Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:a5qRh.9046$hI4.8448@trndny08...
>> Judging by the list of newsgroups this crap was spammed to and the fake
>> return address, it appears that the real point of this post is to **** off
>> as many people as possible. This is TROLL, nothing more.
>
> Cross Posting removed
> Sure, but was designed to PO a lot of people, but just scanning over it,
> there was some element of truth. At some point the elderly should be
> re-tested. I've seen first hand a few that should not be on the road. They
> are a danger to themselves and others.

I agree completely. It's one of the reasons that I refuse to join the
AARP (they've been sending me applications since I was 45), as they
oppose every attempt to impose sensible testing requirements on seniors.
I'm reminded of that every time I see some senior citizen driving half
on the shoulder (very scary for cyclists), rolling right through red
lights/stop signs or constantly crossing the middle line on corners.

I value my independence as much as the next person, but I hope I'll have
the sense to realize when I'm no longer safe to be on the roads. It
should be at least 25 years before that's even an issue.

 

Darby OGill wrote:
> "
>> Sure, but was designed to PO a lot of people, but just scanning over it,
>> there was some element of truth. At some point the elderly should be
>> re-tested. I've seen first hand a few that should not be on the road.
>> They are a danger to themselves and others.
>
> Ed, of course you're right. Yet I think people need to allow for some
> behaviors that aren't their cup of tea. Going 25 in a 30 zone is not a
> crime....people rush too much in their vehicles, putting people at risk imo.

That's true, but in many areas, speed limits are set artificially low
and drivers know that they can exceed them by say, 10 mph, with
impunity. The traffic typically flows at that higher speed and someone
driving at or below the speed limit becomes a hazard. If speed limits
were set sensibly - based on the 75th percentile as they once were -
drivers would feel less need to exceed them and police would be less
tolerant of speeders.

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:a5qRh.9046$hI4.8448@trndny08...
>>> Judging by the list of newsgroups this crap was spammed to and the
>>> fake return address, it appears that the real point of this post is
>>> to **** off as many people as possible. This is TROLL, nothing more.
>>
>> Cross Posting removed
>> Sure, but was designed to PO a lot of people, but just scanning over
>> it, there was some element of truth. At some point the elderly should
>> be re-tested. I've seen first hand a few that should not be on the
>> road. They are a danger to themselves and others.
>
> I agree completely. It's one of the reasons that I refuse to join the
> AARP (they've been sending me applications since I was 45), as they
> oppose every attempt to impose sensible testing requirements on seniors.
> I'm reminded of that every time I see some senior citizen driving half
> on the shoulder (very scary for cyclists), rolling right through red
> lights/stop signs or constantly crossing the middle line on corners.
>
> I value my independence as much as the next person, but I hope I'll have
> the sense to realize when I'm no longer safe to be on the roads. It
> should be at least 25 years before that's even an issue.

Personally, it shouldn't have to depend on one's sense. And I certainly
shouldn't have to depend on someone else's sense. There should be a
competency test every 5 years or so up until age 60 and then maybe 2
years thereafter until 80 and then every year then. If you pass the
test you keep driving. If you fail you don't.


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
> Sure. No road user group is completely without blame. Jerks are jerks,
> regardless of what they're driving or riding and you're always going to
> encounter them.
>
> What most motorists don't realize is that in most states, bicycles are
> considered to vehicles, just as cars, trucks and motorcycles are. As
> such, we DO have the right to use a lane if need be. From a practical
> standpoint, we typically try to stay out of the way and use shoulders
> where they're available and in adequate condition, so we don't impede
> faster traffic. Staying "as far to the right as practicable" is often
> also required by law.
>
> Although I do most of my riding solo, when I do ride with groups, we
> ride single-file unless the shoulder is wide enough to permit us to
> double up without intruding into the travel lane.


