >> In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >> >>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated >>> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? >> >> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it >> through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs >> that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power. > > IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to > let others pay for your care. I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both insurance and taxes. >> The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways. Although >> with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes good health >> and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle helmets had some >> measurable benefit with regard to head injuries (I have not seen any >> convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes), bicycling without said >> helmet is still a net positive. The 'group' always sees a lower cost >> due to its bicycling members regardless of their hat wearing status. > Not proven. The health benefits of bicycling are well proven. And even the helmet zealots admit that the injury they are trying to protect us from is rather rare.               Date: 24 Aug 2007 02:31:24 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1hqzi.16262$4K6.4405@trnddc02>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> >>> In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>> >>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be >>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? >>> >>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be >>> it through private insurance or government are used to distribute >>> costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking >>> power. >> >> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing >> to let others pay for your care. > > I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both > insurance and taxes. But you won't refuse treatment if you can't afford it. > >>> The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways. >>> Although with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes >>> good health and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle >>> helmets had some measurable benefit with regard to head injuries (I >>> have not seen any convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes), >>> bicycling without said helmet is still a net positive. The 'group' >>> always sees a lower cost due to its bicycling members regardless of >>> their hat wearing status. > >> Not proven. > > The health benefits of bicycling are well proven. Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary bicycle? > And even the helmet > zealots admit that the injury they are trying to protect us from is > rather rare. Not that I've seen. > >                 Date: 24 Aug 2007 14:59:10 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <0qrzi.5186$nB3.2931@trndny02 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: >tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >> In article <1hqzi.16262$4K6.4405@trnddc02>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >>> >>>> In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be >>>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? >>>> >>>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be >>>> it through private insurance or government are used to distribute >>>> costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking >>>> power. >>> >>> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing >>> to let others pay for your care. >> >> I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both >> insurance and taxes. > >But you won't refuse treatment if you can't afford it. Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all other forms of risk? -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.                   Date: 24 Aug 2007 23:32:28 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <0qrzi.5186$nB3.2931@trndny02>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> >>> In article <1hqzi.16262$4K6.4405@trnddc02>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be >>>>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? >>>>> >>>>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' >>>>> be it through private insurance or government are used to >>>>> distribute costs that the self appointed control freaks use to >>>>> justify taking power. >>>> >>>> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE >>>> willing to let others pay for your care. >>> >>> I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both >>> insurance and taxes. >> >>But you won't refuse treatment if you can't afford it. > > Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must > a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is it > refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special danger > which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all other > forms of risk? It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted.                     Date: 25 Aug 2007 10:30:03 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: >ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 rec.autos.driving:685079 > >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >> >> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must >> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is it >> refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special danger >> which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all other >> forms of risk? > >It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted. Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.                       Date: 25 Aug 2007 22:08:21 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 >>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 >>rec.autos.driving:685079 >> >>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>> >>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is >>> it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special >>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all >>> other forms of risk? >> >>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >>state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted. > > Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must > a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of us don't pay for Any related head injury.                         Date: 04 Sep 2007 11:22:19 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > >> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>, >> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 >>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 >>>rec.autos.driving:685079 >>> >>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>>> >>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is >>>> it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special >>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all >>>> other forms of risk? >>> >>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every >>>state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted. >> >> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must >> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? > >Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of us >don't pay for Any related head injury. The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should be_. And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet laws. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.                           Date: 04 Sep 2007 23:18:31 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >> >>> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>, >>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 >>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 >>>>rec.autos.driving:685079 >>>> >>>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >>>>> Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special >>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than >>>>> all other forms of risk? >>>> >>>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, >>>>every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you >>>>unbelted. >>> >>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >> >>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of >>us don't pay for Any related head injury. > > The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should be_. > > And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of > medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet > laws. > It should. Or the devices should not be Required.                             Date: 04 Sep 2007 20:04:42 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <bJlDi.6285$kI5.1601@trnddc08 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > >> In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>, >> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>> >>>> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>, >>>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 >>>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 >>>>>rec.autos.driving:685079 >>>>> >>>>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >>>>>> Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special >>>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than >>>>>> all other forms of risk? >>>>> >>>>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, >>>>>every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you >>>>>unbelted. >>>> >>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >>> >>>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of >>>us don't pay for Any related head injury. >> >> The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should be_. >> >> And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of >> medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet >> laws. >> > >It should. Or the devices should not be Required. With the law as your only standard, you have no basis to make those statements. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.                               Date: 05 Sep 2007 01:43:23 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <bJlDi.6285$kI5.1601@trnddc08>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >> >>> In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>, >>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <gUJzi.20$073.18@trndny05>, >>>>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 >>>>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 >>>>>>rec.autos.driving:685079 >>>>>> >>>>>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly >>>>>>> what must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this >>>>>>> bracelet? Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's >>>>>>> the special danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so >>>>>>> much worse than all other forms of risk? >>>>>> >>>>>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, >>>>>>every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you >>>>>>unbelted. >>>>> >>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what >>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? >>>> >>>>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest >>>>of us don't pay for Any related head injury. >>> >>> The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should >>> be_. >>> >>> And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of >>> medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet >>> laws. >>> >> >>It should. Or the devices should not be Required. > > With the law as your only standard, you have no basis to make those > statements. Yeah I do.                             Date: 04 Sep 2007 16:30:20 From: Don Homuth Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:18:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > >> In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>, >> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>> >>>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of >>>us don't pay for Any related head injury. >> >> The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should be_. >> >> And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of >> medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet >> laws. >> >It should. Why? Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated. > Or the devices should not be Required. Well, there actually Is another alternative. Have a piece of Civil Law, not criminal law, that says if a person is injured and was Not wearing a seat belt, for example, that for insurance purposes they are at least 50% culpable for their own injuries. In which case, they'd have to pay out of pocket for their own expenses. That'd get folks' attention ferDamnshur!                               Date: 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote: > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:18:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >> >>> In article <pL1Ai.3175$ai3.2155@trndny03>, >>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >>>> > >>>>Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest >>>>of us don't pay for Any related head injury. >>> >>> The law is not a good standard for deciding what the law _should >>> be_. >>> >>> And if the law is your standard, note that it does not set denial of >>> medical care as the penalty for violating seat belt laws or helmet >>> laws. >>> >>It should. > > Why? Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated. Yes, it is. Also the gene pool. > >> Or the devices should not be Required. > > Well, there actually Is another alternative. > > Have a piece of Civil Law, not criminal law, that says if a person is > injured and was Not wearing a seat belt, for example, that for > insurance purposes they are at least 50% culpable for their own > injuries. Whoopee. > > In which case, they'd have to pay out of pocket for their own > expenses. Empty pockets. > > That'd get folks' attention ferDamnshur! > Ya, sure.                                 Date: 04 Sep 2007 17:10:54 From: Don Homuth Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: >Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: > >>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated. > >Yes, it is. Also the gene pool. Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then? >>> Or the devices should not be Required. >> >> Well, there actually Is another alternative. >> >> Have a piece of Civil Law, not criminal law, that says if a person is >> injured and was Not wearing a seat belt, for example, that for >> insurance purposes they are at least 50% culpable for their own >> injuries. > >Whoopee. The insurance companies would just effling Love it. It would initiate more use of seat belts (and thereby lower their costs) or it would initiate less of a fiscal payout (and thereby lower their costs). But curiously, it would lower Everyone's costs as well. >> In which case, they'd have to pay out of pocket for their own >> expenses. > >Empty pockets. Collection agencies, etc. It need not be Perfect -- it just needs to be Better than what's happening now. >> That'd get folks' attention ferDamnshur! >> >Ya, sure. We legally require folks to carry insurance. That's a good thing, seems to me. But if folks don't wish to take appropriate actions to protect themselves, there's no need to require you and me to pay into the pool to cover the costs of their injuries. People actually Care about Money. It's not clear that they care much about their own personal safety, without putting a price tag on it.\ This suggestion would do that.                                   Date: 05 Sep 2007 00:12:30 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote: > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: >> >>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated. >> >>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool. > > Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then? Sounds like Edward's approach.                                     Date: 04 Sep 2007 17:21:11 From: Don Homuth Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:12:30 GMT, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: >Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser >> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated. >>> >>>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool. >> >> Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then? > >Sounds like Edward's approach. Not that I can see. Edwards would make the seeking of preventive care mandatory as a precondition to enrollment in the program. He hasn't suggested not allowing folks to have their own program, however.                                       Date: 05 Sep 2007 01:42:27 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote: > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:12:30 GMT, Lobby Dosser > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser >>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated. >>>> >>>>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool. >>> >>> Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then? >> >>Sounds like Edward's approach. > > Not that I can see. Edwards would make the seeking of preventive care > mandatory as a precondition to enrollment in the program. He hasn't > suggested not allowing folks to have their own program, however. > And the programs available to the homeless, transients, illegals, and just plain weird are ... ?                                         Date: 04 Sep 2007 18:45:05 From: Don Homuth Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:42:27 GMT, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: >Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:12:30 GMT, Lobby Dosser >> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser >>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool. >>>> >>>> Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then? >>> >>>Sounds like Edward's approach. >> >> Not that I can see. Edwards would make the seeking of preventive care >> mandatory as a precondition to enrollment in the program. He hasn't >> suggested not allowing folks to have their own program, however. >> >And the programs available to the homeless, transients, illegals, and >just plain weird are ... ? Where do you wish to go with this?                                           Date: 05 Sep 2007 01:54:32 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote: > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:42:27 GMT, Lobby Dosser > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: > >>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:12:30 GMT, Lobby Dosser >>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:01:01 GMT, Lobby Dosser >>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Is it in society's interest to leave injured folks untreated. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, it is. Also the gene pool. >>>>> >>>>> Your approach is just to let 'em all die, then? >>>> >>>>Sounds like Edward's approach. >>> >>> Not that I can see. Edwards would make the seeking of preventive >>> care mandatory as a precondition to enrollment in the program. He >>> hasn't suggested not allowing folks to have their own program, >>> however. >>> >>And the programs available to the homeless, transients, illegals, and >>just plain weird are ... ? > > Where do you wish to go with this? > How about answering the question.                 Date: 23 Aug 2007 22:27:43 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <0qrzi.5186$nB3.2931@trndny02 >, Lobby Dosser wrote: > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >> In article <1hqzi.16262$4K6.4405@trnddc02>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >>> >>>> In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be >>>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? >>>> >>>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be >>>> it through private insurance or government are used to distribute >>>> costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking >>>> power. >>> >>> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing >>> to let others pay for your care. >> >> I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both >> insurance and taxes. > > But you won't refuse treatment if you can't afford it. Considering the income insurance companies have had on my preimums in addition to the premiums and the taxes I've paid, I could get hurt seriously before even getting close to break even. >>>> The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways. >>>> Although with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes >>>> good health and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle >>>> helmets had some measurable benefit with regard to head injuries (I >>>> have not seen any convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes), >>>> bicycling without said helmet is still a net positive. The 'group' >>>> always sees a lower cost due to its bicycling members regardless of >>>> their hat wearing status. >> >>> Not proven. >> >> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven. > > Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary > bicycle? How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life. >> And even the helmet >> zealots admit that the injury they are trying to protect us from is >> rather rare. > Not that I've seen. My brother got hurt when we were kids. I've had a couple skinned knees. That's it. I've never required medical attention other than my own from anything bicycle related. My worst bicycle related injury came from when I slipped with the screwdrive while repairing my bicycle in the living room of the apartment I rented at the time.                   Date: 24 Aug 2007 21:20:52 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P? wrote: > In article <0qrzi.5186$nB3.2931@trndny02>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >>... >>> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven. >> Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary >> bicycle? > > How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life. Bicycle outside will provide mental health benefits that the "hamster wheel" will not. Improved mental health boosts the immune system. Gerbils are much happier if their environment is a couple hundred square feet instead of 2 square feet. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                     Date: 25 Aug 2007 11:17:55 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Brent P? wrote: >> In article <0qrzi.5186$nB3.2931@trndny02>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >>>> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven. >>> Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary >>> bicycle? >> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life. > Bicycle outside will provide mental health benefits that the "hamster > wheel" will not. Improved mental health boosts the immune system. > Gerbils are much happier if their environment is a couple hundred square > feet instead of 2 square feet. How does one measure gerbil happiness? Are gerbils even capable of "happiness"? Peace and justice,                       Date: 27 Aug 2007 20:22:46 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Shatzer wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> Brent P? wrote: > >>> In article <0qrzi.5186$nB3.2931@trndny02>, Lobby Dosser wrote: > >>>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >>>>> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven. > >>>> Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary >>>> bicycle? > >>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life. > >> Bicycle outside will provide mental health benefits that the "hamster >> wheel" will not. Improved mental health boosts the immune system. > >> Gerbils are much happier if their environment is a couple hundred >> square feet instead of 2 square feet. > > How does one measure gerbil happiness? Observation. > Are gerbils even capable of "happiness"? Yes. They also get very upset if one of their group dies or goes missing. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                   Date: 24 Aug 2007 05:13:52 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <0qrzi.5186$nB3.2931@trndny02>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> >>> In article <1hqzi.16262$4K6.4405@trnddc02>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be >>>>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? >>>>> >>>>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' >>>>> be it through private insurance or government are used to >>>>> distribute costs that the self appointed control freaks use to >>>>> justify taking power. >>>> >>>> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE >>>> willing to let others pay for your care. >>> >>> I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both >>> insurance and taxes. >> >> But you won't refuse treatment if you can't afford it. > > Considering the income insurance companies have had on my preimums in > addition to the premiums and the taxes I've paid, I could get hurt > seriously before even getting close to break even. Have you priced the cost of health care lately? > >>>>> The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways. >>>>> Although with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes >>>>> good health and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle >>>>> helmets had some measurable benefit with regard to head injuries >>>>> (I have not seen any convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes), >>>>> bicycling without said helmet is still a net positive. The 'group' >>>>> always sees a lower cost due to its bicycling members regardless >>>>> of their hat wearing status. >>> >>>> Not proven. >>> >>> The health benefits of bicycling are well proven. >> >> Are they? It is not possible to get those benefits on a stationary >> bicycle? > > How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life. Which you can do on a stationary bike. And the stationary bike will give you a much better cardio-vascular workout. If you're afraid of falling off, you can spread some foam around it on the floor. Even couch cushions or pillows. > >>> And even the helmet >>> zealots admit that the injury they are trying to protect us from is >>> rather rare. > >> Not that I've seen. > > My brother got hurt when we were kids. I've had a couple skinned > knees. That's it. I've never required medical attention other than my > own from anything bicycle related. My worst bicycle related injury > came from when I slipped with the screwdrive while repairing my > bicycle in the living room of the apartment I rented at the time. Aren't you lucky. > > >                     Date: 24 Aug 2007 07:44:54 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <kOtzi.17394$5y3.8531@trndny07 >, Lobby Dosser wrote: > Have you priced the cost of health care lately? Have you priced the cost of health care insurance lately? >> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life. > Which you can do on a stationary bike. No that's not. The stationary bike doesn't take me anywhere. > And the stationary bike will give > you a much better cardio-vascular workout. Doubtful. > If you're afraid of falling > off, you can spread some foam around it on the floor. Even couch cushions > or pillows. You're the one that is affraid of falling and wants to make everyone else share his fear by wearing a foam hat. > Aren't you lucky. Rather typical to unlucky actually. The scrapes I've gotten, all but one were because of the willful actions of a motorist.                       Date: 24 Aug 2007 23:15:23 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <kOtzi.17394$5y3.8531@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote: > >> Have you priced the cost of health care lately? > > Have you priced the cost of health care insurance lately? > >>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily >>> life. > >> Which you can do on a stationary bike. > > No that's not. The stationary bike doesn't take me anywhere. Are you always going somewhere? > >> And the stationary bike will give >> you a much better cardio-vascular workout. > > Doubtful. Not. It will. > >> If you're afraid of falling >> off, you can spread some foam around it on the floor. Even couch >> cushions or pillows. > > You're the one that is affraid of falling and wants to make everyone > else share his fear by wearing a foam hat. I've been cycling for 55+ years and never wore one. > >> Aren't you lucky. > > Rather typical to unlucky actually. The scrapes I've gotten, all but > one were because of the willful actions of a motorist. > > >                         Date: 24 Aug 2007 18:27:19 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fEJzi.643$XV2.535@trndny09 >, Lobby Dosser wrote: > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >> In article <kOtzi.17394$5y3.8531@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >> >>> Have you priced the cost of health care lately? >> >> Have you priced the cost of health care insurance lately? >> >>>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily >>>> life. >> >>> Which you can do on a stationary bike. >> >> No that's not. The stationary bike doesn't take me anywhere. > > Are you always going somewhere? If I am using a bicycle I am. Even if the destination is simply recreational. >>> And the stationary bike will give >>> you a much better cardio-vascular workout. >> Doubtful. > Not. It will. No it won't. simply because it's boring constant speed gerbil wheel. They try to make stationary bikes better with various ways to simulate real riding. Simulations however fall short. >>> If you're afraid of falling >>> off, you can spread some foam around it on the floor. Even couch >>> cushions or pillows. >> You're the one that is affraid of falling and wants to make everyone >> else share his fear by wearing a foam hat. > I've been cycling for 55+ years and never wore one. Then why are you apprently offended by my dislike of foam hats and manditory foam hat laws? The most probable answer is that you're just another shithead troll.                           Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:20:25 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <fEJzi.643$XV2.535@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> >>> In article <kOtzi.17394$5y3.8531@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>> >>>> Have you priced the cost of health care lately? >>> >>> Have you priced the cost of health care insurance lately? >>> >>>>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily >>>>> life. >>> >>>> Which you can do on a stationary bike. >>> >>> No that's not. The stationary bike doesn't take me anywhere. >> >> Are you always going somewhere? > > If I am using a bicycle I am. Even if the destination is simply > recreational. Not using a stationary. > >>>> And the stationary bike will give >>>> you a much better cardio-vascular workout. > >>> Doubtful. > >> Not. It will. > > No it won't. simply because it's boring constant speed gerbil wheel. > They try to make stationary bikes better with various ways to simulate > real riding. Simulations however fall short. CARDIO-VASCULAR WORKOUT > >>>> If you're afraid of falling >>>> off, you can spread some foam around it on the floor. Even couch >>>> cushions or pillows. > >>> You're the one that is affraid of falling and wants to make everyone >>> else share his fear by wearing a foam hat. > >> I've been cycling for 55+ years and never wore one. > > Then why are you apprently offended by my dislike of foam hats and > manditory foam hat laws? The most probable answer is that you're just > another shithead troll. I'm not offended at all. I think mandatory helmets for kids is a good idea. For adults, I say let natural selection do its work. > > > >                             Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:09:01 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <dBKzi.203$0_2.123@trndny07 >, Lobby Dosser wrote: > Not using a stationary. That's right troll, I go places with a bicycle. > CARDIO-VASCULAR WORKOUT go be a gerbil if you want to be a gerbil. However I think you'd be better off under a bridge. >>> I've been cycling for 55+ years and never wore one. >> Then why are you apprently offended by my dislike of foam hats and >> manditory foam hat laws? The most probable answer is that you're just >> another shithead troll. > I'm not offended at all. I think mandatory helmets for kids is a good > idea. For adults, I say let natural selection do its work. You're just another garden variety troll. Go find some garden gnomes to bother.                               Date: 25 Aug 2007 06:52:23 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <dBKzi.203$0_2.123@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote: > >> Not using a stationary. > > That's right troll, I go places with a bicycle. > >> CARDIO-VASCULAR WORKOUT > > go be a gerbil if you want to be a gerbil. However I think you'd be > better off under a bridge. It's just like TRANSIT. You can do all sorts of other stuff whill you're getting the CV workout! All you do is build an odor. > >>>> I've been cycling for 55+ years and never wore one. > >>> Then why are you apprently offended by my dislike of foam hats and >>> manditory foam hat laws? The most probable answer is that you're >>> just another shithead troll. > >> I'm not offended at all. I think mandatory helmets for kids is a good >> idea. For adults, I say let natural selection do its work. > > You're just another garden variety troll. Go find some garden gnomes > to bother. You Are a Bitter Little Man. > > >                     Date: 24 Aug 2007 05:27:18 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Lobby Dosser wrote: >> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily life. > > Which you can do on a stationary bike. And the stationary bike will give > you a much better cardio-vascular workout. Before I started riding my bike again, I used to ride my stationary bike daily for 45 minutes. When I purchased my bike, and tried to ride it back to my place (about 7.5 miles), it took me over an hour and I had to take the bus for the remaining 2 miles. These days, I make the entire trip in about 30 minutes give or take. A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any stationary bike. FWIW, the last time I rode my stationary bike (while my real bike was in the bike shop), I had to pedal a bit faster to even keep my heart rate up to 85% of max as compared to before I started riding the real bike again.                       Date: 24 Aug 2007 05:31:17 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: > >>> How about you go be a gerbil? I integrate excerise into my daily >>> life. >> >> Which you can do on a stationary bike. And the stationary bike will >> give you a much better cardio-vascular workout. > > Before I started riding my bike again, I used to ride my stationary > bike daily for 45 minutes. When I purchased my bike, and tried to > ride it back to my place (about 7.5 miles), it took me over an hour > and I had to take the bus for the remaining 2 miles. These days, I > make the entire trip in about 30 minutes give or take. > > A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any > stationary bike. Not if you have the proper stionary bike. You can't ride up reasonably steep hill if you do your real biking in Northern Ohio. > FWIW, the last time I rode my stationary bike (while > my real bike was in the bike shop), I had to pedal a bit faster to > even keep my heart rate up to 85% of max as compared to before I > started riding the real bike again. >                         Date: 24 Aug 2007 16:15:45 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Lobby Dosser wrote: > Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote: >> A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any >> stationary bike. > Not if you have the proper stionary bike. It's a Schwinn Airdyne. I used to ride around 55 to 60 rpm to keep my heart rate in the target range. The last time I tried, I had to ride it around 67 rpm for the same effect. > You can't ride up reasonably steep hill if you do your real biking > in Northern Ohio. I've never ridden in Northern Ohio. I maintain around 8 to 10 mph up steep hills here. If I'm tired, my speed drops down to 6 mph.                           Date: 24 Aug 2007 23:29:35 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote: > >>> A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any >>> stationary bike. > >> Not if you have the proper stionary bike. > > It's a Schwinn Airdyne. I used to ride around 55 to 60 rpm to keep my > heart rate in the target range. The last time I tried, I had to ride > it around 67 rpm for the same effect. You can't adjust the resistance? > >> You can't ride up reasonably steep hill if you do your real biking >> in Northern Ohio. > > I've never ridden in Northern Ohio. FLAT. Scraped that way by the continental ice sheet. Highest spot around Toledo was a railroad overpass and the Irish Hills in Michigan. > I maintain around 8 to 10 mph up > steep hills here. What's steep? > If I'm tired, my speed drops down to 6 mph. >                             Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:12:34 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Lobby Dosser wrote: > Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote: >>>> A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any >>>> stationary bike. >>> Not if you have the proper stionary bike. >> It's a Schwinn Airdyne. I used to ride around 55 to 60 rpm to keep my >> heart rate in the target range. The last time I tried, I had to ride >> it around 67 rpm for the same effect. > You can't adjust the resistance? It's one of those stationary bikes that uses the resistance of "fan" blades that turn as you pedal. The faster one pedals, the greater the resistance <http://www.amazon.com/Schwinn-Airdyne-Upright-Exercise-Bike/dp/B000E158CK >. >> I maintain around 8 to 10 mph up steep hills here. > What's steep? I'm not sure of the percent grade. I get up to around 27 to 30 mph when coasting down the same hill. Besides, I'm not riding a light bike and I'm a bit overweight myself.             Date: 23 Aug 2007 20:32:39 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1hqzi.16262$4K6.4405@trnddc02 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote: >tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >> In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >> >>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated >>> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? >> >> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it >> through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs >> that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power. > >IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to >let others pay for your care. As partial compensation for my employment, my employer pays a premium to an insurance company so that in the event I become injured or ill, the insurance company will pay for my care. Is there some reason I should forgo this benefit if I am injured while riding a bicycle without a helmet? As opposed to if I am injured driving, skydiving, rock climbing, playing football, or base jumping? Note that it is NOT a feature of the insurance policy that I limit my risks to what other policyholders consider "reasonable". -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.               Date: 24 Aug 2007 02:28:25 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <1hqzi.16262$4K6.4405@trnddc02>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote: >>tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> >>> In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >>> >>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be >>>> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? >>> >>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be >>> it through private insurance or government are used to distribute >>> costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking >>> power. >> >>IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing >>to let others pay for your care. > > As partial compensation for my employment, my employer pays a premium > to an insurance company so that in the event I become injured or ill, > the insurance company will pay for my care. I've got news for you. After a while the insurance company STOPS paying. > > Is there some reason I should forgo this benefit if I am injured while > riding a bicycle without a helmet? Nobody said you should. > As opposed to if I am injured > driving, skydiving, rock climbing, playing football, or base jumping? > > Note that it is NOT a feature of the insurance policy that I limit my > risks to what other policyholders consider "reasonable". But the policy has a cap. A cap quickly reached for the care of a gomer.   Date: 23 Aug 2007 12:30:55 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1187891932.773972.28...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com > History deleted the thread is getting too long. Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own. Most of them would seem to be self evident - such as there are a lot of bicyclists, bicyclists do get head injuries and the information about helmets reducing the chance of serious head injury. Helmets.org is related to the WABA and those sites have a lot of good information on cycling and cycling safety. Strange that they make no mention of civil right to not wear a helmet of concern to some people. From our cycling friends at helmets.org: There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US. 784 bicyclists died on US roads in 2005. 92% of them died in crashes with motor vehicles (720). About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized. Bicycle crashes and injuries are under-reported, since the majority are not serious enough for emergency room visits. 1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain injury. Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury. A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent. Many years of potential life are lost because about half of the deaths are children under 15 years old. Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $81 million each year. Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $2.3 billion each year. Helmet use in the US varies by orders of magnitude in different areas and different sectors of our society. White collar commuters probably reach 80 per cent, while inner city kids and rural kids would be 10 per cent or less. Overall, our best wild guess is probably no more than 25 per cent. Sommers Point, NJ, where a state helmet law is in effect, found that only 24 of the 359 students who rode to school in one week of the Winter of 2002 wore helmets (6 per cent) until the School District adopted a helmet rule. North Carolina observed 17 per cent statewide before their law went into effect in 2001. Helmets are cheap. The typical discount store price has risen from under $10 to about $15, but there are still models available for under $10 at major retailers.     Date: 23 Aug 2007 14:43:42 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187897455.139304.126040@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, John S. wrote: > On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> In article <1187891932.773972.28...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >> History deleted the thread is getting too long. Yeah, just delete all the context. > Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own. Most of them > would seem to be self evident - such as there are a lot of > bicyclists, bicyclists do get head injuries and the information about > helmets reducing the chance of serious head injury. We are free people, we don't need you or any other control freaks making decisions for us. You make the decision to wear a foam hat, fine, dandy, I'm not telling you to. Stop trying to make it such that I will be forced to wear one using the hammer of government and its enforcers. I can read the studies and the information. I can understand the standards to which the foam hats are designed and what they will do. I can make a fair judgement of the risks I face. My cost/benefit/risk analysis tells me that wearing a foam hat while biking is not required. What drives you people that you need to control others? There's no reasonable threshold that is reached to require micromanagment. It simply isn't required period.       Date: 24 Aug 2007 00:19:43 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1187897455.139304.126040@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > John S. wrote: >> On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> wrote: >>> In article <1187891932.773972.28...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >>> History deleted the thread is getting too long. > > Yeah, just delete all the context. > >> Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own. Most of them >> would seem to be self evident - such as there are a lot of >> bicyclists, bicyclists do get head injuries and the information >> about helmets reducing the chance of serious head injury. > > We are free people, we don't need you or any other control freaks > making decisions for us. You make the decision to wear a foam hat, > fine, dandy, I'm not telling you to. Stop trying to make it such that > I will be forced to wear one using the hammer of government and its > enforcers. > > I can read the studies and the information. I can understand the > standards to which the foam hats are designed and what they will do. I > can make a fair judgement of the risks I face. My cost/benefit/risk > analysis tells me that wearing a foam hat while biking is not > required. > > What drives you people that you need to control others? Paying to turn and baste the likes of you for fifty years. > There's no > reasonable threshold that is reached to require micromanagment. It > simply isn't required period. > > >         Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:25:11 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone > > Paying to turn and baste the likes of you for fifty years. Do you ever have anything constructive to post? ever?           Date: 24 Aug 2007 01:07:06 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> >> Paying to turn and baste the likes of you for fifty years. > > Do you ever have anything constructive to post? ever? > > > I answered your question.       Date: 23 Aug 2007 15:35:58 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P wrote: > In article <1187897455.139304.126040@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > >>On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>wrote: >> >>>In article <1187891932.773972.28...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >>>History deleted the thread is getting too long. > > > Yeah, just delete all the context. > > >>Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own. Most of them >>would seem to be self evident - such as there are a lot of >>bicyclists, bicyclists do get head injuries and the information about >>helmets reducing the chance of serious head injury. > > > We are free people, we don't need you or any other control freaks making > decisions for us. You make the decision to wear a foam hat, fine, dandy, > I'm not telling you to. Stop trying to make it such that I will be forced > to wear one using the hammer of government and its enforcers. > > I can read the studies and the information. I can understand the > standards to which the foam hats are designed and what they will do. I > can make a fair judgement of the risks I face. My cost/benefit/risk > analysis tells me that wearing a foam hat while biking is not required. > > What drives you people that you need to control others? There's no > reasonable threshold that is reached to require micromanagment. It simply > isn't required period. I recall the motorcyclists making similar arguments. In some states, they've even managed to repeal the mandatory helmet laws - not to their overall benefit. For instance, when Arkansas repealed its mandatory helmet law, motorcycle fatalities increased 21% in a single year. Pennsylvania experienced a 51% increase. Und so weiter. Oh well, at least they got to feel the wind in their hair during their last moments on earth. Peace and justice,         Date: 23 Aug 2007 17:58:00 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <YeKdnZQq1PBTllPbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bill Shatzer wrote: > I recall the motorcyclists making similar arguments. In some states, > they've even managed to repeal the mandatory helmet laws - not to their > overall benefit. > For instance, when Arkansas repealed its mandatory helmet law, > motorcycle fatalities increased 21% in a single year. Pennsylvania > experienced a 51% increase. Und so weiter. How much did motorcycling increase? I've heard that it's *MUCH* more popular these days, including all sorts of TV shows about it. How many died instead of becoming vegtables? The devil is in the details the control freaks always leave out. > Oh well, at least they got to feel the wind in their hair during their > last moments on earth. And yet a motorcycle helmet actually does something, but a bicycle helmet is well, just a piece of styrofoam.           Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:53:04 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <EKidnYU-OsJljVPbnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com >, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com > wrote: >In article <YeKdnZQq1PBTllPbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Bill Shatzer wrote: > >> I recall the motorcyclists making similar arguments. In some states, >> they've even managed to repeal the mandatory helmet laws - not to their >> overall benefit. > >> For instance, when Arkansas repealed its mandatory helmet law, >> motorcycle fatalities increased 21% in a single year. Pennsylvania >> experienced a 51% increase. Und so weiter. > >How much did motorcycling increase? I've heard that it's *MUCH* more >popular these days, including all sorts of TV shows about it. How many >died instead of becoming vegtables? The devil is in the details the control >freaks always leave out. Or sometimes the devil just lies. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_337697.html In the year after a new law permitted Pennsylvania motorcyclists to ride helmetless, the number of deaths has decreased enough to maybe let some Big Ben critics breathe a sigh of relief. The number of motorcyclists killed on Pennsylvania highways dropped to 157 last year from 171 in 2003, the state Department of Transportation announced Tuesday. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.           Date: 23 Aug 2007 16:52:23 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P wrote: -snip- >>Oh well, at least they got to feel the wind in their hair during their >>last moments on earth. > And yet a motorcycle helmet actually does something, but a bicycle helmet > is well, just a piece of styrofoam. A motorcycle helmet is basically just a piece of styrofoam. The hard shell is just there to prevent penetration by sharp or pointy things[1] and to protect the inner foam against day to day damage and abrasion[2]. I suppose it also allows the head to slide along the pavement rather than being jerked to an abrupt stop and twisted sideways which might occur if the smooth outer shell wasn't there. But the foam inner liner is what absorbs the most of the energy and what provides almost all of the head protection in a typical accident. [1] Though pointy objects are seldom are a problem in real world accidents - as opposed to in testing laboratories. [2] It also provides a clean, smooth, hard surface on which to paint flames and dragons and other designs if you are into such things. Peace and justice,             Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:09:13 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <brWdnYKeCawogFPbnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bill Shatzer wrote: > A motorcycle helmet is basically just a piece of styrofoam. > > The hard shell is just there to prevent penetration by sharp or pointy > things[1] and to protect the inner foam against day to day damage and > abrasion[2]. Nice down play of them. They are worlds more protective than thin packaging blow mold plastic and a hunk of styrofoam and you very well know it.   Date: 23 Aug 2007 12:18:54 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 1:05 pm, Hec Ramsey <mark7@ltd. > wrote: ~~~~~~begin Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!news- in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local! fe08.news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Hec Ramsey <mark7@ltd. > User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: pdx.general,or.politics,alt.politics,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.autos.driving Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone References: <8373-46CA0D36-1081@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net > <1187659909.256766.84830@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com > <kgidaf.g76.ln@vcn.bc.ca > <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org> <nhafaf.u57.ln@vcn.bc.ca > <fafddk$hsi$1@registered.motzarella.org> <exOyi.3899$wr3.1016@trndny04 > <ablgaf.6c.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <46ccd086$0$7328$88260bb3@free.teranews.com > <Xns999586201D9F0revbob@140.99.99.130 > In-Reply-To: <Xns999586201D9F0revbob@140.99.99.130 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 62 Message-ID: <pUkzi.128622$sR4.36937@fe08.news.easynews.com > X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:05:58 GMT ~~~~~~end   Date: 23 Aug 2007 12:16:07 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 1:05 pm, Hec Ramsey <mark7@ltd. > wrote: You said the same thing in the other thread(s)? Queerassed self-plagiarist! You must have even worse arthritis that I do if you can't even type something different each time!   Date: 23 Aug 2007 11:06:59 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 1:51 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1187889427.186885.197...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > On Aug 22, 5:16 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote: > >> John S. wrote: > >> > However, since someone else will have to pay for your care and well > >> > being when you sustain permanent brain damage after your head > >> > strikes the pavement in a fall I think you have a civil responsibility > >> > to act in a mature manner. Difficult though it may be. > > >> Do you feel the same way about those who rely on others money for > >> treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, peripheral > >> vascular disease, obesity, etc.? They cost society far more than all > >> cyclists who suffered head injuries put together. > > > Actually I do think that people who don't watch their weight, smoke, > > use drugs to excess, etc., are acting in a completely unresponsible > > manner. But we as a society do engage in a lot of education to > > improve the lifestyles of such individuals. And where it makes sense > > to legislate some decisions I would agree with it. Such as with usihg > > a bicycle or motor cycle helmet, or seat belts, or seats for children > > in cars. > > So, if for the common good a bunch of control freaks got together and had > it legislated that everyone walking on a paved surface had to wear knee > pads, elbow pads, and a helmet for their safety, for the common good, > you'd go along right? Nope, because the risk of serious injury is negligible. And you argument is another example of carrying to a logical absurdity, but I'm sure you know that. >You wouldn't feel the least bit bothered that? > Having the government be used to force you to wear annoying gear thats > your own personal risk assessment says is not needed.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - High on the list for my favorite control freaks is good old tobacco, that american staple. It's production, sale and consumption should be eliminated entirely.     Date: 23 Aug 2007 14:17:02 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187892419.593446.58500@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >, John S. wrote: > On Aug 23, 1:51 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> So, if for the common good a bunch of control freaks got together and had >> it legislated that everyone walking on a paved surface had to wear knee >> pads, elbow pads, and a helmet for their safety, for the common good, >> you'd go along right? > Nope, because the risk of serious injury is negligible. And you > argument is another example of carrying to a logical absurdity, but > I'm sure you know that. So you don't like others telling you that you have to wear annoying protective equipment when *YOU THINK* the risk of serious injury is negligible, that the cost/risk/benefit calculation says the equipment is not needed. However, on the other hand you want to *FORCE* others to wear annoying protective equioment when *YOU THINK* the risk/cost/benefit calculation makes it worth it. That sounds like a control freak to me. How about this, we all get to determine our own risk/cost/benefit and decide for ourselves what protective equipment we will wear for whatever activity we wish to do? You stay out of my life, and I'll stay out of yours. It's that simple. Stop trying to use government as a means to force me to live the way you want me to live. >>You wouldn't feel the least bit bothered that? >> Having the government be used to force you to wear annoying gear thats >> your own personal risk assessment says is not needed.- Hide quoted text - > High on the list for my favorite control freaks is good old tobacco, > that american staple. It's production, sale and consumption should be > eliminated entirely. Because prohibition of things you don't like and forcing other people not to use them has worked so well in the past. What exactly drives people like you? Does it give you a thrill to control other people? I don't and will never understand the need to control other people's lives.   Date: 23 Aug 2007 10:58:52 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 1:38 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1187889041.096979.152...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll > > children. The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who > > receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when > > they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and > > usuallly have permanent consequences. > > Do look up neurological damage consequent to head injury - if you > > haven't had a serious head injury it will be an eye opener. > > > So, yes do continue to ride your cycle(motorized and non) > > unprotected. And please accept my advance condolences if a fall > > results in permanent paralysis of some body parts. > > Do you wear your foam bicycle hat when climbing stairs, driving or a > passenger in a motor vehicle, and when using a step ladder? If not, why not? I can't comment on your stair handling skills so I'll leave that decision up to you. But do consider that the speed is considerably slower, there are no rapidly moving external threats to contend with, etc. And I'm sure you know this. > Severe head injury is possible in all those activities. > > Bicycling simply isn't dangerous and doesn't require safety gear any more > than climbling stairs does. If bicycling was more dangerous to my head > than other typical daily activities I might consider an effective helmet, > but since bicycle helmets are only effective for me falling over there > isn't much of a point. To justify these helmets when bicyling I end up > justifying wearing one practically 24-7, at least when I am not sleeping > anyway.     