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

: Huh? The road pavement isn't going to move. The door on one of : those parked cars just might.

I've been biking since JFK was in the White House. You?

The point isn't that things like potholes and loose gravel aren't of great importance. It's that given the relatively low speeds of bicycles and how visible the road is to a cyclist, they're suffic- iently easy to spot from a moderate distance, prior to actually arriving at them, that one's attention can easily and safely be diverted to other things for brief but sufficient intervals. Such as, say, to cars parked along the side of the road, and to whether there's anyone sitting in them who might suddenly open a door in front of one without looking first, for example.

As for "the pavement where bikes get to ride," in this context we're talking about the potential hazard of car doors being opened in front of you. In order for car doors to be a concern, you'd obviously have to be riding to the left of cars parked at the curb -- which would place you in the normal traffic lane. Near the right edge of it, granted, but in the normal traffic lane nonetheless. 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."

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.

Geoff

-- "Wit goes for the jugular, not the jocular." -- Florence King

*snipping for brevity*

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.

Geoff

You made my point very well. I'm saying that being on a two-wheeled vehicle greatly increases your risk for severe injury - period. Whose fault the accident was is irrelevant, because the car driver will probably survive, but you will be street pizza.

Natalie

One, there's riding and there's riding. A kid pedaling his bike around suburbia isn't in anywhere near the danger that an urban bicycle messenger or an agressive Effective Cyclist/Critical Masshole type places himself into, either by his style of riding or by the sort of environment in which he does it.

Two, even if we accept for the sake of argument that a bicyclist is at increased risk of serious injury, that doesn't necessarily bring that risk from the realm of "possible" into that of "likely"; nor does it make head injuries any more likely than any other sort

-- which is what you and I disagreed about in the first place.

Geoff

-- "Wit goes for the jugular, not the jocular." -- Florence King

"Geoff Miller" ...

And we still disagree. I think it's madness not to wear a helmet if you're on a 2-wheeled vehicle.

So there we are.

Natalie

Me too! Well, not exactly, I did bike when JFK was in the White House but after two bikes got stolen at college I gave it up for many years. It wasn't until I noticed that virtually every male on my mother's side of the family died of heart disease before they were 55 that I take it up again. Of course, they were southern boys who ate lots of fried food, smoked constantly, and got no exercise.

So I started biking again. After six months I had a physical and my HDL was way up, LDL and Trig way down. My doctor was amazed. So, for all the risk of biking as a means of commuting (it really isn't very dangerous at all), for me it makes sense. Of course, I could do the same thing in the gym but I don't. I have to commute, and if I bike it takes 1:20, and if I take the bus and train it takes 1:20. And I don't have to go to the gym.

This is true, but as you know, the eyes are constantly in motion when biking. I do watch the pavement, plus the driveways, pedestrians, cover plates (slippery when wet), and such. And I watch for and avoided many opening doors.

I'm thinking of a couple of roads on my commute which are pretty badly paved near the parked cars. I do watch that every time I ride it. It is also a street where folks tend to open doors without looking and people drive aggressively.

Was that snotty? I didn't mean it to be. You also might not ride in the places I do, where roads are bad enough to be worthy of closer vigilance. I'm not talking about an occasional pothole, I'm talking about an occasional smooth area.

I also don't place blame on anyone else unless it is deserved. Most of the drivers and pedestrians I encounter are considerate and aware of their surroundings. Even the cabbies. Their passengers are a big hazzard though. They fling doors open on my left side. I was driving once and a cab passenger opened the door into my car.

I'm far from what you might consider a typical biker. I don't care about my cadence so I slow down in situations that call for it. I don't wear tight lycra, but do wear bright and reflective clothes.

I do have to put up with our over-motored society where anything that interferes with blasting down the road as fast as possible is to be driven out from "underfoot". That was an interesting word for someone who claims to be a biker.

In that case, I apologize.

Cycling is something I do, not something I define myself in terms of. That's a fundamental difference between most drivers and most adult bicyclists, and it's part of what forms the attitude that many cyclists have toward drivers.

"Out from underfoot" was an apt choice of phrase considering that many "serious" cyclists are inconsiderate at best, and that many actively enjoy obstructing traffic. Their ride of choice is non-polluting, you see, and that makes them morally superior. Or so they seem to believe.