If the local police ever cracked down on the car vs. bike situation around
here, the cyclists would likely be getting more tickets than the car
drivers. There are several major bike races here every year so we often
have groups of bikes out there practising. They ride 2-3 across in groups
of 8 or more and refuse to move over for cars. These are rolling rural
roads with blind intersections and no shoulders. Riding in single file is
a foreign concept to them. even on the bike trails, which are generally
designed for 2 way bike traffic, they insist on riding 2 or 3 across. I
have learned to stick to the middle. I found that if I am approaching two
cyclists riding side by side coming in the opposite direction, they are
reluctant to move over to let me pass safely, If I move to the right they
will try to squeeze by side by side. If I stick to the middle, even though
they pretend not to see me coming, they eventually smarten up and move
over.


When they come to stop signs they just blow right through them, one after
another. Most of them don't even slow down. I almost hit a single
cyclist with my car last fall at a four way stop. I came to a stop and then
started to go, assuming that he was going to stop. He didn't. A few weeks
early an entire gaggle of old cyclist blew a stop sign and pulled right in
front of me. To make matters worse, they puled right out into the far left
to make a left turn, and then one of the dumb bastards yelled at me for
honking at them.



> What amazes me is the amount of harassment I get from people driving a
> 5' wide car in a 10' wide lane that don't think they have enough room if
> I'm riding near the white line on the edge of the road. This past
> summer, I even had some brain-dead "bimbette" driving a Jeep that her
> mommy and daddy must have bought her try to tell me that I should be
> riding on the sidewalk (which is illegal here). At the time I was on a
> road with 2, 10' wide travel lanes and a 6' wide shoulder. Apparently,
> that wasn't enough room for her.

Always carry a few extra water bottles. They make a hell of a bank when
they hit the hood :-)

 

Something my drivers ed teacher told me that have have always remebered "
Leave yourself and out " and " Keep your eye on the other guy and expect him
to do something stupid ! " I have remembered this and have used it for over
40 years of driving with not 1 accident and only 1 speeding ticket in those
40 years !!!

']['unez

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
newsuMRh.3624$Oc.186400@news1.epix.net...
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a5qRh.9046$hI4.8448@trndny08...
>>>> Judging by the list of newsgroups this crap was spammed to and the fake
>>>> return address, it appears that the real point of this post is to ****
>>>> off as many people as possible. This is TROLL, nothing more.
>>>
>>> Cross Posting removed
>>> Sure, but was designed to PO a lot of people, but just scanning over it,
>>> there was some element of truth. At some point the elderly should be
>>> re-tested. I've seen first hand a few that should not be on the road.
>>> They are a danger to themselves and others.
>>
>> I agree completely. It's one of the reasons that I refuse to join the
>> AARP (they've been sending me applications since I was 45), as they
>> oppose every attempt to impose sensible testing requirements on seniors.
>> I'm reminded of that every time I see some senior citizen driving half on
>> the shoulder (very scary for cyclists), rolling right through red
>> lights/stop signs or constantly crossing the middle line on corners.
>>
>> I value my independence as much as the next person, but I hope I'll have
>> the sense to realize when I'm no longer safe to be on the roads. It
>> should be at least 25 years before that's even an issue.
>
> Personally, it shouldn't have to depend on one's sense. And I certainly
> shouldn't have to depend on someone else's sense. There should be a
> competency test every 5 years or so up until age 60 and then maybe 2 years
> thereafter until 80 and then every year then. If you pass the test you
> keep driving. If you fail you don't.
>
>
> Matt

 

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:ss7b13t6kfso471mqm2ekpspm0a11b13tl@4ax.com...
> Per Adrian:
>>in front of us slowed down from 29mph on spotting a camera in a
>>30 limit - to 22mph. And stayed there for about 500m after it
>
> The ones that get me are those that hit the brakes when they see a trooper
> writing somebody a ticket..... I mean... like the guy's gonna throw down
> his
> ticket book, leap into his cruiser and come after somebody that he
> magically
> knew was speeding just by eyeballing them...
>
> --
> PeteCresswell

Usually the ******** that do that(both 4 wheelers & 18 wheelers) are
alongside you when they hit the binders. Occasionally one will do that on a
steep downhill & I can get enough speed to pull in front & scoot over to the
left & slow back down.

