From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:26:25 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA18034 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:26:24 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!dircon!trident!simon-c
From: simon-c@trident.co.uk (Simon Craythorn)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Message-ID: <5023@trident.co.uk>
References: 3rk853$ef@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 15:09:00 GMT
Lines: 27
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1340
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

 > This is about the most insane, stupid behavior I can think of. Oh my,
 > a tailgater, I know, I'll slow down, that'll teach him. If the average
 > someone is tailgating (or driving remotely close to you) it should
 > send a signal to your hopefully driving aware brain. I am blocking the
 > road in some way, what can I do to alleviate this situation (I would
 > exclude crass tailgating just to be tailgating types here).  What are
 > you about 78 years old?

I agree with slowing down when being tailgated.  If you are already doing a 
resonable speed for the road, maybe even up or slightly above the speed limit 
and you are tailgated what are you to do.  If you speed up any more you are 
more than likely exceeding the safe or legal limit of the road, also it is 
highly likely that the tailgater will also speed up and remain on your tail.

In the event that you need to hit the brakes this tailgater is going to go 
strait in to the back of you.  Personally if someone is going to hit the back 
of me I would rather they did it at a slower speed than a quicker one.

Tailgaters take note - you will not get there any quicker, by hanging back a 
little you get a better view of the road in front of the other vehicle, you 
can then come closer when it is safe to pass.

Simon
Member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists (UK)




From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:26:42 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA18126 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:26:41 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!smiale@cs.indiana.edu
From: "Steven Miale" <smiale@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Message-ID: <1995Jun15.221544.24124@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
References: <3rk853$ef@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5023@trident.co.uk> <tksaveryDA74o6.8H1@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 22:15:36 -0500
Lines: 30
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1448
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <tksaveryDA74o6.8H1@netcom.com>,
Techs Avery <tksavery@netcom.com> wrote:
>Simon Craythorn (simon-c@trident.co.uk) wrote:
>: I agree with slowing down when being tailgated.  If you are already doing a 
>: resonable speed for the road, maybe even up or slightly above the speed limit 
>: and you are tailgated what are you to do.  If you speed up any more you are 
>
>You let them pass you. Period. No argument. Most roads have turnouts or 
>dotted lines. If it's dotted lines and there's no oncoming traffic you 
>open your window, wave the guy around and slow down to make it safer to 
>pass. If you need to pull onto the shoulder to do it, then do it. It 
>could save your life, your car or just save you headaches. 

Right. If (s)he wants to pass, let them. It isn't your job to force them
to drive at what you consider a safe speed for yourself. I've had many
a tailgater when I'm driving 75 or so in the left lane on the interstate;
someone wants to go faster. Fine; I switch lanes as soon as it is safe to
do so, let them pass, and move back. 

'sides, that way they get caught for speeding, not me :-)

>I drive as fast as anyone, and I frequently let people, even suicidal 
>ones, pass me. I want them in front of me where I can keep an eye on them.

I want them WAY out in front so they can't do anything to me. The closer
they are, the worse it is IMHO. 

Steve
-- 
Steven Miale  <http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/smiale.html>

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:27:15 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA18257 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:27:15 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!boulder!spot.Colorado.EDU!weverka
From: weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 16 Jun 95 11:47:29 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <weverka.803303249@spot.Colorado.EDU>
References: 3rk853$ef@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu <5023@trident.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: spot.colorado.edu
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #8 (NOV)
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 362
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

People who pass too slowly.  They get into the fast lane and creep
past the right lane cars.

And worse, they get on rec.autos.driving and dare suggest that
they have every right to do this.
They cannot estimate speed differentials.  

At a 5 mph speed differential, it should take you all of two seconds
to pass the slower car.  These idiots take much longer.


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:28:23 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA18748 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:28:23 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!venus.sun.com!ames!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet
From: daglenn@prairienet.org (David Glenn)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 23:30:57 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <3rst12$do@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: 3rk853$ef@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu <5023@trident.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: colt-18.slip.uiuc.edu
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent v0.55
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1584
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

simon-c@trident.co.uk (Simon Craythorn) wrote:

> > This is about the most insane, stupid behavior I can think of. Oh my,
> > a tailgater, I know, I'll slow down, that'll teach him. If the average
> > someone is tailgating (or driving remotely close to you) it should
> > send a signal to your hopefully driving aware brain. I am blocking the
> > road in some way, what can I do to alleviate this situation (I would
> > exclude crass tailgating just to be tailgating types here).  What are
> > you about 78 years old?