These people demand to be taken seriously as legitimate vehicle operators and given the same respect as drivers, and yet they're often irresponsible about getting in other people's way and often only obey traffic laws when it's convenient for them to do so.

It's rare that I see a cyclist actually stop at a stop sign, for example. Yes, motorists have been known to run stop signs, too -- but it's the exception, not the rule. And more to the point, it isn't motorists who are the ones demanding rights while willfully (and childishly) ignoring the attendant responsibilities.

Geoff

-- "Wit goes for the jugular, not the jocular." -- Florence King

What a pile of technical dribble. (I'm an electrical engineer)

However WalMart is not my choice of store for anything. Just a bottom end store that trys to undercut other stores. The continually beat their suppliers down to lower prices, regardless of the lack of quality that results.

Well, if you are playing the part of the liberal, perhaps I should play the part of the conservative...

It's my god given right to do whatever I want. You can't impose your ideals on me. I don't need to consider the rest of the population in my actions. So go screw yourself. After all, I bet you are just trying to create a demand for the practice, which will create more jobs for them furrinners when lazy liberals decide to hire someone to do it for them.

How's that? If it's not spot on it's probably because of lack of experience in generally not giving a hoot about others.

Have a good day... Seriously, Bill

You know, I agreed with Geoff when he said that helmet laws went a bit too far, but I can't agree here.

You wouldn't be

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 collects at the edge of the traveled lane. This will be where the bike is traveling. So while your point is clever, it is not always realistic. In most city settings, cars park on a shoulder that serves no purpose other than parking, so cars never travel it with enough regularity to clear it as you are implying. On a road bike it is easy to get a flat tire. Since the tires don't have meaty tread to add thickness, punctures take little more thna small piece of glass. I have very good situational awareness, and that is likely why I've never had an incident on a bike, but part of my situational awareness is monitoring the pavement ahead for glistening spots where broken glass are. Running over a pile of broken glass on road bike tires puts you at high risk of puncture.

I'll admit that I've noticed this snootiness also. Especially in those who work at bike shops. However, suggesting that bicyclists are to blame if they are hit by a motorist because the bicyclist chose to drive on the street versus the sidewalk is a little silly. It is counter to common ettiquette to ride on a sidewalk. Especially at any rate that will allow you to commute a good distance. It is dangerous to pedestrians to ride on the sidewalk. If you are assuming that there is grass versus sidewalk, I'd like to point out how much harder it is to pedal on grass than pavement. The difference in drag is by orders of magnitude.

I am not a super dedicated cyclist, but in college I woudl bike about

3 miles each way to get to classes on a 35 mph road with 2 lanes in each direction and a few lights. So I have logged enough miles to talk about it, but am not a serious cyclist. My attitude as a bicyclist is that I assume that cars don't see me if there is more than about a 10mph delta. So I guess you could say that I do place blame on a car that passed me while going about 5 mph faster than I was going, then suddenly turns into me, or nearly hits me when I am going just slightly slower. And I don't think that I am placing blame innapropriately either. I think many cyclists subscribe to a philosophy similar to mine. I also think that you may be assuming that they have the attitude that they rule the road just because they are in a position where they must make their presence known so that you don't run them over. When I am coming up on extremely tight stretches of road where I know the shoulder is nonexistant, I will speed up as fast as I can go and merge into traffic, getting over far enough that I make it clear that I don't want to be passed. Once I feel it is safe for cars to pass, I get over and let them pass. For the motorist to have the attitude that a cyclist using that strategy is snooty and taking over the road is not considering that the cyclist is doing it for safety's sake. Just because the cyclist extended the time that you took to get somewhere by 10 seconds, that doesn't make them evil or snooty. Now If they are just lollygagging along at a leisurely pace for a good distance intentionally taking up an entire lane on a busy road, then yes, they need to reevaluate how they are affecting others.

By use of the term 'underfoot' it appears that you actually have the opinion that bikes do not have a right to be there, and that cars are the only vehicles allowed to travel on roads. That is simply not the case, and driving with an attitude like that can lead to making more aggressive movements around bikers than you would if you were to accept that they have the right to be there, even if they are inconveniencing motorists.

