Bicyclists - Best way to punish drivers who endanger you

Preston Crawford wrote:

> Here, I'll try one.
>
> "See psychiatrist"
> "Seek therapy"
>
> Actually, that kind of feels good.
>

All that biking must have made you angry.

"Post here - read here" is an old USENET adage. Read followups where you
post the article. Don't ask others to follow you to your newsgroup to talk
to you there.

On 2005-02-19, United We Stand > wrote:
> Preston Crawford wrote:
>
>> Here, I'll try one.
>>
>> "See psychiatrist"
>> "Seek therapy"
>>
>> Actually, that kind of feels good.
>>
>
> All that biking must have made you angry.

It was supposed to be irony, actually.

> "Post here - read here" is an old USENET adage. Read followups where you
> post the article. Don't ask others to follow you to your newsgroup to talk
> to you there.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. I reply and do what my
newsreader says. If it adds a header it shouldn't then it's because of the
the cross-posting not being handled correctly. I'll look into it. Doesn't
mean I'm maliciously posting "incorrectly".

Preston

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:50:21 +0000,
>,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:

>
>As George Bernard Shaw put it: "What is dangerous driving? I have a
>tendency to believe that everyone's driving is dangerous, except my
>own".

More contemporary:
"Have you ever noticed? Anybody going slower than you is an idiot, and
anyone going faster than you is a moron."
- George Carlin
--
zk

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:26:14 -0600,
>, Preston Crawford
> wrote:

>Yes, there are people that need cars. But "most"? No. I don't buy it. Not
>for a minute. And once again, this comes from experience.

Since more than half of all car trips are less than five miles, scud
slaves deserve to wallow in the **** they created for themselves.
An early death is the best they can hope for as an escape from the
hell-on-earth they embrace and then whine about.
--
zk

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:44:59 -0800, United We Stand
> wrote in message >:

>That's right. Biking may be good for your heart, but bad for your posture,
>prostate and testes - look no further than Armstrong.

Oops! Wrong. There is no proven link between male cancers and
cycling - despite what the manufacturers of "anatomical" saddles might
like you to believe.

But what would I care? I ride an easy chair with wheels :-)

Whatever, I tend to think that a healthy lifestyle is better than an
unhealthy lifestyle with some leisure time diverted to exercise. My
commuting time would be wasted if I wasn't using it to get fit :-)

And there is research evidence which shows that transportational
cycling (or any form of moderate exertion built into the daily
routine) confers fitness benefits over and above those of being fit.
A study of the cardiovascular systems of men showed that the ones who
cycled for transport had better CV health than non-cyclists of
equivalent fitness (including athletes and non-athletes in both
groups).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:33:00 +0000,
>,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:

>A study of the cardiovascular systems of men showed that the ones who
>cycled for transport had better CV health than non-cyclists of
>equivalent fitness (including athletes and non-athletes in both
>groups).

We, as cyclists, generally rank at the same levels as non-cyclists ten
full years younger than our chronological age.
Source: National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Foundation, Sharp

Habitual scud slaves are regularly exposed to three times more air
pollution than pedestrians or cyclists.
--
zk

Matthew Russotto wrote:

>>First off, get a bike. You'll enjoy the trip much more.
>
> Believe it or not, I have two. I don't use them for commuting,
> though; the right tool for the right job. They're less than pleasant
> to use in the winter, so I think probably I'd enjoy the trip a lot
> LESS were I to use them for that now.

This is my third winter commuting by bike here in western MA.
Not really a problem overall. You get used to it, and days
when it warms up above freezing seem almost joyous.

But I've found that even during the winter, when road widths
narrow a bit from piled up snow or ice, it's very rare for
me having a negative interaction with motorists I share the
road with. A few seconds delay for a motorist at most.

And this is on a very heavily traveled state route with lots
of students from area colleges in the area. If even the
"murderous driving demographic" (18-25 year old males) doesn't
seem to have problems handling a bicyclist, I think most
others won't either.

If 10 seconds or a minute delay puts some motorist into
dangerous high blood pressure, then clearly their time is far
too valuable for them to be driving! They should be traveling
by helicopter, or at least have a chauffeur so they can be
doing whatever makes the loss of a few seconds waiting to pass
a bicyclist so traumatic.

Again, my personal experience in my bicycle commuting area
has been one of general harmony with motor traffic. Motorists
seem capable of handling a temporary bicycle "obstruction"
without display of annoyance or anger.

This is something they more often can't handle when dealing
with their fellow motorists!


SMH

N8N wrote:

> If you're in an economic situation that allows you to take the extra
> time to use a bicycle for transportation - good on you. But don't make
> the mistake of thinking that it's even possible for the vast majority
> of people who are just scraping by - and even for those who aren't,
> often the time penalty of bicycling just doesn't make economic sense,
> even factoring in the benefits of fresh air and exercise.

