I saw Critical Mass

[KingOfTheApes]

and didn't like what I saw. I was coming on the bus (how else if
riding a bike is so dangerous on that road), and all of a sudden I see
a bunch of cyclists loosely riding the road. Some of them darting to
block the whole 3 lane road, and then back to taking 1 or 2 lanes. The
bus driver patiently slows to their pace for a while, until he decided
he had a schedule and blasted the horn at the unruly riders taking
unnecessary lanes...

First of all, nobody knew what they were up to. Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause. And secondly, that strategy
of blocking all lanes, doesn't make you friends.

So the wild monkeys were in rebellion, but nobody knew their cause. A
good slogan for the T-shirts would have been: "Hey, do like we did and
come out of your cages. R-evolution!"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Riding a bike costs peanuts --which is why monkeys love biking"

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88

VELORUTION!
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote91

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by KingOfTheApes
and didn't like what I saw. I was coming on the bus (how else if
riding a bike is so dangerous on that road), and all of a sudden I see
a bunch of cyclists loosely riding the road. Some of them darting to
block the whole 3 lane road, and then back to taking 1 or 2 lanes. The
bus driver patiently slows to their pace for a while, until he decided
he had a schedule and blasted the horn at the unruly riders taking
unnecessary lanes...
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to. Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause. And secondly, that strategy
of blocking all lanes, doesn't make you friends.
So the wild monkeys were in rebellion, but nobody knew their cause. A
good slogan for the T-shirts would have been: "Hey, do like we did and
come out of your cages. R-evolution!"

"The revolution will not be televised"

[Bill Sornson]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
"The revolution will not be televised"

http://www.cbs8.com/flv/video_pop_hd3.php?startID=135672&cat=undefined

[Bill Sornson]

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by Scott M. Kozel
"The revolution will not be televised"

http://www.cbs8.com/flv/video_pop_hd3.php?startID=135672&cat=undefined

Ooops. Looks like you have to click the "Critical Mass" banner on
left side of video pane.

[Tim McNamara]

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by Scott M. Kozel
"The revolution will not be televised"

http://www.cbs8.com/flv/video_pop_hd3.php?startID=135672&cat=undefined

CM is sure a bunch o' twits. They, like too many others, have
confused being anti-car with being pro-bike. They are not the same.

[Tom Keats]

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by Scott M. Kozel
"The revolution will not be televised"

http://www.cbs8.com/flv/video_pop_hd3.php?startID=135672&cat=undefined

CM is sure a bunch o' twits. They, like too many others, have
confused being anti-car with being pro-bike. They are not the same.

They're pro Freedom Of Movement. Something of which
streams of POVs denies people.

Every urban rush hour is a Critical Mass of cars &
their drivers. A metallic and mechanized Critical
Mass that casts humanity aside.

CM isn't a showcase about the good things about bicycles.

It's about the often stupid ways we people get
ourselves around.

Anyone who dislikes monthly bicycle Critical Mass should have
a real antipathy toward daily car Critical Mass -- and maybe
wise-up and stop contributing to it.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jul 27, 3:38 am, ***@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

<sniped for clarity>

- on Critical Mass -

Post by Tom Keats
CM isn't a showcase about the good things about bicycles.

BINGO!!!

<remainder snipped>

[Tom Keats]

Post by Ozark Bicycle
<sniped for clarity>

Snipped for what?

Post by Ozark Bicycle
- on Critical Mass -

Post by Tom Keats
CM isn't a showcase about the good things about bicycles.

BINGO!!!
<remainder snipped>

Critical Mass is a showcase of the bad things about POV cars.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Tim McNamara]

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Ozark Bicycle
<sniped for clarity>

Snipped for what?

Post by Ozark Bicycle
- on Critical Mass -

Post by Tom Keats
CM isn't a showcase about the good things about bicycles.

BINGO!!!
<remainder snipped>

Critical Mass is a showcase of the bad things about POV cars.

You wish. CM is mostly a showcase of the arrrogance, stupidity and
aggression of its participants.

I ride my bike 5,000-7,000 miles a year and have been riding bike over
40 years. As a percentage of riding time my bad experiences with car
drivers have been extremely few and far between. I know people who
have frequent problems with drivers and- watching them ride- I know
why. They ride their bikes like assholes. They don't pay attention
to what's going on around them, so they have to react instead of
anticipating. They expect to have the right of way when the right of
way actually belongs to someone else. They don't think traffic laws
apply to them. Etc. Most of the time, cyclists create their own
problems on the road.

[Tom Keats]

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Ozark Bicycle
<sniped for clarity>

Snipped for what?

Post by Ozark Bicycle
- on Critical Mass -

Post by Tom Keats
CM isn't a showcase about the good things about bicycles.

BINGO!!!
<remainder snipped>

Critical Mass is a showcase of the bad things about POV cars.

You wish. CM is mostly a showcase of the arrrogance, stupidity and
aggression of its participants.
I ride my bike 5,000-7,000 miles a year and have been riding bike over
40 years. As a percentage of riding time my bad experiences with car
drivers have been extremely few and far between. I know people who
have frequent problems with drivers and- watching them ride- I know
why. They ride their bikes like assholes. They don't pay attention
to what's going on around them, so they have to react instead of
anticipating. They expect to have the right of way when the right of
way actually belongs to someone else. They don't think traffic laws
apply to them. Etc. Most of the time, cyclists create their own
problems on the road.

Your experience differs so greatly from my own.

Here in Vancouver BC, Critical Mass is quite benign.
In fact, on the rare occasions where things go a little
awry and contentions arise between riders & drivers,
there is much introspection, consideration and discussion
among CM participants as to how to better handle things
in future.

Nevertheless, there are always some social write-offs
who ride their bikes as poorly, discourteously and
inconsiderately as they drive their cars.


cheers,
Tom

[Tim McNamara]

Here in Vancouver BC, Critical Mass is quite benign. In fact, on
the rare occasions where things go a little awry and contentions
arise between riders & drivers, there is much introspection,
consideration and discussion among CM participants as to how to
better handle things in future.

Americans and Canadians tend to be different, in my experience.

I have friends who moved to Gabriola a not too long ago. Maybe I'll
get to see a Vancouver CM when I go visit them sometime.

[Tom Keats]

Post by Tim McNamara

Here in Vancouver BC, Critical Mass is quite benign. In fact, on
the rare occasions where things go a little awry and contentions
arise between riders & drivers, there is much introspection,
consideration and discussion among CM participants as to how to
better handle things in future.

Americans and Canadians tend to be different, in my experience.
I have friends who moved to Gabriola a not too long ago. Maybe I'll
get to see a Vancouver CM when I go visit them sometime.

I hope you do get to come here to Vancouver, to just plain
enjoy riding here, not necessarily in our Critical Mass.

We have a beautiful riding environment here, and I thoroughly
appreciate it. It's a blessing to be here. We're not Utopia,
but we /are/ known as LotusLand. We have a thriving bicycling
populace, so many local car drivers (although not all) understand
what it's like to participate as traffic on a bicycle. It's not
perfect, but y'know what? We're getting there.

We did have a fairly recent Critical Mass where things /did/
go a little awry. Basically, a large influx of newbies who
didn't quite "get it" surprisingly showed up. Under normal
circumstances, the more experienced CM riders rise to the
need to take care of their fellow riders; to judiciously
cork when necessary, to take care of stragglers and keep the
ride together, and to diplomatically (in a range of degrees)
keep certain people with chips on their shoulders, from
turning the event into something negative and contentious.

But this time, the size of the ride caught people unawares,
and as a result it got segmented by traffic lights, and
not as self-governed as it should have been.

The matter was intensely discussed on our local VeloLove
Listserv, and subsequent but civil and polite measures
will be taken.

The next ride will be a beauty. So will September's
Equinox ride. And the Lantern Ride in October.

I like to think that people around the world aren't
so different. Living in Vancouver, I've gotten to
meet people from PRC, Hong Kong, Taiwan, The Punjab,
Iraq, Iran, UAE, Kenya, Mozambique, Viet Nam, Singapore,
Australia, New Zealand, Papua/New Guinea, Fiji, Uraguay,
Peru, Colombia, Romania, Hungary, Poland, The Ukraine,
Israel, Lebanon, South Africa, Samoa, Denmark, Germany,
Russia, Greece, South Carolina, Mongolia, Japan, Texas,
Italy, Sri Lanka, France, Borneo, Portugal, Norway,
The British Isles (including The Channel Islands,)
Finland, Chile, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Turkey, Newfoundland
(which has a more distinct & venerable culture than Quebec)
and a bunch of native, "aboriginal" (home-grown) people.

And y'know what? I've learned that people all around the
world are basically good. They care about you, and we care
about them. None of us wants to step on anybody's toes.

Humanity as whole is a big, loveable thing.
Nice people abound.

But nobody's big enough to hug us all at once
except You-Know-Who. And he refrains from doing so,
because he'd probably squeeze our heads off in
so doing. And then there'd be much blood-squirting
and fainting. Not a good thing.

It's good that we have a somewhat stand-off-ish
Sagalie Tyee.

It's also good that humanity is not /too/ loveably
huggable. That could be our demise. The Almighty
gave us flaws for our own self-preservation.
From Him, Herself.

I've gotta listen to Alice Cooper's Flush The Fashion,
now. + "Hey Stupid" + "Lost In America."

This is gonna be good!

And then I've gotta go back to work tomorrow morning.

Oh, well.


cheers,
Tom

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Tom Keats
...
But nobody's big enough to hug us all at once
except You-Know-Who....

Eddy Merckx!

[James Thomson]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Tom Keats
But nobody's big enough to hug us all at once
except You-Know-Who....

Eddy Merckx!

I thought he meant Chalo...

James Thomson

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Tim McNamara

Here in Vancouver BC, Critical Mass is quite benign.  In fact, on
the rare occasions where things go a little awry and contentions
arise between riders & drivers, there is much introspection,
consideration and discussion among CM participants as to how to
better handle things in future.

Americans and Canadians tend to be different, in my experience.
I have friends who moved to Gabriola a not too long ago.  Maybe I'll
get to see a Vancouver CM when I go visit them sometime.

I hope you do get to come here to Vancouver, to just plain
enjoy riding here, not necessarily in our Critical Mass.
We have a beautiful riding environment here, and I thoroughly
appreciate it.  It's a blessing to be here.  We're not Utopia,
but we /are/ known as LotusLand.  We have a thriving bicycling
populace, so many local car drivers (although not all) understand
what it's like to participate as traffic on a bicycle.  It's not
perfect, but y'know what?  We're getting there.
We did have a fairly recent Critical Mass where things /did/
go a little awry.  Basically, a large influx of newbies who
didn't quite "get it" surprisingly showed up.  Under normal
circumstances, the more experienced CM riders rise to the
need to take care of their fellow riders; to judiciously
cork when necessary, to take care of stragglers and keep the
ride together, and to diplomatically (in a range of degrees)
keep certain people with chips on their shoulders, from
turning the event into something negative and contentious.
But this time, the size of the ride caught people unawares,
and as a result it got segmented by traffic lights, and
not as self-governed as it should have been.
The matter was intensely discussed on our local VeloLove
Listserv, and subsequent but civil and polite measures
will be taken.
The next ride will be a beauty.  So will September's
Equinox ride.  And the Lantern Ride in October.
I like to think that people around the world aren't
so different.  Living in Vancouver, I've gotten to
meet people from PRC, Hong Kong, Taiwan, The Punjab,
Iraq, Iran, UAE, Kenya, Mozambique, Viet Nam, Singapore,
Australia, New Zealand, Papua/New Guinea, Fiji, Uraguay,
Peru, Colombia, Romania, Hungary, Poland, The Ukraine,
Israel, Lebanon, South Africa, Samoa, Denmark, Germany,
Russia, Greece, South Carolina, Mongolia, Japan, Texas,
Italy, Sri Lanka, France, Borneo, Portugal, Norway,
The British Isles (including The Channel Islands,)
Finland, Chile, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Turkey, Newfoundland
(which has a more distinct & venerable culture than Quebec)
and a bunch of native, "aboriginal" (home-grown) people.
And y'know what?  I've learned that people all around the
world are basically good.  They care about you, and we care
about them.  None of us wants to step on anybody's toes.

Have you had many close encounters with "the beast"? I mean those SUV
drivers who drive recklessly and bully others?

But, like you say, they may be basically good --once you remove the
SUV and the cell phone. ;)

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by cudak888
Exactly - but as I've stated before, it's most obvious that cyclists
that wish to be "law abiding" can't even agree upon anything. Look at
this forum. Human nature.

No hope for it unless some folks are either ready to either swallow
their pride, compromise, or disagree in a civilized fashion for once.

-Kurt

***

If you are talking about human nature, you must be talking about the
"monkey within." Hey, that's what the scientists say. So we must
address them with colorful activities, T-shirts, bananas and anything
that makes the monkey happy. And, like I said before, we must promote
biking with sexy monkeys, I mean sexy ladies.

Coming out of the cage is very important for them too!

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tim McNamara

Here in Vancouver BC, Critical Mass is quite benign.  In fact, on
the rare occasions where things go a little awry and contentions
arise between riders & drivers, there is much introspection,
consideration and discussion among CM participants as to how to
better handle things in future.

Americans and Canadians tend to be different, in my experience.

Also don't forget the cyclists hybernate over there.

Otherwise I don't see how their sensible policies like *healthcare for
all* translate into *bike facilities for all*.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Tim McNamara

Here in Vancouver BC, Critical Mass is quite benign. In
fact, on the rare occasions where things go a little awry
and contentions arise between riders & drivers, there is
much introspection, consideration and discussion among CM
participants as to how to better handle things in future.

Americans and Canadians tend to be different, in my experience.

=v= This is not an American/Canadian thing. The same is true of
American CMs, in my experience. And I've experience quite a few
of them at this point. (That said, the Vancouver CM is one of
my favorites. See this lovely blog entry and photoset:

http://lipmagazine.org/ccarlsson/archives/2008/06/thank_you_corke.html

By Chris Carlsson, one of the originators of the CM concept!)
<_Jym_>

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by socalboomer
The only problem I see with this is that most of those drivers ARE law-
abiding citizens (okay, we all speed. . .) so using this quote would
imply that we want cyclists to be seen as law-abiding citizens and
drivers as hooligans - and that's not legitimate.

"Why can't we all just get along" - abused, overused, but still. . .
the vast majority of drivers aren't bad toward us, we're focusing on
the bad ones; just as the bad riders amongst us are the ones that are
picked out as bad and used to spread the blame on all the rest of us.

Before we start working on them, I think we need to clean our own
house. CM and other scofflaws give drivers the excuse to continue to
be aggravated against us.

***

Yes I believe that we can all get along. But drivers are neither evil
nor the good guys of the movies. Actually the good guys are the
cyclists because they are doing something for the environment and are
not feeding the war.

Speeding in itself is less of the problem. In Germany drivers speed
the most and cyclists have the most bike facilities outside of
Holland. The real problem is reckless drivers, oversized vehicles, and
the lack of lane discipline. If they are speeding on the right lane,
the cyclists are most at risk.

[Frank Drackman]

Post by Tim McNamara
I ride my bike 5,000-7,000 miles a year and have been riding bike over
40 years. As a percentage of riding time my bad experiences with car
drivers have been extremely few and far between. I know people who
have frequent problems with drivers and- watching them ride- I know
why. They ride their bikes like assholes. They don't pay attention
to what's going on around them, so they have to react instead of
anticipating. They expect to have the right of way when the right of
way actually belongs to someone else. They don't think traffic laws
apply to them. Etc. Most of the time, cyclists create their own
problems on the road.

I agree.

It is frustrating to see cyclists do silly things to piss off drivers. I
live close to where a bike route crosses a road. There is a stop sign that
a lot of cyclists ignore and I frequently watch the confrontations between
the riders and the drivers. Sometimes I see drivers playing chicken with
the cyclists who blow through the stop sign. Not good all around.

