How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> One can take all the precautions possible to avoid collisions and STILL get
> struck.
>
> You just will not recognize it.You deceive yourself.

1) I don't live my life by -your- fears.
2) I have a better understanding of the risks involved than you do.
3) Your arguements are directly parallel to "speed kills" types who also
expect us to live by their arbitary decisions and feelings regarding risk.

In article .com>, Brian Huntley wrote:

> Defense? Violation? What the heck are you talking about?

Drivers using the fact that commerce uses motor vehicles as their excuse
to run roughshod over the rights of bicyclists are the same as bicycle
messengers who use the fact they are doing a job (commerce) to justify
running redlights,etc and so on.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Tell me, how far in advance of our meeting up with oncoming "traffic"
> on a sidewalk should my wife and I form a single-file line, in your
> opinion?
>
> a) As soon as we see a spec on the horizon?
> b) 100 feet away?
> c) 10 feet away?
> d) 5 feet away?
> e) 1 foot away?
> f) My wife and I should walk single-file on the sidewalk at all times.

Keep right except to pass. Otherwise your just a pedestrian LLB.

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." 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

That's a non-answer that reminds me of Loncoln's famous reply when
someone asked him how long his legs were. He meant his reply of, "Long
enough to reach the ground when I stand.", as a joke though.
To answer your implied question, yes I would if I was on a two lane
road and there were five or more vehicles formed in a line behind me
and opposing traffic or other conditions made it unsafe for those
vehicles to pass me. That's what RCW 46.61.427 actually mandates.
That's a far cry from what seems to be your position of "any delay is
significant so get the hell off the road".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article . com>,
"Bob" > writes:
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>> Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>
> No, all taxpayers pay for the roads. The day that fuel taxes become the
> sole or even primary source of revenue for road construction and
> maintenance will be the day that construction and maintenance ceases.

I've recently been made acutely aware of how a *city street*
is much, much more than paved surface on which to operate
vehicles. There are sewers, underground cables, culverts,
natural gas lines ... all kinds of stuff in there that isn't
directly connected with transportation. All that infrastructure
really is infra. And it looks pretty expensive to li'l ol' me.

So when somebody uses their DSL line via underground fibre optics
buried in the street, they are in effect using the street,
without actually being physically /on/ it. Same thing with
flushing the john, or turning up their gas furnace, or drawing
water from their gas-fired water heater. The pavement on top
is just the tip of the iceberg.

> Autos move commerce? That explains all those Mustangs hauling machine
> parts to the local Ford assembly plant.

And besides, bikes get cycle-commuters to their jobs,
and utility cyclists (consumers) to the shops. Streets
and roads are great facilitators for market-based
economies. To deprive cyclists of the use of streets
and roads would be counter-productive. Especially since
cyclists don't appreciably slow anyone else down.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

"Bob" > 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." 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
>
> That's a non-answer that reminds me of Loncoln's famous reply when
> someone asked him how long his legs were. He meant his reply of, "Long
> enough to reach the ground when I stand.", as a joke though.
> To answer your implied question, yes I would if I was on a two lane
> road and there were five or more vehicles formed in a line behind me
> and opposing traffic or other conditions made it unsafe for those
> vehicles to pass me. That's what RCW 46.61.427 actually mandates.
> That's a far cry from what seems to be your position of "any delay is
> significant so get the hell off the road".

I double-dog-dare you to find any post where I wrote anything like
your paraphrase directly above.

Floyd

"Bob" > 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." 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
>
> That's a non-answer that reminds me of Loncoln's famous reply when
> someone asked him how long his legs were. He meant his reply of, "Long
> enough to reach the ground when I stand.", as a joke though.
> To answer your implied question, yes I would if I was on a two lane
> road and there were five or more vehicles formed in a line behind me
> and opposing traffic or other conditions made it unsafe for those
> vehicles to pass me. That's what RCW 46.61.427 actually mandates.
> That's a far cry from what seems to be your position of "any delay is
> significant so get the hell off the road".

There you go again, twisting and combining out-of-context statements
to come up with something I never said. The context surrounding
"significant" is clearly related to the discussion *GROUP* at large:
this is quite clear in my reply to Frank. Members (of both RAD
and RBM) clearly care about delays. Members of the general public
clearly care about delays.

However, your combination of these two unrelated statements
into the paraphrase above is completely incorrect. I've never said
anything remotely close to that.

Floyd

Wayne Pein > wrote in
om:

> C. E. White wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used.
>
> I don't believe that. Can you provide documentation to support your
> assertion?
>
> Wayne
>
>

freeze-thaw cycles,heat buckling,water erosion of the bed underneath the
paving(sinkholes in Florida!)

Just a few examples.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>Cite the law (in any state you like) that tells pedestrians which
>"lane" they need to walk in.

Newton (Massachusetts) ordinance 19-117(b): "Pedestrians shall at
all times attempt to cross a roadway using the right half of a
crosswalk." This law is standard in Massachusetts cities and I
think it is also found in the Uniform Vehicle Code.

--
John Carr )

In article >,
Zoot Katz > wrote:
>Wed, 18 May 2005 14:09:47 -0500,
>,
>scud jockey, Matthew Russotto) defended its prejudice:
>
>>Describing a city bus as "rapid transit" is Newspeak.
>
>Associating driving with freedom is deluded while you're enslaved by
>the limitations of you plastic lined cage.

And the bus's graffiti-lined cage is better?

>Here the buses get priority in several critical situations like bridge
>ramps where skate boarders can regularly beat automobiles during rush
>hours.

And even with this political help, the bus is still slow. Drivers
are more likely to voluntarily take up skateboarding than board the bus.

>Buses are often more effective than automobiles when the time required
>for parking is considered as part of the overall trip time.

Often? Not likely. Rarely. Time spent waiting for the bus and
getting to and from the bus stops eat up all that savings. The many
stops the bus makes and the circuitous routing make things even worse.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.