>I agree with slowing down when being tailgated.  If you are already doing a 
>resonable speed for the road, maybe even up or slightly above the speed limit 
>and you are tailgated what are you to do.  If you speed up any more you are 

My point was, in case I didn't express it, that someone blasting on
their brakes as I come up from behind (or am following closely to
pass), does NOT make me want to quite 'tailgating'. It is fine if you
slow down in a passing zone such that I may do so, but flashing brake
lights, slowing down, etc. don't make me any happier about being
behind you.

My usual experience in these situations is that I am ready to pass
someone but there is oncoming traffic, so the individual in front, in
some amazing cerebral computation, figures he will slow down to let me
pass. However, the individual always slows down in no-passing zones (I
do NOT pass in these) and speeds back up in passing zones. I have
witnessed this behavior in my commute home for the past 8 years along
one specific road (probably 40 or more drivers). Go figure.


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:34:44 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA20813 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:34:43 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!simtel!news.kei.com!nntp.et.byu.edu!news.pr.erau.edu!bubba.NMSU.Edu!mcarlton
From: mcarlton@nmsu.edu (Matthew T. Carlton)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 07:23:15 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <3s5t13$p7k@bubba.NMSU.Edu>
References: <3rf42f$n2v@news3.digex.net> <3rgaik$fsj@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3rkcpo$hnr@mozz.unh.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dante.nmsu.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1509
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Susan E Clark (sec@christa.unh.edu) wrote:
: Not to start a flame here, but.....men are bad drivers too!!  They do the 
: same thing, believe it or not.  Also I've noticed a lot is when I'm 
: driving down the highway 65 (when it's 55) passing someone and this jerk 
: comes up behind me as close as he can gets so I speed up a little to 
: quickly pass the car and "try" to get over to the right lane to let him 
: pass and then, just as I'm about to cross over, I happen to see this jerk 
: slipping in front of the car I just passed (nearly hitting him) and 
: passes me on the right and gives ME the finger cuz I almost hit him 
: trying to get into the right lane.  WHY??  Can't people wait a few 
: seconds for someone to move out of the way?  Anyway, I believe that there 
: is an equal share of bad women and men drivers.

It's customary to get out of the way of fast-moving drivers.  If you're 
far enough ahead of the other guy that the person behind you can fit 
through, you deserve what you get.  Mind you, I NEVER cut ppl off under 
normal circumstances, but when someone is moving fast and you're in the 
way....move!

Speedfreak

______________________________________________________________________________
				On the evidence, 
		Peace is a purely theoretical state of affairs, 
		 The  existance of which has been hypothesized
			Because there have been intervals
				 Between Wars.


						-- Jerry Pournelle
______________________________________________________________________________

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:35:19 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA20952 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:35:18 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!prairienet.org!gld
From: gld@prairienet.org (Gary L. Dare)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 16:40:56 GMT
Organization: Bureau 13
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <3s6tmo$2h@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <3rf42f$n2v@news3.digex.net> <3rgaik$fsj@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3rkcpo$hnr@mozz.unh.edu> <3s5t13$p7k@bubba.NMSU.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: firefly.prairienet.org
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 915
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Matthew T. Carlton (mcarlton@nmsu.edu) wrote:

: It's customary to get out of the way of fast-moving drivers.  If you're 
: far enough ahead of the other guy that the person behind you can fit ...

Unfortunately, more people are familiar with the custom of dessert
versus dinner versus salad forks than with this one ...

Yes, I'd rather have a faster person pass me on the left than put
all of us in danger by doing it on the right ... I hope for same
when I'm going faster.  Otherwise, when they pass me that gives
me a bit of margin to move back in later and speed up a bit ...
(-;

Yes, call me a coward but I'm still clean of tickets ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare                                   gld@prairienet.org
 Trust Fund Owner-Partner,           uk960@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
 Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club (NHL)      (formerly gld@columbia.edu)

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:36:31 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA21256 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:36:30 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!pacifier!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!yellowmite.watstar.uwaterloo.ca!EMLAM
From: EMLAM@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Eric M Lam)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Message-ID: <EMLAM.447.2FDED2C8@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>
Lines: 40
Sender: news@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: yellowmite.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <tlb0.305.2FDC222A@pophost.gte.com> <EMLAM.425.2FDC8981@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> <3rkpcu$t8a@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 12:15:04 GMT
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1978
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rkpcu$t8a@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> lily1@ix.netcom.com (J. Hale ) writes:
>From: lily1@ix.netcom.com (J. Hale )
>Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
>Date: 13 Jun 1995 19:37:02 GMT

>What's wrong with driving with your lights on?  Studies show that even
>on damn fine days cars are up to 10 times more visible with headlights
>on.