[Tim McNamara]

Post by Frank Drackman

Post by Tim McNamara
I ride my bike 5,000-7,000 miles a year and have been riding bike
over 40 years. As a percentage of riding time my bad experiences
with car drivers have been extremely few and far between. I know
people who have frequent problems with drivers and- watching them
ride- I know why. They ride their bikes like assholes. They don't
pay attention to what's going on around them, so they have to react
instead of anticipating. They expect to have the right of way when
the right of way actually belongs to someone else. They don't
think traffic laws apply to them. Etc. Most of the time, cyclists
create their own problems on the road.

I agree.
It is frustrating to see cyclists do silly things to piss off
drivers. I live close to where a bike route crosses a road. There
is a stop sign that a lot of cyclists ignore and I frequently watch
the confrontations between the riders and the drivers. Sometimes I
see drivers playing chicken with the cyclists who blow through the
stop sign. Not good all around.

Especially for the cyclist, who is going to lose that confrontation.
I see a lot of cyclists every day who seem intent on thinning the gene
pool.

Not that I see a lot of law-abiding drivers, either. People in cars
seem every bit as likely to violate the law as people on bikes.

[Janet]

Post by Frank Drackman

Post by Tim McNamara
I ride my bike 5,000-7,000 miles a year and have been riding bike over
40 years. As a percentage of riding time my bad experiences with car
drivers have been extremely few and far between. I know people who
have frequent problems with drivers and- watching them ride- I know
why. They ride their bikes like assholes. They don't pay attention
to what's going on around them, so they have to react instead of
anticipating. They expect to have the right of way when the right of
way actually belongs to someone else. They don't think traffic laws
apply to them. Etc. Most of the time, cyclists create their own
problems on the road.

I agree.
It is frustrating to see cyclists do silly things to piss off drivers. I
live close to where a bike route crosses a road. There is a stop sign that
a lot of cyclists ignore and I frequently watch the confrontations between
the riders and the drivers. Sometimes I see drivers playing chicken with
the cyclists who blow through the stop sign. Not good all around.

I too agree. There are some cyclist that just do stupid things to make
all cyclist look bad. There's a group (4-6 people) that ride in a pace
line, dressed like they are in the Tour de France (it's more than just
wearing cycling shorts/shirts for comfort) who routinely blow through a
red light at a busy intersection, making a right turn onto a busy
street. That intersection has a "no turn on red" sign because visibility
is not good (It's even hard to see large vehicles making a turn there,
which sometimes happens when drivers ignore the "no right on red" sign).
Besides blowing through the red light, they then have to swerve around
parked cars that cannot be seen until they are already around the
corner. One of these days they are going to get hit by a car going
through the green light and not expecting anyone entering the street
from that direction and then complain about bad drivers.

Janet

[Peter Cole]

Post by Janet
I too agree. There are some cyclist that just do stupid things to make
all cyclist look bad. There's a group (4-6 people) that ride in a pace
line, dressed like they are in the Tour de France (it's more than just
wearing cycling shorts/shirts for comfort)

Who cares what they wear? The fashion police?

Post by Janet
who routinely blow through a
red light at a busy intersection, making a right turn onto a busy
street. That intersection has a "no turn on red" sign because visibility
is not good (It's even hard to see large vehicles making a turn there,
which sometimes happens when drivers ignore the "no right on red" sign).

Drivers ignore ROR bans all the time. They seem unconcerned that they
are ruining the image of drivers.

I've never seen a ROR situation that would require (functionally) a bike
to stop. Since (through-traveling) motorists don't have any idea of
whether ROR is allowed or not (unless they are familiar with the cross
street), they should expect right-turning traffic, legal or not.

Post by Janet
Besides blowing through the red light, they then have to swerve around
parked cars that cannot be seen until they are already around the
corner. One of these days they are going to get hit by a car going
through the green light and not expecting anyone entering the street
from that direction and then complain about bad drivers.

So what? Most bicycle accidents are single vehicle (the bike) usually
because the cyclist does something stupid. If you're really concerned
about cyclists hurting themselves, work on that.

ROR restrictions don't make a lot of sense for cyclists, they're (we're)
much smaller and more agile than MV's. The real right turn threats are
getting "hooked" by a driver that fails to signal or crushed by a truck
or bus. I go when it's safe, and don't when it's not. I don't rely on
MV-oriented restrictions to protect my safety, they won't. I'm also not
going to wait behind a long line of cars. If I'm going to do that, I
might as well drive, too. Motorists ruin the road for cycling,
especially at rush hour. If they were courteous, they'd make a bigger
effort to just get out of the way. On top of that, they're loud, smell
bad, and spew tons of heat -- much ruder than the ugliest spandex outfits.

[Janet]

Post by Peter Cole

Post by Janet
I too agree. There are some cyclist that just do stupid things to make
all cyclist look bad. There's a group (4-6 people) that ride in a pace
line, dressed like they are in the Tour de France (it's more than just
wearing cycling shorts/shirts for comfort)

Who cares what they wear? The fashion police?

Because people that don't ride ASSUME That people dressed like
Tour-de-France wannabe's KNOW the CORRECT way for cyclists to ride on
the road. When they do stupid things, they make it bad for the rest of us.

Post by Peter Cole

Post by Janet
who routinely blow through a red light at a busy intersection, making
a right turn onto a busy street. That intersection has a "no turn on
red" sign because visibility is not good (It's even hard to see large
vehicles making a turn there, which sometimes happens when drivers
ignore the "no right on red" sign).

Drivers ignore ROR bans all the time. They seem unconcerned that they
are ruining the image of drivers.
I've never seen a ROR situation that would require (functionally) a bike
to stop. Since (through-traveling) motorists don't have any idea of
whether ROR is allowed or not (unless they are familiar with the cross
street), they should expect right-turning traffic, legal or not.

READ my post - VISIBILITY is BAD. THERE are CAR-CAR accidents because
whatever is blowing through the red light CANNOT be seen until it's too
late. The people with the GREEN LIGHT have the RIGHT OF WAY and it's the
RESPONSIBILITY of the people (REGARDLESS of WHAT their vehicle of choice
is) to STOP AT THE RED LIGHT!

Post by Peter Cole

Post by Janet
Besides blowing through the red light, they then have to swerve around
parked cars that cannot be seen until they are already around the
corner. One of these days they are going to get hit by a car going
through the green light and not expecting anyone entering the street
from that direction and then complain about bad drivers.

So what? Most bicycle accidents are single vehicle (the bike) usually
because the cyclist does something stupid. If you're really concerned
about cyclists hurting themselves, work on that.
ROR restrictions don't make a lot of sense for cyclists, they're (we're)
much smaller and more agile than MV's. The real right turn threats are
getting "hooked" by a driver that fails to signal or crushed by a truck
or bus. I go when it's safe, and don't when it's not. I don't rely on
MV-oriented restrictions to protect my safety, they won't. I'm also not
going to wait behind a long line of cars. If I'm going to do that, I
might as well drive, too. Motorists ruin the road for cycling,
especially at rush hour. If they were courteous, they'd make a bigger
effort to just get out of the way. On top of that, they're loud, smell
bad, and spew tons of heat -- much ruder than the ugliest spandex outfits.

[BIG ONE]

Post by Janet
THERE are CAR-CAR accidents because

cars can be dangerous and the people in them fail to drive them with
sufficient care as to avoid collision.

Calling car crashes 'accidents' is really quite misleading because if
the person in control of the vehicle at the time is clearly not taking
appropriate action as to avoid endangering others ... and this is not
accidental but a deliberately reckless activity - and your choice of
words makes it sound acceptable. The defense you offer is that drivers
do not expect to have obsticles in front of them which is possible,
but evidence of poor driving, a lack of caution and therefore any
collision resulting would not be an accident but the result of the
driver not looking where they were going... so yes it would be valid
to point the finger at the bad driver who murdered the cyclists.

Post by Janet
whatever is blowing through the red light CANNOT be seen until it's too
late.

do you mean:
'cannot be seen by people in cars....' ?
is it impossible for them to be in such control of their vehicle that
they cannot help but charge headlong into the unknown?
I have never seen the location you mention, but am sure you could
provide photographs and similar referencing to support your claim if
it is true ... and present it to the appropriate authority - who would
no doubt take action to avoid this reckless driving
more likely you mean:
'often is not seen by the more reckless people in control of
cars....'

Post by Janet
The people with the GREEN LIGHT have the RIGHT OF WAY

doesn't holding a right entail a responsibility to act such that
acting upon that right does not endanger others ?

Post by Janet
and it's the
RESPONSIBILITY of the people (REGARDLESS of WHAT their vehicle of choice
is) to STOP AT THE RED LIGHT!

so those who choose not to are not responsible ?
if they are not responsible you can't hold it against them
children are not generally responsible for earning money & it would be
silly to SHOUT AT THEM for not doing so

I will not address your comments regarding choice of vehicle
as
I believe Mr. Cole has done a good job at that which you have for some
unknown reason decided to ignore

[Bill Z.]

Post by BIG ONE

Post by Janet
THERE are CAR-CAR accidents because

cars can be dangerous and the people in them fail to drive them with
sufficient care as to avoid collision.
Calling car crashes 'accidents' is really quite misleading because if
the person in control of the vehicle at the time is clearly not taking
appropriate action as to avoid endangering others ... and this is not
accidental but a deliberately reckless activity - and your choice of
words makes it sound acceptable.

Not really true: whlie many (probably most) accidents are the result
of drivers not leaving sufficient safety margins, the reality is that
any reasonable safety margin you leave can be exceeded, although with
low probability. For a safe driver who ends up in an accident, what
may happen is that a number of things go wrong all at once. While the
driver could handle each easily due to the safety margin, with all of
them at one time, the driver is overwhelmed. If you say a driver
should leave enough of a safety margin to handle mlutiple simultaneous
incidents, the obvious question is "how many?" and for any answer less
than infinity, you still have a nonzero chance of an accident as the
number you give can be exceeded.

BTW, the newspapers in the Bay Area had a lot of coverage of an
accident in San Francisco that happened a year or two ago. A driver
crossed over the center line, hit a car making a right turn into a
parking lot, bounced off that and side swiped a number of parked cars,
knocking down some motorcycles, and then something leaked some
gasoline, so the whole mess went up in flames. It turned out that the
cause was a sudden medical emergency - some sort of stroke or seizure
- that more or less instantly resulted in the driver not being able to
control the vehicle. It's not the sort of thing anyone can plan for
when there are no symptoms in advance.

[BIG ONE]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by BIG ONE

Post by Janet
THERE are CAR-CAR accidents because

cars can be dangerous and the people in them fail to drive them with
sufficient care as to avoid collision.
Calling car crashes 'accidents' is really quite misleading because if
the person in control of the vehicle at the time is clearly not taking
appropriate action as to avoid endangering others ... and this is not
accidental but a deliberately reckless activity - and your choice of
words makes it sound acceptable.

Not really true: whlie many (probably most) accidents are the result
of drivers not leaving sufficient safety margins, the reality is that
any reasonable safety margin you leave can be exceeded, although with
low probability. For a safe driver who ends up in an accident, what
may happen is that a number of things go wrong all at once. While the
driver could handle each easily due to the safety margin, with all of
them at one time, the driver is overwhelmed. If you say a driver
should leave enough of a safety margin to handle mlutiple simultaneous
incidents, the obvious question is "how many?" and for any answer less
than infinity, you still have a nonzero chance of an accident as the
number you give can be exceeded.
BTW, the newspapers in the Bay Area had a lot of coverage of an
accident in San Francisco that happened a year or two ago. A driver
crossed over the center line, hit a car making a right turn into a
parking lot, bounced off that and side swiped a number of parked cars,
knocking down some motorcycles, and then something leaked some
gasoline, so the whole mess went up in flames. It turned out that the
cause was a sudden medical emergency - some sort of stroke or seizure
- that more or less instantly resulted in the driver not being able to
control the vehicle. It's not the sort of thing anyone can plan for
when there are no symptoms in advance.

you are mostly correct - if you take the position that there is a
valid justification for driving a car in the first place - I happen
not to be persuaded that such behavior has been justified. But that's
quite another story & not relevant to either critical mass, or any of
the groups crossposted to here.

but even in the example you provide, the stroke/seizure is not an
'accident' do you think the driver (had they survived) would come out
saying "sorry I didn't mean to have a stroke- it was just an
accident" ?
no ... it doesn't seem right somehow does it.

I agree that shit happens & we couldn't (nor may wish to) plan for
everything, and "accidents will happen" but to apply the word
'accident' to every one of the millions of yearly violent incidents
involving car use is just ignoring the problem.


back on topic - when CM run red lights it is often (IME) at the
insistence of the police who herd the mass.
Many cyclists such as myself disapprove of this practice http://stopatred.org/
surely a group is more efficient if every member is free to react
responsibly according to what they see best, while the marshalling of
the police simply makes the mass less efficient and slower as well as
denying liberty to a specific group for no good reason

I think I can hear someone at the back saying 'If this liberty is
good for cyclists why are you denying it for people in control of
cars?'
to which I reply-
Cyclists are not in the same league as car drivers when it comes to
taking care to avoid collisions, cyclists actually (and almost
universally) seek to avoid collisions, while people in control of cars
(who may at other times be cyclists) appear either to actively seek to
collide with objects, or to not take due care to avoid doing so.

[Bill Z.]

Post by BIG ONE

Post by Bill Z.
BTW, the newspapers in the Bay Area had a lot of coverage of an
accident in San Francisco that happened a year or two ago. A driver
crossed over the center line, hit a car making a right turn into a
parking lot, bounced off that and side swiped a number of parked cars,
knocking down some motorcycles, and then something leaked some
gasoline, so the whole mess went up in flames. It turned out that the
cause was a sudden medical emergency - some sort of stroke or seizure
- that more or less instantly resulted in the driver not being able to
control the vehicle. It's not the sort of thing anyone can plan for
when there are no symptoms in advance.

you are mostly correct - if you take the position that there is a
valid justification for driving a car in the first place - I happen
not to be persuaded that such behavior has been justified. But that's
quite another story & not relevant to either critical mass, or any of
the groups crossposted to here.

It's relevant to the post I replied to, which made a claim about
accidents in general. If you want to pretend that is off topic, you
should have complained about your own post.

Post by BIG ONE
but even in the example you provide, the stroke/seizure is not an
'accident' do you think the driver (had they survived) would come out
saying "sorry I didn't mean to have a stroke- it was just an
accident" ?
no ... it doesn't seem right somehow does it.

Except that what would really be said is that he was sorry that the
accident occurred, just as you might tell someone you were sorry to
learn that his/her house was hit by a tornado.

What's an accident is that the stroke/seizure occurred at a time when
it would result in a car crash.

Post by BIG ONE
I agree that shit happens & we couldn't (nor may wish to) plan for
everything, and "accidents will happen" but to apply the word
'accident' to every one of the millions of yearly violent incidents
involving car use is just ignoring the problem.

??? Read what I originally posted, specifically, "whlie many
(probably most) accidents are the result of drivers not leaving
sufficient safety margins, the reality is that any reasonable safety
margin you leave can be exceeded, although with low probability."

How is stating that many or most drivers involved in accdients are not
leaving sufficient safety margins ignoring the problem. Surely you
can't object to the word "accident":

1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without
one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and
unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an
undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or
unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by
an accident.

The word's standard meaning includes the case where people are not
acting with due care but don't expect the outcome.

Post by BIG ONE
back on topic - when CM run red lights it is often (IME) at the
insistence of the police who herd the mass.
Many cyclists such as myself disapprove of this practice http://stopatred.org/
surely a group is more efficient if every member is free to react
responsibly according to what they see best, while the marshalling of
the police simply makes the mass less efficient and slower as well as
denying liberty to a specific group for no good reason

State law allows the police to override traffic signals to expedite
traffic in particular circumstances (e.g., a large number of people
leaving from an event where the traffic-signal controller hardware
isn't up to the task.) Ignoring a red light at the direction of the
police is both legal and proper.

[BIG ONE]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by BIG ONE

Post by Bill Z.
BTW, the newspapers in the Bay Area had a lot of coverage of an
accident in San Francisco that happened a year or two ago. A driver
crossed over the center line, hit a car making a right turn into a
parking lot, bounced off that and side swiped a number of parked cars,
knocking down some motorcycles, and then something leaked some
gasoline, so the whole mess went up in flames. It turned out that the
cause was a sudden medical emergency - some sort of stroke or seizure
- that more or less instantly resulted in the driver not being able to
control the vehicle. It's not the sort of thing anyone can plan for
when there are no symptoms in advance.

you are mostly correct - if you take the position that there is a
valid justification for driving a car in the first place - I happen
not to be persuaded that such behavior has been justified. But that's
quite another story & not relevant to either critical mass, or any of
the groups crossposted to here.