Date: 23 Aug 2007 13:07:54 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187891932.773972.28090@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >, John S. wrote: > On Aug 23, 1:38 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> In article <1187889041.096979.152...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: >> > permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll >> > children. The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who >> > receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when >> > they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and >> > usuallly have permanent consequences. >> > Do look up neurological damage consequent to head injury - if you >> > haven't had a serious head injury it will be an eye opener. >> >> > So, yes do continue to ride your cycle(motorized and non) >> > unprotected. And please accept my advance condolences if a fall >> > results in permanent paralysis of some body parts. >> >> Do you wear your foam bicycle hat when climbing stairs, driving or a >> passenger in a motor vehicle, and when using a step ladder? If not, why not? > > I can't comment on your stair handling skills so I'll leave that > decision up to you. But do consider that the speed is considerably > slower, there are no rapidly moving external threats to contend with, > etc. And I'm sure you know this. Add any speed or external threat and the capacity of the bicycle helmet is exceeded. It's only good for a fall. That's all it's rated for. >> Severe head injury is possible in all those activities. >> >> Bicycling simply isn't dangerous and doesn't require safety gear any more >> than climbling stairs does. If bicycling was more dangerous to my head >> than other typical daily activities I might consider an effective helmet, >> but since bicycle helmets are only effective for me falling over there >> isn't much of a point. To justify these helmets when bicyling I end up >> justifying wearing one practically 24-7, at least when I am not sleeping >> anyway. > >   Date: 23 Aug 2007 10:17:07 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 5:16 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu > wrote: > John S. wrote: > > However, since someone else will have to pay for your care and well > > being when you sustain permanent brain damage after your head > > strikes the pavement in a fall I think you have a civil responsibility > > to act in a mature manner. Difficult though it may be. > > Do you feel the same way about those who rely on others money for > treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, peripheral > vascular disease, obesity, etc.? They cost society far more than all > cyclists who suffered head injuries put together. Actually I do think that people who don't watch their weight, smoke, use drugs to excess, etc., are acting in a completely unresponsible manner. But we as a society do engage in a lot of education to improve the lifestyles of such individuals. And where it makes sense to legislate some decisions I would agree with it. Such as with usihg a bicycle or motor cycle helmet, or seat belts, or seats for children in cars.     Date: 23 Aug 2007 12:51:09 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187889427.186885.197100@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, John S. wrote: > On Aug 22, 5:16 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote: >> John S. wrote: >> > However, since someone else will have to pay for your care and well >> > being when you sustain permanent brain damage after your head >> > strikes the pavement in a fall I think you have a civil responsibility >> > to act in a mature manner. Difficult though it may be. >> >> Do you feel the same way about those who rely on others money for >> treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, peripheral >> vascular disease, obesity, etc.? They cost society far more than all >> cyclists who suffered head injuries put together. > > Actually I do think that people who don't watch their weight, smoke, > use drugs to excess, etc., are acting in a completely unresponsible > manner. But we as a society do engage in a lot of education to > improve the lifestyles of such individuals. And where it makes sense > to legislate some decisions I would agree with it. Such as with usihg > a bicycle or motor cycle helmet, or seat belts, or seats for children > in cars. So, if for the common good a bunch of control freaks got together and had it legislated that everyone walking on a paved surface had to wear knee pads, elbow pads, and a helmet for their safety, for the common good, you'd go along right? You wouldn't feel the least bit bothered that? Having the government be used to force you to wear annoying gear thats your own personal risk assessment says is not needed.   Date: 23 Aug 2007 10:10:41 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 5:21 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 22, 3:44 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 22, 10:01 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Aug 22, 9:04 am, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required. > > > > > > Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organdlearnabit about the issue before > > > > > posting. > > > > > > - Frank Krygowski > > > > > Ah, yes, another one of those websites..... > > > > ... that has factual discussion, numbers, references, science, all > > > those nasty things? > > > > Well, if you can't handle it, that's fine. Not everyone does numbers. > > > > - Frank Krygowski > > > Yes, I know you feel that you have a civil right to not wear a helmet > > as some narrow minded motorcycle riders do. However, since someone > > else will have to pay for your care and well being when you sustain > > permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall > > I think you have a civil responsibility to act in a mature manner. > > Difficult though it may be. > > I know this will be hard for you to understand, but: I do wear a > helmet when I ride my motorcycle. The situations appear equivalent > only to people who don't understand the data - that is, people who > don't do numbers. > > Are you such a person? If not, here's a project: Find the number of > bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists and motorcyclists who are being > cared for because of permanent brain damage. Report back. > > Can't find that? Then try for the number of brain injury fatalities > per hour exposure for each of those groups. > > Or try for the number of brain injury fatalities per year in the US > for each of those groups. > > Why am I asking for such data? Because your phrase "when you sustain > permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall" > is superstitious nonsense. It's based on the idea that most (?) or > many(?) bicyclists will suffer such damage. That's a perfect example of carrying an argument to an absurd extreme and I'm sure you know it. If we based the decision to use safety equiment solely on whether most users would suffer injury in their absence we would have very few pieces of saffety equipment. The kind and severity of injury clearly is the deciding criteria in prescribing safety equipment. For example the number of children injured by burning clothing has always been quite small when compared to the total population of children. And yet when it occurs the conseqnences are tragic, sometimes life threatening and usually permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll children. The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and usuallly have permanent consequences. Do look up neurological damage consequent to head injury - if you haven't had a serious head injury it will be an eye opener. So, yes do continue to ride your cycle(motorized and non) unprotected. And please accept my advance condolences if a fall results in permanent paralysis of some body parts. > But that is absolutely > false. When you look at lists of sources of serious brain injury in > America, bicycling isn't even on the list. It's down in the > "miscellaneous" category. And when you figure the risk per hour > exposure, it's also quite low. > > Of course, if you're not a numbers person, you may not understand > that. > > And, BTW, if you think it's reasonable to dictate helmet wearing so > others don't have to pay for care, there are much more important fish > to fry. As an example, you should post your height, weight, detailed > diet, exercise plan, and family history. We'll all want to be sure > you're not one of the hundreds of thousands debilitated by strokes > each year due to the factors I mentioned. We certainly don't want to > pay for your care. Ah, yes, because you can't control all risks we should not attempt to control any of them. What a wonderfullly shortsighted way to approach the risks of life. > > If there's a problem, of course, one possible remedy would be to tell > you to bicycle more. One famous researcher (Mayer Hillman, of > London's Policy Studies Institute) has determined that bicycling does > 20 times as much good as harm. Certainly sounds wonderfully logical. When applied to the individual who has the right side of his body payalyzed after an unprotected a fall from a cycle the benefit/cost ratio you quoted likely approaches zero. Having fun with math yet???? > That's whether or not you wear a > helmet. The helmets really don't help. > > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 23 Aug 2007 12:38:51 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187889041.096979.152420@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, John S. wrote: > permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll > children. The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who > receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when > they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and > usuallly have permanent consequences. > Do look up neurological damage consequent to head injury - if you > haven't had a serious head injury it will be an eye opener. > > So, yes do continue to ride your cycle(motorized and non) > unprotected. And please accept my advance condolences if a fall > results in permanent paralysis of some body parts. Do you wear your foam bicycle hat when climbing stairs, driving or a passenger in a motor vehicle, and when using a step ladder? If not, why not? Severe head injury is possible in all those activities. Bicycling simply isn't dangerous and doesn't require safety gear any more than climbling stairs does. If bicycling was more dangerous to my head than other typical daily activities I might consider an effective helmet, but since bicycle helmets are only effective for me falling over there isn't much of a point. To justify these helmets when bicyling I end up justifying wearing one practically 24-7, at least when I am not sleeping anyway.   Date: 23 Aug 2007 00:55:29 From: victor.kan@gmail.com Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 7:53 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net > wrote: > Your trucks were breaking the law as well. Slow moving vehicles are > required to yield to overtaking vehicles if a passing lane is > unavailable. ORS 811.425. Only if there is "an area sufficient for safe turnout". http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/docs/vcb/VCB811.pdf I don't live in Oregon (and probably don't live where Brent lives), but pretty much all two-lane roads in my area that would be covered by ORS811.425 are either in city areas with curbs, or banked, soft shoulders further out. In either case, big trucks going 15mph in a 50 zone as Brent described are perhaps doing so because they cannot safely turnout far enough and let following vehicles pass in a legal manner anyway. Actual, planned turnouts are few and far in between around here, except out in farm country. If there is no safe turnout available, then ORS811.410 should override what ORS811.425 might say about passing and who's obliged to do what.   Date: 22 Aug 2007 15:52:30 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Paul Berg wrote: > ~ > > In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a > motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This > supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of > the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also > required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and > have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and > meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states > have the same or similar requirements. > > With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of > commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a > serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance > requirements for those bicyclists Stuff it. We dont need more laws and restrictions not to mention more money going to greedy bastards out of the pockets of those who cant afford it.   Date: 22 Aug 2007 22:42:14 From: Paul Johnson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 9:04 am, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bill Shatzer wrote: > > > With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the normal > > and reasonable flow of traffic". > > > "ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person > > commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person > > is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of > > traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing > > conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the > > right curb or edge of the roadway. > > (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section > > if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the > > right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances: > > > ... > > > (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other > > bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single > > lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable > > movement of traffic." > > Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists > within-lane position should be ignored. Many roads do necessitate such laws. To make a blanket statement like that makes me wonder if you belong on a bicycle, and I'm a cyclist.     Date: 22 Aug 2007 19:08:38 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Paul Johnson wrote: >> >>Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists >>within-lane position should be ignored. > > > Many roads do necessitate such laws. To make a blanket statement like > that makes me wonder if you belong on a bicycle, and I'm a cyclist. > No, they don't. Precisely which roads necessitate such laws? Wayne   Date: 22 Aug 2007 22:40:18 From: Paul Johnson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 9:06 am, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: > > Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > > >> Festivus wrote: > > >>> The behaviors we all routinely see: > > >>> 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs > >>> 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane > >> Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to > >> use how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, > >> pass us in another lane. > > From the Oregon Bicyclist Manual: > > "Riding side by side > You and a companion may ride side by side on the road, but only if > you don't impede other traffic. If traffic doesn't have enough room to > pass you safely, ride single file." > > Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is disallowed, > but the circumstances determine proper behavior. However, if you actually ride a bicycle, you would already know that where that can actually be done in practice is so rare that it is effectively illegal. Kind of like how marijuana is legal free and clear in the US, but only with a tax stamp that can't be purchased.     Date: 22 Aug 2007 19:48:52 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Paul Johnson wrote: > On Aug 22, 9:06 am, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> wrote: >> ... >> Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is disallowed, >> but the circumstances determine proper behavior. > > However, if you actually ride a bicycle, you would already know that > where that can actually be done in practice is so rare that it is > effectively illegal.... > Huh? Riding bicycles two abreast can be done safely most of the time on many rural roads where the numbers of cars passing per hour may be in the single digits or low teens. These roads are not uncommon in the US. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 22 Aug 2007 16:19:53 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Paul Johnson wrote: > On Aug 22, 9:06 am, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> wrote: >> Lobby Dosser wrote: >>> Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>>> Festivus wrote: >>>>> The behaviors we all routinely see: >>>>> 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs >>>>> 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane >>>> Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to >>>> use how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, >>>> pass us in another lane. >> From the Oregon Bicyclist Manual: >> >> "Riding side by side >> You and a companion may ride side by side on the road, but only if >> you don't impede other traffic. If traffic doesn't have enough room to >> pass you safely, ride single file." >> >> Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is disallowed, >> but the circumstances determine proper behavior. > > However, if you actually ride a bicycle, you would already know that > where that can actually be done in practice is so rare that it is > effectively illegal. Kind of like how marijuana is legal free and > clear in the US, but only with a tax stamp that can't be purchased. > I actually DO ride a bike, and I keep to the far right whenever there is a vehicle present traveling my direction. I'll move up abreast of a riding partner when the road is clear, but as soon as one of us notices a car approaching from behind, we'll move to single file. It's the only way to stay alive, frankly.   Date: 22 Aug 2007 14:21:31 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 3:44 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com > wrote: > On Aug 22, 10:01 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Aug 22, 9:04 am, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > > > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required. > > > > > Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organdlearna bit about the issue before > > > > posting. > > > > > - Frank Krygowski > > > > Ah, yes, another one of those websites..... > > > ... that has factual discussion, numbers, references, science, all > > those nasty things? > > > Well, if you can't handle it, that's fine. Not everyone does numbers. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > Yes, I know you feel that you have a civil right to not wear a helmet > as some narrow minded motorcycle riders do. However, since someone > else will have to pay for your care and well being when you sustain > permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall > I think you have a civil responsibility to act in a mature manner. > Difficult though it may be. I know this will be hard for you to understand, but: I do wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle. The situations appear equivalent only to people who don't understand the data - that is, people who don't do numbers. Are you such a person? If not, here's a project: Find the number of bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists and motorcyclists who are being cared for because of permanent brain damage. Report back. Can't find that? Then try for the number of brain injury fatalities per hour exposure for each of those groups. Or try for the number of brain injury fatalities per year in the US for each of those groups. Why am I asking for such data? Because your phrase "when you sustain permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall" is superstitious nonsense. It's based on the idea that most (?) or many(?) bicyclists will suffer such damage. But that is absolutely false. When you look at lists of sources of serious brain injury in America, bicycling isn't even on the list. It's down in the "miscellaneous" category. And when you figure the risk per hour exposure, it's also quite low. Of course, if you're not a numbers person, you may not understand that. And, BTW, if you think it's reasonable to dictate helmet wearing so others don't have to pay for care, there are much more important fish to fry. As an example, you should post your height, weight, detailed diet, exercise plan, and family history. We'll all want to be sure you're not one of the hundreds of thousands debilitated by strokes each year due to the factors I mentioned. We certainly don't want to pay for your care. If there's a problem, of course, one possible remedy would be to tell you to bicycle more. One famous researcher (Mayer Hillman, of London's Policy Studies Institute) has determined that bicycling does 20 times as much good as harm. That's whether or not you wear a helmet. The helmets really don't help. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 24 Aug 2007 19:53:28 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 24, 5:29 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net > wrote: > Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote: > > Lobby Dosser wrote: > >> Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote: > > >>> A real bike is much more physically demanding as compared to any > >>> stationary bike. > > >> Not if you have the proper stionary bike. > > > It's a Schwinn Airdyne. I used to ride around 55 to 60 rpm to keep my > > heart rate in the target range. The last time I tried, I had to ride > > it around 67 rpm for the same effect. > > You can't adjust the resistance? I used to get the cardio bikes to 160 rpm and roll back to 120 for a while. I'm just nuts though and like the burn. Usage was free while that owner had the fitness club, but he went to prison on tax or embezzlement charges and the new owner didn't offer that deal. I got down to 235 that year.   Date: 22 Aug 2007 12:44:47 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 10:01 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 22, 9:04 am, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required. > > > > Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organdlearn a bit about the issue before > > > posting. > > > > - Frank Krygowski > > > Ah, yes, another one of those websites..... > > ... that has factual discussion, numbers, references, science, all > those nasty things? > > Well, if you can't handle it, that's fine. Not everyone does numbers. > > - Frank Krygowski Yes, I know you feel that you have a civil right to not wear a helmet as some narrow minded motorcycle riders do. However, since someone else will have to pay for your care and well being when you sustain permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall I think you have a civil responsibility to act in a mature manner. Difficult though it may be.     Date: 22 Aug 2007 21:16:11 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle John S. wrote: > However, since someone else will have to pay for your care and well > being when you sustain permanent brain damage after your head > strikes the pavement in a fall I think you have a civil responsibility > to act in a mature manner. Difficult though it may be. Do you feel the same way about those who rely on others money for treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, obesity, etc.? They cost society far more than all cyclists who suffered head injuries put together.   Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:33:49 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 10:00 am, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Aug 21, 10:35 am, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > > >>Festivus wrote: > > >>>The behaviors we all routinely see: > > >>>1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs > >>>2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane > > >>Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use > >>how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us > >>in another lane. > > > Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at > > all times, though this is routinely ignored by both. > > It ought to be ignored. Ditto this.   Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:33:06 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 9:51 am, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com > wrote: > Tom Keats wrote: > > In article <exOyi.3899$wr3.1016@trndny04>, > > I guess there's no law against fantacizing > > about running people down, or hurting/maiming/ > > killing them in various other ways. > > And there's no law against telling someone in a civil conversation to > "Fuck off", but when you do, are you really surprised to get the > response you got? > > > But you folks who do, really oughta be > > ashamed of yourselves. > > As should anyone who behaves like a 6th grader in a public discussion. > Gotta hand it to ya, though, you must have on helluva pair to muster the > chutzpa to post like you do then lecture the rest of us on our attitude > towards the rest of the world. > > One should require a license to operate that much hypocrisy. > > I respect the cars on the road when I ride becuase to do otherwise is > foolish. I respect the bikes on the road when I drive because it's the > right thing to do. I will respect you when you post when you earn it. I think they're all CANADIANS/CANADIENS/Smoking will kill you!/We build America's cars NYAAA NYAH   Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:30:17 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 8:01 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 22, 9:04 am, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required. > > > > Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organdlearn a bit about the issue before > > > posting. > > > > - Frank Krygowski > > > Ah, yes, another one of those websites..... > > ... that has factual discussion, numbers, references, science, all > those nasty things? > > Well, if you can't handle it, that's fine. Not everyone does numbers. > > - Frank Krygowski More than 18 is a good number to do if some boyfriend etc. won't want to kill you. You have to gift wrap that one, helmet won't do.   Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:27:51 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 7:04 am, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com > wrote: > On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required. > > > Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organdlearn a bit about the issue before > > posting. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > Ah, yes, another one of those websites..... They got one for EVERYTHING! They seem to think it's chic and POLITICAL!   Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:23:37 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 21, 11:21 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <fafddk$hs...@registered.motzarella.org>, > Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> writes: > > > Tom Keats wrote: > >> Fuck off. > > > Excellent. > > > I will take that attitude as permission to dispense summary citizen's > > justice to bikers displaying said behaviors when I see them. > > You no doubt will, with or without my permission. > > You're just itchin' to hurt somebody, ain't'cha? > > > Out where > > I live, > > Give my regards to Joe Palooka and Mammy Yokum. > > Try not to chop your foot off while splitting this > winter's supply of firewood. > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > I'm really at: > tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca You forgot to tell him he almost got caught tickling his sister last time.     Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:33:07 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S wrote: > > You forgot to tell him he almost got caught tickling his sister last > time. Brother. Sister's too ugly.   Date: 22 Aug 2007 07:01:57 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 22, 9:04 am, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com > wrote: > On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required. > > > Visit www.cyclehelmets.org andlearn a bit about the issue before > > posting. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > Ah, yes, another one of those websites..... ... that has factual discussion, numbers, references, science, all those nasty things? Well, if you can't handle it, that's fine. Not everyone does numbers. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 22 Aug 2007 06:04:08 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote: > > > > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required. > > Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organd learn a bit about the issue before > posting. > > - Frank Krygowski Ah, yes, another one of those websites.....   