If you want to use your lowbeams, fine; but I'm talking about people (kids) 
who uses those expensive FUCKING bright PIAA foglights in broad daylight. 
Blinding every single car passing by ... geeeezzz ...
And there are people who thinks they're doing other people a favour by using 
high beams at unecessary conditions, e.g. on a highway while FOLLOWING 
someone else. Wonder how that person in fron to him feels. THis happened to 
me when I drive back here on Sunday. I was driving at 140 or something and 
this guy came flying out form the middle lane with his highbeams on. (It was 
8pm and one can stillsee quite clearly with any lights). No he does not want 
to pass me; he was going at 110 or something ... oh well ...


>>14. Grandpa in Crown Vics or Caprice or shit cars of that kind and/or
>people 
>>who don't give a damned about people driving around them, e.g. my
>mama!

>Have to agree here, last Friday a 72 yr. old in his Buick boat tried to
>make a left turn in front of me just as I entered the
>intersection....So I plowed him. =)  Shittier than that is that he
>tried to say that I was coming through there "like a bat out of hell."
>(I was doing 5 UNDER the speed limit).  Oh well, his insurance company
>is still paying for it.

You never know what they're gonna do =(
    -----------------------------------------------------
    |  Eric M Lam                    |  94 Altima SE    |
    |  University of Waterloo        |  93 Camry LE     |
    |  Department of Systems Design  |  93 Camry V6 LE  |
    |  (519) 888-9578                |  80 Lancer SL    |
    -----------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:37:18 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA21452 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:37:16 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.umbc.edu!hookup!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!netnews.cc.wwu.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 11:07:44 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950618110315.8824A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <tlb0.305.2FDC222A@pophost.gte.com> <EMLAM.425.2FDC8981@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>,<3rkpcu$t8a@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <803151603.michaelj@relay.relay.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <803151603.michaelj@relay.relay.com> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1109
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


Michael:

I agree with you on every point you've made about 'driving pet peeves'
but this one below:


On Wed, 14 Jun 1995 michaelj@relay.relay.com wrote:

> 5) People who leave WAY too much space in front of them at lights, 
>    eating up space so that the left turn lane becomes blocked, forc-
>    ing people turning left to wait another cycle.
> 

I don't know how much is 'way too much' for you, but I think it's 
usually a good practice to leave enough space between you and the car
in front.  There's always the danger of someone ramming into you from
behind, pushing your car forward...

Cheers!


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:38:23 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA21838 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:38:23 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!noc.near.net!news3.near.net!saturn.caps.maine.edu!maine.maine.edu!michael
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:07:51 EDT
From: Michael Johnson <MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Message-ID: <95170.130751MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <tlb0.305.2FDC222A@pophost.gte.com>
 <EMLAM.425.2FDC8981@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>,
 <3rkpcu$t8a@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <803151603.michaelj@relay.relay.com>
 <Pine.OSF.3.91.950618110315.8824A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
Lines: 22
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1046
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950618110315.8824A-100000@paul.spu.edu>, Dai F Toyama
<borap@paul.spu.edu> says:
>
>On Wed, 14 Jun 1995 michaelj@relay.relay.com wrote:
>
>> 5) People who leave WAY too much space in front of them at lights,
>>    eating up space so that the left turn lane becomes blocked, forc-
>>    ing people turning left to wait another cycle.
>>
>
>I don't know how much is 'way too much' for you, but I think it's
>usually a good practice to leave enough space between you and the car
>in front.  There's always the danger of someone ramming into you from
>behind, pushing your car forward...

Way too much for me would be more than is necessary to guard against such
an event. I see people who leave two or more car lengths at lights. When
traffic is heavy, chances are that 1/2 car length is adequate. Especially
once there are three-four vehicles behind you.

Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
michael@maine.maine.edu, michaelj@relay.relay.com
"I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose Free Will." -- Neil Peart

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:39:30 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA22125 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:39:30 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!malgudi.oar.net!s1.GANet.NET!usenet
From: jkramer@pppa116.ganet.net (Joshua Kramer (Jish))
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 17 Jun 1995 00:39:02 GMT
Organization: Just my bedroom...
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <3rt876$r4@s1.GANet.NET>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <tlb0.305.2FDC222A@pophost.gte.com> <jenkins-1206951406380001@metech.me.scarolina.edu> <tlb0.314.2FDEFFAD@pophost.gte.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pppa116.ganet.net
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.90.3
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 857
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <tlb0.314.2FDEFFAD@pophost.gte.com>, tlb0@pophost.gte.com (Trevor Battle -- WinTrumpet) says:

>There is nothing wrong with talking on the phone as long as you are alert and 
>there's little traffic around.   Yes I use a cell phone fequently in 

You know what pisses me off?  PEOPLE WHO CAN'T DRIVE WITH CELL PHONES!
My car is a stickshift, and I'm still able to talk on the phone and
shift without driving like a maniac.  It's fun at times, juggling the
phone and shifter, but then priorities come into play: if I have to
do something evasive, or get on the freeway, I tell whoever I'm talking
to to hold on and then I DROP THE PHONE!  People who can't drop the phone
are those we have to worry about.