It's relevant to the post I replied to, which made a claim about
accidents in general. If you want to pretend that is off topic, you
should have complained about your own post.

a bit touchy there Bill, no offence intended. - if you review the
comments I made to which you are replying you will no doubt discover
that I am not in the slightest being critical of your post (indeed I
support your conclusions), merely pointing towards the potential for
this thread to be taken even more off topic, than it was by (I
believe) Janet. You will see that I was informing you of my
convictions, regarding use of cars and stating that discussions of the
justification of use of cars which do not relate to cycling are not
strictly on topic in the majority of groups to which this thread has
been addressed ( I can't imagine what alt.planning.urban is included
for) and are not central as issue for CM as a movement, if at all. I
am sure every person whether they support CM or not has an opinion on
the matter, but here is not the place to discuss it - and so I stated
that I did not wish to do so and would not have been doing so if I had
not felt that some tendency to wander off topic onto the car driving
issues was not approaching.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by BIG ONE
but even in the example you provide, the stroke/seizure is not an
'accident' do you think the driver (had they survived) would come out
saying "sorry I didn't mean to have a stroke- it was just an
accident" ?
no ... it doesn't seem right somehow does it.

Except that what would really be said is that he was sorry that the
accident occurred, just as you might tell someone you were sorry to
learn that his/her house was hit by a tornado.
What's an accident is that the stroke/seizure occurred at a time when
it would result in a car crash.

arguably this is correct, when the word 'accident' is used to refer to
the unintentional and unavoidable tornado/stroke, and not the
collision itself.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by BIG ONE
I agree that shit happens & we couldn't (nor may wish to) plan for
everything, and "accidents will happen" but to apply the word
'accident' to every one of the millions of yearly violent incidents
involving car use is just ignoring the problem.

??? Read what I originally posted, specifically, "whlie many
(probably most) accidents are the result of drivers not leaving
sufficient safety margins, the reality is that any reasonable safety
margin you leave can be exceeded, although with low probability."

??? and I agree with the sentiment you had expressed (as I have and
had already posted) but as I have said - and will continue to say- I
disagree with the word 'accident' being used to describe every and any
collision involving a motorized vehicle (planes strangely enough don't
seem to have 'accidents' - they have crashes)

Post by Bill Z.
How is stating that many or most drivers involved in accdients are not
leaving sufficient safety margins ignoring the problem. Surely you
1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without
one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and
unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an
undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or
unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by
an accident.

I agree it could be and has been used in these ways... but why stop
there, it is not always even a noun, but to restrict it so would still
leave a very vague and imprecise word:

OED entry(snipped):

As in many other adopted words, the historical order in which the
senses appear in Eng. does not correspond to their logical
development, a fact still more noticeable in the derivatives.

I. Anything that happens.

1. {dag}a. An occurrence, incident, event. Obs. b. Anything
that happens without foresight or expectation; an unusual event, which
proceeds from some unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known
cause; a casualty, a contingency. the chapter of accidents: the
unforeseen course of events. c. esp. An unfortunate event, a
disaster, a mishap.

d. colloq. An accidental or untimely call of nature.

e. A child conceived or born as a result of an unintended
pregnancy; (an event which leads to) an unplanned pregnancy. Cf.
MISTAKE n. 1d. colloq.

2. abstractly, Chance, fortune. (By accident = Fr. par accident
(14th c.), L. per accidens.)

{dag}3. Med. An occurring symptom; esp. an unfavourable symptom.
Obs.

{dag}4. A casual appearance or effect, a phenomenon. Obs.

5. An irregular feature in a landscape; an undulation.

II. That which is present by chance, and therefore non-essential.

6. a. Logic. A property or quality not essential to our conception
of a substance; an attribute. Applied especially in Scholastic
Theology to the material qualities remaining in the sacramental bread
and wine after transubstantiation; the essence being alleged to be
changed, though the accidents remained the same.

b. Textual Criticism. = ACCIDENTAL B. n. d.

7. Hence, by extension, Any accidental or non-essential
accompaniment, quality, or property; an accessory, a non-essential.

8. Heraldry. An additional point or mark that may be retained or
omitted in a coat of arms.

{dag}9. Grammar. pl. (L. accidentia, Quintil.) The changes to
which words are subject, in accordance with the relations in which
they are used; the expression of the phenomena of gender, number,
case, mood, tense, etc. Obs. replaced by ACCIDENCE.

10. a. attrib. and Comb.

b. accident neurosis, a neurosis caused or precipitated by an
accident; accident-prone a., predisposed or likely to cause or attract
an accident; also absol.; so accident-proneness, such predisposition
or likelihood.

DRAFT ADDITIONS APRIL 2001

accident, n.

* accident and emergency n. chiefly Brit. and N.Z. attrib. of or
relating to a hospital department or ward that deals with patients
requiring urgent assessment and treatment of injuries and acute
illnesses (also absol.); abbreviated A and E; cf. CASUALTY n.
[

* colloq. an accident waiting to happen n. a situation which is
potentially hazardous, esp. one resulting from neglect or
carelessness; someone or something considered liable to cause such a
situation.

Post by Bill Z.
The word's standard meaning includes the case where people are not
acting with due care but don't expect the outcome.

yes. But, it is so commonplace a term that when used in relation to
the sort of risk filled activities to which we have been referring it
normalizes the severity of the danger - which I propose is a deceptive
use and certainly on occasions is not in the interest of portraying an
accurate relation of events.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by BIG ONE
back on topic - when CM run red lights it is often (IME) at the
insistence of the police who herd the mass.
Many cyclists such as myself disapprove of this practice http://stopatred.org/
surely a group is more efficient if every member is free to react
responsibly according to what they see best, while the marshalling of
the police simply makes the mass less efficient and slower as well as
denying liberty to a specific group for no good reason

State law allows the police to override traffic signals to expedite
traffic in particular circumstances (e.g., a large number of people
leaving from an event where the traffic-signal controller hardware
isn't up to the task.) Ignoring a red light at the direction of the
police is both legal and proper.

I am sure most people (cyclists included) would agree with you there.
But as I believe we are posting from separate continents the specifics
of law and liberty are perhaps best avoided.

[Bill Z.]

... ( I can't imagine what alt.planning.urban is included
for) and are not central as issue for CM as a movement, ...

Do you know who started to cross post it to there? I wasn't posting
at the start of the thread.

Post by Bill Z.
Except that what would really be said is that he was sorry that the
accident occurred, just as you might tell someone you were sorry to
learn that his/her house was hit by a tornado.
What's an accident is that the stroke/seizure occurred at a time when
it would result in a car crash.

arguably this is correct, when the word 'accident' is used to refer to
the unintentional and unavoidable tornado/stroke, and not the
collision itself.

Why? THat use of the word "accident" fits the dictionary definion.

??? and I agree with the sentiment you had expressed (as I have and
had already posted) but as I have said - and will continue to say- I
disagree with the word 'accident' being used to describe every and any
collision involving a motorized vehicle (planes strangely enough don't
seem to have 'accidents' - they have crashes)

<http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.asp>: the U.S. federal government (the
NTSB, specifically) uses the term "aviation accident database".
Planes seem to have "accidents".

Post by Bill Z.
1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without
one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and
unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an
undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or
unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by
an accident.

I agree it could be and has been used in these ways... but why stop
there, it is not always even a noun, but to restrict it so would still

Wrong - it wasn't being restricted. If one definition fits a
particular usage, then using the word in that way is just fine.

<long list of definitions snipped - they are irrelevant>.

Post by Bill Z.
State law allows the police to override traffic signals to expedite
traffic in particular circumstances (e.g., a large number of people
leaving from an event where the traffic-signal controller hardware
isn't up to the task.) Ignoring a red light at the direction of the
police is both legal and proper.

I am sure most people (cyclists included) would agree with you there.
But as I believe we are posting from separate continents the specifics
of law and liberty are perhaps best avoided.

Traffic laws are reasonably similar all over - if they weren't
Europeans would not be able to drive safely in the U.S.

[BIG ONE]

Post by Bill Z.

... ( I can't imagine what alt.planning.urban is included
for) and are not central as issue for CM as a movement, ...

Do you know who started to cross post it to there? I wasn't posting
at the start of the thread.

I think it was the monkey man with the t-shirts

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.
Except that what would really be said is that he was sorry that the
accident occurred, just as you might tell someone you were sorry to
learn that his/her house was hit by a tornado.
What's an accident is that the stroke/seizure occurred at a time when
it would result in a car crash.

arguably this is correct, when the word 'accident' is used to refer to
the unintentional and unavoidable tornado/stroke, and not the
collision itself.

Why? THat use of the word "accident" fits the dictionary definion.

as I posted there is not one dictionary definition, but at least ten.
The first of which is 'Anything that happens'
so if anything that happens is an accident, should we term everything
that happens 'accident' ? I don't think that would be clear as to what
we are intending, rather like smurfs replacing verbs and nouns with
'smurf'.

Post by Bill Z.

??? and I agree with the sentiment you had expressed (as I have and
had already posted) but as I have said - and will continue to say- I
disagree with the word 'accident' being used to describe every and any
collision involving a motorized vehicle (planes strangely enough don't
seem to have 'accidents' - they have crashes)

<http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.asp>: the U.S. federal government (the
NTSB, specifically) uses the term "aviation accident database".
Planes seem to have "accidents".

and this is a us govt. body for "investigating every civil aviation
accident in the United States" looks like they use the term to
describe everything & to cover pretty much anything that happens - a
quick google finds 27,600 instances of the word 'accident' on the site
in question. However, my claim was not a challenge to isolate an
example of the term 'plane accident', but rather a side remark upon
the undeniable more common use of the word 'crash' for planes. If you
believe that this is an accident try this - http://tinyurl.com/2q9j9y

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.
1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without
one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and
unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an
undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or
unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by
an accident.

I agree it could be and has been used in these ways... but why stop
there, it is not always even a noun, but to restrict it so would still

Wrong - it wasn't being restricted. If one definition fits a
particular usage, then using the word in that way is just fine.
<long list of definitions snipped - they are irrelevant>.

they are not irrelevant, that is what the word means. I don't know
where your definition came from but the use of the archaic verb
'befall' highlights a poor source. Do you use the word 'befall' often?
Do you even know what befall means? it means to happen - so again an
accident is (although in your definition intentionally obscured by
archaic language) 'Anything that happens' - leaving a 'road accident'
as anything that happens concerning a road - or a 'car accident' as
anything that happens concerning a car. Absolute trivializing nonsense
for example - http://tinyurl.com/2q9j9y

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.
State law allows the police to override traffic signals to expedite
traffic in particular circumstances (e.g., a large number of people
leaving from an event where the traffic-signal controller hardware
isn't up to the task.) Ignoring a red light at the direction of the
police is both legal and proper.

I am sure most people (cyclists included) would agree with you there.
But as I believe we are posting from separate continents the specifics
of law and liberty are perhaps best avoided.

Traffic laws are reasonably similar all over - if they weren't
Europeans would not be able to drive safely in the U.S.

perhaps some people can control a motorized vehicle sufficiently
safely for them to not cause death and disaster, I remain to be
convinced.

regarding your claim - perhaps a bit of reading would inform you that
you are mistaken:

article- 'American drivers in Europe: Different signing policy may
cause safety problems at uncontrolled intersections'
author- Summala, H
source - Accident Analysis & Prevention [Accid. Anal. Prev.]. Vol. 30,
no. 2, pp. 285-289. Mar 1998

or

article -"Accident risk of foreign drivers in various road
environments."
author - Yannis G, Golias J, Papadimitriou E.
source -J Safety Res. 2007;38(4):471-80. Epub 2007 Jul 31.

if you don't wish to read, perhaps you could think about what you
would do with your car when approaching a roundabout in the UK

However, as you have clearly no intention of remaining on topic and
returning to discussion of either cycling or CM, I do not intend to
reply further.

[Bill Z.]

Post by BIG ONE

Post by Bill Z.

Post by BIG ONE
arguably this is correct, when the word 'accident' is used to refer to
the unintentional and unavoidable tornado/stroke, and not the
collision itself.

Why? THat use of the word "accident" fits the dictionary definion.

as I posted there is not one dictionary definition, but at least ten.
The first of which is 'Anything that happens'

Sigh. You really need a refresher course in English.

Post by BIG ONE

Post by Bill Z.

Post by BIG ONE
??? and I agree with the sentiment you had expressed (as I have and
had already posted) but as I have said - and will continue to say- I
disagree with the word 'accident' being used to describe every and any
collision involving a motorized vehicle (planes strangely enough don't
seem to have 'accidents' - they have crashes)

<http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.asp>: the U.S. federal government (the
NTSB, specifically) uses the term "aviation accident database".
Planes seem to have "accidents".

and this is a us govt. body for "investigating every civil aviation
accident in the United States" looks like they use the term to
describe everything & to cover pretty much anything that happens - a
quick google finds 27,600 instances of the word 'accident' on the site

Of cours you find the word occurring a lot. THe NTSB (National
Transportation Safety Board) investigates accidents! You claimed,
however, that the word "accident" was not used in aviation, and the
page I quoted showed you to be wrong on that.

Post by BIG ONE
in question. However, my claim was not a challenge to isolate an
example of the term 'plane accident', but rather a side remark upon
the undeniable more common use of the word 'crash' for planes. If you
believe that this is an accident try this - http://tinyurl.com/2q9j9y

Sigh. Something called "Rick Roll" (whatever the hell that is)?
Try something serious, not YouTube (which I ignore due to not having
Flash on my computer).

Post by BIG ONE

Post by Bill Z.
<long list of definitions snipped - they are irrelevant>.

they are not irrelevant, that is what the word means.

No, they are irrelevant because when someone uses the word "accident"
in an English sentence, the requirement is that it fits one of the
defintions, and I gave you one that the usage in question fit.

Post by BIG ONE

Post by Bill Z.

Post by BIG ONE

Post by Bill Z.
State law allows the police to override traffic signals to expedite
traffic in particular circumstances (e.g., a large number of people
leaving from an event where the traffic-signal controller hardware
isn't up to the task.) Ignoring a red light at the direction of the
police is both legal and proper.

I am sure most people (cyclists included) would agree with you there.
But as I believe we are posting from separate continents the specifics
of law and liberty are perhaps best avoided.

Traffic laws are reasonably similar all over - if they weren't
Europeans would not be able to drive safely in the U.S.

perhaps some people can control a motorized vehicle sufficiently
safely for them to not cause death and disaster, I remain to be
convinced.

Let me suggest a course in statistics, probability, and partiuclarly
failure-analysis models using Markov chains. :-)

<rest ignored>

[Peter Cole]

Post by Janet
Because people that don't ride ASSUME That people dressed like
Tour-de-France wannabe's KNOW the CORRECT way for cyclists to ride on
the road.

Really?

Post by Janet
When they do stupid things, they make it bad for the rest of us.

How?

Post by Janet
READ my post - VISIBILITY is BAD. THERE are CAR-CAR accidents because
whatever is blowing through the red light CANNOT be seen until it's too
late.

I thought the topic was bikes.

Post by Janet
The people with the GREEN LIGHT have the RIGHT OF WAY and it's the
RESPONSIBILITY of the people (REGARDLESS of WHAT their vehicle of choice
is) to STOP AT THE RED LIGHT!

Legally, that's usually true -- most of the laws in most jurisdictions
are the same for cars & bikes, pragmatically, the issues are much
different. Bicyclists are generally unlicensed, moving violations
generally have much smaller penalties, and enforcement is generally lax.
The basis for these realities is that cyclists present an almost
negligible risk to other road users.

Riding in congested conditions is unpleasant, the only reason to do it
is that it's an efficient way of getting through gridlock. I ride in
what I consider to be an efficient and pragmatic fashion. I also believe
it to be safe in part because I haven't ever had an accident in decades
and many thousands of miles riding. I really don't care in the slightest
how other people cycle (or how they dress). I have no interest in
preaching or converting, either.