Date: 21 Aug 2007 23:33:14 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <exOyi.3899$wr3.1016@trndny04 >, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > writes: > Festivus <auto43792@hushmail.com> wrote: > >> Tom Keats wrote: >>> <sigh of heard-it-so-many-times-before exasperation> >>> "I'm not a racist, but ..." >>> >>>> Every time some ass on a bike decides he's >>>> above the rules of the road I become a target for the next >>>> pissed-off driver. >>> >>> Fuck off. >> >> Excellent. >> >> I will take that attitude as permission to dispense summary citizen's >> justice to bikers displaying said behaviors when I see them. Out >> where I live, there won't be any untidy witnesses or grand juries or >> any of that silly stuff. Just a slightly bent front tire spinning >> aimlessly in the wind and barely a nick on my front-mounted railroad >> tie. >> > > Cleverly covered with some shoe dye! I guess there's no law against fantacizing about running people down, or hurting/maiming/ killing them in various other ways. But you folks who do, really oughta be ashamed of yourselves. You have all kinds of capacity & wherewithal to make this world a better place for everybody. And whaddaya do with it? You piss all over it, and piss all over society. You can be nice to your fellows, but for some selfish reasons, you opt not to. And that's a bitter and shameful tragedy. -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 22 Aug 2007 20:02:13 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Tom Keats wrote: > ... > I guess there's no law against fantacizing > about running people down, or hurting/maiming/ > killing them in various other ways. > > But you folks who do, really oughta be > ashamed of yourselves.... Bah! I want to poke people with soft cushions, with all the stuffing up one end. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 23 Aug 2007 18:11:30 From: Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone The kindly Rev. overheard "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > saying on Wed 22 Aug 2007 08:02:13p: > Bah! I want to poke people with soft cushions, with all the > stuffing up one end. You want to stuff what up your end? ;-) -- Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen revbob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ No animals were harmed during the making of this post. Except cats.         Date: 24 Aug 2007 21:10:05 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote: > The kindly Rev. overheard "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> saying on Wed 22 Aug 2007 08:02:13p: > >> Bah! I want to poke people with soft cushions, with all the >> stuffing up one end. > > You want to stuff what up your end? Now. You will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:05:58 From: Hec Ramsey Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote: > The kindly Rev. overheard "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> saying on Wed 22 Aug 2007 08:02:13p: > >> Bah! I want to poke people with soft cushions, with all the >> stuffing up one end. > > You want to stuff what up your end? > > ;-) The reason these groups have been saturated of late by the redolent leftist rhetoric of our own "Rev" runt "Bob" is that the massively self-absorbed, Binford-cheeked, ex-Boeing barnacle has been dislodged from the workplace into a state of "retirement" and finds himself with a surfeit of time but no shortage of keystrokes at his disposal. A cursory glance at Bob's blogs and familial puffery websites renders for us the image of a man obsessed with himself, desirous of huge inputs of attention, and very nearly addicted to virtual exhibitionism. Be it his musings over the Steelers, familial lineage, or the unending core dump of rants, spin, and political opinioneering, "Bob" simply craves a reaction. In the truest sense this is seniors life trolling 101 - an all to revealing look at what the Bart Simpson persona turned loose in a senior center might be one day. See the "Rev"-runt not so much as a benign but bored buffoon, but rather as a pernicious reminder of what intolerant solipsism offers in its climax state. "Bob" doesn't really care if you agree with him, though that would be well and good, though his troll volume decreases accordingly as threads inevitably peter out under concordance. But take the "Rev's" bait and he's granted another rollicking ride on the "Bob"-o-lator, a device of his own all too imitable design and one wholly self gratifying in application, the Usenet equivalent of one of those auto-suck penis milking devices. And know this, the "Rev" is one spunk-happy self-abuser; all he asks is that you supply the friction and he'll grimace and shudder in partisan ecstasy 24/7. Think "Lawnmower Man" meets Howard Beale and you're in the right stadium. But forget the refreshments and door fees. "Bob's" game is senior-itis gone evil and wrong. The perversion of loneliness done up in a cult of self-worship yet bereft of the slightest compassion regarding the wit or wisdom of his active trollees. The megalomania that defines the "Rev" doesn't leave room for the rest of the world in any peer sense, one simply becomes part of the auto-suck until siphoned of any humor, perspective or relevance. Simply put, "Bob" spuges this medium in a virtual Bukake head shot-fest of a Rushmore-like proportions. As the last of the "Rev's" lifeless sheet of vile partisan jism runs off Lincoln's chin, know that in "Bob's" world America is safe as long as she remains his ideological cum-slut. So key up and start jacking, the Rev has another load of bile to release.     Date: 22 Aug 2007 08:51:13 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Tom Keats wrote: > In article <exOyi.3899$wr3.1016@trndny04>, > I guess there's no law against fantacizing > about running people down, or hurting/maiming/ > killing them in various other ways. And there's no law against telling someone in a civil conversation to "Fuck off", but when you do, are you really surprised to get the response you got? > But you folks who do, really oughta be > ashamed of yourselves. As should anyone who behaves like a 6th grader in a public discussion. Gotta hand it to ya, though, you must have on helluva pair to muster the chutzpa to post like you do then lecture the rest of us on our attitude towards the rest of the world. One should require a license to operate that much hypocrisy. I respect the cars on the road when I ride becuase to do otherwise is foolish. I respect the bikes on the road when I drive because it's the right thing to do. I will respect you when you post when you earn it.     Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:08:38 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <exOyi.3899$wr3.1016@trndny04>, > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> writes: >> Festivus <auto43792@hushmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Tom Keats wrote: >>>> <sigh of heard-it-so-many-times-before exasperation> >>>> "I'm not a racist, but ..." >>>> >>>>> Every time some ass on a bike decides he's >>>>> above the rules of the road I become a target for the next >>>>> pissed-off driver. >>>> >>>> Fuck off. >>> >>> Excellent. >>> >>> I will take that attitude as permission to dispense summary >>> citizen's justice to bikers displaying said behaviors when I see >>> them. Out where I live, there won't be any untidy witnesses or >>> grand juries or any of that silly stuff. Just a slightly bent front >>> tire spinning aimlessly in the wind and barely a nick on my >>> front-mounted railroad tie. >>> >> >> Cleverly covered with some shoe dye! > > I guess there's no law against fantacizing > about running people down, or hurting/maiming/ > killing them in various other ways. > > But you folks who do, really oughta be > ashamed of yourselves. > > You have all kinds of capacity & wherewithal to > make this world a better place for everybody. > And whaddaya do with it? You piss all over it, > and piss all over society. > > You can be nice to your fellows, but for some selfish > reasons, you opt not to. And that's a bitter and > shameful tragedy. Son, you seem to be wrapped a tad too tight. Loosen up.   Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:21:42 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fafddk$hsi$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Festivus <auto43792@hushmail.com > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> Fuck off. > > Excellent. > > I will take that attitude as permission to dispense summary citizen's > justice to bikers displaying said behaviors when I see them. You no doubt will, with or without my permission. You're just itchin' to hurt somebody, ain't'cha? > Out where > I live, Give my regards to Joe Palooka and Mammy Yokum. Try not to chop your foot off while splitting this winter's supply of firewood. -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 21 Aug 2007 21:52:52 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187666699.989458.289640@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > (I don't > think you're trolling, BTW. Then please note all the crossposting in his original message. It's quite clear that Paul Berg's agendum and intent is to incite antipathy and resentment toward cyclists. He ought to be ashamed of himself for being so antisocial and hurtful. I'm a little ashamed of myself for reverting to being an East Ender and giving him some succinct advice. But few things are more provocative and dander-raising to me than messing with the benign freedom of bicycling. So, in some ways, I regret resorting to using certain distasteful language, and thereby diminishing and befouling the general tone of r.b.m. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 22 Aug 2007 04:06:51 From: Paul Johnson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 21, 10:35 am, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Festivus wrote: > > > The behaviors we all routinely see: > > > 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs > > 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane > > Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use > how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us > in another lane. Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at all times, though this is routinely ignored by both.     Date: 22 Aug 2007 12:00:48 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Paul Johnson wrote: > On Aug 21, 10:35 am, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>Festivus wrote: >> >> >>>The behaviors we all routinely see: >> >>>1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs >>>2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane >> >>Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use >>how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us >>in another lane. > > > Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at > all times, though this is routinely ignored by both. > > It ought to be ignored. Wayne       Date: 22 Aug 2007 10:12:14 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Wayne Pein wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: >> Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at >> all times, though this is routinely ignored by both. > It ought to be ignored. Of course, you know that isn't really the law, but why let that prevent an opp to troll?         Date: 22 Aug 2007 15:39:50 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > >>Paul Johnson wrote: > > >>>Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at >>>all times, though this is routinely ignored by both. > > >>It ought to be ignored. > > > Of course, you know that isn't really the law, but why let that prevent an > opp to troll? > > Ignoramus, How am I supposed to know that the OP did not properly cite Oregon law? Quit stalking me. Wayne           Date: 22 Aug 2007 16:29:38 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Wayne Pein wrote: > Quit stalking me. Quit trolling us.             Date: 22 Aug 2007 21:53:39 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > >>Quit stalking me. > > > Quit trolling us. > > Ignoramus, If you think I'm trolling, killfile me or don't respond to my posts. Obviously, however, you can't resist me. Wayne               Date: 22 Aug 2007 21:14:35 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> Wayne Pein wrote: >> >> >>> Quit stalking me. >> >> >> Quit trolling us. >> > > > Ignoramus, > > If you think I'm trolling, killfile me or don't respond to my posts. > Obviously, however, you can't resist me. > I never got the impression Bill swung that way. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                 Date: 22 Aug 2007 19:42:40 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: >> Obviously, however, you can't resist me. > I never got the impression Bill swung that way. ;) I was gonna say, I bet Wayne doesn't use THAT phrase very often! LOL             Date: 22 Aug 2007 21:51:20 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > >>Quit stalking me. > > > Quit trolling us. > > Ignoramus, Same something useful. Wayne     Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:17:08 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Paul Johnson wrote: > On Aug 21, 10:35 am, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>Festivus wrote: >>>The behaviors we all routinely see: >>>1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs >>>2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane >>Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use >>how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us >>in another lane. > Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at > all times, though this is routinely ignored by both. Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Rather clearly not "at all times". With motorcycles, it's NEVER illegal to ride two abreast. "ORS 814.250 Moped or motorcycle operating more than two abreast; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of operating a moped or motorcycle more than two abreast if the person is operating a moped or motorcycle on a roadway laned for traffic and the person is riding abreast of more than one other motorcycle or moped in the same lane for traffic." With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic". "ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances: ... (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic." Now whether it's a smart idea to ride motorcyles two abreast is a different question; it's not - though a staggered formation is different than two abreast and is an OK riding spacing. But regardless of how smart it is, two abreast on motorbikes is not illegal. Peace       Date: 22 Aug 2007 12:04:59 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Shatzer wrote: > > With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the normal > and reasonable flow of traffic". > > "ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person > commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person > is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of > traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing > conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the > right curb or edge of the roadway. > (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section > if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the > right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances: > > ... > > (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other > bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single > lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable > movement of traffic." > Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists within-lane position should be ignored. Wayne         Date: 23 Aug 2007 02:29:03 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bill Shatzer wrote: > > >> >> With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the >> normal and reasonable flow of traffic". >> >> "ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person >> commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the >> person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal >> speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the >> existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as >> practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. >> (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this >> section >> if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to >> the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following >> circumstances: >> > > > >> ... >> >> (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other >> bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a >> single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and >> reasonable movement of traffic." >> > > Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists > within-lane position should be ignored. Feel free to do so. And Please don't wear a helmet.         Date: 22 Aug 2007 10:13:37 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Shatzer wrote: > > >> >> With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the >> normal and reasonable flow of traffic". >> >> "ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person >> commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the >> person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed >> of >> traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing >> conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to >> the right curb or edge of the roadway. >> (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this >> section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as >> practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of >> the following circumstances: > > > >> ... >> >> (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other >> bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a >> single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and >> reasonable movement of traffic." >> > > Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists > within-lane position should be ignored. Attitudes like that will get bikes banned from traffic altogether. Nice troll!           Date: 22 Aug 2007 15:42:36 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > >>Bill Shatzer wrote: >> >> >> >>>With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the >>>normal and reasonable flow of traffic". >>> >>>"ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person >>>commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the >>>person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed >>>of >>>traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing >>>conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to >>>the right curb or edge of the roadway. >>> (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this >>>section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as >>>practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of >>>the following circumstances: >> >> >> >>>... >>> >>> (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other >>>bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a >>>single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and >>>reasonable movement of traffic." >>> >> >>Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists >>within-lane position should be ignored. > > > Attitudes like that will get bikes banned from traffic altogether. Nice > troll! > > Ignoramus, Only a moron would say, "Attitudes like that will get bikes banned from traffic altogether." Second, you wouldn't know a troll if one bit you on the ankle. Wayne   Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:56:20 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Who order the drunken swagger bravado crap? bite all of us, knave   Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:33:41 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46cb820a$0$16369$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <46cabfd1$0$619$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, >> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> writes: >>> Tom Keats wrote: >>>> Fuck off. >>> "How shall we fuck off, O Lord?" (Arthur to Brian) >> >> A reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20: >> >> Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, >> "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny >> bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the >> lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and >> breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the >> Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of >> the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt >> thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then >> proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being >> the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand >> Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, >> shall snuff it." >> -- Monty Python, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" > > "I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't > you? Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it? Well, it's always > the same. I always tell them--" MATTHIAS: Look. I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying 'Jehovah'. CROWD: Ooh! He said it again! Ooh!... OFFICIAL: You're only making it worse for yourself! MATTHIAS: Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! --- Centurian: Well no, sir um...I think it's a joke, sir. Like uh... Sillius Soddus, or...Biggus Dickus sir. Pilate: What's so funny about Biggus Dickus? Centurian: Well, it's a joke name, sir. Pilate: I have a vewwy gweat fwiend in Wome called Biggus Dickus. Pilate: Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewwy quickly with wotten behaviour like that. Brian: Can I go now sir? Pilate: Wait till Biggus Dickus hears of this! Wight! Take him away! Centurian: Oh sir, he, uh.... Pilate: No no. I want him fighting wabid wild animals within a week. Centurian: Yes, sir. Come on, you. Pilate: I will not have my fwends widiculed by the common soldiewy. Anybody else feel like a little giggle when I mention my fwend: Biggus Dickus? Pilate: What about you? Do you find it wisable, when I say the name: Biggus Dickus? He has a wife you know. You know what she's called? She's called Incontinentia. Incontinentia Buttocks! cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:34:02 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <hjs...@cs.com > wrote: > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required. Visit www.cyclehelmets.org and learn a bit about the issue before posting. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 25 Aug 2007 07:16:55 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 24, 8:59 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1187956273.888477.73...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > >> I see you think everyone uses google's web interface. This is usenet, not > >> some web forum. Deleting context and then making a response is simply to > >> ignore the previous points, which you did. > > Google is well designed and works great. You need to get a more up to > > date interface. One that allows you to scroll easily between messages > > and keep things in context. It will reduce the chances of your > > becoming confused in the future on simple topics like this. > > No, you need to get with the program and stop using excuses for what > amounts to bad form. If you don't have a real reply, don't reply instead > of deleting all quoted material and inserting a propaganda spew. > I'm having no problems reading messages with an excelent reader like Google. It would appear that whatever service you have chosen to pay for is providing something not up to the job ofsimple tasks like reading messages within the context of a thread. That you can't do something as simple as browse historical messages is simply amazing in this day and age. It's the equivalent of typing dos command line prompts in the age of Windows. Get with the program bud..... > The rest of Brent's repetitive information deleted.     Date: 23 Aug 2007 20:34:14 From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 9:10 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 23, 9:13 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> > wrote: > > > tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > > > In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: > > > >> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated > > >> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? > > > > Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it > > > through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs > > > that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power. > > > IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to > > let others pay for your care. > > OK, out with it! What did you eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner the > past month? What's your cholesterol count? What did your father and > his brothers die of? How much beer do you drink? Society has a right > to know!!!! > > ;-) > > - Frank Krygowski So we can kill you faster.     Date: 24 Aug 2007 03:10:48 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 23, 9:13 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net > wrote: > tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > > In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: > > >> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated > >> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? > > > Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it > > through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs > > that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power. > > IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to > let others pay for your care. OK, out with it! What did you eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner the past month? What's your cholesterol count? What did your father and his brothers die of? How much beer do you drink? Society has a right to know!!!! ;-) - Frank Krygowski       Date: 24 Aug 2007 21:24:36 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote: > > OK, out with it! What did you eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner the > past month? What's your cholesterol count? What did your father and > his brothers die of? How much beer do you drink? Society has a right > to know!!!! Hey, beer in moderate quantities is good for you! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia BEER is FOOD -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 24 Aug 2007 05:09:52 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 23, 9:13 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> > wrote: >> tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> > In article <5xpzi.5083$z83.3785@trndny09>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >> >> >> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be >> >> treated prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment? >> >> > Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be >> > it through private insurance or government are used to distribute >> > costs that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking >> > power. >> >> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing >> to let others pay for your care. > > OK, out with it! What did you eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner the > past month? What's your cholesterol count? What did your father and > his brothers die of? How much beer do you drink? Society has a right > to know!!!! Are you aware that insurance companies are asking a lot of those questions now. They really Are. Not so much with group plans, but try to get an individual plan with untreated high cholesterol. > > ;-) > > - Frank Krygowski > >   Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:32:16 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone On Aug 21, 11:27 am, "The Great Jimbo" <drpep...@happyvalley.net > wrote: > > I don't agree with you. You're talking of licensing and insuring bicyclists. > That makes no sense at all. It's just more government intrusion. > > However, bicyclists should know the rules of the road. Violating those rules > should get them a ticket. Speeding won't be a problem in most cases, but > things like darting out in traffic without bothering to look either way, > pedaling on the wrong side of the street, etc. should cause the bicyclist to > be ticketed. I agree. But the root of the problem, I think, is that bicyclists are never taught the rules of the road. Bicycling begins in the grade school years. Kids are taught to ride by their parents, but parents often don't know that the normal rules of the road apply to bicyclists. So kids never learn - and kids grow up and repeat the process. So, grade school kids (and high school kids) should receive age- appropriate instruction in bicycling rules of the road. Even if it's just a few hours of book learning, it would help. Better yet would be actual on-road instruction as part of Phys Ed class. Oh, and the instruction should use quality material developed by truly knowledgeable cyclists, not whatever jumps into the teacher's (and Safe Kids) heads. There is way too much bad information out there. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 21 Aug 2007 14:04:48 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <faf9ok$3p6$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Festivus <auto43792@hushmail.com > writes: > Biking or driving poorly through ignorance is forgivable and correctable. Poorly operating 1.5+ tons of rolling machinery in the public domain is always inexcusable. Period. -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:47:07 From: Angry Dave Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 21, 8:50 am, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com > wrote: > Tom Keats wrote: > > In article <1187659909.256766.84...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > Paul Berg <pjb...