Well it will vary by individual, but you might be surprised at
how many people *could* commute by bike if they really made a
point of it.

I commute 11 miles (straight shot route) to my workplace. On
days when the local college students are clearing out of the
area for a long weekend...like President's Day weekend, the
Rt 9 roadway can be backed up for miles. It can take me an
hour to *drive* my truck the distance, yet only 45 minutes
(winter pace) pedaling a bike!

If you feel the time it takes to bike commute represents too
much an economic loss, you can at least partially gain some
of that loss back from fuel savings. I commuted about 4000
miles last year which translates to about $500 savings from
my gas guzzler not guzzling so much.

Not significant enough? Hopefully you're not paying for a
health club or Y membership to get your exercise. My exercise
is built right into my commute. No additional funding *or
time* needed for exercise.

We probably shouldn't get into longer term cost and time
effects since they're, well, a future consideration. But a
day or two in a hospital will definitely cost a pretty penny,
in particular if you're at a lower economic position where
health insurance isn't a part of your employment compensation!

Commuting by bike isn't a viable alternative for many people.
They don't have a good route to work, or the distance is too
great for it to be practical.

But I'm convinced an awful lot of people *could* bike commute
if they really were serious about it. They'd find it took
less time than they anticipated, and after a time, they'd find
it represented an improvement in their physical and mental
health, since their exercise was built into going to and from
work.

Bicycle commuting really isn't the whacky idea that far too
many people (here in the USA) think it is!


SMH

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> That reminds me, though... bicylists who use multi-use paths get really
> ****ed off at pedestrians who block their path, groups of joggers
> taking up the entire path, etc. How come THEY don't just chill out
> and not worry about the few seconds it takes to get around those
> obstacles?

Perhaps they're the same people getting p.o.'ed when they
drive their cars!

There are some people who are simply jerks. That's just
the way they are. They're jerks when they drive their cars,
and they're jerks when they pedal their bicycles.

But I've noted there seems to be some quality of the motor
vehicle that can make jerks out of normally good responsible
people. Don't know if there have been any studies that more
scientifically document my observation or not.

I've always believed it's lack of social penalty in a car
that isn't there if you are on foot, e.g. cutting into a
ticket line for theater or sporting event. In a car, people
do it all the time!

For me (who is also a driver, and who indeed loves to drive),
bicycling connects you more with what's around you. You're
more aware. In my truck, I might be surrounded by good tunes
from the stereo and cool air from the A/C, but I'm much more
isolated at the same time.

The motor vehicle is a wonderful convenience, but it seems
to increasingly make demands on us that are downright anti-
social! I think as time goes on, the disruptive effects of
the motorized society are going to be found to be less and
less attractive.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:

> N8N wrote:
>
>> If you're in an economic situation that allows you to take the extra
>> time to use a bicycle for transportation - good on you. But don't make
>> the mistake of thinking that it's even possible for the vast majority
>> of people who are just scraping by - and even for those who aren't,
>> often the time penalty of bicycling just doesn't make economic sense,
>> even factoring in the benefits of fresh air and exercise.
>
>
> Well it will vary by individual, but you might be surprised at
> how many people *could* commute by bike if they really made a
> point of it.
>
> I commute 11 miles (straight shot route) to my workplace. On
> days when the local college students are clearing out of the
> area for a long weekend...like President's Day weekend, the
> Rt 9 roadway can be backed up for miles. It can take me an
> hour to *drive* my truck the distance, yet only 45 minutes
> (winter pace) pedaling a bike!
>
> If you feel the time it takes to bike commute represents too
> much an economic loss, you can at least partially gain some
> of that loss back from fuel savings. I commuted about 4000
> miles last year which translates to about $500 savings from
> my gas guzzler not guzzling so much.
>
> Not significant enough? Hopefully you're not paying for a
> health club or Y membership to get your exercise. My exercise
> is built right into my commute. No additional funding *or
> time* needed for exercise.
>
> We probably shouldn't get into longer term cost and time
> effects since they're, well, a future consideration. But a
> day or two in a hospital will definitely cost a pretty penny,
> in particular if you're at a lower economic position where
> health insurance isn't a part of your employment compensation!
>
> Commuting by bike isn't a viable alternative for many people.
> They don't have a good route to work, or the distance is too
> great for it to be practical.
>
> But I'm convinced an awful lot of people *could* bike commute
> if they really were serious about it. They'd find it took
> less time than they anticipated, and after a time, they'd find
> it represented an improvement in their physical and mental
> health, since their exercise was built into going to and from
> work.
>
> Bicycle commuting really isn't the whacky idea that far too
> many people (here in the USA) think it is!
>
>
> SMH
>

I actually agree with you; I was just responding to the assertion that
"very few" people *couldn't* commute by bike. Heck, one of my coworkers
is a very avid cyclist - a fairly serious amateur racer - and he still
commutes to work by car.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel