Re: NEVER BUY WALMART'S BATTERIES OR YOU WILL BE SORRY

Well, yes I suppose so. Of course, the rest of us are alive also.

Reply to
dgk
Loading thread data ...

cyclists have most of the

tell it to the judge.

Ah, I see. No one on the right decides when a law should be enforced and when it's stupid. So, when everyone else is driving at 65 in a 50 zone, you just cruise along at 50. Probably in the left lane just to teach everyone else a lesson.

Here in New York City, we use common sense.

Reply to
dgk

when it comes to paying for

Gee, every place I've ever seen, if you don't look before opening your car door and somebody hits it, you're at fault. But I suppose you live somewhere where bikes go faster than the speed of light.

Reply to
z

cyclists have most of the

tell it to the judge.-

That's pretty impressive coming from somebody who figures he has the right to open the car door whenever he feels like it and it's everybody else's job to dodge around it.

Reply to
z

ROFL.....

That is not what I'd call it.

Reply to
Scott in Florida

What would you call it? Way back, more years ago than I care to think about, I took Drivers Ed. We were taught that if everyone was going 65 and the speed limit was 50, you go 65 or you're the hazzard. Yes, we were taught to break the law when it made sense.

I used that line when stopped once for speeding upstate. He said, yes, that's true, but they were doing 65 and you were doing 70. But he didn't give me a ticket.

Reply to
dgk

Right....

Reply to
Scott in Florida

Well, that's what Usenet is all about, nest-say poss?

: You wouldn't be riding close to the right edge of the pavement, : where the asphalt abuts the concrete gutter or the shoulder, : which is the part that "tends to be less well maintained than : normal traffic lanes."

Dude...paragraphs are a *good* thing.

I've noticed that ever since cycling became popular among adults back in the '80s, people who consider themselves "serious" cyclists often act as though they *invented* cycling -- and that those of us who grew up riding bicycles, but who are only occasional riders as adults, are completely unacquainted with the activity, or at least with its finer points.

While it's true that in places where cars are parked a majority of the time, the debris that collects on the side of the road is not going to collect solely at the edge where the pavement ends, it *will* do just that for the most part. Debris that's farther out in the road, to the left of parked cars, is unusual, even anomalous.

Therefore it's unrealistic and a bit disingenuous to use the pos- sibility of debris in that part of the road as a pretext for riding too far out in the traffic lane at all times. The occasional piece of debris in that area no more justifies riding too far out in the road as a matter of course than the presence of storm drains does. (Yes, I've seen that used as a justification for the practice.)

When I see Harley-Davidson enthusiasts try to justify making ear- splitting amounts of noise on the basis that "loud pipes save lives," I tell them that if they can't feel safe without making antisocial nuisances of themselves, then they shouldn't ride motorcycles. By the same token, if a bicyclist can't feel safe without riding so far out in the street that he obstructs traffic, then *he* shouldn't ride. Or shouldn't ride in places where he feels endangered, at least. I think the reason why this so often falls on deaf ears is the rise of the so-called "me generation."

Monitoring the road surface ahead is great -- but it doesn't require so much attention that one can't simultaneously watch for occupied cars as well.

: You exhibit a tendency that I've noticed is common among bicyclists. : Well, two of them, actually, the first being unnecessary snottiness : ("I guess you don't bike much."). The other is an inclination to : place all blame and responsibility for your safety onto the shoulders : of motorists and onto physical road conditions -- the obvious intent : being that you won't have to change your habits by, say, developing : better situational awareness and by riding off to the side of the : road where you'd be both safer and out from underfoot.

Er, I never said anything about riding on the sidewalk, or suggested that a cyclist was automatically to blame if he were hit by a motor- ist while riding on the street. Or assumed anything about grass, for that matter. By "riding off to the side of the road," I meant riding as far to the right as possible, but still riding on the paved road surface.

So far, so good. I have no problem with any of that.

I don't *assume* that. I know it to be true.

I also know it to be true that when cyclists ride in groups, they'll often get uppity and go out of their way to take up about half of the traffic lane (or the rightmost traffic lane, if it's a multilane road), rather than riding in single file as courtesy and common sense dictate.