@webtv.net> writes: > > >> For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would > >> wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to > >> pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test. > > > Fuck off. > > Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with > motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules > of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers > doing the same. > > The behaviors we all routinely see: > > 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs > 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane > 3. Riding on sidewalks > 4. Failure to signal a turn (left especially) in congestion > 5. Riding on the wrong side of the road > 6. Etc. ad nauseum > > I'm not anti-bike. I commute 20 miles round trip 2-3 times a week in > all weather year round. Every time some ass on a bike decides he's > above the rules of the road I become a target for the next pissed-off > driver. Sounds like we need less pissed off drivers, not biking laws. Oh yeah, and everyone can readily see the extereme dangers to public safety that a bunch of hurtling bicycles pose. Make a mistake on which pedal you push and you may look dumb, but you're probably not gonna hurt anyone. I don't think i'll be seeing anyone facing manslaughter charges for accidently mowing down large groups pedestrians with a bike.     Date: 21 Aug 2007 14:35:57 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Angry Dave wrote: > On Aug 21, 8:50 am, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> wrote: >> I'm not anti-bike. I commute 20 miles round trip 2-3 times a week in >> all weather year round. Every time some ass on a bike decides he's >> above the rules of the road I become a target for the next pissed-off >> driver. > > Sounds like we need less pissed off drivers, not biking laws. You can keep arguing your straw man, but he'll never learn to ride a bike. How we got from "too many bike riders are scofflaws" to "we need more bike riding laws" escapes me.   Date: 21 Aug 2007 11:55:09 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 21, 2:06 pm, r...@elevengear.us wrote: > I think there are some good points to be made on this thread. Too bad > it once again has to devolve to the pejorative. Personally I agree > that cyclists pose a (vastly) diminshed threat to other vehicles out > there but that does not exonerate them from behaving appropriately and > predictably as a vehicle should. > > One thing that I feel is really important is respect. Many drivers in > this country offer little to no respect to the cyclists on the road. > If registration and licensing would help to further this point and > make the car vs bike relationship more respectful (and less > contemptable), then I'm interested. Yes, I agree it would encourage more people to use 2 wheels if motorists would not intimidate cyclists and be more willing to share the road. If a license program could be shown tohave promise of improving the car-bike relationship I would favor it . I would also help to dedicate road space to bicycles in locations where there is sufficient interest in riding. > > While I'm at it, I think it's pretty remarkable that it takes only a > regular driver's license to operate a really big RV. Those guys should > go to truck driver's school! Yes, I agree they should have to demonstrate skills such as the ability to change lanes, back up, park and descend a hill safely. Some of those big motorized RV's are essentially a Greyhound bus in disguise and some of the towed ones approach a semi-trailer in length. Such a license would further hurt an already soft market for motorized RV's so I doubt it would pass. I've been behind big RV's when they shakily change lanes or start down a hill too fast and it's scary because I doubt that those drivers are aware how close they are to disaster. A family member was towing a good sized trailer behind a Ford Expedition at too high a speed and got hit by a side gust of wind on the downhill. The driver tried to steer out of the sway and the trailer flipped and darned near flipped the SUV. > > -Rick > > > > > Precisely how are bicycle commuters presenting a risk to the non- > > bicycling public in high traffic areas (mostly automobiles) that is > > not covered by existing insurance. Since bicyclists are competing > > mostly with cars for the same space in high traffic areas I don't see > > much of a risk for the bikers. Indeed it is in bike rider's self- > > interest to ride defensively and watch out for cars since they have > > a much greater chance of being seriously injured by the much bigger, > > heavier and faster car. Consequently I have no idea how you could > > test and license for the ability of bike riders to ride defensively.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 21 Aug 2007 14:23:16 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187722509.521204.72800@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, John S. wrote: > On Aug 21, 2:06 pm, r...@elevengear.us wrote: >> One thing that I feel is really important is respect. Many drivers in >> this country offer little to no respect to the cyclists on the road. >> If registration and licensing would help to further this point and >> make the car vs bike relationship more respectful (and less >> contemptable), then I'm interested. > > Yes, I agree it would encourage more people to use 2 wheels if > motorists would not intimidate cyclists and be more willing to share > the road. If a license program could be shown tohave promise of > improving the car-bike relationship I would favor it . I would also > help to dedicate road space to bicycles in locations where there is > sufficient interest in riding. There is a licensing system for drivers, one for commerical truck drivers, one for taxi drivers, one for bus drivers,etc and so forth does any group show any more respect for the other groups or even those in their own group because of the licensing? I think we can agree the answer is no. So why should we allow the same government controls that will eventually errode bicycling into an effective government granted priviledge (as it with the others)?   Date: 21 Aug 2007 11:34:38 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46cabfd1$0$619$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> >> Fuck off. > > "How shall we fuck off, O Lord?" (Arthur to Brian) A reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20: Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." -- Monty Python, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:15:07 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Tom Keats wrote: > In article <46cabfd1$0$619$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> writes: >> Tom Keats wrote: >>> Fuck off. >> "How shall we fuck off, O Lord?" (Arthur to Brian) > > A reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20: > > Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, > "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny > bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the > lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and > breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the > Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of > the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt > thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then > proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being > the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand > Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, > shall snuff it." > -- Monty Python, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" "I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. I always tell them--" -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 21 Aug 2007 11:22:47 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Festivus <auto43792@hushmail.com > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <1187659909.256766.84830@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> Paul Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> writes: >> >>> For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would >>> wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to >>> pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test. >> >> Fuck off. > > Sounds good to me. Then you're sick and dysfunctional. The whole notion of requiring tests and licenses/permits for cyclists is haywire, hare-brained and mean-spirited, supported only by people who want to punish other people just for the enjoyment of seeing them suffer for daring to exercise their basic freedoms. Next you'll want the Inuit to be required to have full Captaincies for piloting their kayaks. Go pull wings off of flies or something. > The number of cyclists sharing the road with > motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules > of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers > doing the same. > > The behaviors we all routinely see: > > 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs > 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane > 3. Riding on sidewalks > 4. Failure to signal a turn (left especially) in congestion > 5. Riding on the wrong side of the road > 6. Etc. ad nauseum Yeah, car drivers do all kinds of stupid stuff. > I'm not anti-bike. I commute 20 miles round trip 2-3 times a week in > all weather year round. <sigh of heard-it-so-many-times-before exasperation > "I'm not a racist, but ..." > Every time some ass on a bike decides he's > above the rules of the road I become a target for the next pissed-off > driver. Fuck off. -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 21 Aug 2007 12:11:46 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Tom Keats wrote: > <sigh of heard-it-so-many-times-before exasperation> > "I'm not a racist, but ..." > >> Every time some ass on a bike decides he's >> above the rules of the road I become a target for the next pissed-off >> driver. > > Fuck off. Excellent. I will take that attitude as permission to dispense summary citizen's justice to bikers displaying said behaviors when I see them. Out where I live, there won't be any untidy witnesses or grand juries or any of that silly stuff. Just a slightly bent front tire spinning aimlessly in the wind and barely a nick on my front-mounted railroad tie.       Date: 22 Aug 2007 04:00:10 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Festivus <auto43792@hushmail.com > wrote: > Tom Keats wrote: >> <sigh of heard-it-so-many-times-before exasperation> >> "I'm not a racist, but ..." >> >>> Every time some ass on a bike decides he's >>> above the rules of the road I become a target for the next >>> pissed-off driver. >> >> Fuck off. > > Excellent. > > I will take that attitude as permission to dispense summary citizen's > justice to bikers displaying said behaviors when I see them. Out > where I live, there won't be any untidy witnesses or grand juries or > any of that silly stuff. Just a slightly bent front tire spinning > aimlessly in the wind and barely a nick on my front-mounted railroad > tie. > Cleverly covered with some shoe dye!       Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:42:33 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:11:46 -0700, Festivus <auto43792@hushmail.com > skipped its finger-painting class to peck: >Tom Keats wrote: >> <sigh of heard-it-so-many-times-before exasperation> >> "I'm not a racist, but ..." >> >>> Every time some ass on a bike decides he's >>> above the rules of the road I become a target for the next pissed-off >>> driver. >> >> Fuck off. > >Excellent. > >I will take that attitude as permission to dispense summary citizen's >justice to bikers displaying said behaviors when I see them. Out where >I live, there won't be any untidy witnesses or grand juries or any of >that silly stuff. Just a slightly bent front tire spinning aimlessly in >the wind and barely a nick on my front-mounted railroad tie. Fuck off. My kitty cat can kick your pit bull's ass and my brother's steel rail bumper will splinter your railroad tie. nya nya nya -- zk   Date: 21 Aug 2007 11:06:39 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone I think there are some good points to be made on this thread. Too bad it once again has to devolve to the pejorative. Personally I agree that cyclists pose a (vastly) diminshed threat to other vehicles out there but that does not exonerate them from behaving appropriately and predictably as a vehicle should. One thing that I feel is really important is respect. Many drivers in this country offer little to no respect to the cyclists on the road. If registration and licensing would help to further this point and make the car vs bike relationship more respectful (and less contemptable), then I'm interested. While I'm at it, I think it's pretty remarkable that it takes only a regular driver's license to operate a really big RV. Those guys should go to truck driver's school! -Rick > Precisely how are bicycle commuters presenting a risk to the non- > bicycling public in high traffic areas (mostly automobiles) that is > not covered by existing insurance. Since bicyclists are competing > mostly with cars for the same space in high traffic areas I don't see > much of a risk for the bikers. Indeed it is in bike rider's self- > interest to ride defensively and watch out for cars since they have > a much greater chance of being seriously injured by the much bigger, > heavier and faster car. Consequently I have no idea how you could > test and license for the ability of bike riders to ride defensively.   Date: 21 Aug 2007 10:53:18 From: John S. Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 20, 5:52 pm, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote: > ~ > > In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a > motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This > supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of > the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also > required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and > have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and > meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states > have the same or similar requirements. > > With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of > commuter Yes, bicyclists do commute to work. > and commercial transportation, Huh??? How are bicyclists providing commercial transportation. Are you talking about pedicabs (not bicycles) or messenger services, or what? > it is time that we take a > serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance > requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume > traffic areas. Riding license - For adults who likely have an automobile license? For what purpose. Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required. Safety - (equipment I guess) - what kind of safety equipment would you propose for a slow lightweight bicycle. Fenders, bumpers, air bags, seat belts and turn signals? Insurance - Most riders in high volume areas are adults who have medical and liability coverage elsewhere. Are you talking about comp and collision coverage for bikes or what. > > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should > catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that > the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some > type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their > vehicles do. Precisely how are bicycle commuters presenting a risk to the non- bicycling public in high traffic areas (mostly automobiles) that is not covered by existing insurance. Since bicyclists are competing mostly with cars for the same space in high traffic areas I don't see much of a risk for the bikers. Indeed it is in bike rider's self- interest to ride defensively and watch out for cars since they have a much greater chance of being seriously injured by the much bigger, heavier and faster car. Consequently I have no idea how you could test and license for the ability of bike riders to ride defensively.     Date: 22 Aug 2007 04:03:00 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com > wrote: > Consequently I have no idea how you could > test and license for the ability of bike riders to ride defensively. > Turn them loose in a Demolition Derby. If they survive, they pass.   Date: 21 Aug 2007 10:27:04 From: The Great Jimbo Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone "Paul Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote in message news:8373-46CA0D36-1081@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net... >~ > > In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a > motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This > supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of > the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also > required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and > have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and > meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states > have the same or similar requirements. > > With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of > commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a > serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance > requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume > traffic areas. > > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should > catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that > the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some > type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their > vehicles do. I don't agree with you. You're talking of licensing and insuring bicyclists. That makes no sense at all. It's just more government intrusion. However, bicyclists should know the rules of the road. Violating those rules should get them a ticket. Speeding won't be a problem in most cases, but things like darting out in traffic without bothering to look either way, pedaling on the wrong side of the street, etc. should cause the bicyclist to be ticketed.   Date: 21 Aug 2007 00:34:06 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46ca7074$0$16496$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <1187659909.256766.84830@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> Paul Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> writes: >> >>> For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who >>> would wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be >>> required to pass a written test similar to the instructional permit >>> test. >> >> Fuck off. > > I'm guessing your dinner was less than pleasing this evening. No, it was okay. Anyways, stay outa my hair, 'n I'll stay outa yours. Nevertheless, Paul Berg should fuck off. I mean it. -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 21 Aug 2007 08:56:46 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Tom Keats wrote: > In article <46ca7074$0$16496$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes: >> Tom Keats wrote: >>> In article <1187659909.256766.84830@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >>> Paul Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> writes: >>> >>>> For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who >>>> would wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be >>>> required to pass a written test similar to the instructional permit >>>> test. >>> >>> Fuck off. >> >> I'm guessing your dinner was less than pleasing this evening. > > No, it was okay. > > Anyways, stay outa my hair, 'n I'll > stay outa yours. That's OK. Your gooey pap was tiresome anyway. > Nevertheless, Paul Berg should fuck off. Whoever he is... (Hell, he's a WebTVer -- that's punishment enough!) > I mean it. Oooh, scary.   Date: 21 Aug 2007 03:43:07 From: Paul Johnson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 20, 3:51 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net > wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > In article <8373-46CA0D36-1...@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net>, Paul Berg wrote: > > >>~ > > >>In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a > >>motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This > >>supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of > >>the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also > >>required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and > >>have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and > >>meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states > >>have the same or similar requirements. > > >>With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of > >>commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a > >>serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance > >>requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume > >>traffic areas. > > >>The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > >>children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should > >>catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that > >>the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some > >>type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their > >>vehicles do. > > > Basically you want to discourage the use of bicycles by using the weight > > of the majority just as has been done with motorcycles. > > > I find it remarkable that having anything more the ritual of a test for > > driving is so fought against, but for smaller lighter vehicles we have to > > have real tests of competency and knowledge. > > > You do understand that somewhere around oh, I'd say roughly 99% of the > > adult bicyclists have already passed the 'tests' to drive an automobile, > > and thusly should already know the vehicle code. Sure, they might not > > know some finer points, but they don't know the finer points for driving > > cars and smaller trucks (both skill wise and the vehicle code) either. > > > When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles off > > the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until then, > > incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think darwin's > > (maybe stolen) theory) > > I dunno, the average bicyclist in my area - and there are more here than > anywhere else I've ever lived - is even LESS likely to obey any traffic > laws at all than the average motorist. There's a difference between bicyclists and morons with bicycles. Just like there's a difference between motorists and some jackass driving without a license.     Date: 21 Aug 2007 04:29:48 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca > wrote: > There's a difference between bicyclists and morons with bicycles. > Just like there's a difference between motorists and some jackass > driving without a license. The license is proof the licensee passed the test. Whether or not they are a jackass on the road or off is another matter.   Date: 21 Aug 2007 03:42:15 From: Paul Johnson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 20, 3:47 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles off > the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until then, > incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think darwin's > (maybe stolen) theory) I'd be happy with California and Arizona actually testing their drivers and eliminating license expirations longer than 5 years. Or at least mandating all drivers from those states replace their plates with something flourescent orange or drive with those student driver style signs reading "MORON" so we have some warning before we're next to them and they're swerving dangerously into our lane...     Date: 21 Aug 2007 04:27:42 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca > wrote: > On Aug 20, 3:47 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: > >> When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles >> off the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until >> then, incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think >> darwin's (maybe stolen) theory) > > I'd be happy with California and Arizona actually testing their > drivers and eliminating license expirations longer than 5 years. Or > at least mandating all drivers from those states replace their plates > with something flourescent orange or drive with those student driver > style signs reading "MORON" so we have some warning before we're next > to them and they're swerving dangerously into our lane... > > Michigan: First thing they did after buying a new car was rip out the rear view mirrors and the turn indicator. New Jersey: You could tell who the pros were. They all had railroad ties for bumpers. Rural Oregon: "Everybody knows I turn there."   Date: 21 Aug 2007 03:36:56 From: Paul Johnson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 20, 2:52 pm, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote: > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should > catch up the present situation. You need to read ORS 811 again, since you're about 40 years behind the legislature on this matter.   Date: 21 Aug 2007 03:25:49 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should > catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that > the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some > type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their > vehicles do. You forgot how congested our inner cities have become. Pedestrians are more numerous even than cyclists, and have been known to cross streets against lights, not observe simple rules of flow (walking to the right), among other things. While some municipalities have taken to at least registering bicycles, to the best of my knowledge no city has taken on the task of registering shoes. I propose that all pedestrians, for ease of identification, have the first and last four digits of their social security number tattooed upon their foreheads. In this way we can catch the offenders on security cameras and shame them on the evening newscasts. Seriously, since there are so many more pedestrians in many cities than bicyclists, it's logical that's where we should first apply our "minimum requirements" efforts. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Paul Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote in message news:8373-46CA0D36-1081@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net... >~ > > In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a > motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This > supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of > the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also > required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and > have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and > meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states > have the same or similar requirements. > > With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of > commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a > serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance > requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume > traffic areas. > > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should > catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that > the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some > type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their > vehicles do. > > ~ >   Date: 21 Aug 2007 03:24:59 From: Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 20, 9:31 pm, Paul Berg <pjb...@webtv.net > wrote: > ~ > > BEFORE, I GO ON ANY FURTHER. I WANT IT TO BE KNOWN, THAT I'M ONLY > TALKING ABOUT BICYCLES AND BICYCLISTS IN "HIGH VOLUME TRAFFIC AREAS". > > If a bicyclist has a valid drivers or moped license, I see no need for > such an individual to take any further testing. For they have already > demonstrated their knowledge of the rules of the road. > > For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would > wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to > pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test. > > Bicyclists with a suspended or revoked drivers, moped or bicycle > license would not be allowed to ride a bicycle in "high volume traffic > areas". > > As far as defining a "high volume traffic area", I would leave that to > local governments with guidance, by law, from the state legislature. I > would hope that any law would allowed for the highest amount of public > input in designating "high volume traffic areas". > > As far helmet, insurance, bicycle equipment and bicyclist safety > requirements, I would leave that for the state legislature to decide. > These are things that should be uniform throughout the state. And, > remember I'm only talking about bicyclists and bicycles in "high > volume traffic areas" here. To put it charitably, your ideas are totally impractical. (I don't think you're trolling, BTW. I think you just don't realize how impractical your ideas are.) For example: How would you define a "high volume traffic area"? By a minimum number of cars passing per minute? How would a cyclist judge that? What would happen when there was a break in traffic? What would happen at 6 AM, or 11 PM? Traffic volume changes! Would you define certain zones as requiring a bike license, irrespective of instantaneous volume? How would you indicate them? How would you convince any city to waste funds putting signs up around the perimeter of each such zone? How would you convince cops to enforce such laws? They presently ignore almost all cyclists who violate that most fundamental law, "ride on the right side of the road" (in the US, that is). Why would they start checking random cyclists to see if they are "qualified"? Basically, you think you've identified a problem. But nobody agrees that the problem is of sufficient magnitude to justify any of your corrective measures. There may be some podunk town where a four- person town council might be convinced to pass such laws, but even those laws would never be enforced for long. Sorry. Bad ideas. You may as well try to license shoes. If you want to change something, get the cops to enforce the current laws - including those that motorists consistently violate. And you're wrong about the value of helmets too. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:31:25 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Paul Berg wrote: > ... > With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of > commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a > serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance > requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume > traffic areas.... I don't know if we have discussed helmets thoroughly enough on the other thread. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 20 Aug 2007 19:26:28 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187659909.256766.84830@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com >, Paul Berg <pjberg@webtv.net > writes: > For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would > wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to > pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test. Fuck off. -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 21 Aug 2007 08:50:38 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Tom Keats wrote: > In article <1187659909.256766.84830@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > Paul Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> writes: > >> For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would >> wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to >> pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test. > > Fuck off. Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers doing the same. The behaviors we all routinely see: 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane 3. Riding on sidewalks 4. Failure to signal a turn (left especially) in congestion 5. Riding on the wrong side of the road 6. Etc. ad nauseum I'm not anti-bike. I commute 20 miles round trip 2-3 times a week in all weather year round. Every time some ass on a bike decides he's above the rules of the road I become a target for the next pissed-off driver.       Date: 21 Aug 2007 12:41:55 From: Frank Drackman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone "Festivus" <auto43792@hushmail.com > wrote in message news:faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org... > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <1187659909.256766.84830@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> Paul Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> writes: >> >>> For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would >>> wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to >>> pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test. >> >> Fuck off. > > Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with motorists > who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules of road > safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers doing the > same. > > The behaviors we all routinely see: > > 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs > 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane > 3. Riding on sidewalks > 4. Failure to signal a turn (left especially) in congestion > 5. Riding on the wrong side of the road > 6. Etc. ad nauseum > > I'm not anti-bike. I commute 20 miles round trip 2-3 times a week in all > weather year round. Every time some ass on a bike decides he's above the > rules of the road I become a target for the next pissed-off driver. > I agree. I wince when I see a fellow rider running stops signs, or other common rider behaviors, that frustrate drivers.       Date: 21 Aug 2007 13:35:29 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Festivus wrote: > > The behaviors we all routinely see: > > 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs > 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us in another lane. Wayne         Date: 22 Aug 2007 12:50:20 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle In article <46cb2261$0$15398$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >Festivus wrote: > > >> >> The behaviors we all routinely see: >> >> 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs >> 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane > >Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use >how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us >in another lane. Then you won't mind if I pull my Miata up alongside your bike in the lane? When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road, then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to pass. Until then, move as far to the right as is practicable. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.           Date: 22 Aug 2007 18:24:56 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <mO2dnV7SiZvB6lHbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road, > then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to > pass. Until then, move as far to the right as is practicable. I was stuck behind a box truck and two garbage trucks on my way home from work today. They were going much slower (varied between 15mph and stop in a 50mph zone) than I ride a bicycle. Two lane road, no passing zone. I had to just crawl along and deal with it. (I was driving) It's funny how people accept it when it is a truck or some other 'slow' motorized vehicle even when there is no good reason for it (I could see no traffic jam ahead, and when I did finally get to pass them, nobody was ahead of them), but when it's a bicycle they get their panties in a bunch despite being much easier to pass, even when given a full lane. I drive and usually give bicyclists a full lane and it's never been a bother. two lane road, heavy traffic, I've passed bicyclists with as much room as I would expect under practically every condition. It has never been an issue. I have rarely needed to adjust my speed more than 5mph for more than just a few seconds. If I could only say the same about motorists.             Date: 22 Aug 2007 16:53:38 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P wrote: > In article <mO2dnV7SiZvB6lHbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > > >>When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road, >>then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to >>pass. Until then, move as far to the right as is practicable. > I was stuck behind a box truck and two garbage trucks on my way home from > work today. They were going much slower (varied between 15mph and > stop in a 50mph zone) than I ride a bicycle. Two lane road, no passing > zone. I had to just crawl along and deal with it. Your trucks were breaking the law as well. Slow moving vehicles are required to yield to overtaking vehicles if a passing lane is unavailable. ORS 811.425. A rule which applies equally to slow moving bicyclists as well, incidently. Peace and justice,               Date: 22 Aug 2007 21:59:43 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <tbmdnWfZdK8cUVHbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bill Shatzer wrote: > Brent P wrote: > >> In article <mO2dnV7SiZvB6lHbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >> >> >>>When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road, >>>then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to >>>pass. Until then, move as far to the right as is practicable. > >> I was stuck behind a box truck and two garbage trucks on my way home from >> work today. They were going much slower (varied between 15mph and >> stop in a 50mph zone) than I ride a bicycle. Two lane road, no passing >> zone. I had to just crawl along and deal with it. > > Your trucks were breaking the law as well. Slow moving vehicles are > required to yield to overtaking vehicles if a passing lane is > unavailable. ORS 811.425. That's not an IL law. > A rule which applies equally to slow moving bicyclists as well, incidently. Whatever state you are refering to is either rather odd or you've not interpeted it correctly.           Date: 22 Aug 2007 20:50:53 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road, > then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to > pass. What about those interstate highways where trucks go well under the limit while ascending a grade. I have to use another lane to pass them, yet you don't seem to have a problem with this.             Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:29:18 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle In article <Nk1zi.14473$B25.6904@news01.roc.ny >, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu > wrote: >Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > >> When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road, >> then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to >> pass. > >What about those interstate highways where trucks go well under the >limit while ascending a grade. I have to use another lane to pass them, >yet you don't seem to have a problem with this. Often when that's expected to be the case, a climbing lane is provided. Truckers who don't use it are assholes like line-taking bicyclists (probably learned from gpstroll). If climbing lanes aren't provided, there's not much choice the truckers have; they can't make their trucks narrow enough to pass. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.               Date: 24 Aug 2007 00:59:19 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > In article <Nk1zi.14473$B25.6904@news01.roc.ny>, > Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote: >>> When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road, >>> then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to >>> pass. >> What about those interstate highways where trucks go well under the >> limit while ascending a grade. I have to use another lane to pass them, >> yet you don't seem to have a problem with this. > Often when that's expected to be the case, a climbing lane is > provided. Not in all cases. There are several grades on I-79 in WV and I-81 in VA that do not have climbing lanes that I'm aware of. > Truckers who don't use it are assholes like line-taking > bicyclists A truck using the rightmost lane isn't an asshole by any stretch of the colloquial definition; neither is a cyclist. > (probably learned from gpstroll). If climbing lanes aren't > provided, there's not much choice the truckers have; they can't make > their trucks narrow enough to pass. Sure they can. They can put most if not all of their vehicle on the shoulder, with their right wheels inches from the grass/guardrail/jersey barrier. That's what you expect cyclists to do, right?                 Date: 23 Aug 2007 20:11:08 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle In article <H3qzi.14475$ya1.8552@news02.roc.ny >, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu > wrote: >Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >> (probably learned from gpstroll). If climbing lanes aren't >> provided, there's not much choice the truckers have; they can't make >> their trucks narrow enough to pass. > >Sure they can. They can put most if not all of their vehicle on the >shoulder, with their right wheels inches from the grass/guardrail/jersey >barrier. That's what you expect cyclists to do, right? I want cyclists to move to the rightmost part of the lane. I do not expect them to put any of their vehicle off the pavement. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.                   Date: 23 Aug 2007 22:12:50 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > I want cyclists to move to the rightmost part of the lane. I do not expect > them to put any of their vehicle off the pavement. I want you to move into the adjacent lane. Wayne           Date: 22 Aug 2007 15:47:12 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > In article <46cb2261$0$15398$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>Festivus wrote: >> >> >> >>>The behaviors we all routinely see: >>> >>>1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs >>>2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane >> >>Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use >>how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us >>in another lane. > > > Then you won't mind if I pull my Miata up alongside your bike in the > lane? When I allow you or other motorists to do so, no I don't mind. Happens all the time. > > When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road, > then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to > pass. Until then, move as far to the right as is practicable. Don't be an ignoramus. Only places with discriminatory and bastardized laws make up such nonsense, so don't parrot them. If you don't like the way I use the right lane, pass me in the left. That's how competent drivers deal with slower traffic. If you can't do that, don't drive. Wayne             Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:27:07 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle In article <46cc92c0$0$15356$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > >> When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road, >> then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to >> pass. Until then, move as far to the right as is practicable. > >Don't be an ignoramus. Only places with discriminatory and bastardized >laws make up such nonsense, so don't parrot them. The laws are discriminatory because there's a valid distinction to be made. >If you don't like the way I use the right lane, pass me in the left. The left lane is for traffic coming the other way. >That's how competent drivers deal with slower traffic. If you can't >do that, don't drive. Competent, law abiding drivers get stuck behind slower traffic. The only way around that, when the slower traffic is a car, is to break the law and cross the double yellow. Bicyclists who take the lane are worse because they're going even slower than Grandma in her Buick, and because they could move over to allow a safe pass within the lane, but refuse to -- in other words, they're assholes. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.               Date: 23 Aug 2007 22:08:24 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>If you don't like the way I use the right lane, pass me in the left. > > > The left lane is for traffic coming the other way. Obviously there is a lot of motorist-motorist passing on 2 lane roads. So pass bicyclists similarly. > > >>That's how competent drivers deal with slower traffic. If you can't >>do that, don't drive. > > > Competent, law abiding drivers get stuck behind slower traffic. The > only way around that, when the slower traffic is a car, is to break > the law and cross the double yellow. Bicyclists who take the lane are > worse because they're going even slower than Grandma in her Buick, and > because they could move over to allow a safe pass within the lane, but > refuse to -- in other words, they're assholes. No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow. Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs. Wayne                 Date: 24 Aug 2007 14:53:37 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle In article <46ce3d98$0$18750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > >> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> >>>If you don't like the way I use the right lane, pass me in the left. >> >> >> The left lane is for traffic coming the other way. > >Obviously there is a lot of motorist-motorist passing on 2 lane roads. Not really. Most of them around here are no-passing for most areas, and there's plenty of traffic coming the other way. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.                 Date: 24 Aug 2007 02:33:18 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > >> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> >>>If you don't like the way I use the right lane, pass me in the left. >> >> >> The left lane is for traffic coming the other way. > > Obviously there is a lot of motorist-motorist passing on 2 lane roads. > So pass bicyclists similarly. > > >> >> >>>That's how competent drivers deal with slower traffic. If you can't >>>do that, don't drive. >> >> >> Competent, law abiding drivers get stuck behind slower traffic. The >> only way around that, when the slower traffic is a car, is to break >> the law and cross the double yellow. Bicyclists who take the lane >> are worse because they're going even slower than Grandma in her >> Buick, and because they could move over to allow a safe pass within >> the lane, but refuse to -- in other words, they're assholes. > > No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow. > Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so > because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising > their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use > their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs. So "jerkoffs" won't buzz them if they ride in the middle of the lane? Seems like it would be more likely.                   Date: 24 Aug 2007 12:10:42 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Lobby Dosser wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow. >>Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so >>because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising >>their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use >>their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs. > > > So "jerkoffs" won't buzz them if they ride in the middle of the lane? > Seems like it would be more likely. Let me expound. "Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane. Other people buzz you when you ride on the far right because they think they can squeeze by when they shouldn't. Using more of the lane compels everyone to be more cautious. Sometimes using more of the lane means riding on the right side but further out; other times it means using the full lane to send the message that the motorist will have to change lanes. Wayne                     Date: 24 Aug 2007 09:46:33 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Wayne Pein wrote: > "Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane. Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane. > Other > people buzz you when you ride on the far right because they think they > can squeeze by when they shouldn't. /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane. Glad we could clear this up for you! :-P                       Date: 25 Aug 2007 01:49:27 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: >> "Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane. > Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike > lane. Happens to me when I ride in the bike lane (that's why I don't ride in that "lane" anymore). I'm almost positive that you don't even ride a bike in traffic.                         Date: 24 Aug 2007 19:55:45 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Arif Khokar wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> Wayne Pein wrote: > >>> "Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane. > >> Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean, >> effective bike lane. > > Happens to me when I ride in the bike lane (that's why I don't ride in > that "lane" anymore). > > I'm almost positive that you don't even ride a bike in traffic. Almost 21,000 miles on current two bikes, but thanks for your concern. (What a maroon...)                       Date: 24 Aug 2007 13:24:48 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > >>"Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane. > > > Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike > lane. > > >>Other >>people buzz you when you ride on the far right because they think they >>can squeeze by when they shouldn't. > > > /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane. > > Glad we could clear this up for you! :-P > Ignoramus, Then how is it that motorists strike bicyclists from behind in bike lanes? http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf See Figure 34. HTH Wayne                         Date: 24 Aug 2007 10:37:44 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> Wayne Pein wrote: >> >> >>> "Jerkoffs" buzz you no matter where you ride within the lane. >> >> >> Mostly true. Hardly ever happens when there's a nice, clean, >> effective bike lane. >> >> >>> Other >>> people buzz you when you ride on the far right because they think >>> they can squeeze by when they shouldn't. >> >> >> /Never/ happens when there's a nice, clean, effective bike lane. >> >> Glad we could clear this up for you! :-P >> > > Ignoramus, > > Then how is it that motorists strike bicyclists from behind in bike > lanes? > http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf > > See Figure 34. > > HTH One danger that exists while road riding is the inattentive (drunk, distracted, stroke victim, etc.) driver. MORE likely to hit or brush you out in the lane than off to the side, of course, but equally deadly to both. If you're so afraid of that happening in "Pein's World Of Paranoia" {tm}, then you should stay inside or stick to bike paths or trails. HTH                           Date: 24 Aug 2007 14:14:52 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: > > One danger that exists while road riding is the inattentive (drunk, > distracted, stroke victim, etc.) driver. MORE likely to hit or brush you > out in the lane than off to the side, of course, but equally deadly to both. > If you're so afraid of that happening in "Pein's World Of Paranoia" {tm}, > then you should stay inside or stick to bike paths or trails. > Ignoramus, YOU are the paranoid bike lane apologist. Arguing with you is like wallpapering fog. Wayne                             Date: 24 Aug 2007 11:53:17 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> >> One danger that exists while road riding is the inattentive (drunk, >> distracted, stroke victim, etc.) driver. MORE likely to hit or >> brush you out in the lane than off to the side, of course, but >> equally deadly to both. If you're so afraid of that happening in >> "Pein's World Of Paranoia" {tm}, then you should stay inside or >> stick to bike paths or trails. > > Ignoramus, > > YOU are the paranoid bike lane apologist. Apologist? They're great. > Arguing with you is like wallpapering fog. So stop. HTH                   Date: 24 Aug 2007 03:07:54 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Lobby Dosser wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow. >> Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so >> because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising >> their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use >> their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs. > So "jerkoffs" won't buzz them if they ride in the middle of the lane? > Seems like it would be more likely. But the cyclist will have room to move to the right if necessary if that happens. That's not the case if one of those "jerkoff" motorists brush-passes him while he's as far over to the right as he can be.                     Date: 23 Aug 2007 22:29:22 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Arif Khokar wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>> No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow. >>> Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so >>> because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising >>> their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use >>> their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs. > >> So "jerkoffs" won't buzz them if they ride in the middle of the lane? >> Seems like it would be more likely. > > But the cyclist will have room to move to the right if necessary if > that happens. That's not the case if one of those "jerkoff" motorists > brush-passes him while he's as far over to the right as he can be. I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so paranoid about being passed too closely that they advocate moving left ("taking the lane") even when it's not only completely unjustified but also highly ill-advised. This works great...until the day it doesn't. Bill "I take the lane out of necessity, not out of fear OR to prove a silly point" S.                       Date: 24 Aug 2007 12:15:00 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: >>But the cyclist will have room to move to the right if necessary if >>that happens. That's not the case if one of those "jerkoff" motorists >>brush-passes him while he's as far over to the right as he can be. > > > I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so paranoid > about being passed too closely that they advocate moving left ("taking the > lane") even when it's not only completely unjustified but also highly > ill-advised. > > Bill "I take the lane out of necessity, not out of fear OR to prove a silly > point" S. > You didn't figure anything out. You're just as clueless as ever. Wayne                       Date: 24 Aug 2007 07:49:19 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46ce6cb5$0$6492$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote: > I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so paranoid > about being passed too closely that they advocate moving left ("taking the > lane") even when it's not only completely unjustified but also highly > ill-advised. You're dead wrong. The reason to be against bicycle lanes is that they cause all sorts of intersection asshattery, are usually done half-assedly (see chicago), cause drivers to think that bicyclists can only be in bicycle lane and on roads with them (makes left turns difficult), and lastly the painted line is assumed to be a barrier (magical I guess) so the result is often closer passing motorists. (especially with chicago's bike lanes where one can ride on the line or be well within the door zone)                         Date: 24 Aug 2007 09:42:52 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Brent P wrote: > In article <46ce6cb5$0$6492$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson > wrote: > >> I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so >> paranoid about being passed too closely that they advocate moving >> left ("taking the lane") even when it's not only completely >> unjustified but also highly ill-advised. > > You're dead wrong. The reason to be against bicycle lanes Bzzt. They advocate unsafe lane-taking regardless -- in fact, much /more/ when no bike lane is present (obviously). HTH                           Date: 24 Aug 2007 11:52:24 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46cf0aa6$0$16465$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <46ce6cb5$0$6492$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >> wrote: >> >>> I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so >>> paranoid about being passed too closely that they advocate moving >>> left ("taking the lane") even when it's not only completely >>> unjustified but also highly ill-advised. >> >> You're dead wrong. The reason to be against bicycle lanes > > Bzzt. They advocate unsafe lane-taking regardless -- in fact, much /more/ > when no bike lane is present (obviously). Just delete the reasons why bicycle lanes suck and pretend they don't exist. Bicycle lanes are opposed because of the problems I listed and probably some I neglected to list. I have never encountered someone who opposes bicycle lanes because they want to take the lane for giggles. I will continue to take the lane as I see fit regardless as follows: 1) At red signals and stop lights. 2) When preparing to turn left (and right under some conditions). 3) When traveling as fast or faster than traffic in front of me and/or to my immediate left. 4) When poor pavement conditions make riding further right difficult and unsafe. 5) When lanes are too narrow and there is no shoulder. 6) On blind curves or hills when the lane is narrow.                             Date: 24 Aug 2007 10:28:00 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Brent P wrote: > In article <46cf0aa6$0$16465$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson > wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> In article <46ce6cb5$0$6492$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so >>>> paranoid about being passed too closely that they advocate moving >>>> left ("taking the lane") even when it's not only completely >>>> unjustified but also highly ill-advised. >>> >>> You're dead wrong. The reason to be against bicycle lanes >> >> Bzzt. They advocate unsafe lane-taking regardless -- in fact, much >> /more/ when no bike lane is present (obviously). > > Just delete the reasons why bicycle lanes suck Bzzt. ALL bike lanes? Most are perfectly fine and hugely beneficial; a very few are substandard and even rarely unsafe. I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) -- numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES SUCK (cuz they don't). HTH.                               Date: 24 Aug 2007 13:10:50 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46cf1524$0$6479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <46cf0aa6$0$16465$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >> wrote: >>> Brent P wrote: >>>> In article <46ce6cb5$0$6492$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I just figured it out: the ABLZs (anti-bike-lane zealots) are so >>>>> paranoid about being passed too closely that they advocate moving >>>>> left ("taking the lane") even when it's not only completely >>>>> unjustified but also highly ill-advised. >>>> >>>> You're dead wrong. The reason to be against bicycle lanes >>> >>> Bzzt. They advocate unsafe lane-taking regardless -- in fact, much >>> /more/ when no bike lane is present (obviously). >> >> Just delete the reasons why bicycle lanes suck > > Bzzt. ALL bike lanes? Most are perfectly fine and hugely beneficial; a > very few are substandard and even rarely unsafe. When all fails snip and replace with a strawman. All bikelanes have one or more of the reasons I listed. Few substandard and unsafe? You need to visit chicago, where every one I've seen is substandard and most are unsafe. > I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) -- > numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES SUCK (cuz > they don't). But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't pro taking the lane 100% of the time.                                 