How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Matthew Russotto
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Two words: Critical Mass.
>>>
>>> The counterparts to you, yanik, and galt.
>>>
>>> They want cars off the road, you want bicycles off the road.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>
> Wrong. On many levels.
> 1) I pay property taxes that cover more than the wear and tear I do
> to most of the roads I ride on.
> 2) Bicycles cause so little wear as to be unmeasurable.

Not relevant.Its still USAGE.

> 3) I, like most bicyclists, own motor vehicles. I've paid to use THREE
> motor vehicles on the road. I could recruit two friends to drive the
> other two if I wanted. Instead of taking up the space of three
> vehicles, I take up only the space of a bicycle.

Paying for the auto covers the autos usage,NOT your bikes.
Note that if you have mre than one auto,you have to pay for EACH ONE(buy
plates).

>
>> Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>
> So you promptly drive into the ditch everytime a semi wants to pass
> you?
>

Commerce helps pay for their road usage. Bikes don't.
Bikes are "leeches" on the road system.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> news >>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the
>>>> cyclist loses every time.
>>>
>>> I ride between 18 and 30mph. On arterial streets I am often crusing
>>> at 24-25mph. I have a speedo now, so I can actually see my real
>>> speed. At 25mph the collision speed would be about zero.
>>
>> Depends on the vectors.And once you go flying OFF your bike,the
>> impact with the ground or some other solid unmoving object will not
>> do you any good.Even road rash is gonna hurt bad.
>
> Same with a car colliding with a semi. And so does an airbag exploding
> in your face.

They provide even more protection for an auto occupant.
Fact is,one IS safer inside a vehicle than exposed on a bicycle.Much safer.
Even colliding with a semi.

>
> Since when do you get to tell me what acceptable risks are?
>


Well,it certainly is your choice to take risks.
You just do not choose to recognize cycling in traffic as such.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> In article >, Matthew Russotto
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Two words: Critical Mass.
>>>>
>>>> The counterparts to you, yanik, and galt.
>>>>
>>>> They want cars off the road, you want bicycles off the road.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>>
>> Wrong. On many levels.
>> 1) I pay property taxes that cover more than the wear and tear I do
>> to most of the roads I ride on.
>> 2) Bicycles cause so little wear as to be unmeasurable.
>
> Not relevant.Its still USAGE.

Very relevant. Also #1.

>> 3) I, like most bicyclists, own motor vehicles. I've paid to use THREE
>> motor vehicles on the road. I could recruit two friends to drive the
>> other two if I wanted. Instead of taking up the space of three
>> vehicles, I take up only the space of a bicycle.

> Paying for the auto covers the autos usage,NOT your bikes.
> Note that if you have mre than one auto,you have to pay for EACH ONE(buy
> plates).

Yes, I currently paid for THREE autos. I paid. Period. all that matters
in your warped universe of taxation leading to privilege. Do I get
priority over people who don't pay or paid less in income tax than me?

>>> Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>>
>> So you promptly drive into the ditch everytime a semi wants to pass
>> you?
>>
>
> Commerce helps pay for their road usage. Bikes don't.
> Bikes are "leeches" on the road system.

laughable. Bicycles don't require the thick, wide roads. Trucks do.
Our road requirements are very small and easily covered by the taxes we
pay. Once upon a time I calculated what a fair registration cost for a
bicycle would be based on what I pay for my cars. Postage would practically
double it. That means it would cost more to collect, it would cost
government money, thusly they do not bother. Now of course you'd suggest
a punitive tax, because your goal isn't fairness, it's eliminating the
rights of others to use the road with the vehicle of their choice.

It's about as rational as baning SUVs. I believe one of the resient
trolls of r.a.d suggests that. If you want to be that looney, go for it.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> news >>>
>>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the
>>>>> cyclist loses every time.
>>>>
>>>> I ride between 18 and 30mph. On arterial streets I am often crusing
>>>> at 24-25mph. I have a speedo now, so I can actually see my real
>>>> speed. At 25mph the collision speed would be about zero.
>>>
>>> Depends on the vectors.And once you go flying OFF your bike,the
>>> impact with the ground or some other solid unmoving object will not
>>> do you any good.Even road rash is gonna hurt bad.
>>
>> Same with a car colliding with a semi. And so does an airbag exploding
>> in your face.
>
> They provide even more protection for an auto occupant.
> Fact is,one IS safer inside a vehicle than exposed on a bicycle.Much safer.
> Even colliding with a semi.

