How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

In article >,
says...

>There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
>call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
>to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?

I can see a problem if you can't tell the difference between a bike lane and
shoulder. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they are not.

>People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
>bad name.

True. I happen to have the complete opposite problem. I ride to work most
days and I have to go around many pedestrians who are too stupid to realize
they are in a bicycle lane. They hog up the whole lane and often block it,
one the cell phone seems the cause many times. What makes this even worse is
that there is a pedestrian lane right next to the bike lane.
-------------
Alex

In article >, says...

>Children are not licensed drivers. A licensed driver is supposed to
>know the rules of the road and follow them regardless of what type of
>vehicle he's using. If he's riding a bicycle, he's to ride on the road
>in the same direction as traffic.

No license is required to ride a bike.
--------------
Alex

In article >,
Jim Smith > wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) writes:
>
>> In article >,
>> Roy Owen > wrote:
>>>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, if every pedestrian to whom he failed to yield were to respond
>>>> by calling him a ****head, he'd quickly change his bad behavior.
>>>>
>>>Or maybe he'd just start packing a 9mm and blow people away.
>>
>> In which case he'd end up dead or in jail in short order, also solving
>> the problem.
>
>Lets review. Our problem is a rude bicyclist. You are tacitly
>endorsing a course of action which "solves the problem" by leaving one
>person dead and another either dead or in jail.

No. I'm endorsing a course of action that, _if escalated by the
bicyclist_ will leave one person dead and another either dead or in
jail. The only alternative being a course of action which will not solve
the problem at all -- that course of action being to simply silently
allow the rudeness to stand.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>And it's not just that more hours are spent in cars. On a per-hour
>basis, riding in a car and riding a bike are about equal in fatal head
>injury risk.

When we want to get from point A to point B, we measure on a per-mile
basis, not per hour.

>Incidentally, walking near traffic is even worse - mostly
>because of road zombies mowing people down in crosswalks.

Mostly because of drunk pedestrians wandering in the middle of unlit
streets.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Claire Petersky" > wrote in
:

> This is also the case in the Seattle area. For example,
> Bothell/Lake City Way has a transit lane to facilitate the ease of
> travel for the buses. If the issue was only keeping auto traffic
> moving, they'd only need cut-outs for the bus to pull into at each
> stop.
>
Actually in Vancouver streets they are inatallling sidewalk bulges so
buses don't have to pull in (across the parking lane) to pick people
up. This of course delays the cars behind (and speeds up the bus) but
the planners say tough, take a bus. Love it.

In article >,
Mike Latondresse > wrote:
>
>Actually in Vancouver streets they are inatallling sidewalk bulges so
>buses don't have to pull in (across the parking lane) to pick people
>up. This of course delays the cars behind (and speeds up the bus) but
>the planners say tough, take a bus. Love it.

Not even the planners think they can figure out how to make taking a
bus pleasant enough to be an option most people will voluntarily take
over driving a car. So instead they try to figure out way to make
driving a car even more unpleasant. But the gap is too wide to be
bridged that way too.


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
says...

>Two words: Critical Mass.

They represent themselves, not other cyclists. It's like saying LLB's
represent all drivers.
--------------
Alex

In article >, .
says...

>Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.

Cyclists also pay taxes that help fund the roads. Many cyclists also own
cars, so they are paying for the road. A cyclist also causes basically no wear
and tear to the road. So in order to pay their fair share they would only need
to a trivial amount.

---------------
Alex

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> > wrote:
>>
>>And it's not just that more hours are spent in cars. On a per-hour
>>basis, riding in a car and riding a bike are about equal in fatal head
>>injury risk.
>
> When we want to get from point A to point B, we measure on a per-mile
> basis, not per hour.

Maybe out in rural areas per mile is valuable way to determine A-to-B
travel. I'm used to travel being described in a minutes basis.

Thusly if I am making a decision to drive to work or ride to work, my
consideration is the number of minutes. Biking is usually equal in the
morning and faster in the afternoon.

Wed, 18 May 2005 12:23:03 -0500,
>,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Mike Latondresse > wrote:
>>
>>Actually in Vancouver streets they are inatallling sidewalk bulges so
>>buses don't have to pull in (across the parking lane) to pick people
>>up. This of course delays the cars behind (and speeds up the bus) but
>>the planners say tough, take a bus. Love it.
>
>Not even the planners think they can figure out how to make taking a
>bus pleasant enough to be an option most people will voluntarily take
>over driving a car. So instead they try to figure out way to make
>driving a car even more unpleasant. But the gap is too wide to be
>bridged that way too.

The more enlightened commuters, who after using rapid transit, wonder
why they'd not done it before. But you're right, drivers don't convert
voluntarily so they should be forced by exorbitant costs and
restrictive legislation reducing the attractiveness of driving.

I firmly believe in making driving more unpleasant, expensive,
inconvenient, and socially unacceptable. It should be stigmatised the
same way smoking has been since it's potentially several times more
deadly to far greater numbers of persons who didn't buy into your
slovenly habitual sloth.

Futchu and your stinking filthy second-hand smoke.
--
zk