Date: 24 Aug 2007 11:52:27 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Brent P wrote: > In article <46cf1524$0$6479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson > wrote: >> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) -- >> numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES >> SUCK (cuz they don't). > But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't > pro taking the lane 100% of the time. When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often dangerous to do so. Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a clue.                                   Date: 24 Aug 2007 23:18:25 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: > When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when there's a > NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often dangerous to do > so. Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg >?                                     Date: 24 Aug 2007 17:21:12 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Arif Khokar wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when >> there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often >> dangerous to do so. > > Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike > like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>? I've spotted your problem! Your bike is upside down AND facing the wrong way. HTH                                       Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:56:05 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: > Arif Khokar wrote: >> Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike >> like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>? > I've spotted your problem! Your bike is upside down AND facing the wrong > way. HTH And I meant to type "... bike *lane* like ..." In any case, it's too narrow to ride in safely. I usually ride just to the right of the black line in that picture.                                   Date: 24 Aug 2007 15:23:41 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46cf28ef$0$15363$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <46cf1524$0$6479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >> wrote: > >>> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) -- >>> numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES >>> SUCK (cuz they don't). > >> But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't >> pro taking the lane 100% of the time. > > When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when there's a > NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often dangerous to do > so. Nice beautiful bike lane? The best bike lanes anywhere I've ridden have been about 3-4 feet wide where the right edge is under the tires of parked cars. You know what that's called, correct? The door zone. What is the place bicyclists are told time and time again _NOT_ to ride? The door zone. Thanks for playing. BTW, I don't take the lane in such conditions, I just ride exactly where I used to ride those roads before king daley the second had the lines painted. Of course I rode such roads like that for years without problems before the lines got painted but now some motorists get their panties in a bunch because I am not using the 'bike space' or I'm on the left line of the bike lane. It was never a problem before the bike lane zealots got king daley on their side and had the door zone made into a bicycling ghetto. > Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a clue. Guys like me? You mean someone who takes the lane less often than you do, as you admitted just a post or so ago? Actually it's your kind that will get bikes limited to roads with a designated bicycle ghetto and not allowed to leave it.                                     Date: 24 Aug 2007 16:10:02 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Brent P wrote: > In article <46cf28ef$0$15363$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson > wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> In article <46cf1524$0$6479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >>> wrote: >> >>>> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) >>>> -- numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES >>>> SUCK (cuz they don't). >> >>> But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't >>> pro taking the lane 100% of the time. >> >> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when >> there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often >> dangerous to do so. > > Nice beautiful bike lane? The best bike lanes anywhere I've ridden > have been about 3-4 feet wide where the right edge is under the tires > of > parked cars. You really should move. > You know what that's called, correct? The door zone. > What is the place bicyclists are told time and time again _NOT_ to > ride? The door zone. Thanks for playing. > > BTW, I don't take the lane in such conditions, I just ride exactly > where > I used to ride those roads before king daley the second had the lines > painted. Of course I rode such roads like that for years without > problems before the lines got painted but now some motorists get > their panties in > a bunch because I am not using the 'bike space' or I'm on the left > line > of the bike lane. It was never a problem before the bike lane zealots > got king daley on their side and had the door zone made into a > bicycling ghetto. > >> Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a >> clue. > > Guys like me? You mean someone who takes the lane less often than you > do, as you admitted just a post or so ago? Allow me to quote you (it's still above, too): "But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't pro taking the lane 100% of the time." TAKING THE LANE 100% OF THE TIME. Brilliant! > Actually it's your kind that will get bikes limited to roads with a > designated bicycle ghetto and not allowed to leave it. LOL Good one.                                       Date: 24 Aug 2007 18:23:24 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46cf654e$0$16504$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <46cf28ef$0$15363$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >> wrote: >>> Brent P wrote: >>>> In article <46cf1524$0$6479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) >>>>> -- numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE LANES >>>>> SUCK (cuz they don't). >>> >>>> But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't >>>> pro taking the lane 100% of the time. >>> >>> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when >>> there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often >>> dangerous to do so. >> >> Nice beautiful bike lane? The best bike lanes anywhere I've ridden >> have been about 3-4 feet wide where the right edge is under the tires >> of >> parked cars. > You really should move. You should get out and about more and increase your experiences before spouting off. >> You know what that's called, correct? The door zone. >> What is the place bicyclists are told time and time again _NOT_ to >> ride? The door zone. Thanks for playing. >> BTW, I don't take the lane in such conditions, I just ride exactly >> where >> I used to ride those roads before king daley the second had the lines >> painted. Of course I rode such roads like that for years without >> problems before the lines got painted but now some motorists get >> their panties in >> a bunch because I am not using the 'bike space' or I'm on the left >> line >> of the bike lane. It was never a problem before the bike lane zealots >> got king daley on their side and had the door zone made into a >> bicycling ghetto. >> >>> Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a >>> clue. >> >> Guys like me? You mean someone who takes the lane less often than you >> do, as you admitted just a post or so ago? > Allow me to quote you (it's still above, too): "But it does prove that > people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't pro taking the lane 100% of > the time." > TAKING THE LANE 100% OF THE TIME. Brilliant! That's what you were apparently claiming of those who don't like bike lanes. >> Actually it's your kind that will get bikes limited to roads with a >> designated bicycle ghetto and not allowed to leave it. > LOL Good one. I've already run into close to handful of motorists bikelane propaganda has had excatly that effect on. I am sure most just don't bother yelling it at me. (hint: all were where there aren't any bike lanes at all) Now if I include all of those who think bicyclists are limited to bike paths, well I lost count of those *YEARS* ago.                                         Date: 24 Aug 2007 17:17:08 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Brent P wrote: > In article <46cf654e$0$16504$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson > wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> In article <46cf28ef$0$15363$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >>> wrote: >>>> Brent P wrote: >>>>> In article <46cf1524$0$6479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I take the lane all the time (scenarios you listed and many more) >>>>>> -- numerous instances each and every ride. DOESN'T MEAN BIKE >>>>>> LANES SUCK (cuz they don't). >>>> >>>>> But it does prove that people who are against bicycle ghettos >>>>> aren't pro taking the lane 100% of the time. >>>> >>>> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when >>>> there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often >>>> dangerous to do so. >>> >>> Nice beautiful bike lane? The best bike lanes anywhere I've ridden >>> have been about 3-4 feet wide where the right edge is under the >>> tires of >>> parked cars. > >> You really should move. > > You should get out and about more and increase your experiences before > spouting off. Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to somewhere where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me that ALL bike lanes are bad (previous claim IIRC). >>> You know what that's called, correct? The door zone. >>> What is the place bicyclists are told time and time again _NOT_ to >>> ride? The door zone. Thanks for playing. > >>> BTW, I don't take the lane in such conditions, I just ride exactly >>> where >>> I used to ride those roads before king daley the second had the >>> lines painted. Of course I rode such roads like that for years >>> without problems before the lines got painted but now some >>> motorists get their panties in >>> a bunch because I am not using the 'bike space' or I'm on the left >>> line >>> of the bike lane. It was never a problem before the bike lane >>> zealots got king daley on their side and had the door zone made >>> into a bicycling ghetto. >>> >>>> Guys like you will get bikes banned from trafficked roads. Get a >>>> clue. >>> >>> Guys like me? You mean someone who takes the lane less often than >>> you do, as you admitted just a post or so ago? > >> Allow me to quote you (it's still above, too): "But it does prove >> that people who are against bicycle ghettos aren't pro taking the >> lane 100% of the time." > >> TAKING THE LANE 100% OF THE TIME. Brilliant! > > That's what you were apparently claiming of those who don't like bike > lanes. Absurd...although Wayne Pein said something to that exact effect, IIRC. > >>> Actually it's your kind that will get bikes limited to roads with a >>> designated bicycle ghetto and not allowed to leave it. > >> LOL Good one. > > I've already run into close to handful of motorists bikelane > propaganda has had excatly that effect on. I am sure most just don't > bother yelling it at me. (hint: all were where there aren't any bike > lanes at all) Now if I include all of those who think bicyclists are > limited to bike paths, well I lost count of those *YEARS* ago. My 45-mile ride today was lovely. I'd say roughly 60% or so was bike-laned; much of the rest good road, too. (There are a few trouble spots on this route, but nothing an experienced, confident rider can't handle.) I probably saw 50 other cyclists (all helmeted, by the way -- usually see at least a few unlidded) all using the wonderful bike lanes these roads provide. But we're all nuts and you and Pein are right. Whatever.                                           Date: 24 Aug 2007 21:03:43 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote: > ... > But we're all nuts and you and Pein are right.... > Sorni gets it right! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                           Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:06:49 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46cf7508$0$15340$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote: >> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences before >> spouting off. > Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to somewhere > where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me that ALL bike lanes > are bad (previous claim IIRC). You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike lanes have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that? because they always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes needlessly complicate intersections. So, no matter how you construct them, every intersection is a problem. Of course what are bike lanes trying to address? Hit from behind. Afterall, a wide curb lane produces all the ease of passing for motor vehicles. So in trying to solve the smaller risk of hit from behind the higher risk of intersection related collisions is increased. >> I've already run into close to handful of motorists bikelane >> propaganda has had excatly that effect on. I am sure most just don't >> bother yelling it at me. (hint: all were where there aren't any bike >> lanes at all) Now if I include all of those who think bicyclists are >> limited to bike paths, well I lost count of those *YEARS* ago. > My 45-mile ride today was lovely. I'd say roughly 60% or so was bike-laned; > much of the rest good road, too. (There are a few trouble spots on this > route, but nothing an experienced, confident rider can't handle.) I > probably saw 50 other cyclists (all helmeted, by the way -- usually see at > least a few unlidded) all using the wonderful bike lanes these roads > provide. > > But we're all nuts and you and Pein are right. Whatever. Well wooptie do for you. Now ride the bike lanes that aren't the exception to the rule. I've seen substandard bicycle lanes in IL,WI,Iowa,MN,and HI while seeing none of these magical well designed bicycle lanes you and the rest of the zealots speak of. I see glorified shoulders (HI, Iowa, WI) and bike lanes carved out the pavement margins where nobody in their right mind would ride (IL, MN)                                             Date: 25 Aug 2007 11:59:58 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P? wrote: > ... > Well wooptie do for you. Now ride the bike lanes that aren't the > exception to the rule. I've seen substandard bicycle lanes in > IL,WI,Iowa,MN,and HI while seeing none of these magical well designed > bicycle lanes you and the rest of the zealots speak of. I see glorified > shoulders (HI, Iowa, WI) and bike lanes carved out the pavement margins > where nobody in their right mind would ride (IL, MN) > Hey, those "bicycle lanes" are "needed" for motorists going 30+ mph over the speed limit to use to pass on the right! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                               Date: 25 Aug 2007 12:29:37 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46d05404$0$19486$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >, Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote: > Brent P? wrote: >> ... >> Well wooptie do for you. Now ride the bike lanes that aren't the >> exception to the rule. I've seen substandard bicycle lanes in >> IL,WI,Iowa,MN,and HI while seeing none of these magical well designed >> bicycle lanes you and the rest of the zealots speak of. I see glorified >> shoulders (HI, Iowa, WI) and bike lanes carved out the pavement margins >> where nobody in their right mind would ride (IL, MN) > Hey, those "bicycle lanes" are "needed" for motorists going 30+ mph over > the speed limit to use to pass on the right! A car wouldn't fit in the ones I'm familiar with.                                                 Date: 27 Aug 2007 20:19:21 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P wrote: > In article <46d05404$0$19486$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote: >> Brent P? wrote: >>> ... >>> Well wooptie do for you. Now ride the bike lanes that aren't the >>> exception to the rule. I've seen substandard bicycle lanes in >>> IL,WI,Iowa,MN,and HI while seeing none of these magical well designed >>> bicycle lanes you and the rest of the zealots speak of. I see glorified >>> shoulders (HI, Iowa, WI) and bike lanes carved out the pavement margins >>> where nobody in their right mind would ride (IL, MN) > >> Hey, those "bicycle lanes" are "needed" for motorists going 30+ mph over >> the speed limit to use to pass on the right! > > A car wouldn't fit in the ones I'm familiar with. In the little city to the north, the "bicycle lanes" often have a bus stop/parking lane to the right. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                             Date: 25 Aug 2007 06:48:21 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike lanes > have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that? because they > always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes needlessly complicate > intersections. So, no matter how you construct them, every intersection > is a problem. But only for the lame of mind, thereby increasing the fitness of the gene pool.                                             Date: 24 Aug 2007 22:17:31 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Brent P wrote: > In article <46cf7508$0$15340$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson > wrote: > >>> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences >>> before spouting off. > >> Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to >> somewhere where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me >> that ALL bike lanes are bad (previous claim IIRC). > > You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike lanes > have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that? because they > always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes needlessly complicate > intersections. So, no matter how you construct them, every > intersection is a problem. Absurd. (But of course you know this. OR... "You should get out and about more and increase your experiences before spouting off." HTH!) Done.                                               Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:29:00 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <46cfbb70$0$6458$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <46cf7508$0$15340$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson >> wrote: >> >>>> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences >>>> before spouting off. >> >>> Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to >>> somewhere where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me >>> that ALL bike lanes are bad (previous claim IIRC). >> >> You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike lanes >> have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that? because they >> always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes needlessly complicate >> intersections. So, no matter how you construct them, every >> intersection is a problem. > > Absurd. (But of course you know this. OR... "You should get out and about > more and increase your experiences > before spouting off." HTH!) > Done. Guess you've never tried to turn left with asshole motorists who wanted to defend their view that bicyclists are restricted to bike lane. Or maybe you still act like a child and walk your bike across the road making a box turn.                                                 Date: From: Subject:                                                 Date: From: Subject:                     Date: 24 Aug 2007 05:04:33 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>> No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow. >>> Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so >>> because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising >>> their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use >>> their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs. > >> So "jerkoffs" won't buzz them if they ride in the middle of the lane? >> Seems like it would be more likely. > > But the cyclist will have room to move to the right if necessary if > that happens. That's not the case if one of those "jerkoff" motorists > brush-passes him while he's as far over to the right as he can be. > Quite true! My one experience with a brush passer - some 49 years ago - put me in a ditch. And the SOB kept going. I always attributed it to the fact that I was riding in Michigan.               Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:43:03 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <5ZGdnUDXWqBGuFPbnZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > the law and cross the double yellow. Bicyclists who take the lane are > worse because they're going even slower than Grandma in her Buick, Senior citizens must drive faster in your parts. > and > because they could move over to allow a safe pass within the lane, but > refuse to -- in other words, they're assholes. If I am taking the lane there is damn good reason for it. (usually because I am keeping up with the vehicle in front of me or to my left)                 Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:57:59 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <IOqdnRB0JNIKtFPbnZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@comcast.com >, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com > wrote: >In article <5ZGdnUDXWqBGuFPbnZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > >> the law and cross the double yellow. Bicyclists who take the lane are >> worse because they're going even slower than Grandma in her Buick, > >Senior citizens must drive faster in your parts. Faster here than in Florida (except for the 100mph through red-light types which exist in Florida), I don't know about Chicago. >> and >> because they could move over to allow a safe pass within the lane, but >> refuse to -- in other words, they're assholes. > >If I am taking the lane there is damn good reason for it. (usually >because I am keeping up with the vehicle in front of me or to my left) Maybe. But when Wayne the Pain takes a lane, it's because he's just as good as any car and they can pass him when he's good and ready to let them. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.                   Date: 23 Aug 2007 22:11:18 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > Maybe. But when Wayne the Pain takes a lane, it's because he's just > as good as any car and they can pass him when he's good and ready to > let them. Ignoramus, I'm better than any car. Wayne                     Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:18:36 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Wayne Pein wrote: > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > > >> Maybe. But when Wayne the Pain takes a lane, it's because he's just >> as good as any car and they can pass him when he's good and ready to >> let them. > > > Ignoramus, > > I'm better than any car. You sure emit more than most.                       Date: 24 Aug 2007 12:04:15 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > >>Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >> >> >> >>>Maybe. But when Wayne the Pain takes a lane, it's because he's just >>>as good as any car and they can pass him when he's good and ready to >>>let them. >> >> >>Ignoramus, >> >>I'm better than any car. > > > You sure emit more than most. > > Ignoramus, Stop stalking me. Oh, I know, you can't resist me. Wayne         Date: 22 Aug 2007 03:59:01 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Festivus wrote: > > >> >> The behaviors we all routinely see: >> >> 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs >> 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane > > Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to > use how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, > pass us in another lane. > > Wayne > > Uh huh!           Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:06:24 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Lobby Dosser wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >> Festivus wrote: >> >> >>> The behaviors we all routinely see: >>> >>> 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs >>> 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane >> Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to >> use how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, >> pass us in another lane. From the Oregon Bicyclist Manual: "Riding side by side You and a companion may ride side by side on the road, but only if you don’t impede other traffic. If traffic doesn’t have enough room to pass you safely, ride single file." Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is disallowed, but the circumstances determine proper behavior.             Date: 23 Aug 2007 02:31:10 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Festivus <auto43792@hushmail.com > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> Festivus wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The behaviors we all routinely see: >>>> >>>> 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs >>>> 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane >>> Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to >>> use how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, >>> pass us in another lane. > > From the Oregon Bicyclist Manual: > > "Riding side by side > You and a companion may ride side by side on the road, but only if > you don’t impede other traffic. If traffic doesn’t have enough room to > pass you safely, ride single file." > > Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is > disallowed, but the circumstances determine proper behavior. > *I* did not say it was. Your attributions are scrambled.             Date: 22 Aug 2007 15:21:22 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Festivus wrote: > From the Oregon Bicyclist Manual: > > "Riding side by side > You and a companion may ride side by side on the road, but only if > you don’t impede other traffic. If traffic doesn’t have enough room to > pass you safely, ride single file." > > Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is disallowed, > but the circumstances determine proper behavior. Just because the Oregon Bicyclist Manual says something, doesn't mean the writers know what they are talking about. Individual bicyclists should generally ride at about the position of the left bicyclist when two are abreast. In other words, a single bicyclist should take as much lane space as typical two abreast riders. Wayne       Date: 21 Aug 2007 12:13:28 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Festivus wrote: > Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with > motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules > of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers > doing the same. People who drive poorly bike poorly and vice versa.         Date: 21 Aug 2007 11:09:23 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P wrote: > In article <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: > >> Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with >> motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules >> of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers >> doing the same. > > People who drive poorly bike poorly and vice versa. > No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to prove their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't even properly educated. Biking or driving poorly through ignorance is forgivable and correctable.           Date: 21 Aug 2007 14:25:29 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <faf9ok$3p6$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Festivus wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >> >>> Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with >>> motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules >>> of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers >>> doing the same. >> >> People who drive poorly bike poorly and vice versa. >> > > No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they > have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't > guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to prove > their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't even > properly educated. The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the adult bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy to hold people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a car.             