The green house of your car is very weak. It protects you from the rain
and snow and maybe a thrown egg or plastic bottle but that's about it.

>>
>> Since when do you get to tell me what acceptable risks are?

> Well,it certainly is your choice to take risks.
> You just do not choose to recognize cycling in traffic as such.

Because it's not. There is no evidence to suggest it is. It seems you are
taking the speed kills point of view that only what happens because of a
collision is the valid measure of safety. That actually not having
collisions would be the goal. If that's the case, I suggest you never
exceed 35mph with your vehicle, anything greater and you might get
killed if you crash.

"Bob" > wrote
> I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
> cyclists are causing.

Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small, is
significant." If the answer was different (i.e., insignificant), then *NO*
separations for different traffic would exist. For instance, no-one
(in the Seattle area for instance) would be discussing bicycle lanes,
Bus Rapid Transit lanes, Light Rail, Monorail (the ultimate in grade
separation!), HOV lanes, HOT lanes, etc.

BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.

Floyd

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote
> > I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
> > cyclists are causing.
>
> Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small, is
> significant." ...

:-) Charming proof that you never learned the concept of "negligible."
I'm sure your math teachers are still shaking their heads at your
ignorance.


>
> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.

You drive an RV? Then you've caused more motorist delay on one trip
than I've caused in a decade of bicycling.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

- Frank Krygowski

fbloogyudsr wrote:
>
> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.


Then you're the only RVer in the whole damn state that does it.
Especially on HWY2, those assholes will creep at 20-under, and pass
pull-out after pull-out.

I have never been in any kind of slow-down involving a bike, but I have
spent countless hours of my life stuck behind slow-moving, brain-dead
RVers.

On the drive I do every day to and from work, there are dump trucks and
cement trucks that do exactly the same thing - 45 in a 55, (V85+5 would
be about 70, IMO), with a string of 30 cars, bumper-to-bumper behind.
Every now and again, a cyclist at 25mph, and never even a hiccup.

Really, have you ever been held up as the first vehicle behind a
bicyclist? Or are you being held up by a scaredy-driver who can't
figure out how to pass? I have been held up by the latter a couple of
times, but not nearly as much as driving for miles behind a sloth dump-
or cement truck.

E.P.

Jim Yanik wrote:


> Commerce helps pay for their road usage. Bikes don't.
> Bikes are "leeches" on the road system.
>

Since legislators could make bicycle drivers have registration and
license fees (and require them to generate gas tax revenue by using gas
powered air conditioners?) but have chosen not to, just how are bicycle
drivers supposed to contribute directly? Send a donation to their State?

It also seems to me you have chosen to participate in motoring, knowing
full well the fees, or did someone force you to drive? You could choose
to take advantage of free bicycling. Perhaps you also don't take legal
tax writeoffs?

Wayne

> wrote
> fbloogyudsr wrote:
>> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
>> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
>> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
>> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.
>
> Then you're the only RVer in the whole damn state that does it.
> Especially on HWY2, those assholes will creep at 20-under, and pass
> pull-out after pull-out.

Yeah, and then they speed up in the passing zones and make it
hard to pass. I've never driven my RV on Stevens Pass, so you've
never had occaision to curse at me. ;-)

Floyd

> wrote
> fbloogyudsr wrote:
>> "Bob" > wrote
>> > I was asking how much of a delay those pokey
>> > cyclists are causing.
>>
>> Hey, Bob, the answer really is: "any delay, no matter how small, is
>> significant." ...
>
> :-) Charming proof that you never learned the concept of "negligible."
> I'm sure your math teachers are still shaking their heads at your
> ignorance.

Negligible is not the same as insignificant, Frank. If it were
then this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Nor would road-rage
exist.

>> BTW, if you ever ride in WA state, don't forget about our law
>> about delay of vehicles: if you're delaying 5 or more you've
>> got to pull over and let them pass. I follow that when I'm riding
>> my bike (or driving my RV); I hope that you would, too.
>
> You drive an RV? Then you've caused more motorist delay on one trip
> than I've caused in a decade of bicycling.
>
> Oh, the hypocrisy!

You must have me confused with someone else. Please go back
and demonstrate where *I* ever said that I object to delays caused
by cyclists.

Floyd