I'm a believer in courtesy (driving and biking), but feel that there
isn't necessarily a 100% overlap between courtesy and legality while
cycling -- I see plenty of legal, yet discourteous behavior, and I
believe it's possible to cycle courteously while not conforming to the
letter of the law.

In the case you presented, if the cyclists' behavior was discourteous
(impeding other traffic), it is not something I would personally do.
While I'm sure that discourteous behavior may cause negative attitudes
towards cyclists, I'm not sure what business that is of mine.

[Richard Jones]

Peter Cole wrote:
<snip>

.

Post by Peter Cole
I'm a believer in courtesy (driving and biking), but feel that there
isn't necessarily a 100% overlap between courtesy and legality while
cycling -- I see plenty of legal, yet discourteous behavior, and I
believe it's possible to cycle courteously while not conforming to the
letter of the law.

Can you give some examples where not conforming to the letter of the law
is acceptable in your opinion please.

[Pat]

<snip>
.

Post by Peter Cole
I'm a believer in courtesy (driving and biking), but feel that there
isn't necessarily a 100% overlap between courtesy and legality while
cycling -- I see plenty of legal, yet discourteous behavior, and I
believe it's possible to cycle courteously while not conforming to the
letter of the law.

Can you give some examples where not conforming to the letter of the law
is acceptable in your opinion please.

Oh give it a break. You want examples, I'll give you examples.

Ever not come to a complete stop at a stop sign? It's a hot day,
there's great visibility both directions, and no traffic in either
direction. You might reach 1 or 2 mph, but you don't come to a
complete stop.

Ever ride on a public street below the minimum speed limit?

Do you have a red triangle on the back of your vehicle to signify slow
moving traffic? Heck, the Amish (who object to signs) have them on
the back of their wagons.

Ever talk on your phone on an expressway at 70 mph when there are no
other cars in sight?

Ever order something from out-of-state on the internet and then
actually pay the sales tax on it to your state?

On the other hands, do bikers do things that are dangerous and give
themselves a bad reputation? Sure, at least around there. Riding in
a lane is a big thing. Take a bike going 15 mph down a road and
staying inside a white line. A tractor trailer hauling a modular home
comes up from behind him at 55 mph. Some bicyclist is forcing a 18-
wheeled vehicle hauling 40,000 pounds of a wide load to pull into the
oncoming land to avoid the biker. Really rude and really dangerous.
When I live (which is rural), get on the bike trails and get off of
the roads before you get yourself (or someone else) killed. Traffic
is moving way to fast and trucks are way too big to tangle with.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Pat
...
On the other hands, do bikers do things that are dangerous and give
themselves a bad reputation? Sure, at least around there. Riding in
a lane is a big thing. Take a bike going 15 mph down a road and
staying inside a white line. A tractor trailer hauling a modular home
comes up from behind him at 55 mph. Some bicyclist is forcing a 18-
wheeled vehicle hauling 40,000 pounds of a wide load to pull into the
oncoming land to avoid the biker. Really rude and really dangerous.
When I live (which is rural), get on the bike trails and get off of
the roads before you get yourself (or someone else) killed. Traffic
is moving way to fast and trucks are way too big to tangle with.

So the network of bike trails in Pat's area is extensive enough that
cyclists can reach all destinations using them that they could reach
with the public roads?

Or is this just another anti-cyclist troll?

If the truck can not safely pass or slow for a cyclist, then the driver
is going too fast for conditions and should have his/her CDL revoked.

[Pat]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat
...
On the other hands, do bikers do things that are dangerous and give
themselves a bad reputation? Sure, at least around there. Riding in
a lane is a big thing. Take a bike going 15 mph down a road and
staying inside a white line. A tractor trailer hauling a modular home
comes up from behind him at 55 mph. Some bicyclist is forcing a 18-
wheeled vehicle hauling 40,000 pounds of a wide load to pull into the
oncoming land to avoid the biker. Really rude and really dangerous.
When I live (which is rural), get on the bike trails and get off of
the roads before you get yourself (or someone else) killed. Traffic
is moving way to fast and trucks are way too big to tangle with.

So the network of bike trails in Pat's area is extensive enough that
cyclists can reach all destinations using them that they could reach
with the public roads?
Or is this just another anti-cyclist troll?
If the truck can not safely pass or slow for a cyclist, then the driver
is going too fast for conditions and should have his/her CDL revoked.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

No, there isn't much of a cycling network but almost all of the
cyclists in this area are (a) recreational and therefore it doesn't
matter much which road/trail they are on; (2) kids without licenses
and they should stay on the sidewalk; or (iii) people who have lost
their licenses for DWI, not paying child support, etc.

Lots of roads around here are narrow and curvy. They are unsafe for
cyclists.There aren't any bicycling commuters around here.

As for truckers, you have a TT going one way and a wide-load going the
other. You have a biker IN the lane. It isn't safe. Lots of roads
around here don't have shoulders.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Pat

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat
...
On the other hands, do bikers do things that are dangerous and give
themselves a bad reputation? Sure, at least around there. Riding in
a lane is a big thing. Take a bike going 15 mph down a road and
staying inside a white line. A tractor trailer hauling a modular home
comes up from behind him at 55 mph. Some bicyclist is forcing a 18-
wheeled vehicle hauling 40,000 pounds of a wide load to pull into the
oncoming land to avoid the biker. Really rude and really dangerous.
When I live (which is rural), get on the bike trails and get off of
the roads before you get yourself (or someone else) killed. Traffic
is moving way to fast and trucks are way too big to tangle with.

So the network of bike trails in Pat's area is extensive enough that
cyclists can reach all destinations using them that they could reach
with the public roads?
Or is this just another anti-cyclist troll?
If the truck can not safely pass or slow for a cyclist, then the driver
is going too fast for conditions and should have his/her CDL revoked.

No, there isn't much of a cycling network but almost all of the
cyclists in this area are (a) recreational and therefore it doesn't
matter much which road/trail they are on; (2) kids without licenses
and they should stay on the sidewalk; or (iii) people who have lost
their licenses for DWI, not paying child support, etc.
Lots of roads around here are narrow and curvy. They are unsafe for
cyclists.There aren't any bicycling commuters around here.
As for truckers, you have a TT going one way and a wide-load going the
other. You have a biker IN the lane. It isn't safe. Lots of roads
around here don't have shoulders.

Better ban slow moving farm machinery and road maintenance vehicles
then, if drivers can not slow for anything.

Attitude's like Pat's (might makes right) will make the coming of
$10+/gallon gasoline a thing of joy.

[Pat]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat
...
On the other hands, do bikers do things that are dangerous and give
themselves a bad reputation? Sure, at least around there. Riding in
a lane is a big thing. Take a bike going 15 mph down a road and
staying inside a white line. A tractor trailer hauling a modular home
comes up from behind him at 55 mph. Some bicyclist is forcing a 18-
wheeled vehicle hauling 40,000 pounds of a wide load to pull into the
oncoming land to avoid the biker. Really rude and really dangerous.
When I live (which is rural), get on the bike trails and get off of
the roads before you get yourself (or someone else) killed. Traffic
is moving way to fast and trucks are way too big to tangle with.

So the network of bike trails in Pat's area is extensive enough that
cyclists can reach all destinations using them that they could reach
with the public roads?
Or is this just another anti-cyclist troll?
If the truck can not safely pass or slow for a cyclist, then the driver
is going too fast for conditions and should have his/her CDL revoked.

No, there isn't much of a cycling network but almost all of the
cyclists in this area are (a) recreational and therefore it doesn't
matter much which road/trail they are on; (2) kids without licenses
and they should stay on the sidewalk; or (iii) people who have lost
their licenses for DWI, not paying child support, etc.
Lots of roads around here are narrow and curvy. They are unsafe for
cyclists.There aren't any bicycling commuters around here.
As for truckers, you have a TT going one way and a wide-load going the
other. You have a biker IN the lane. It isn't safe. Lots of roads
around here don't have shoulders.

Better ban slow moving farm machinery and road maintenance vehicles
then, if drivers can not slow for anything.
Attitude's like Pat's (might makes right) will make the coming of
$10+/gallon gasoline a thing of joy.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

It isn't "might make right". Biking is a recreational activity around
here -- nothing more. The roads are designed for it. All the bikers
do it put themselves into tremendously unsafe situations and then
complain how unsafe it is to ride a bike. That's stupid.

Maybe somewhere there are better roads for bikes and maybe there
should be more bike lanes and stuff -- I don't know. But around here
there aren't any so why pretend otherwise. We have lots of trucks
hauling steel coils, train axles, wide loads, etc. down roads that
aren't particularly wide. Should the entire economy come to a
standstill and drive 15 mph on the off chance that someone wants to
take a joy-ride on a bike? Does that make sense? Of course not.

Our in the woods there are some trails that mountain bikes use. Those
are better places to go ride. But not even those are without risk.
I've been out squirrel hunting and seen bikes fly by, out of control.
I've almost been run over by them on a couple of occasions. I've seen
bikers break up herds of deer -- during deer season. You could get
shot doing something like that, except that the hunters are much more
careful than the bikers. And besides, it's illegal as all heck. In
this state, that constitutes "hunting without a license" because you
are harassing the deer.

Go ride your bikes. I don't care. Refuse to listen to dissent. I
don't care about that, either. But if you don't want to hear it,
don't post to a planning n.g..

You bikes might be fine in cities and suburbs. Again, I don't know
and I don't care. But around here, if you drive down a state highway
on a bicycle and you want to tangle with tractor trailers, you are
putting yourself at risk -- it is not the tt that is putting you at
risk. They have the right to the road, too. The world doesn't stop
because you want to go pedal somewhere.

Paved bike trails/lands don't work around here. It's a LOT of money
for a one or two people who ride them once in a while.
Environmentally, it's unconscionable to use that much concrete or
blacktop for something that gets used so seldom. Besides, most people
around here DRIVE to a place to bike anyway. Then the pavement
creates heating differences, run-off problems, etc..

Meanwhile, I've go to do. It's a rural thing. While you go bike here
and there and buy your veggies and claim "buy local" and all of that
stuff, I've got to go blanch my beans and freeze them. I've gotten 18
lbs of them out of the garden, so far. Then I'm going to cook up some
of my squash for lunch.

It's a rural thing. You wouldn't understand it.

[Tom Sherman]

WHY DOES GOOGLE GROUPS REMOVE ALL THE SPACES BETWEEN PARAGRAPHS?

Post by Pat

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat
...
On the other hands, do bikers do things that are dangerous and give
themselves a bad reputation? Sure, at least around there. Riding in
a lane is a big thing. Take a bike going 15 mph down a road and
staying inside a white line. A tractor trailer hauling a modular home
comes up from behind him at 55 mph. Some bicyclist is forcing a 18-
wheeled vehicle hauling 40,000 pounds of a wide load to pull into the
oncoming land to avoid the biker. Really rude and really dangerous.
When I live (which is rural), get on the bike trails and get off of
the roads before you get yourself (or someone else) killed. Traffic
is moving way to fast and trucks are way too big to tangle with.

So the network of bike trails in Pat's area is extensive enough that
cyclists can reach all destinations using them that they could reach
with the public roads?
Or is this just another anti-cyclist troll?
If the truck can not safely pass or slow for a cyclist, then the driver
is going too fast for conditions and should have his/her CDL revoked.

No, there isn't much of a cycling network but almost all of the
cyclists in this area are (a) recreational and therefore it doesn't
matter much which road/trail they are on; (2) kids without licenses
and they should stay on the sidewalk; or (iii) people who have lost
their licenses for DWI, not paying child support, etc.
Lots of roads around here are narrow and curvy. They are unsafe for
cyclists.There aren't any bicycling commuters around here.
As for truckers, you have a TT going one way and a wide-load going the
other. You have a biker IN the lane. It isn't safe. Lots of roads
around here don't have shoulders.

Better ban slow moving farm machinery and road maintenance vehicles
then, if drivers can not slow for anything.
Attitude's like Pat's (might makes right) will make the coming of
$10+/gallon gasoline a thing of joy.

It isn't "might make right". Biking is a recreational activity around
here -- nothing more. The roads are designed for it. All the bikers
do it put themselves into tremendously unsafe situations and then
complain how unsafe it is to ride a bike. That's stupid.

The roads are designed for cycling, yet cycling is tremendously unsafe???

(A "biker" rides a traditionally style motorcycle, not a pedal powered
bicycle.)

Post by Pat
Maybe somewhere there are better roads for bikes and maybe there
should be more bike lanes and stuff -- I don't know. But around here
there aren't any so why pretend otherwise. We have lots of trucks
hauling steel coils, train axles, wide loads, etc. down roads that
aren't particularly wide. Should the entire economy come to a
standstill and drive 15 mph on the off chance that someone wants to
take a joy-ride on a bike? Does that make sense? Of course not.

All that stuff could go by rail (for far less fossil fuel) except for
the last few miles. Slowing down for the few sections of road where the
sight distances are short will not cripple the economy. Sheesh.

Post by Pat
Our in the woods there are some trails that mountain bikes use. Those
are better places to go ride. But not even those are without risk.
I've been out squirrel hunting and seen bikes fly by, out of control.
I've almost been run over by them on a couple of occasions. I've seen
bikers break up herds of deer -- during deer season. You could get
shot doing something like that, except that the hunters are much more
careful than the bikers. And besides, it's illegal as all heck. In
this state, that constitutes "hunting without a license" because you
are harassing the deer.

Is that a threat to shoot cyclists?

Post by Pat
Go ride your bikes. I don't care. Refuse to listen to dissent. I
don't care about that, either. But if you don't want to hear it,
don't post to a planning n.g..

When I read motor-fascist attitudes, I will call them out.

Post by Pat
You bikes might be fine in cities and suburbs. Again, I don't know
and I don't care. But around here, if you drive down a state highway
on a bicycle and you want to tangle with tractor trailers, you are
putting yourself at risk -- it is not the tt that is putting you at
risk. They have the right to the road, too. The world doesn't stop
because you want to go pedal somewhere.

No Pat, you are claiming that the cyclist does NOT have the same rights
as other road users.

Post by Pat
Paved bike trails/lands don't work around here. It's a LOT of money
for a one or two people who ride them once in a while.
Environmentally, it's unconscionable to use that much concrete or
blacktop for something that gets used so seldom. Besides, most people
around here DRIVE to a place to bike anyway. Then the pavement
creates heating differences, run-off problems, etc..

Who wants separate and unequal "bicycle facilities"? I will tell you who
wants them, motorists who wish to ban cyclists from the roads. "Look, we
built this trail to nowhere for you, so GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY ROAD SO I
DO NOT HAVE TO LIFT MY FOOT FROM THE GAS PEDAL!"

Post by Pat
Meanwhile, I've go to do.

You "go to do" what?

Post by Pat
It's a rural thing. While you go bike here
and there and buy your veggies and claim "buy local" and all of that
stuff, I've got to go blanch my beans and freeze them. I've gotten 18
lbs of them out of the garden, so far. Then I'm going to cook up some
of my squash for lunch.

Good for you. When you are done, you can go harass some cyclists with
your motor vehicle to "prove" your point.

Post by Pat
It's a rural thing. You wouldn't understand it.

Dude, I have spend over a decade living outside of urban areas (all of
elementary school and most of high school).

[Clark F Morris]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 09:03:05 -0700 (PDT), Pat

Post by Pat

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat
...
On the other hands, do bikers do things that are dangerous and give
themselves a bad reputation? Sure, at least around there. Riding in
a lane is a big thing. Take a bike going 15 mph down a road and
staying inside a white line. A tractor trailer hauling a modular home
comes up from behind him at 55 mph. Some bicyclist is forcing a 18-
wheeled vehicle hauling 40,000 pounds of a wide load to pull into the
oncoming land to avoid the biker. Really rude and really dangerous.
When I live (which is rural), get on the bike trails and get off of
the roads before you get yourself (or someone else) killed. Traffic
is moving way to fast and trucks are way too big to tangle with.

So the network of bike trails in Pat's area is extensive enough that
cyclists can reach all destinations using them that they could reach
with the public roads?
Or is this just another anti-cyclist troll?
If the truck can not safely pass or slow for a cyclist, then the driver
is going too fast for conditions and should have his/her CDL revoked.