Date: 22 Aug 2007 03:54:04 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <faf9ok$3p6$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> In article <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >>> >>>> Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with >>>> motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the >>>> rules of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of >>>> cagers doing the same. >>> >>> People who drive poorly bike poorly and vice versa. >>> >> >> No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they >> have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't >> guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to >> prove their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't >> even properly educated. > > > The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the > adult bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy > to hold people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a > car. Would you get out of your car at a light and bang on another driver's window? Folks right here advocate cyclists do just that.               Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:58:11 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <wrOyi.3897$wr3.1575@trndny04 >, Lobby Dosser wrote: > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >> In article <faf9ok$3p6$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >>> Brent P wrote: >>>> In article <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with >>>>> motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the >>>>> rules of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of >>>>> cagers doing the same. >>>> >>>> People who drive poorly bike poorly and vice versa. >>>> >>> >>> No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they >>> have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't >>> guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to >>> prove their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't >>> even properly educated. >> >> >> The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the >> adult bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy >> to hold people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a >> car. > > Would you get out of your car at a light and bang on another driver's > window? Folks right here advocate cyclists do just that. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. BTW, there are some drivers who do that. The only 'banging' on windows that bicyclists do is because some fucktard behind the wheel of the motor vehicle is about to force them off the road or hit them.                 Date: 22 Aug 2007 04:33:28 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <wrOyi.3897$wr3.1575@trndny04>, Lobby Dosser wrote: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >> >>> In article <faf9ok$3p6$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >>>> Brent P wrote: >>>>> In article <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with >>>>>> motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the >>>>>> rules of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number >>>>>> of cagers doing the same. >>>>> >>>>> People who drive poorly bike poorly and vice versa. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that >>>> they have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. >>>> Doesn't guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring >>>> bikers to prove their competence guarantees that at least some >>>> (most?) aren't even properly educated. >>> >>> >>> The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the >>> adult bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is >>> idiotcy to hold people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than >>> to drive a car. >> >> Would you get out of your car at a light and bang on another driver's >> window? Folks right here advocate cyclists do just that. > > That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. BTW, there are some > drivers who do that. The only 'banging' on windows that bicyclists do > is because some fucktard behind the wheel of the motor vehicle is > about to force them off the road or hit them. > > > Not the most recent guy in Portland. Driver came 'too close' says cyclist. So he bangs on the guy's car at the next light. Stupid.             Date: 21 Aug 2007 14:11:35 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P wrote: > In article <faf9ok$3p6$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> In article <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >>> >>>> Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with >>>> motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules >>>> of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers >>>> doing the same. >>> People who drive poorly bike poorly and vice versa. >>> >> No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they >> have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't >> guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to prove >> their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't even >> properly educated. > > > The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the adult > bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy to hold > people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a car. > The original post indicated that a bicycle license would be for those not already possessing of a valid driver's license. A driver's license would certainly be sufficient - though we might want to include a few more bicycle questions on the written exam. Seems perfectly reasonable that if they want to share the roads they understand all of the rights and responsibilities pursuant.               Date: 21 Aug 2007 17:49:31 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fafke9$94f$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Festivus wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <faf9ok$3p6$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >>> Brent P wrote: >>>> In article <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with >>>>> motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules >>>>> of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers >>>>> doing the same. >>>> People who drive poorly bike poorly and vice versa. >>>> >>> No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they >>> have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't >>> guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to prove >>> their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't even >>> properly educated. >> >> >> The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the adult >> bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy to hold >> people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a car. > The original post indicated that a bicycle license would be for those > not already possessing of a valid driver's license. That would make the rant even more pointless. As I remember reading it, he was calling for a bicycle endorsement... > A driver's license > would certainly be sufficient - though we might want to include a few > more bicycle questions on the written exam. > Seems perfectly reasonable that if they want to share the roads they > understand all of the rights and responsibilities pursuant. The last thing a bicycle rider hating motorist wants are bicyclists that obey the vehicle code. Because well, they've learned things about it being legal to take the lane under various conditions. That they have the same rights, etc and so forth. As much as bicycling hating motorists want to whine about stop signs being run by people on bicycles going 8mph, they actually prefer that over having a bicyclist take the lane in front of them and come to a complete stop such that they couldn't do their 5-10mph rolling stop.                 Date: 21 Aug 2007 19:31:40 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P wrote: > In article <fafke9$94f$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: > >>Brent P wrote: >> >>>In article <faf9ok$3p6$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >>> >>>>Brent P wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <faf1kf$64e$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Festivus wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with >>>>>>motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules >>>>>>of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers >>>>>>doing the same. >>>>> >>>>>People who drive poorly bike poorly and vice versa. >>>>> >>>> >>>>No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they >>>>have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't >>>>guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to prove >>>>their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't even >>>>properly educated. >>> >>> >>>The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the adult >>>bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy to hold >>>people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a car. > > >>The original post indicated that a bicycle license would be for those >>not already possessing of a valid driver's license. > > > That would make the rant even more pointless. As I remember reading it, > he was calling for a bicycle endorsement... > > >> A driver's license >>would certainly be sufficient - though we might want to include a few >>more bicycle questions on the written exam. > > > > >>Seems perfectly reasonable that if they want to share the roads they >>understand all of the rights and responsibilities pursuant. > > > The last thing a bicycle rider hating motorist wants are bicyclists that > obey the vehicle code. Because well, they've learned things about it > being legal to take the lane under various conditions. That they have the > same rights, etc and so forth. > > As much as bicycling hating motorists want to whine about stop signs > being run by people on bicycles going 8mph, they actually prefer that over > having a bicyclist take the lane in front of them and come to a complete > stop such that they couldn't do their 5-10mph rolling stop. > Actually I would prefer that bicyclists actually make an effort to stop, even if it is only a "california stop" so I don't have to see their asses plastered all over the road in front of me. I literally have no idea how cyclists manage to stay alive around here, I guess maybe all the motorists are just trained to expect cyclists to blow stops consistently and are extra-vigilant (something I find hard to believe) I'd be more than willing to give up a few seconds for a cyclist to be safe. I guess that means that I don't count as a "cyclist hating motorist" although I am a motorist and most cyclists annoy me. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel                   Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:25:22 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fafskt02p0f@news2.newsguy.com >, Nate Nagel wrote: > Actually I would prefer that bicyclists actually make an effort to stop, > even if it is only a "california stop" so I don't have to see their > asses plastered all over the road in front of me. You're not a bicycle hating motorist though. You're rational, they aren't, they simply hate. I've told the story of the 'drive car' guy. He wasn't the only one, just the most memerable. That type of driver does not like being in traffic behind a bicycle period, end of story. > I'd be more than willing to give up a few seconds for a cyclist to be > safe. I guess that means that I don't count as a "cyclist hating > motorist" although I am a motorist and most cyclists annoy me. The POB behavior I see annoys me. And when I am walking it is outright safety threat. I ride to the rules of the road, just as I drive. I've had cops get mad at me for behaving 'like a car'. I've had countless motorists get all pissed off because I was preventing them from kissing the bumper of the car in front of me. I can keep up with traffic but get yelled at to get off the road, etc and so forth. Although occasionally I get people with a clue, but it usually takes some context to get their respect. Like the last time I was keeping up with a semi tractor trailer truck. I took the lane and wasn't messsed with. I had even passed the semi at one point. (he did re-pass me though)                 Date: 21 Aug 2007 16:23:55 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P wrote: > > As much as bicycling hating motorists want to whine about stop signs > being run by people on bicycles going 8mph, they actually prefer that over > having a bicyclist take the lane in front of them and come to a complete > stop such that they couldn't do their 5-10mph rolling stop. > Ok, Uncle. You're clearly going to shift the argument regardless. You don't think bicycle riders should be under any obligation to prove that they have any competence whatsoever on the rules of the road.                   Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:16:43 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fafs6b$uea$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Festivus wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> >> As much as bicycling hating motorists want to whine about stop signs >> being run by people on bicycles going 8mph, they actually prefer that over >> having a bicyclist take the lane in front of them and come to a complete >> stop such that they couldn't do their 5-10mph rolling stop. >> > > Ok, Uncle. You're clearly going to shift the argument regardless. You > don't think bicycle riders should be under any obligation to prove that > they have any competence whatsoever on the rules of the road. Obviously you are not paying attention. 1) Adult bicyclists already have passed the tests for an automobile in numbers that make going after the remaining tiny portion, silly. 2) To make bicyclists jump through more hoops and demonstrate competency greater than that required for an automobile is just the height of stupidity.                     Date: 22 Aug 2007 08:41:11 From: Festivus Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P wrote: > 1) Adult bicyclists already have passed the tests for an automobile in > numbers that make going after the remaining tiny portion, silly. Perhaps. Yet we still require EVERY motorist to have a valid license. Since the remaining portion is so tiny, the vast majority of the cyclists are already covered. Those who have not need only pass the same test required of anyone operating a motorized vehicle. You can even waive the driving test, putting bicycle riders under even less obligation to prove competency than the motorists. The point here is to prove some minimal level of education on the rules of the road you are sharing with automobiles. How this can be construed as a bad thing is hard to understand. > 2) To make bicyclists jump through more hoops and demonstrate competency > greater than that required for an automobile is just the height of > stupidity. When I actually suggest such a thing on this thread, feel free to remind me yet again.                       Date: 22 Aug 2007 15:16:29 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Festivus wrote: > > The point here is to prove some minimal level of education on the rules > of the road you are sharing with automobiles. How this can be construed > as a bad thing is hard to understand. The reason motorists have to prove some minimal level of education is because motor vehicles are demonstrably dangerous to others. Bicycles are generally not dangerous to other people. Wayne                       Date: 22 Aug 2007 11:16:57 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fahlev$p7o$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Festivus wrote: > Brent P wrote: > >> 1) Adult bicyclists already have passed the tests for an automobile in >> numbers that make going after the remaining tiny portion, silly. > > Perhaps. Yet we still require EVERY motorist to have a valid license. No, we don't. Government does. And by that government has lowered driving to an effective government granted privilege. Government for instance has decided to add all sorts of additional non-driving requirements to have what it has classified as a privilege. Government has also made different classes of people, some need to comply while others do not. For instance, illegal aliens get a slap on the wrist at most for driving without a license. The government has a interest in making them welcome here and thusly doesn't stomp on them as it would you or I. > Since the remaining portion is so tiny, the vast majority of the > cyclists are already covered. Those who have not need only pass the > same test required of anyone operating a motorized vehicle. You can > even waive the driving test, putting bicycle riders under even less > obligation to prove competency than the motorists. To what harm to bicyclists? To get that tiny percentage we will be subject to government whim. Government may add all sorts of conditions and taxes to have the license. Police will put up checkpoints where we will have to produce our papers. We will be stopped and forced to produce papers. Is this really good for bicycling? Is it really of any benefit to society? > The point here is to prove some minimal level of education on the rules > of the road you are sharing with automobiles. How this can be construed > as a bad thing is hard to understand. You need to break your conditioning that is all.       Date: 21 Aug 2007 09:10:28 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Festivus wrote: > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <1187659909.256766.84830@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> Paul Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> writes: >> >>> For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who >>> would wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be >>> required to pass a written test similar to the instructional permit >>> test. >> >> Fuck off. > > Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with > motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the > rules of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of > cagers doing the same. > > The behaviors we all routinely see: > > 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs > 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane > 3. Riding on sidewalks > 4. Failure to signal a turn (left especially) in congestion > 5. Riding on the wrong side of the road > 6. Etc. ad nauseum > > I'm not anti-bike. I commute 20 miles round trip 2-3 times a week in > all weather year round. Every time some ass on a bike decides he's > above the rules of the road I become a target for the next pissed-off > driver. Yup.     Date: 21 Aug 2007 06:26:28 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Tom Keats wrote: > > Fuck off. "How shall we fuck off, O Lord?" (Arthur to Brian) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:56:16 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone Tom Keats wrote: > In article <1187659909.256766.84830@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > Paul Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> writes: > >> For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who >> would wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be >> required to pass a written test similar to the instructional permit >> test. > > Fuck off. I'm guessing your dinner was less than pleasing this evening.   Date: 20 Aug 2007 17:45:36 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187649003.705255.204220@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, bdbafh <bdbafh@gmail.com > writes: > Sorry about feeding the troll. No sweat, don't worry about it. > Perhaps the thread can be hijacked into something useful. > It appears that this book is finally about to ship: > Bicycling & the Law: Your Rights as a Cyclist > http://www.velogear.com/prodinfo.asp?number=VP+LAW Kewl! I'm gonna look for that book. Thanx for the heads-up. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 20 Aug 2007 18:31:49 From: Paul Berg Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone ~ BEFORE, I GO ON ANY FURTHER. I WANT IT TO BE KNOWN, THAT I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT BICYCLES AND BICYCLISTS IN "HIGH VOLUME TRAFFIC AREAS". If a bicyclist has a valid drivers or moped license, I see no need for such an individual to take any further testing. For they have already demonstrated their knowledge of the rules of the road. For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test. Bicyclists with a suspended or revoked drivers, moped or bicycle license would not be allowed to ride a bicycle in "high volume traffic areas". As far as defining a "high volume traffic area", I would leave that to local governments with guidance, by law, from the state legislature. I would hope that any law would allowed for the highest amount of public input in designating "high volume traffic areas". As far helmet, insurance, bicycle equipment and bicyclist safety requirements, I would leave that for the state legislature to decide. These are things that should be uniform throughout the state. And, remember I'm only talking about bicyclists and bicycles in "high volume traffic areas" here. ~     Date: 20 Aug 2007 20:56:05 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <1187659909.256766.84830@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com >, Paul Berg wrote: > ~ > > BEFORE, I GO ON ANY FURTHER. I WANT IT TO BE KNOWN, THAT I'M ONLY > TALKING ABOUT BICYCLES AND BICYCLISTS IN "HIGH VOLUME TRAFFIC AREAS". As if this makes it any different. > If a bicyclist has a valid drivers or moped license, I see no need for > such an individual to take any further testing. For they have already > demonstrated their knowledge of the rules of the road. I'll wager aproximately 99% of adult bicyclists already have passed the test to drive an automobile. > For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would > wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to > pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test. All you want to do is reduce bicycling, just be honest and admit it. You accept the joke that is drivers' licensing for an automobile but are demanding real demonstrations of competence to ride a bicycle. If the licensing were equal, it is already accomplished to as high of a degree as is possible.   Date: 20 Aug 2007 17:47:34 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <8373-46CA0D36-1081@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net >, Paul Berg wrote: > ~ > > In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a > motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This > supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of > the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also > required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and > have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and > meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states > have the same or similar requirements. > > With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of > commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a > serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance > requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume > traffic areas. > > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should > catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that > the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some > type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their > vehicles do. Basically you want to discourage the use of bicycles by using the weight of the majority just as has been done with motorcycles. I find it remarkable that having anything more the ritual of a test for driving is so fought against, but for smaller lighter vehicles we have to have real tests of competency and knowledge. You do understand that somewhere around oh, I'd say roughly 99% of the adult bicyclists have already passed the 'tests' to drive an automobile, and thusly should already know the vehicle code. Sure, they might not know some finer points, but they don't know the finer points for driving cars and smaller trucks (both skill wise and the vehicle code) either. When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles off the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until then, incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think darwin's (maybe stolen) theory)     Date: 20 Aug 2007 18:51:14 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle Brent P wrote: > In article <8373-46CA0D36-1081@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net>, Paul Berg wrote: > >>~ >> >>In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a >>motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This >>supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of >>the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also >>required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and >>have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and >>meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states >>have the same or similar requirements. >> >>With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of >>commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a >>serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance >>requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume >>traffic areas. >> >>The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for >>children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should >>catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that >>the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some >>type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their >>vehicles do. > > > Basically you want to discourage the use of bicycles by using the weight > of the majority just as has been done with motorcycles. > > I find it remarkable that having anything more the ritual of a test for > driving is so fought against, but for smaller lighter vehicles we have to > have real tests of competency and knowledge. > > You do understand that somewhere around oh, I'd say roughly 99% of the > adult bicyclists have already passed the 'tests' to drive an automobile, > and thusly should already know the vehicle code. Sure, they might not > know some finer points, but they don't know the finer points for driving > cars and smaller trucks (both skill wise and the vehicle code) either. > > When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles off > the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until then, > incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think darwin's > (maybe stolen) theory) > I dunno, the average bicyclist in my area - and there are more here than anywhere else I've ever lived - is even LESS likely to obey any traffic laws at all than the average motorist. Of course, you don't need a license to get a citation, but you DO need a cop that's willing to ticket. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel       Date: 20 Aug 2007 18:00:42 From: Brent P Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone In article <fad5t20h3q@news2.newsguy.com >, Nate Nagel wrote: > I dunno, the average bicyclist in my area - and there are more here than > anywhere else I've ever lived - is even LESS likely to obey any traffic > laws at all than the average motorist. It's about the same where I am. > Of course, you don't need a license to get a citation, but you DO need a > cop that's willing to ticket. IME the only cops that go after bicyclists are the ones who believe bicyclists have no business using the road. The result of that is the ones who ride a bicycle like a toy are left alone while vehicluar bicyclists are pulled over for legal riding.   Date: 20 Aug 2007 22:30:03 From: bdbafh Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone On Aug 20, 5:52 pm, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote: > ~ > > In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a > motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This > supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of > the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also > required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and > have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and > meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states > have the same or similar requirements. > > With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of > commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a > serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance > requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume > traffic areas. > > The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for > children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should > catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that > the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some > type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their > vehicles do. > > ~ Let me guess ... you sell automotive and motorcycle insurance? You also believe that more government is better than less government? Exactly what problem are you intending to solve? Perhaps a newsgroup that is local to Oregon is the best place for you to have an intelligent discussion of this "issue"? "We now need to insured the public" Uh, perhaps you need to take another stab at that one. Sorry about feeding the troll. Perhaps the thread can be hijacked into something useful. It appears that this book is finally about to ship: Bicycling & the Law: Your Rights as a Cyclist http://www.velogear.com/prodinfo.asp?number=VP+LAW -bdbafh   Date: 20 Aug 2007 17:11:41 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle In article <8373-46CA0D36-1081@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net >, Paul Berg <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote: > >With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of >commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a >serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance >requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume >traffic areas. Happy trolling. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.