What you *should* do in situations like that is to move as far to the right as possible, and leave the question of passing you up to motorist's discretion. You're assuming that if a driver chooses to pass you, he won't naturally move as far to the left as necessary (even over the center line) to pass you at a safe distance.

And perhaps an occasional driver *will* pass you more closely than you'd really prefer. But as with debris on the road to the left of parked cars, that's an anomaly that in no way justifies your riding full-time as though it were a given. After all, the odds are over- whelming that any given driver isn't, in fact, a psycho who's out to murder cyclists. Or putting it in terms of self-interest, even some- one who's careless enough to risk damage to his car.

It's this thing that cyclists call "taking the lane" that pisses people off. Like the practice of swerving out into traffic to use the left-turn lanes at controlled intersections, one never saw that before cycling became popular among adults -- and yet people managed to ride their bikes safely. It's the impression of many drivers -- and, I believe, an accurate one -- that a lot of cyclists do this whenever they can just to assert their rights, and not because there's any legitimate need at the time.

Again: if a cyclist can't feel safe in a given locale without obstructing traffic, then he shouldn't be riding there. I mean, there it is. Options abound: walk, drive, take the bus, or avoid the place entirely. Pick one. But stay out of your fellow citizens' way.

It's hardly a given that this typically only happens for just a few seconds at a time. Or that most motorists would really mind all that much if it did, assuming that they didn't have to slow down significantly.

And the speed differential between cars and bikes is an excellent reason why cyclists "taking the road" is inconsiderate. No one likes his pace disrupted. Whether the disruption has any significant effect on his arrival time at his destination is immaterial; it's a matter of maintaining a comfortable pace. Cyclists understand this just as well as motorists do, which is why they hardly ever stop at stop signs. Gotcha!

Yes, and I've seen them do that. Many times. (Lollygagging along at a leisurely for a good distance intentionally taking up an entire lane, I mean, not reevaluate how they were affecting others.)

You're reading more into my my choice of words than is justified.

The fact that one sort of vehicle can get in the way of another sort of vehicle doesn't, _ipso facto_, imply that the slower one has no right to be on the road. What it implies is that the operators of the slower type of vehicle should take care to stay out of the way of the faster vehicles, as a matter both of safety and consiferation for others.

That's the intent behind the fact that "pedestrians, bicycles, and motor-driven cycles" are prohibited from freeways, and the fact that jets, propeller-driven aircraft, and helicopters have different pattern altitudes at airfields. Strangely, I've never heard of helicopter pilots with weak self-esteem trying to assert their rights by "taking the pattern" at jet altitude...

Geoff

-- "I don't like cyclists. They all look like organic food addicts who would advocate federal control of bedtime." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Reply to
Geoff Miller

New York City has one of the lowest auto accident rates in the United States, far lower than the national average. Perhaps it's that common sense at work.

Reply to
Johnny Hageyama

"Johnny Hageyama" ...

No, it's because the traffic is so badly managed, nobody moves fast enough to have a high accident rate.

Natalie

Reply to
Wickeddoll

Or the crazy new york drivers are here in New Jersey

Reply to
EdV

That too.

Natalie

Reply to
Wickeddoll

my 70 yeras old Wallmark battery is still woking good.

Reply to
jackaxxx

You raised some interesting points in these posts so let's tackle them. First, I think someone who rode bikes as a kid and maybe in the park as an adult has very little idea of what it's like using them for serious transportation.

Now, as much as I love my Honda Accord, which is why I'm in one of these three newsgroups to begin with, I do take biking as a serious means of transportation. In my case, 30 miles a day for three or four days a week. Many weeks my car sits in the driveway except for the weekend. As for the time spent commuting by bike, I either take a bus to the train to the train, which takes me around 1:20, or I bike in, which takes around 1:20. Not much difference there. Or, I can drive to the park'n'ride, which saves 25 minutes or so but costs $3.