No, there isn't much of a cycling network but almost all of the
cyclists in this area are (a) recreational and therefore it doesn't
matter much which road/trail they are on; (2) kids without licenses
and they should stay on the sidewalk; or (iii) people who have lost
their licenses for DWI, not paying child support, etc.
Lots of roads around here are narrow and curvy. They are unsafe for
cyclists.There aren't any bicycling commuters around here.
As for truckers, you have a TT going one way and a wide-load going the
other. You have a biker IN the lane. It isn't safe. Lots of roads
around here don't have shoulders.

Better ban slow moving farm machinery and road maintenance vehicles
then, if drivers can not slow for anything.
Attitude's like Pat's (might makes right) will make the coming of
$10+/gallon gasoline a thing of joy.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

It isn't "might make right". Biking is a recreational activity around
here -- nothing more. The roads are designed for it. All the bikers
do it put themselves into tremendously unsafe situations and then
complain how unsafe it is to ride a bike. That's stupid.
Maybe somewhere there are better roads for bikes and maybe there
should be more bike lanes and stuff -- I don't know. But around here
there aren't any so why pretend otherwise. We have lots of trucks
hauling steel coils, train axles, wide loads, etc. down roads that
aren't particularly wide. Should the entire economy come to a
standstill and drive 15 mph on the off chance that someone wants to
take a joy-ride on a bike? Does that make sense? Of course not.
Our in the woods there are some trails that mountain bikes use. Those
are better places to go ride. But not even those are without risk.
I've been out squirrel hunting and seen bikes fly by, out of control.
I've almost been run over by them on a couple of occasions. I've seen
bikers break up herds of deer -- during deer season. You could get
shot doing something like that, except that the hunters are much more
careful than the bikers. And besides, it's illegal as all heck. In
this state, that constitutes "hunting without a license" because you
are harassing the deer.
Go ride your bikes. I don't care. Refuse to listen to dissent. I
don't care about that, either. But if you don't want to hear it,
don't post to a planning n.g..
You bikes might be fine in cities and suburbs. Again, I don't know
and I don't care. But around here, if you drive down a state highway
on a bicycle and you want to tangle with tractor trailers, you are
putting yourself at risk -- it is not the tt that is putting you at
risk. They have the right to the road, too. The world doesn't stop
because you want to go pedal somewhere.
Paved bike trails/lands don't work around here. It's a LOT of money
for a one or two people who ride them once in a while.
Environmentally, it's unconscionable to use that much concrete or
blacktop for something that gets used so seldom. Besides, most people
around here DRIVE to a place to bike anyway. Then the pavement
creates heating differences, run-off problems, etc..
Meanwhile, I've go to do. It's a rural thing. While you go bike here
and there and buy your veggies and claim "buy local" and all of that
stuff, I've got to go blanch my beans and freeze them. I've gotten 18
lbs of them out of the garden, so far. Then I'm going to cook up some
of my squash for lunch.
It's a rural thing. You wouldn't understand it.

As someone who lives on a farm road with no shoulders, if the truck
driver isn't prepared for a SLOW moving vehicle in my area he or she
may be in a collision with a tractor towing machinery with various
types of blades. While I may be a city boy living on a farm (a
neighbor plants various things in the fields and plows our driveway in
the winter), I am aware that there may be slow moving vehicles and if
they are bicycles I hope I spot them far enough in advance because
they don't have the large profile that farm equipment does.
Incidentally farm equipment is allowed on our limited access highways
here in Nova Scotia.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 09:03:05 -0700 (PDT), Pat

Post by Pat

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Pat
...
On the other hands, do bikers do things that are dangerous and give
themselves a bad reputation? Sure, at least around there. Riding in
a lane is a big thing. Take a bike going 15 mph down a road and
staying inside a white line. A tractor trailer hauling a modular home
comes up from behind him at 55 mph. Some bicyclist is forcing a 18-
wheeled vehicle hauling 40,000 pounds of a wide load to pull into the
oncoming land to avoid the biker. Really rude and really dangerous.
When I live (which is rural), get on the bike trails and get off of
the roads before you get yourself (or someone else) killed. Traffic
is moving way to fast and trucks are way too big to tangle with.

So the network of bike trails in Pat's area is extensive enough that
cyclists can reach all destinations using them that they could reach
with the public roads?
Or is this just another anti-cyclist troll?
If the truck can not safely pass or slow for a cyclist, then the driver
is going too fast for conditions and should have his/her CDL revoked.

No, there isn't much of a cycling network but almost all of the
cyclists in this area are (a) recreational and therefore it doesn't
matter much which road/trail they are on; (2) kids without licenses
and they should stay on the sidewalk; or (iii) people who have lost
their licenses for DWI, not paying child support, etc.
Lots of roads around here are narrow and curvy. They are unsafe for
cyclists.There aren't any bicycling commuters around here.
As for truckers, you have a TT going one way and a wide-load going the
other. You have a biker IN the lane. It isn't safe. Lots of roads
around here don't have shoulders.

Better ban slow moving farm machinery and road maintenance vehicles
then, if drivers can not slow for anything.
Attitude's like Pat's (might makes right) will make the coming of
$10+/gallon gasoline a thing of joy.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

It isn't "might make right". Biking is a recreational activity around
here -- nothing more. The roads are designed for it. All the bikers
do it put themselves into tremendously unsafe situations and then
complain how unsafe it is to ride a bike. That's stupid.
Maybe somewhere there are better roads for bikes and maybe there
should be more bike lanes and stuff -- I don't know. But around here
there aren't any so why pretend otherwise. We have lots of trucks
hauling steel coils, train axles, wide loads, etc. down roads that
aren't particularly wide. Should the entire economy come to a
standstill and drive 15 mph on the off chance that someone wants to
take a joy-ride on a bike? Does that make sense? Of course not.
Our in the woods there are some trails that mountain bikes use. Those
are better places to go ride. But not even those are without risk.
I've been out squirrel hunting and seen bikes fly by, out of control.
I've almost been run over by them on a couple of occasions. I've seen
bikers break up herds of deer -- during deer season. You could get
shot doing something like that, except that the hunters are much more
careful than the bikers. And besides, it's illegal as all heck. In
this state, that constitutes "hunting without a license" because you
are harassing the deer.
Go ride your bikes. I don't care. Refuse to listen to dissent. I
don't care about that, either. But if you don't want to hear it,
don't post to a planning n.g..
You bikes might be fine in cities and suburbs. Again, I don't know
and I don't care. But around here, if you drive down a state highway
on a bicycle and you want to tangle with tractor trailers, you are
putting yourself at risk -- it is not the tt that is putting you at
risk. They have the right to the road, too. The world doesn't stop
because you want to go pedal somewhere.
Paved bike trails/lands don't work around here. It's a LOT of money
for a one or two people who ride them once in a while.
Environmentally, it's unconscionable to use that much concrete or
blacktop for something that gets used so seldom. Besides, most people
around here DRIVE to a place to bike anyway. Then the pavement
creates heating differences, run-off problems, etc..
Meanwhile, I've go to do. It's a rural thing. While you go bike here
and there and buy your veggies and claim "buy local" and all of that
stuff, I've got to go blanch my beans and freeze them. I've gotten 18
lbs of them out of the garden, so far. Then I'm going to cook up some
of my squash for lunch.
It's a rural thing. You wouldn't understand it.

As someone who lives on a farm road with no shoulders, if the truck
driver isn't prepared for a SLOW moving vehicle in my area he or she
may be in a collision with a tractor towing machinery with various
types of blades. While I may be a city boy living on a farm (a
neighbor plants various things in the fields and plows our driveway in
the winter), I am aware that there may be slow moving vehicles and if
they are bicycles I hope I spot them far enough in advance because
they don't have the large profile that farm equipment does.
Incidentally farm equipment is allowed on our limited access highways
here in Nova Scotia.

How dare those farmers slow down ex-urbanites in their 4-ton SUVs?

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Pat
No, there isn't much of a cycling network but almost all of
the cyclists in this area are (a) [Deletia]; or (2) kids
without licenses and they should stay on the sidewalk; or
(iii) people who have lost their licenses for DWI, not paying
child support, etc.

=v= Thankfully, there's no need for a license to ride a bike.
Riding a bike is the most perfect human/machine (that is to
say, human/human creation) combination ever devised, and hooray
for that.
<_Jym_>

P.S.: I dispute the "not paying child support" part of this
claim. It is true that divorced fathers are more likely to pay
for their stupid cars than for their own children (read Susan
Faludi's _Backlash_ for documentation), but as far as I know
it is extremely rare for deadbeat dads to actually lose their
priviage to drive.

[Peter Cole]

<snip>
.

Post by Peter Cole
I'm a believer in courtesy (driving and biking), but feel that there
isn't necessarily a 100% overlap between courtesy and legality while
cycling -- I see plenty of legal, yet discourteous behavior, and I
believe it's possible to cycle courteously while not conforming to the
letter of the law.

Can you give some examples where not conforming to the letter of the law
is acceptable in your opinion please.

Sure, my personal favorite -- riding no-hands -- illegal in my state, I
do it all the time.

Another, perhaps more relevant, situation is right turns, particularly
on "T" intersections. If I have a good sight line and can make the turn
without actually entering the traffic lane (staying on the shoulder), I
see no reason to stop. Other situations are one-way streets and
pedestrian crossings. I won't stand in a traffic lane waiting for a left
turn signal, either, particularly at night.

On the other hand, perfectly legal behaviors -- such as "taking the
lane", are often inappropriately used, causing unnecessary friction with
drivers. The same might be said for riding 2 or more abreast, currently
illegal here (MA), but there's considerable (cyclist) effort being spent
to legalize it -- I won't/wouldn't ever do it even if legal. It seems to
me that there are few things (rightly or wrongly) that motorists find
more irritating. I won't pander to drivers, but I try to avoid
needlessly annoying them.

Many bicycle laws are pretty difficult to enforce as they are judgment
calls. When is riding abreast (illegal here) actually passing (legal)?
When is "taking the lane" actually failure to yield? When is a group
ride actually more like a race (requiring permit)? The reality is, when
riding a bike in most places here in the US, you're a minority using a
system of laws and traffic controls that was designed for the majority.
My personal feeling is that bending/breaking some laws some times is
just pragmatic and not some kind of ethical slippery slope. I don't
advocate that position, but neither do I believe that, for instance,
cyclists failure to observe ROR restrictions is a matter of much
consequence, either for safety or "public relations". Opinions,
obviously, vary.

[Pat]

Post by Peter Cole

<snip>
.

Post by Peter Cole
I'm a believer in courtesy (driving and biking), but feel that there
isn't necessarily a 100% overlap between courtesy and legality while
cycling -- I see plenty of legal, yet discourteous behavior, and I
believe it's possible to cycle courteously while not conforming to the
letter of the law.

Can you give some examples where not conforming to the letter of the law
is acceptable in your opinion please.

Sure, my personal favorite -- riding no-hands -- illegal in my state, I
do it all the time.
Another, perhaps more relevant, situation is right turns, particularly
on "T" intersections. If I have a good sight line and can make the turn
without actually entering the traffic lane (staying on the shoulder), I
see no reason to stop. Other situations are one-way streets and
pedestrian crossings. I won't stand in a traffic lane waiting for a left
turn signal, either, particularly at night.
On the other hand, perfectly legal behaviors -- such as "taking the
lane", are often inappropriately used, causing unnecessary friction with
drivers. The same might be said for riding 2 or more abreast, currently
illegal here (MA), but there's considerable (cyclist) effort being spent
to legalize it -- I won't/wouldn't ever do it even if legal. It seems to
me that there are few things (rightly or wrongly) that motorists find
more irritating. I won't pander to drivers, but I try to avoid
needlessly annoying them.
Many bicycle laws are pretty difficult to enforce as they are judgment
calls. When is riding abreast (illegal here) actually passing (legal)?
When is "taking the lane" actually failure to yield? When is a group
ride actually more like a race (requiring permit)? The reality is, when
riding a bike in most places here in the US, you're a minority using a
system of laws and traffic controls that was designed for the majority.
My personal feeling is that bending/breaking some laws some times is
just pragmatic and not some kind of ethical slippery slope. I don't
advocate that position, but neither do I believe that, for instance,
cyclists failure to observe ROR restrictions is a matter of much
consequence, either for safety or "public relations". Opinions,
obviously, vary.

Another is riding with earphones on. Lots of people do it but it's
illegal and bikers would complain if a SUV driver was doing the same
thing.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Pat
Another is riding with earphones on. Lots of people do it but it's
illegal and bikers would complain if a SUV driver was doing the same
thing.

<http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html> can search the California Vehicle
Code. I didn't have any luck searching for "ear" or "head", so would
you kindly show the section number that makes using headphones illegal?

(You don't need full words - a search for "ear" found "years" and other
words containing the sequence of letters "ear".)

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Pat
Another is riding with earphones on. Lots of people do it but it's
illegal and bikers would complain if a SUV driver was doing the same
thing.

<http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html> can search the California Vehicle
Code. I didn't have any luck searching for "ear" or "head", so would
you kindly show the section number that makes using headphones illegal?
...

27400

Zaumen still thinks that the world ends at the California state line.

He might have found this:
<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27400.htm>, which indicates
wearing headphones for the purpose of listening to music or phone
conversations or most other purposes is prohibited in California.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Pat
Another is riding with earphones on. Lots of people do it but it's
illegal and bikers would complain if a SUV driver was doing the same
thing.

<http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html> can search the California Vehicle
Code. I didn't have any luck searching for "ear" or "head", so would
you kindly show the section number that makes using headphones illegal?
...

27400
Zaumen still thinks that the world ends at the California state line.

Hey moron, I was asking for the specific section of the vehicle code
because a quick search didn't work - I tried ear, head, earphones, etc,
but not headset or earplugs.

It was a simple question.

Post by Tom Sherman
<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27400.htm>, which indicates
wearing headphones for the purpose of listening to music or phone
conversations or most other purposes is prohibited in California.

Or might not since the keyword given "earphones" was not used and
I simply didn't have time to waste on generating keywords to try.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Pat
Another is riding with earphones on. Lots of people do it but it's
illegal and bikers would complain if a SUV driver was doing the same
thing.

<http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html> can search the California Vehicle
Code. I didn't have any luck searching for "ear" or "head", so would
you kindly show the section number that makes using headphones illegal?
...

27400
Zaumen still thinks that the world ends at the California state line.

Hey moron, I was asking for the specific section of the vehicle code
because a quick search didn't work - I tried ear, head, earphones, etc,
but not headset or earplugs.
It was a simple question.

Post by Tom Sherman
<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27400.htm>, which indicates
wearing headphones for the purpose of listening to music or phone
conversations or most other purposes is prohibited in California.

Or might not since the keyword given "earphones" was not used and
I simply didn't have time to waste on generating keywords to try.

I am the moron, yet I found the link in a few seconds that computer
expert Zaumen could not? The same Zaumen that like to quote California
law all the time?

[Bill Z.]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Tom Sherman
<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27400.htm>, which indicates
wearing headphones for the purpose of listening to music or phone
conversations or most other purposes is prohibited in California.

Or might not since the keyword given "earphones" was not used and
I simply didn't have time to waste on generating keywords to try.

I am the moron, yet I found the link in a few seconds that computer
expert Zaumen could not? The same Zaumen that like to quote California

Look jerk, I was in the middle of doing some work - some complicated
software that's part of a research project - and was simply taking a
short break from debugging the stuff we have to get working before
we can get to the interesting part of the project. It may surprise
you, but when in the middle of such things, you don't have a lot of
spare time.

And *you* had an advantage of a list of search strings that didn't work,
plus not staring at code and debugging out put for several hours.

You really are a moron, and a particularly bad-tempered one at that.


---
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Tom Sherman
<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27400.htm>, which indicates
wearing headphones for the purpose of listening to music or phone
conversations or most other purposes is prohibited in California.

Or might not since the keyword given "earphones" was not used and
I simply didn't have time to waste on generating keywords to try.

I am the moron, yet I found the link in a few seconds that computer
expert Zaumen could not? The same Zaumen that like to quote California

Look jerk, I was in the middle of doing some work - some complicated
software that's part of a research project - and was simply taking a
short break from debugging the stuff we have to get working before
we can get to the interesting part of the project. It may surprise
you, but when in the middle of such things, you don't have a lot of
spare time.

butbutbut, I though that someone was an expert on the California vehicle
code, and would have known this without looking it up.

Post by Bill Z.
And *you* had an advantage of a list of search strings that didn't work,
plus not staring at code and debugging out put for several hours.
You really are a moron, and a particularly bad-tempered one at that.

Bad tempered? Nonsense; I find this entire exchange amusing.

[Tom Keats]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Pat
Another is riding with earphones on. Lots of people do it but it's
illegal and bikers would complain if a SUV driver was doing the same
thing.

<http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html> can search the California Vehicle
Code. I didn't have any luck searching for "ear" or "head", so would
you kindly show the section number that makes using headphones illegal?
...

27400
Zaumen still thinks that the world ends at the California state line.

Hey moron, I was asking for the specific section of the vehicle code
because a quick search didn't work - I tried ear, head, earphones, etc,
but not headset or earplugs.
It was a simple question.

Post by Tom Sherman
<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27400.htm>, which indicates
wearing headphones for the purpose of listening to music or phone
conversations or most other purposes is prohibited in California.

Or might not since the keyword given "earphones" was not used and
I simply didn't have time to waste on generating keywords to try.

I am the moron, yet I found the link in a few seconds that computer
expert Zaumen could not? The same Zaumen that like to quote California
law all the time?

Oh Gawd, yer bashing yer forehead against the brick wall known
as nemuaZ lliB, and simultaneously questioning your own moronity?

Your answer lies within.

Get a life, and stop being such a complainy moron.

Go seismically upgrade a bridge, or sumpthin' useful.

Carpe diem.

Geez!!

Sometimes you really do need a Swift kick in the ass.


cheers,
Tom

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Pat
Another is riding with earphones on. Lots of people do it but it's
illegal and bikers would complain if a SUV driver was doing the same
thing.

<http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html> can search the California Vehicle
Code. I didn't have any luck searching for "ear" or "head", so would
you kindly show the section number that makes using headphones illegal?
...

27400
Zaumen still thinks that the world ends at the California state line.

Hey moron, I was asking for the specific section of the vehicle code
because a quick search didn't work - I tried ear, head, earphones, etc,
but not headset or earplugs.
It was a simple question.

Post by Tom Sherman
<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27400.htm>, which indicates
wearing headphones for the purpose of listening to music or phone
conversations or most other purposes is prohibited in California.

Or might not since the keyword given "earphones" was not used and
I simply didn't have time to waste on generating keywords to try.

I am the moron, yet I found the link in a few seconds that computer
expert Zaumen could not? The same Zaumen that like to quote California
law all the time?

Oh Gawd, yer bashing yer forehead against the brick wall known
as nemuaZ lliB, and simultaneously questioning your own moronity?

Sarcasm, man.

Post by Tom Keats
Your answer lies within.
Get a life, and stop being such a complainy moron.
Go seismically upgrade a bridge, or sumpthin' useful.

Annoying Zaumen is not useful?

Post by Tom Keats
Carpe diem.

How about Carp diem (macaronic expression)- fish of the day ?

Post by Tom Keats
Geez!!
Sometimes you really do need a Swift kick in the ass.

butbutbut, I do not have a donkey (they do not make good house pets).

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat

Post by Peter Cole
Many bicycle laws are pretty difficult to enforce as they are judgment
calls. When is riding abreast (illegal here) actually passing (legal)?
When is "taking the lane" actually failure to yield? When is a group
ride actually more like a race (requiring permit)? The reality is, when
riding a bike in most places here in the US, you're a minority using a
system of laws and traffic controls that was designed for the majority.
My personal feeling is that bending/breaking some laws some times is
just pragmatic and not some kind of ethical slippery slope. I don't
advocate that position, but neither do I believe that, for instance,
cyclists failure to observe ROR restrictions is a matter of much
consequence, either for safety or "public relations". Opinions,
obviously, vary.

Another is riding with earphones on. Lots of people do it but it's
illegal and bikers would complain if a SUV driver was doing the same
thing.

Most car drivers _do_ drive around with their music playing, often loudly
enough that they can't hear anything outside the car.

[JNugent]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by Peter Cole
Many bicycle laws are pretty difficult to enforce as they are judgment
calls. When is riding abreast (illegal here) actually passing (legal)?
When is "taking the lane" actually failure to yield? When is a group
ride actually more like a race (requiring permit)? The reality is, when
riding a bike in most places here in the US, you're a minority using a
system of laws and traffic controls that was designed for the majority.
My personal feeling is that bending/breaking some laws some times is
just pragmatic and not some kind of ethical slippery slope. I don't
advocate that position, but neither do I believe that, for instance,
cyclists failure to observe ROR restrictions is a matter of much
consequence, either for safety or "public relations". Opinions,
obviously, vary.

Another is riding with earphones on. Lots of people do it but it's
illegal and bikers would complain if a SUV driver was doing the same
thing.

Most car drivers _do_ drive around with their music playing, often loudly
enough that they can't hear anything outside the car.

Even worse (from your perpective): some profoundly deaf people drive and
ride motor vehicles.

Your remark seems to indicate that you think they shouldn't be allowed
to drive, since they can't hear anything outside the vehicle (assuming
it not to be a motor-cycle).

Is that what you meant?

If not, why is it important for other drivers to be able to hear noises
that emanate from outside the vehicle?

[BIG ONE]

Post by JNugent
some profoundly deaf people drive and
ride motor vehicles.

I think there are problems hear

Post by JNugent
Your remark seems to indicate that you think they shouldn't be allowed
to drive, since they can't hear anything outside the vehicle (assuming
it not to be a motor-cycle).

do you think epileptics should be allowed to drive cars?

Post by JNugent
Is that what you meant?

I would not assume to speak for others, but I will tell you that your
mother would like you to spend less time trolling usenet and more time
on your homework.

Post by JNugent
If not, why is it important for other drivers to be able to hear noises
that emanate from outside the vehicle?

what about awareness of mechanical failure, or of other road users
other drivers through horn honking. What about the dizziness, vertigo,
imbalance, hearing changes, nausea, fatigue, anxiety and difficulty
concentrating associated with inner ear complaints
What about the copin and peck paper that illustrates that deaf men are
80% more likely to have accidents than those without hearing
impairment.

But in the context of a cycling forum it is clearly important for
social reasons - you see we are social creatures us on bikes, beside
the chats we like to have at the front of the queue while we wait for
the lights to change we also give each other nods & secret signals to
alert each other to where YOU are. If drivers could hear us they would
be aware of the big conspiracy and could join in the fun.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by JNugent

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by Peter Cole
Many bicycle laws are pretty difficult to enforce as they are judgment
calls. When is riding abreast (illegal here) actually passing (legal)?
When is "taking the lane" actually failure to yield? When is a group
ride actually more like a race (requiring permit)? The reality is, when
riding a bike in most places here in the US, you're a minority using a
system of laws and traffic controls that was designed for the majority.
My personal feeling is that bending/breaking some laws some times is
just pragmatic and not some kind of ethical slippery slope. I don't
advocate that position, but neither do I believe that, for instance,
cyclists failure to observe ROR restrictions is a matter of much
consequence, either for safety or "public relations". Opinions,
obviously, vary.

Another is riding with earphones on. Lots of people do it but it's
illegal and bikers would complain if a SUV driver was doing the same
thing.

Most car drivers _do_ drive around with their music playing, often loudly
enough that they can't hear anything outside the car.

Even worse (from your perpective): some profoundly deaf people drive and
ride motor vehicles.
Your remark seems to indicate that you think they shouldn't be allowed to
drive, since they can't hear anything outside the vehicle (assuming it not
to be a motor-cycle).
Is that what you meant?
If not, why is it important for other drivers to be able to hear noises
that emanate from outside the vehicle?

No, I am saying that drivers with music blaring are equivalent to bike
riders with headphones. If it's so horrible for bike riders to have
headphones on, it is as bad or worse for drivers to have loud music on in
their cars. Since you quoted the full context I left in the message, I can
only assume you're being deliberately obtuse. Is that what you intended?

[Tom Keats]

Post by Janet

Post by Peter Cole

Post by Janet
I too agree. There are some cyclist that just do stupid things to make
all cyclist look bad. There's a group (4-6 people) that ride in a pace
line, dressed like they are in the Tour de France (it's more than just
wearing cycling shorts/shirts for comfort)

Who cares what they wear? The fashion police?

Because people that don't ride ASSUME That people dressed like
Tour-de-France wannabe's KNOW the CORRECT way for cyclists to ride on
the road. When they do stupid things, they make it bad for the rest of us.

Gull shit.

What a bunch of drivers' POV anti-bicycling propaganda.

Beware the Fifth Column.

Maybe when stupid people do stupid things, stupid
people understand each other (it's simple,) and
let it go. The Law is based upon the Lowest
Common Denominator: stoopid drivers.

Unless they're really Stupid, in which case they
take it out on the next guys[*] inetead of taking
ownership of their own stupidity.

So, exactly what, in your mind, /is/ the "correct"
way for cyclists to ride on the road?

I suppose you also figure the actions of any single
driver reflects upon all drivers. So if any single
driver does something stupid, it makes all drivers
look Stupid.

You're making me think of that Alice Cooper song:
"Hey Stupid," and how it relates to car drivers.

As a parting shot, I suggest you not be so officious,
and instead look within a little. Maybe care a little
about other people.

If it's not your first step on the road to redemption,
it would at least be nice, and nicer than you've
presented yourself.


regards,
Tom


[*] My father once told me about how the Management
takes it out on the Supervisor; the Supervisor takes
it out on the Lead Hand; the Lead Hand takes it out
on the Workers; the Worker goes home and takes it
out on the Spouse; and she kicks the cat.

I hope you don't bring your horribly snooty attitude
into traffic. We don't need it.

What is this BS anways!? You're raggin' on
bike riders for what they wear?

[Janet]

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Janet

Post by Peter Cole

Post by Janet
I too agree. There are some cyclist that just do stupid things to make
all cyclist look bad. There's a group (4-6 people) that ride in a pace
line, dressed like they are in the Tour de France (it's more than just
wearing cycling shorts/shirts for comfort)

Who cares what they wear? The fashion police?

Because people that don't ride ASSUME That people dressed like
Tour-de-France wannabe's KNOW the CORRECT way for cyclists to ride on
the road. When they do stupid things, they make it bad for the rest of us.

Gull shit.

I've had people who don't cycle tell me that they ASSUME that cyclist
that are dressed like the "pros" know the correct way for cyclist
ride.... So when they do stupid things they make the rest of us look bad.

If you READ my original post. The cyclist routinely blow through a red
light onto a busy street. The corner has a "no right on red" because
it's difficult to see someone (bicycle or car) making the right-on-red
when you are driving through the green light. (and vice-versa, it's hard
to get a good look to see if it's clear to make the right-on-red)

It doesn't matter if you are in a car, or on a bicycle - it's dangerous
to blow through that light. You have to go into the lane because of the
parked cars.

Janet

[S***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Ozark Bicycle
<sniped for clarity>

Snipped for what?

Post by Ozark Bicycle
- on Critical Mass -

Post by Tom Keats
CM isn't a showcase about the good things about bicycles.

BINGO!!!
<remainder snipped>

Critical Mass is a showcase of the bad things about POV cars.

You wish. CM is mostly a showcase of the arrrogance, stupidity and
aggression of its participants.
I ride my bike 5,000-7,000 miles a year and have been riding bike over
40 years. As a percentage of riding time my bad experiences with car
drivers have been extremely few and far between. I know people who
have frequent problems with drivers and- watching them ride- I know
why. They ride their bikes like assholes. They don't pay attention
to what's going on around them, so they have to react instead of
anticipating. They expect to have the right of way when the right of
way actually belongs to someone else. They don't think traffic laws
apply to them. Etc. Most of the time, cyclists create their own
problems on the road.

I would have to agree, however I am not such a veteran. Often I
wonder how some cyclists survive, that thing between the head and
shoulders, designed for moving the head around, hardly ever seems to
move on some...car drivers as well!!

Sniper8052

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tim McNamara
I ride my bike 5,000-7,000 miles a year and have been riding bike over
40 years.  As a percentage of riding time my bad experiences with car
drivers have been extremely few and far between.  I know people who
have frequent problems with drivers and- watching them ride- I know
why.  They ride their bikes like assholes.  They don't pay attention
to what's going on around them, so they have to react instead of
anticipating.   They expect to have the right of way when the right of
way actually belongs to someone else.  They don't think traffic laws
apply to them.  Etc.  Most of the time, cyclists create their own
problems on the road.

I would have to agree, however I am not such a veteran.  Often I
wonder how some cyclists survive, that thing between the head and
shoulders, designed for moving the head around, hardly ever seems to
move on some...car drivers as well!!
Sniper8052- Hide quoted text -

You have a point there. In the case of drivers it's ARROGANCE, and in
the case of cyclists it's just PLAIN STUPIDITY.

[S***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by S***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Tim McNamara
I ride my bike 5,000-7,000 miles a year and have been riding bike over
40 years. As a percentage of riding time my bad experiences with car
drivers have been extremely few and far between. I know people who
have frequent problems with drivers and- watching them ride- I know
why. They ride their bikes like assholes. They don't pay attention
to what's going on around them, so they have to react instead of
anticipating. They expect to have the right of way when the right of
way actually belongs to someone else. They don't think traffic laws
apply to them. Etc. Most of the time, cyclists create their own
problems on the road.

I would have to agree, however I am not such a veteran. Often I
wonder how some cyclists survive, that thing between the head and
shoulders, designed for moving the head around, hardly ever seems to
move on some...car drivers as well!!
Sniper8052- Hide quoted text -

You have a point there. In the case of drivers it's ARROGANCE, and in
the case of cyclists it's just PLAIN STUPIDITY.

:)

[KingOfTheApes]

On Jul 27, 4:38 am, ***@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
about the good things about bicycles.

Post by Tom Keats
It's about the often stupid ways we people get
ourselves around.
Anyone who dislikes monthly bicycle Critical Mass should have
a real antipathy toward daily car Critical Mass -- and maybe
wise-up and stop contributing to it.

That's too deep for them. When did you get that smart?

Your point is exactly right. But nobody has much sympathy for them
either. Remember that. ;)

[KingOfTheApes]

If you want to follow up with the revolution and why I said this...

"The day you want to take the streets of Miami by storm, let me know.
But no wild (anarchist) monkeys blocking traffic.

T-shirts, flyers and some bananas will do!"

click here...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7144336&posted=1#post7144336

[Tim McNamara]

Here's the face of CM for the general public.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/27/hahn.car.bike.showdown.king

Productive, huh? Once again, cyclists as hooligans and drivers as
law-abiding citizens. Critical Mass assholes setting cycling back one
last Friday at a time. Morons.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Tim McNamara
Here's the face of CM for the general public.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/27/hahn.car.bike.showdown.king

=v= Consider that about 300 CM rides happen every month on this
continent, and how rare that sort of incident is. So basically
what you're doing here is exemplarizing the unusual so as to
prop up your opinion.

=v= Also, the CNN angle doesn't make sense and it's clear (at
least to intelligent viewers) that there's more to the story.
And indeed there is:

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/last_nights_critical_mass_melee

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/i_literally_got_run_over

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/the_driver_speaks

<_Jym_>

[KingOfTheApes]

Here's the face of CM for the general public.  

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/27/hahn.car.bike.showdown...
=v= Consider that about 300 CM rides happen every month on this
continent, and how rare that sort of incident is.  So basically
what you're doing here is exemplarizing the unusual so as to
prop up your opinion.
=v= Also, the CNN angle doesn't make sense and it's clear (at
least to intelligent viewers) that there's more to the story.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/last_nights_critical_mass_melee
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/i_literally_got_run_over
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/the_driver_speaks
    <_Jym_>

This is an interesting commet from your links...

(which you probably didn't care to read)

"Critical Mass started in what, 1992 or so? In 16 years, has it
actually accomplished anything? More bike lanes? Improved bike lanes?
Bike-only streets? Bike-only days on major arterials? Anything?"