I'll have to concede that I do see bikers like that, but not as often as I see those who obey the traffic laws. After a bit of reflection on that, I think that they might be the same bikers. It is probably because nowadays when I travel by car the bikers I see in the city (D.C.) are traveling on roads where there are mostly stop lights with traffic traveling accross the intersection when the cyclist has a red light. They don't ahve a choice but to stop even if they wanted to run the light. And where I live is on a scenic country road (It's an official scenic route and all.) with a stop sign about a hundred feet from my door. Bikers usually stop there, but that may be beacuase visibility at the intersection is horrible.

So you may have a good point. Some bikers are quite inconsiderate, and choose to use laws when it suits them. That is not smart, and I'm sure it will catch up with them when they run a stop sign and get clobbered by a car that has the right of way.(Not because it is a car, but just because the bike didn't stop.) Then they will be singing the praises of helmets.

I like the term critical masshole. Even when I did bike almost every day, and knew people who were into serious biking, I always thought that it was a stupid idea. Pissing people off is never going to win them over to your side. Even though the intent may be different, upon realistically analyzing the expected result, it did seem more like a prank than an environmental or political statement. Good intentions, poor means.

When I ride, I don't expect to be taken seriously as a legitimate vehicle operator as much as I expect someone to respect my right to life enough to make allowances for the room that I need, and to try not to hit me. That's how I view it.

: My not using CTRL-END isn't the problem. People : including too much quoted text in their followups : is the problem. It's the "root cause," as liberals : would say.

If that's a thumbnail sketch of what conservatism means to you, then you need to get out more. A subscription to _National Review_ probably wouldn't hurt, either.

If you give a hoot about others, then what's your objection to making one's posts easier to read with proper editing?

Geoff

-- "She is descended from a long line that her mother listened to." -- Gypsy Rose Lee

I do not object to the request that posts should be as brief as possible. I think it is a legitimate request, and I try to do it myself.

My only objection is that your prod at liberals while making the request. I'm not actually offended by it, but I just take it as an invitation for a friendly little joust. So I made my own prod at conservatives. In reality, I'm not passionate enough about any of these issues to argue about them at length. I just enjoy a little sparring with articulate conservatives since I'm slightly liberal. (Not that all conservatives are articulate, but you appear to be.) I'm not a hard core liberal-but I'd defintely describe myself as blue if forced to classify myself. On some points I agree with you, on others I don't. Also, I'm curious just how off topic this thread will get. I'm normally a proponent of keeping a thread on topic, but this one was pretty much worthless to begin with, So I don't feel as though we are collectively highjacking anything of importance.

Have a good day, Bill

Good one. For a worthless thread it does have staying power.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:22:33 -0000, " snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com" wrote: ...

Actually I'm considerate but choose to use laws when it suits me. Those aren't mutally exclusive.

I run lights much of the time. As it is, it takes me 1:20 to get from home to work. Since the lights are timed for cars and not me, it would take seriously more time if I stopped and waited at lights where there is no one else around. I usually leave home well before 6:30 AM.

Many bike advocates say that bikes should have the same rights and reponsibilities as cars. Nonsense. We aren't cars. We can't go as fast and can't do the damage. We also aren't pedestrians, who cross streets in ways that make me gasp sometimes. I do it. Are you saying that all people should wait for the green light? Of course they should, but that isn't reality.

No, I'm a bike. I look before running lights, both ways even though virtually all the lights I run are on one way streets. Here in NYC I hardly ever see a bike wait for a light where they didn't have to. I do sometimes see people waiting at a light. There is a name for that kind of person. They're called tourists.

..

.

It was the use of the word "underfoot" that caused me to stop replying. Obviously he is a liar and does not bike.

You can call them alive, too.....

In most eastern states bike riders are subject to the same rules of the road as motor vehicles.. One can even be charged with DUI. In my opinion the bikes and the riders should be licensed, as well, to help pay the road use taxes that are used to set up and maintain bike lanes. LOL

mike

Only LIEbrawls/DEMONrats sneer at the law as you do. Here, in Alberta, Canada, cyclists have most of the rights AND responsibilities of motorists. You bike through a red light, YOU tell it to the judge.

Cyclists should also be INSURED, as many of them don't have a pot to piss in when it comes to paying for damage to the car doors they slam into.