 

Dave Smith wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>> Sure. No road user group is completely without blame. Jerks are jerks,
>> regardless of what they're driving or riding and you're always going to
>> encounter them.
>>
>> What most motorists don't realize is that in most states, bicycles are
>> considered to vehicles, just as cars, trucks and motorcycles are. As
>> such, we DO have the right to use a lane if need be. From a practical
>> standpoint, we typically try to stay out of the way and use shoulders
>> where they're available and in adequate condition, so we don't impede
>> faster traffic. Staying "as far to the right as practicable" is often
>> also required by law.
>>
>> Although I do most of my riding solo, when I do ride with groups, we
>> ride single-file unless the shoulder is wide enough to permit us to
>> double up without intruding into the travel lane.
>
>
> If the local police ever cracked down on the car vs. bike situation around
> here, the cyclists would likely be getting more tickets than the car
> drivers. There are several major bike races here every year so we often
> have groups of bikes out there practising. They ride 2-3 across in groups
> of 8 or more and refuse to move over for cars. These are rolling rural
> roads with blind intersections and no shoulders. Riding in single file is
> a foreign concept to them. even on the bike trails, which are generally
> designed for 2 way bike traffic, they insist on riding 2 or 3 across. I
> have learned to stick to the middle. I found that if I am approaching two
> cyclists riding side by side coming in the opposite direction, they are
> reluctant to move over to let me pass safely, If I move to the right they
> will try to squeeze by side by side. If I stick to the middle, even though
> they pretend not to see me coming, they eventually smarten up and move
> over.
>
>
> When they come to stop signs they just blow right through them, one after
> another. Most of them don't even slow down. I almost hit a single
> cyclist with my car last fall at a four way stop. I came to a stop and then
> started to go, assuming that he was going to stop. He didn't. A few weeks
> early an entire gaggle of old cyclist blew a stop sign and pulled right in
> front of me. To make matters worse, they puled right out into the far left
> to make a left turn, and then one of the dumb bastards yelled at me for
> honking at them.
>
There's no excuse for them being stupid and inconsiderate. I admit that
I don't always follow the law when I'm out riding, but I would never do
what you describe, as I value my life more than that.
>
>> What amazes me is the amount of harassment I get from people driving a
>> 5' wide car in a 10' wide lane that don't think they have enough room if
>> I'm riding near the white line on the edge of the road. This past
>> summer, I even had some brain-dead "bimbette" driving a Jeep that her
>> mommy and daddy must have bought her try to tell me that I should be
>> riding on the sidewalk (which is illegal here). At the time I was on a
>> road with 2, 10' wide travel lanes and a 6' wide shoulder. Apparently,
>> that wasn't enough room for her.
>
> Always carry a few extra water bottles. They make a hell of a bank when
> they hit the hood :-)

Cleats do a nice job on doors and fenders, too. ;-)

 

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:49:47 GMT, "Darby OGill" <bark@woof.net> wrote:

>Are all the respondees to this post selfish teen dweebs, or perpetually
>offended types? If people are lucky, they'll live to a mature age, and maybe
>want to go out and get a quart of milk too. (without some AH in a riced,
>pimped egomobile pushing them)

One word: Karma!

-

Bob

 

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 07:56:32 -0700, "']['unez" <tunez1@***.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>Something my drivers ed teacher told me that have have always remebered "
>Leave yourself and out " and " Keep your eye on the other guy and expect him
>to do something stupid ! " I have remembered this and have used it for over
>40 years of driving with not 1 accident and only 1 speeding ticket in those
>40 years !!!

You just jeopardized everything by mentioning it. Good luck!
-

Bob

 

_ (jtaylor@NOSPAMeastlink.ca) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> And if an owner (& vehicle excise duty payer) of a motorcar decides to
> ride a cycle, your attitude would be...

VED pays for the vehicle, not the user of the vehicle.

Your logic would mean that I don't need to buy a tax disc for each of my
cars, one is sufficient.

 

Brian Nystrom (brian.nystrom@verizon.net) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

> Sure. No road user group is completely without blame. Jerks are jerks,
> regardless of what they're driving or riding and you're always going
> to encounter them.