[Jym Dyer]

[Removed r.b.rides from this thread as this is off-topic for it.]

Post by KingOfTheApes
This is an interesting commet from your links...
"Critical Mass started in what, 1992 or so? In 16 years, has
it actually accomplished anything? More bike lanes? Improved
bike lanes? Bike-only streets? Bike-only days on major
arterials? Anything?"

=v= Critical Mass has accomplished, or at least contributed
heavily towards, all of that and more.
<_Jym_>

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Jym Dyer
[Removed r.b.rides from this thread as this is off-topic for it.]

Post by KingOfTheApes
This is an interesting commet from your links...
"Critical Mass started in what, 1992 or so? In 16 years, has
it actually accomplished anything? More bike lanes? Improved
bike lanes? Bike-only streets? Bike-only days on major
arterials? Anything?"

=v= Critical Mass has accomplished, or at least contributed
heavily towards, all of that and more.
<_Jym_>

Please cite examples.

[BIG ONE]

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by Jym Dyer
[Removed r.b.rides from this thread as this is off-topic for it.]

Post by KingOfTheApes
This is an interesting commet from your links...
"Critical Mass started in what, 1992 or so? In 16 years, has
it actually accomplished anything? More bike lanes? Improved
bike lanes?  Bike-only streets? Bike-only days on major
arterials? Anything?"

=v= Critical Mass has accomplished, or at least contributed
heavily towards, all of that and more.
    <_Jym_>

Please cite examples.

I'm not going to do Jym's job (who has probably gone now anyway)
but...
I could point to a lot of pictures of smiling people - & those smiles
are a direct result of CM
if that isn't evidence of CM accomplishing _more_ than you are asking
from it I'll be surprised.

[Tim McNamara]

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by Scott M. Kozel
"The revolution will not be televised"

http://www.cbs8.com/flv/video_pop_hd3.php?startID=135672&cat=undefined

CM is sure a bunch o' twits. They, like too many others, have
confused being anti-car with being pro-bike. They are not the same.

They're pro Freedom Of Movement. Something of which streams of POVs
denies people.

Oh bullshit. CM is about sticking it in the faces of drivers. You
can wrap a pile of shit in nice wrapping paper with a big bow, but
it's still a pile of shit.

Every urban rush hour is a Critical Mass of cars & their drivers. A
metallic and mechanized Critical Mass that casts humanity aside.

A critical mass that more or less obeys the rules of the road, unlike
the Critical Mass rides which emphasize and celebrate flouting the law.

CM isn't a showcase about the good things about bicycles.
It's about the often stupid ways we people get ourselves around.
Anyone who dislikes monthly bicycle Critical Mass should have a real
antipathy toward daily car Critical Mass -- and maybe wise-up and
stop contributing to it.

Again, bullshit. CM is an activity with no clear agenda, no clear
objective, no way of communicating any agenda or goals. CM is just
about pissiness and stickin' it to Da Man, in this case Da Man in Da
Car. It's a counterproductive exercise onto which some apologists-
like yourself- project hifalutin crapola to justify the antagonism.

You want to support bicycling as a practical transportation
alternative? Just ride your bike. Follow the laws (including red
lights and stop signs). Don't ride erratically, don't ride the wrong
way down one way streets, don't jump on and off the sidewalks, etc.
Ride like you're an ambassador of cycling. Look like you're having
fun. Don't dress like you're in the Tour de France.

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tim McNamara
You want to support bicycling as a practical transportation
alternative?  Just ride your bike.  Follow the laws (including red
lights and stop signs).  Don't ride erratically, don't ride the wrong
way down one way streets, don't jump on and off the sidewalks, etc.
Ride like you're an ambassador of cycling.  Look like you're having
fun.  Don't dress like you're in the Tour de France.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That's fine, but at that rate will never win the race to stop Global
Warming or wars over oil. Maybe it'll take 100 years to change a world
that denies change because the ones that make the policies only see
the $$$.

Enough said, we need the r-evolution...

WORLD REVOLUTION
"The World Revolution is an idea for a new, global activist social
movement for progressive social change. It aims to resolve in a
definitive and comprehensive manner the major social problems of our
world and our era. Major issue areas of the World Revolution include:
peace, human rights, the environment, and world poverty."
http://www.worldrevolution.org/

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by Scott M. Kozel
"The revolution will not be televised"

http://www.cbs8.com/flv/video_pop_hd3.php?startID=135672&cat=undefined

CM is sure a bunch o' twits. They, like too many others, have
confused being anti-car with being pro-bike. They are not the same.

They're pro Freedom Of Movement. Something of which
streams of POVs denies people.
Every urban rush hour is a Critical Mass of cars &
their drivers. A metallic and mechanized Critical
Mass that casts humanity aside.
CM isn't a showcase about the good things about bicycles.
It's about the often stupid ways we people get
ourselves around.
Anyone who dislikes monthly bicycle Critical Mass should have
a real antipathy toward daily car Critical Mass -- and maybe
wise-up and stop contributing to it.

and reforcing the negative sterotype of cycling helps us how?

roger

[Nuxx Bar]

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by Scott M. Kozel
"The revolution will not be televised"

http://www.cbs8.com/flv/video_pop_hd3.php?startID=135672&cat=undefined

CM is sure a bunch o' twits.  They, like too many others, have
confused being anti-car with being pro-bike.  They are not the same.

Quite right. "too many others" includes the majority of the most
prolific posters on uk.rec.cycling, who claim to be pro-bike because
they're too cowardly to admit to being anti-car. They implicitly
support the likes of Critical Mass by refusing to condemn them (in
fact, many of them are probably fully paid-up members). And
mysteriously, they just happen to support every single anti-motorist
measure...I wonder why?

Good to know that other bicycle newsgroups haven't gone down the pan
in the same way. If I was a keen cycling advocate, I'd be furious
about the car-haters pretending to be cycling advocates and trashing
our reputation. Members of the rec.bicycles.* newsgroups need to be
vigilant to ensure that the anti-motorist/CM crowd don't take over
their groups in the same way as they have urc.

Guy Cuthbertson

[BIG ONE]

Post by Nuxx Bar
the majority of the most
prolific posters on uk.rec.cycling, who claim to be pro-bike because
they're too cowardly to admit to being anti-car.  They implicitly
support the likes of Critical Mass by refusing to condemn them (in
fact, many of them are probably fully paid-up members).  And
mysteriously, they just happen to support every single anti-motorist
measure...I wonder why?
Good to know that other bicycle newsgroups haven't gone down the pan
in the same way.  If I was a keen cycling advocate, I'd be furious
about the car-haters pretending to be cycling advocates and trashing
our reputation.  Members of the rec.bicycles.* newsgroups need to be
vigilant to ensure that the anti-motorist/CM crowd don't take over
their groups in the same way as they have urc.
Guy Cuthbertson

I'm anti car, I make no secret of it as anyone who knows me will
confirm. But I do not post regularly on URC(compared to you), and can
only think of a couple of individuals who do who may be considered to
be in any way anti-car. However, they would IMO both be much more
accurately described as pro-cyclist, unlike yourself who I am
confident anyone looking at the facts would define as rabidly anti-
cyclist and deeply in love with Guy Chapman. But these groups (save I
am presuming alt.planning.urban) are not the place for discussion of
cars. You on the other hand are a troll who insists on constantly
debating cars on URC which is a fact anyone who wishes to check will
find for themselves.
There is no membership or payment for CM, many of the regulars on URC
admit to owning cars and not being anti car, and the majority do not
support CM - but why let the facts get in the way of you mouthing off
topic .... it never has in the past.
& you Mr. Bar have no interest in bicycles or cycling beyond this
unhealthy interest in Mr. Chapman

[Nuxx Bar]

Post by BIG ONE

Post by Nuxx Bar
the majority of the most
prolific posters on uk.rec.cycling, who claim to be pro-bike because
they're too cowardly to admit to being anti-car.  They implicitly
support the likes of Critical Mass by refusing to condemn them (in
fact, many of them are probably fully paid-up members).  And
mysteriously, they just happen to support every single anti-motorist
measure...I wonder why?
Good to know that other bicycle newsgroups haven't gone down the pan
in the same way.  If I was a keen cycling advocate, I'd be furious
about the car-haters pretending to be cycling advocates and trashing
our reputation.  Members of the rec.bicycles.* newsgroups need to be
vigilant to ensure that the anti-motorist/CM crowd don't take over
their groups in the same way as they have urc.
Guy Cuthbertson

I'm anti car, I make no secret of it as anyone who knows me will
confirm. But I do not post regularly on URC(compared to you), and can
only think of a couple of individuals who do who may be considered to
be in any way anti-car. However, they would IMO both be much more
accurately described as pro-cyclist, unlike yourself who I am
confident anyone looking at the facts would define as rabidly anti-
cyclist and deeply in love with Guy Chapman. But these groups (save I
am presuming alt.planning.urban) are not the place for discussion of
cars. You on the other hand are a troll who insists on constantly
debating cars on URC which is a fact anyone who wishes to check will
find for themselves.
There is no membership or payment for CM, many of the regulars on URC
admit to owning cars and not being anti car, and the majority do not
support CM - but why let the facts get in the way of you mouthing off
topic .... it never has in the past.
& you Mr. Bar have no interest in bicycles or cycling beyond this
unhealthy interest in Mr. Chapman

Well done for at least admitting to being anti-car, unlike Chapman and
co. (If you can really only think of a "couple of individuals" on urc
who are anti-car, you are making the mistake of assuming that every
motorist-hater is as honest as you about it. Try opening your eyes
and being a bit less naive.)

Now why don't you add up all the times when I have posted in reply to
someone other than Chapman (or started a topic), and Chapman has then
replied to me. Then add up the times when the reverse has happened.
You will find that the first number is far larger than the second.
Yet you interpret that as *me* having an unhealthy interest in *him*.
Black is white in the illogical world of the car-hater. Believe me, I
can't think of anything more disgusting than being in love with
Chapman. The fact is that I know next to nothing about "Guy Chapman:
the person", and that's absolutely the way I want it to stay, thank
you. I bet you've read more of his Site Of Hate than I have.

BTW, since you are honest about hating cars, I've got a question for
you. If you discovered that cameras were costing lives, would you:

a. continue to support them anyway, because they are very good at
automatically fining and banning motorists for something that at least
99.9% of them do, and are thus excellent anti-car tools?

b. immediately renounce your support for them, and start to campaign
for their removal, even though that would make things easier for at
least 99.9% of those evil motorists?

With the urc car-haters, it has been amply established that the answer
is a, so it's no wonder that they're reluctant to be honest about
their agenda, as they would quite rightly be utterly despised for it.
And the answer really is a: just because it might be hard to believe
that anyone could be that callous, it doesn't mean that it's not true.

And BTW, "fully paid-up members" in this case was a figure of speech,
which surely anyone with half a brain would have had no trouble
understanding.

Anyway, I didn't want to start a debate with a car-hater on this
thread, I was just warning the rec.bicycle.* groups to be on the
lookout for CM-type car-haters trying to take over their groups in the
same way as they have urc. It's hardly surprising that a car-hater
has taken exception to such a warning, is it?

[Jym Dyer]

Well done for at least admitting to being anti-car, ...

=v= Well done for *being* anti-car. Since cars do so much
damage to the Earth and to society, we need more people who
see this stuff clearly and act on it.

(If you can really only think of a "couple of individuals" on
urc who are anti-car, you are making the mistake of assuming
that every motorist-hater is as honest as you about it. Try
opening your eyes and being a bit less naive.)

=v= You immediately glossed anti-car into the inflammatory and
personalizing "motorist-hater." That is completely wrong and
doesn't help the discusison at all; it can only damage it. In
this sense it is *you* who needs to open your eyes.
<_Jym_>

[Tom Keats]

Post by Nuxx Bar

CM is sure a bunch o' twits.  They, like too many others, have
confused being anti-car with being pro-bike.  They are not the same.

Quite right. "too many others" includes the majority of the most
prolific posters on uk.rec.cycling, who claim to be pro-bike because
they're too cowardly to admit to being anti-car. They implicitly
support the likes of Critical Mass by refusing to condemn them (in
fact, many of them are probably fully paid-up members).

You're quite the comedian.

Heh. I'm a fully paid-up member of Critical Mass, myself.
Keep believing that -- it's certainly amusing.

Post by Nuxx Bar
And
mysteriously, they just happen to support every single anti-motorist
measure...I wonder why?

What's an anti-motorist measure?
Taxing petro? Traffic lights stopping
cars so pedestrians can attempt to
step through your bloody-minded
chaos? Parking metres?

Post by Nuxx Bar
Good to know that other bicycle newsgroups haven't gone down the pan
in the same way. If I was a keen cycling advocate, I'd be furious
about the car-haters pretending to be cycling advocates and trashing
our reputation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Whadda snob. Yer nose must follow trolley
wires like a public transit bus.

Post by Nuxx Bar
Members of the rec.bicycles.* newsgroups need to be
vigilant to ensure that the anti-motorist/CM crowd don't take over
their groups in the same way as they have urc.

No, we don't.

We don't have to be vigilant about anything.
I don't know about you drivers, but we riders
are not at war.

We just sometimes have to look out for idiot drivers
when we ride, but that's a trivial given, tritely
dealt with.

I love you; you're a beauty.

xoxoxo

[Jym Dyer]

=v= A better URL for the San Diego CM story:

http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.135696.html

- which will pop up a Flash video -

http://www.cbs8.com/flv/video_pop_hd3.php?startID=135696

<_Jym_>

[Tom Keats]

Post by KingOfTheApes
and didn't like what I saw.

You saw a bunch of people acting like self-entitled drivers.
You saw a mirror reflection of how self-entitled drivers
behave.

Post by KingOfTheApes
I was coming on the bus (how else if
riding a bike is so dangerous on that road), and all of a sudden I see
a bunch of cyclists loosely riding the road.

That settles it! You /are/ indeed anti-bike.

Post by KingOfTheApes
Some of them darting to
block the whole 3 lane road, and then back to taking 1 or 2 lanes. The
bus driver patiently slows to their pace for a while, until he decided
he had a schedule and blasted the horn at the unruly riders taking
unnecessary lanes...
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to. Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause.

Ersatz uniforms, eh? Fuck that noise.
And you can shove that concept up your ass,
with vigour. I'm hereby suspecting you of
being a Nazi with ulterior motives, and
trying to establish a bundt.

Phffuck you.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Tom Keats
...
Phffuck you.

Is that the Daffy Duck pronunciation?

[Tom Keats]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Tom Keats
...
Phffuck you.

Is that the Daffy Duck pronunciation?

Sylvester The Cat. More spittle is ejected.


be fruitful, multiply, and go forth,
Tom

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by KingOfTheApes
and didn't like what I saw.

. . .

Post by KingOfTheApes
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to.

You mean just like the _literally_millions_ of horseless carriage
riders every day?

Oh, forgive me, but that language is rather old. I call the "horseless
carriage riders" "monkeys in cages," which gives us an idea of who we
are dealing with. No, we are not dealing with horses, but with monkeys
who drive because they see everybody else driving. That's called
"monkey see monkey do." And the hope is that when they see enough bike
rides out there WITH A CLEAR MESSAGE, they'll follow suit.

[Tom Keats]

Yikes!!

I wasn't intending to respond to Scott.

My comments were directed to the Original Poster
(KingOfTheApes/Don Quijote/Orlando.)

I hope & need for it to be understood that I
wasn't talking to Scott M. Kozel; I was talking
to the boneheaded Nazi-ish fool who currently
calls himself KingOfTheApes.

klahowya,
Tom

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tom Keats

Post by KingOfTheApes
and didn't like what I saw.

You saw a bunch of people acting like self-entitled drivers.
You saw a mirror reflection of how self-entitled drivers
behave.

Post by KingOfTheApes
I was coming on the bus (how else if
riding a bike is so dangerous on that road), and all of a sudden I see
a bunch of cyclists loosely riding the road.

That settles it!  You /are/ indeed anti-bike.

Post by KingOfTheApes
Some of them darting to
block the whole 3 lane road, and then back to taking 1 or 2 lanes. The
bus driver patiently slows to their pace for a while, until he decided
he had a schedule and blasted the horn at the unruly riders taking
unnecessary lanes...
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to. Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause.