I can read on the train, assuming I get a seat. I can listen to talk radio on the bike or a lecture on computer stuff (another issue I'm sure - I'd love to have heard the arguments against installing radios in cars when they first started doing that). I'd rather be listening to something while biking along (no noise-cancelling earbuds though) than having my thoughts swirling around.

I disagree that we can't have separate laws for bikes and cars. We already do, for instance, I can't bike on a freeway and I can't drive in a bike lane. Let's take that further. If we seriously want to use bikes for transportation, and many countries do and given how fat we are, we should, then we can take a few steps. Dedicate a whole road for bikes only, for instance. Portland does that, bikes and buses. Not just a small lane squeezed between parked cars and moving cars. Time the lights on that road for me, say 10-12 mph. Oh, and get rid of those articulated buses. Doubledeckers ok, but those football size things really blow.

On some roads where it isn't practical, we'll dedicate one or two lanes for just bikes and buses. Maybe we'll even put up a nice overhang so we don't get rained on. I bike in the rain, but it really isn't my favorite thing. I prefer dry pavement; for one thing, glass sticks to wet tires. If folks aren't willing to part with a lane or a road, then don't bitch if we need to take a car lane for safety reaons sometimes.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of licensing and insurance if it's offset by some gains. Riding for transportation is not the same as a kid biking down the block. I think that my homeowner's insurance actually covers biking accidents. I'll have to check that; it's a good point. If I ever do hit someone I would like to know that I'm covered.

Fair enough? Free country, I want to bike to work, many other folks also. Now let's figure out a way to make it as easy for everyone. That means that some car folks might have to give something up. You should have heard the squealing at the local community board meeting when DOT suggested actually giving up a car lane for a bike lane on one street. You'd have thought that Osama was coming.

Reply to
dgk

Canada, cyclists have most of the

tell it to the judge.-

Hey, you know conservatives. He has the right to open his car door in my face and I have the right to try to dodge it. It's all about freedom from government interference.

Reply to
dgk

Oh. And to think that all this time, I thought it was because you were smart enough to realize that I won the debate...

Oh, bullshit; that's just a *little* self-serving, don't you think?

Where is it written that all bicyclists think in lockstep and have the same views on things? Surely you'd agree that it's at least theoretically possible for bicyclists to be inconsiderate of others.

Biking and driving are things that I do. Neither is something that I define myself in terms of. Thanks to that mental evenhandedness, I'm not blind to the sins of either side.

Geoff

-- "Have you ever noticed that whenever you sneeze on your dashboard or computer monitor, it smells like pussy?" -- bandy

Reply to
Geoff Miller

Mike Hunter proposes:

There's no "LOL" about it. It makes perfect sense.

Many bicyclists are fond of claiming equal rights to the road on the basis that they're also drivers, and so pay all the taxes that are relevant to driving.

Well, if they're so honest and up-front about recognizing the social value of taxation, then surely they wouldn't object to paying this additional, dedicated tax on bicycles. I say sign 'em up!

Geoff

-- "Have you ever noticed that whenever you sneeze on your dashboard or computer monitor, it smells like pussy?" -- bandy

Reply to
Geoff Miller

Perhaps it's the result of traffic in New York City being so heavy that no one can go fast enough to get into any trouble.

Geoff

-- "Have you ever noticed that whenever you sneeze on your dashboard or computer monitor, it smells like pussy?" -- bandy

Reply to
Geoff Miller

You don't bike to get anywhere.

Reply to
dgk

I'm a complete stranger to you. You don't know squat about when, where, and for what reasons I bike, or have biked in the past.

And even if you did, and what you allege were true, whether or not someone bikes to "get anywhere" is a bogus criterion. The conditions on the streets aren't any different whether someone is riding to a destination or just riding for pleasure. And riding for pleasure doesn't necessarily mean riding along some peaceful country road.

Many of you people regard bicycle commuting, specifically, as some arbitrary standard of authenticity, and act as though anyone who doesn't ride a bike to work somehow cannot now what it's really like "out there." That's silly.

Geoff

-- "One cool thing about the movie, a nice shot of the tower in Austin, an ever present reminder that this is America, the only country where one man can still make a difference." -- Tim Mefford

Reply to
Geoff Miller

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.