*Deafening Applause*

 

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns990E4DAB3F388adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153. 245.131...
>_ (jtaylor@NOSPAMeastlink.ca) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
>> And if an owner (& vehicle excise duty payer) of a motorcar decides to
>> ride a cycle, your attitude would be...
>
> VED pays for the vehicle, not the user of the vehicle.
>
> Your logic would mean that I don't need to buy a tax disc for each of my
> cars, one is sufficient.

VED is more a means of making sure everyone keeps their cars registered than
raising serious revenue.

 

"Huge" <huge@huge.uk> wrote in message
news:PqadnYvrra9eUYvbRVnytwA@bt.com...
>
> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:a5qRh.9046$hI4.8448@trndny08...
>> As a cyclist, this is aggravating as it's hard enough to get drivers to
>> share the road without some moron like this guy encouraging them to
>> "knock us off".
>
> When you pay, then you'll have a say.

Already paid. A ing shitload of VAT and Tax, and VED on my car, and
FWIW, tax money isn't kept in seperate pots - they don't have a pot full of
cash from car drivers to spend on fixing the roads any more than they have a
pot from smokers specifically for curing lung cancer - they just shove it
all in one lump. Having bikes taxed a la Switzerland will not raise any
serious amounts of cash.

 

"Doki" <mrdoki@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:461de294$0$6945$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Huge" <huge@huge.uk> wrote in message
> news:PqadnYvrra9eUYvbRVnytwA@bt.com...
> >
> > "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:a5qRh.9046$hI4.8448@trndny08...
> >> As a cyclist, this is aggravating as it's hard enough to get drivers to
> >> share the road without some moron like this guy encouraging them to
> >> "knock us off".
> >
> > When you pay, then you'll have a say.
>
> Already paid. A ing shitload of VAT and Tax, and VED on my car, and
> FWIW, tax money isn't kept in seperate pots - they don't have a pot full
of
> cash from car drivers to spend on fixing the roads any more than they have
a
> pot from smokers specifically for curing lung cancer - they just shove it
> all in one lump. Having bikes taxed a la Switzerland will not raise any
> serious amounts of cash.
>

When you buy a second or a third or a fourth car, do you get to drive them
on the roads for free simply because you've already paid highway use fees on
your first car? No. You pay for each vehicle you're going to drive. Let
bicyclists pay registration fees to use the roads as well if they want to be
so demanding of their privileges.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:a2f26$461e01b8$45289716$26209@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Doki" <mrdoki@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:461de294$0$6945$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "Huge" <huge@huge.uk> wrote in message
>> news:PqadnYvrra9eUYvbRVnytwA@bt.com...
>> >
>> > "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > news:a5qRh.9046$hI4.8448@trndny08...
>> >> As a cyclist, this is aggravating as it's hard enough to get drivers
>> >> to
>> >> share the road without some moron like this guy encouraging them to
>> >> "knock us off".
>> >
>> > When you pay, then you'll have a say.
>>
>> Already paid. A ing shitload of VAT and Tax, and VED on my car, and
>> FWIW, tax money isn't kept in seperate pots - they don't have a pot full
> of
>> cash from car drivers to spend on fixing the roads any more than they
>> have
> a
>> pot from smokers specifically for curing lung cancer - they just shove it
>> all in one lump. Having bikes taxed a la Switzerland will not raise any
>> serious amounts of cash.
>>
>
> When you buy a second or a third or a fourth car, do you get to drive them
> on the roads for free simply because you've already paid highway use fees
> on
> your first car? No. You pay for each vehicle you're going to drive. Let
> bicyclists pay registration fees to use the roads as well if they want to
> be
> so demanding of their privileges.

Privileges such as riding on roads that I have a legal right to? If horses
were more common, would you want them to have tax disks too? The fact is
that VED is not a tax that gives you the right to use the road - it's not
been called Road Fund Licence for a very long time now. It's just a tax on
ownings cars that are taken on the road, to ensure that everyone keeps their
cars registered and to raise a bit of cash.

I imagine the original Road Fund Licence came about due to the fact that
cars and commercials do far more damage to the roads than cycles.