Ersatz uniforms, eh?  Fuck that noise.
And you can shove that concept up your ass,
with vigour.  I'm hereby suspecting you of
being a Nazi with ulterior motives, and
trying to establish a bundt.
Phffuck you.

No, I'm not a Nazi, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist. I'm for organizing
the monkeys, so they have a better chance of success. T-shirts,
banners, flyers are necessary. Blocking the streets is not.

"Do something for your fellow monkeys in the cages. Give them a taste
of freedom --and banana. R-evolution!"

http://www.zazzle.com/r_evolution_change_is_good_shirt-235220369211816605

[Tom Keats]

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by Tom Keats

Post by KingOfTheApes
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to. Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause.

Ersatz uniforms, eh?  Fuck that noise.
And you can shove that concept up your ass,
with vigour.  I'm hereby suspecting you of
being a Nazi with ulterior motives, and
trying to establish a bundt.
Phffuck you.

No, I'm not a Nazi, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist. I'm for organizing
the monkeys, so they have a better chance of success.

That's what they all say.

You have shown your colours, and you can't retract them.

Maybe you should invest in an ant farm or an aquarium.

Organize those.

Maybe pace around them with a swagger-stick and a Mauser
machine pistol and a dour demeanour.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by Tom Keats

Post by KingOfTheApes
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to. Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause.

Ersatz uniforms, eh? Fuck that noise.
And you can shove that concept up your ass,
with vigour. I'm hereby suspecting you of
being a Nazi with ulterior motives, and
trying to establish a bundt.
Phffuck you.

No, I'm not a Nazi, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist. I'm for organizing
the monkeys, so they have a better chance of success.

That's what they all say....

Can monkeys goose step?

[Tom Keats]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by Tom Keats

Post by KingOfTheApes
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to. Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause.

Ersatz uniforms, eh? Fuck that noise.
And you can shove that concept up your ass,
with vigour. I'm hereby suspecting you of
being a Nazi with ulterior motives, and
trying to establish a bundt.
Phffuck you.

No, I'm not a Nazi, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist. I'm for organizing
the monkeys, so they have a better chance of success.

That's what they all say....

Can monkeys goose step?

Yes.

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by Tom Keats

Post by KingOfTheApes
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to. Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause.

Ersatz uniforms, eh?  Fuck that noise.
And you can shove that concept up your ass,
with vigour.  I'm hereby suspecting you of
being a Nazi with ulterior motives, and
trying to establish a bundt.
Phffuck you.

No, I'm not a Nazi, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist. I'm for organizing
the monkeys, so they have a better chance of success.

That's what they all say....

Can monkeys goose step?

No, they lack the discipline. But they can be put through boot camp
and be forced into wars...

Loading Image...

Naturally though they love to eat banana and play with other
monkeys. ;)

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Tom Keats

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by Tom Keats

Post by KingOfTheApes
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to. Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause.

Ersatz uniforms, eh?  Fuck that noise.
And you can shove that concept up your ass,
with vigour.  I'm hereby suspecting you of
being a Nazi with ulterior motives, and
trying to establish a bundt.
Phffuck you.

No, I'm not a Nazi, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist. I'm for organizing
the monkeys, so they have a better chance of success.

That's what they all say.
You have shown your colours, and you can't retract them.
Maybe you should invest in an ant farm or an aquarium.
Organize those.
Maybe pace around them with a swagger-stick and a Mauser
machine pistol and a dour demeanour.

Listen, I'm not even a Republicat!

It has nothing to do with left of right, but plain jungle strategy.
Get together and do a coordinated bike campaign, stating clear goals
and sticking mostly to the rules set up by the lion.

Yes, we have to learn from the ants in that regard. There's even a
science about it... "Sociobiology."

Well, these ants just had it... ;)

EVOLVE OR...

Once upon a time lived a race of dinosaurs whose violence and appetite
alarmed everybody... One day a Little Ant, tired of feeling stepped
upon, and worried about her cooperative enterprise, came up to the
Americanus Raptor --the biggest dinosaur of them all-- and asked: "Why
you eat and eat everything in your path? Why don't you slim down? Why
can't we little animals at least have our own way? You can't deny
evolution, you know." Then the dinosaur, blowing the Little Ant away,
shouted: "Bigger is better, so get lost!"

And it is said that the Little Ant, later, gathered the whole
cooperative and said: "Comrades, our world is being threatened by the
dinosaurs, so..." And at that precise moment the Earth was hit by a
big ball of fire, destroying all but the small animals...

Moral: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the
most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles
Darwin

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= This is not an American/Canadian thing. The same is true of
American CMs, in my experience. And I've experience quite a few
of them at this point. (That said, the Vancouver CM is one of
http://lipmagazine.org/ccarlsson/archives/2008/06/thank_you_corke.html

Yes, we are very different. But what we need is an invasion of a large
crowd like that to cross into our cities and towns from the North.
Expect tough resistance in the South though. ;)

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by KingOfTheApes
and didn't like what I saw. I was coming on the bus (how else if
riding a bike is so dangerous on that road), and all of a sudden I see
a bunch of cyclists loosely riding the road. Some of them darting to
block the whole 3 lane road, and then back to taking 1 or 2 lanes. The
bus driver patiently slows to their pace for a while, until he decided
he had a schedule and blasted the horn at the unruly riders taking
unnecessary lanes...
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to. Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause. And secondly, that strategy
of blocking all lanes, doesn't make you friends.
So the wild monkeys were in rebellion, but nobody knew their cause. A
good slogan for the T-shirts would have been: "Hey, do like we did and
come out of your cages. R-evolution!"

"The revolution will not be televised"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think the revolution will be televised on premium cable, to keep the
proles away from it.

Good thing we've got the Internet, right?

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

A good slogan for the T-shirts would have been: "Hey, do like
we did and come out of your cages. R-evolution!"

=v= Looks like Don Quixote / No Lion No Problem / Commandante
Banana / King of the Apes is SPAMMING us to sell his stupid
T-shirts.

Post by Scott M. Kozel
"The revolution will not be televised"

=v= Do a web search for "The revolution will not be motorized."
<_Jym_>

P.S.: Note followups AWAY from groups where this is off-topic.

[BIG ONE]

Post by KingOfTheApes
I was coming on the bus

whatever turns you on

Post by KingOfTheApes
(how else if riding a bike is so dangerous on that road)

how could it be dangerous CM was on ... or don't you know anything
about it?

Post by KingOfTheApes
and all of a sudden I see a bunch of cyclists loosely riding the road.

that's right - well done, now why didn't you think - 'hey! i should be
down there with them
on the side of the angels' ?
<snip the bla>

Post by KingOfTheApes
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to.

how do you know this ... get off the bus & interview folk did you?

you-'excuse me sir'
cyclist- 'yea'
you - 'do you know what you are up to'
cyclist - 'no'
you - 'well i'll just get on to usenet about this then'

Post by KingOfTheApes
Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause.

missing the point aren't you?
were you wearing a 'i'm on a bus' t-shirt ?

Post by KingOfTheApes
And secondly, that strategy
of blocking all lanes, doesn't make you friends.

like you ???
aren't you friendly?

Post by KingOfTheApes
So the wild monkeys were in rebellion, but nobody knew their cause. A
good slogan for the T-shirts would have been: "Hey, do like we did and
come out of your cages. R-evolution!"

print some & hand them out next month, you are only involved if you
get involved & if you're not involved ......
GET OUT OF THE WAY

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by BIG ONE

Post by KingOfTheApes
I was coming on the bus

whatever turns you on

Post by KingOfTheApes
(how else if riding a bike is so dangerous on that road)

how could it be dangerous CM was on ... or don't you know anything
about it?

My friend, you don't about the things of the jungle. There's a
principle called "safety in numbers." I was alone on that road I would
be crushed with no pity.

Post by BIG ONE

Post by KingOfTheApes
and all of a sudden I see a bunch of cyclists loosely riding the road.

that's right - well done, now why didn't you think - 'hey! i should be
down there with them
on the side of the angels' ?
<snip the bla>

No, I don't belong to the cagers, I don't belong with the wild
monkeys. I have my sympathies for Anarchists, but I don't like to
waste my time and perhaps life.

Post by BIG ONE

Post by KingOfTheApes
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to.

how do you know this ... get off the bus & interview folk did you?

If I wasn't involved in the revolution, I'd have thought they were a
bunch of tourists from Holland lost on our Darwinistic roads.

Post by BIG ONE
you-'excuse me sir'
cyclist- 'yea'
you - 'do you know what you are up to'
cyclist - 'no'
you - 'well i'll just get on to usenet about this then'

Post by KingOfTheApes
Some T-shirts, for
example, would have announced their cause.

missing the point aren't you?
were you wearing a 'i'm on a bus' t-shirt ?

Buses are in the revolution, dummy.

"Hey, if you ride public transportation to save the environment, it's
time to be proud of it. Show the selfish drivers of the Stupid
Unnecessary Vehicles that you are bigger than them."

http://www.zazzle.com/dinosaur_on_a_diet_shirt-235622859773439204

Post by BIG ONE

Post by KingOfTheApes
And secondly, that strategy
of blocking all lanes, doesn't make you friends.

like you ???
aren't you friendly?

Yes, I'm friendly to cagers by not occupying all the lanes (just one)
and I'm even friendly to cats on the road. I've never killed a cat
with a bike. Just give them a scare with the bell.

Post by BIG ONE

Post by KingOfTheApes
So the wild monkeys were in rebellion, but nobody knew their cause. A
good slogan for the T-shirts would have been: "Hey, do like we did and
come out of your cages. R-evolution!"

print some & hand them out next month, you are only involved if you
get involved & if you're not involved ......
GET OUT OF THE WAY

Wild monkeys are good for the lion. He makes the point to the sheep
that they need "peace and safety" from the "dangerous apes" out there.
And you know the sheep need order and leaders. ;)

What we need to organize the free monkeys (those already outside the
cages and riding bikes and buses) to show THE WAY to the rest of the
crowd. Remember, MONKEY SEE MONKEY DO.

[KingOfTheApes]

Post by KingOfTheApes
My friend, you don't about the things of the jungle. There's a
principle called "safety in numbers." I was alone on that road I would
be crushed with no pity.

oh that would be a pity ;¬)
but i imagine that was intended to be a conditional sentence ... with
an 'if'
but _if_ you had been riding you would not have been alone,
because you would have been part of the mass
- which sounds to me like it was going the right route for once.
perhaps you'll be able to ride on that jungle path next month

There's a couple of omissions there, but still clearly understood. If
I had been in that rally, I would also feed the beast, making it look
good. Quoted from above...

"cyclists as hooligans and drivers as law-abiding citizens."

Post by KingOfTheApes
I don't belong with the wild
monkeys. I have my sympathies for Anarchists, but I don't like to
waste my time and perhaps life.

I have similar sympathies, but i like to waste my time ... which is
why I am on usenet,
you on the other hand are on usenet for another reason?

Perhaps we belong to the Third Option. Not to be with the cagers or
with the wild monkeys. Organization is key, brains is survival.
Stupidity is not rewarded in the jungle. ;)

Post by KingOfTheApes

Post by BIG ONE

Post by KingOfTheApes
First of all, nobody knew what they were up to.

how do you know this ... get off the bus & interview folk did you?

If I wasn't involved in the revolution, I'd have thought they were abunchoftouristsfromHollandlost on our Darwinistic roads.

<snip>

Post by KingOfTheApes
Buses are in the revolution, dummy.

yea, on the wrong side - along with WVM & taxis

Hey, why not. Bicycles are not *the* solution, just part of it. Buses
and good old-fashioned legs are too. Actually bikes and buses are used
together for greater effectiveness.

Post by KingOfTheApes
"Hey, if you ride public transportation to save the environment, it's
time to be proud of it. Show the selfish drivers of the Stupid
Unnecessary Vehicles that you are bigger than them."

ok ... but that is probably off topic on cycling groups,
a lot of my cycling is unnecessary by any standards
& as I could actually walk everywhere I go
are you saying my bikes are unnecessay vehicles?
well I'm a bit upset at that.
but anyhow I feel that a bike is a better solution
than the public transport is to your being in the wrong place

You know what I like about the jungle metaphor? In the jungle
EVERYTHING IS RELATED and buses and bikes are symbiotic. Yes, I do
prefer the bike if it comes to freedom of mobility and zero emissions,
but I still use the bus racks to get to other places.

<snip>

Post by KingOfTheApes
Wild monkeys are good for the lion. He makes the point to the sheep
that they need "peace and safety" from the "dangerous apes" out there.
And you know the sheep need order and leaders. ;)
What we need to organize the free monkeys (those already outside the
cages and riding bikes and buses) to show THE WAY to the rest of the
crowd. Remember, MONKEY SEE MONKEY DO.

can't tell them what to do in my book ... & if you try we'll just
ignore you

Hey, are you speaking for all? There are already many ignoring me, but
it's too bad for them because I'm a monkey screaming loud for the
freedom to ride a bike anywhere and anytime. But I don't care, I love
making noise and making fun of the things happening in the jungle.

BEWARE OF THE LION! ;)

[KingOfTheApes]

(my answer below)

Originally Posted by cudak888

I'm not a bicycling politician. A fellow would have to be absolutely
out of his mind to become any form of advocate of cycling. Not because
of the motorists either.

I've learned well enough that absolutely nothing will please even a
small portion of the cycling community, and for that matter, even
those that have campaigned for similar ideas before will detest you
for the fact that it differs in some remotely minute way from their
idea.

I'm for sharrows myself, for most of the streets in Miami (that are
not main arteries) are already of width that legally allow for full
control of the lane. It'd be a reasonably inexpensive way to start out
- just spray down the signage on the road. Motorists will see it,
cyclists too. Works beautifully to point out that cyclists have the
right to the road, and it requires no specific street modifications
other then the paint.

...but I know damn well that someone will have an axe to grind about
that, so I don't advocate it. I'm not about to step into the murk of a
community that holds to their individual ideas with the aggressiveness
of crazed religious zealots.

Personally, I believe cyclists themselves are no better then cagers in
this respect. Can't agree with your own kind? Well, then you aren't
going to get anywhere.

That said, do you honestly think I'd be stupid enough to actively,
seriously try local advocacy? Hoo boy, forget it. I'll continue to
ride on my 9' streets where there aren't any bike lanes and I can
legally use whatever part of the lane I can, thank you.

If they take these lanes away from me, well - I'll stop bicycling, and
let the "advocates" laugh themselves silly.

-Kurt

***

Those minor streets won't get anywhere fast enough. They get me to the
supermarket 1 mile away, but not most other places.

Hey, I complete relate to your concerns, and yet I see room for change
and hope. And the hope is not the cyclists...

And here I go into revolutionary rhetoric: THE HOPE LIES IN THE
PROLES!

Yeah, I don't want to sound like Orwell, but the hope is those poor
people who can hardly afford the cage (the car, insurance and gas),
and would rather ride a bike. Also those who currently ride sidewalks
because the streets are no-man's land. They'll be glad to see some
sort of bike lanes or traffic control, particularly reducing speeds on
the right lane.

So I'm reaching out to the proles with the best and most fun flyers/t-
shirts until we organize some civilized rides. Yep, we can't afford to
be uncivilized as that would make the beast look civilized.

I'm quoting here from someone... CM enforces the ideas of "cyclists as
hooligans and drivers as law-abiding citizens."

Yep, it may sound a bit political, but while our leaders (elected by
the ignorant sheep) keep talking about Iraq and Cuba, we won't have
the right issues on the table, ie. bike facilities.

[GeneralissimoApeshit]

VELORUTION!http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote91

Cross-Posting Spammer.

[KingOfTheApes]

Originally Posted by Allister
"You sure do have a unique sales pitch for your shirts."

They are unique because they are as much fun as the monkey that
represents the revolution. He's in a cage (unable to ride bikes) while
the other monkeys drive around in cages... Funny, no?

And the public opinion does like the three wise monkeys...

Loading Image...

[soup]

Post by KingOfTheApes
http://danielmejia.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/the-3-monkeys.jpg

Do I get extra points for pointing out those aren't monkeys?
Would have thought someone called "KingOfTheApes" would know the
difference between Monkeys and Apes.