But then again, I drive better talking on the phone than some people
who don't even have phones, so I don't know what to say... :-)

--Josh


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:40:10 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA22293 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:40:09 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 14:44:00 GMT
Organization: Primenet
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <3s42fg$1mf@nnrp1.primenet.com>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <tlb0.305.2FDC222A@pophost.gte.com> <jenkins-1206951406380001@metech.me.scarolina.edu> <tlb0.314.2FDEFFAD@pophost.gte.com> <3rt876$r4@s1.GANet.NET>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr5.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1696
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


I would usually tell the person on the other end "Hold on, I'm about to 
rear end a truck!" Sometimes I'd yell "AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!".  Of course I 
was exagerating for levity. 

I pay attention to my driving, only trying to communicate whatever urgent 
message needs to be conveyed (I'm late for my appointment, I'm stuck in 
traffic). Anything more involved and I just can't give the conversation 
my full attention. I think that's the way it should be.

----------
Steph
----------

Joshua Kramer (Jish) (jkramer@pppa116.ganet.net) wrote:
: In article <tlb0.314.2FDEFFAD@pophost.gte.com>, tlb0@pophost.gte.com (Trevor Battle -- WinTrumpet) says:

: >There is nothing wrong with talking on the phone as long as you are alert and 
: >there's little traffic around.   Yes I use a cell phone fequently in 

: You know what pisses me off?  PEOPLE WHO CAN'T DRIVE WITH CELL PHONES!
: My car is a stickshift, and I'm still able to talk on the phone and
: shift without driving like a maniac.  It's fun at times, juggling the
: phone and shifter, but then priorities come into play: if I have to
: do something evasive, or get on the freeway, I tell whoever I'm talking
: to to hold on and then I DROP THE PHONE!  People who can't drop the phone
: are those we have to worry about.

: But then again, I drive better talking on the phone than some people
: who don't even have phones, so I don't know what to say... :-)

: --Josh


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
steph@primenet.com           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:44:13 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA23374 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:44:12 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!gatech!gt-news!prism!prism!not-for-mail
From: gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu (Tigress)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 14 Jun 1995 01:58:31 -0400
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 47
Sender: gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu
Message-ID: <3rltq7$r73@acmex.gatech.edu>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <3rc11m$1e6o@news.doit.wisc.edu> <3rhkeh$d67@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> <3ri1ga$k63@martha.utk.edu> <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <3rk853$ef@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acmex.gatech.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2456
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

David Glenn (daglenn@prairienet.org) wrote:

: This is about the most insane, stupid behavior I can think of. Oh my,
: a tailgater, I know, I'll slow down, that'll teach him. If the average
: someone is tailgating (or driving remotely close to you) it should
: send a signal to your hopefully driving aware brain. I am blocking the
: road in some way, what can I do to alleviate this situation (I would
: exclude crass tailgating just to be tailgating types here). What are
: you about 78 years old?

: This rates right up there with normal ice driving behavior in the
: midwest (bridges, sleet covered roads, etc.). People will fly along at
: 55-60 and brake as the cross each ice covered bridge. These two
: situations are the absolute worse times to hit the brakes.

I agree stopping suddenly for a tailgater is stupid, but I slow down for
them mainly for three reasons:
1. Tailgaters piss me off. There are better ways of telling me to go
faster. If they are going to piss me off, I will piss them off right back.
2. When some one is tailgating me, I usually find going faster doesn't
make them stop, and if I have to stop suddenly, I would rather it be
slowly for them so that they have more time to stop.
3. Tailgaters usually get the point when you slow down
4. If they really piss me off, I will go snail speed, and if they never
get the point, I accelerate away from them to show them that I was going
slow on purpose, and beat their asses most of the time too.
5. Most of the times, I am only tailgated when I am behind some slow
person and I can't do anything about it (that really pisses me off), so
how am I supposed to speed up anyways?
6. Last but definitely not least, tailgaters at night make me wonder if they
are cops, which does not help them get me to go faster. I usually go
slower 'cause I am freaking out.

People who get a constant distance behind me that is not tailgating, and
never changes either though (they don't get farther, they don't get
closer), I will usually get the point and speed up (unless I am driving my
parents car, which handles like shit on curvy roads so that I am not
comfortable going to fast, but at least I go 45, which is about the
average on that road). I slow down or do nothing for tailgaters though.

Tigress

-- 
      |\      _,,,---,,_		Tigress
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ 		gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)                cat drawn by: Felix Lee

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:45:07 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA23599 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:45:07 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!tandem!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news3.near.net!saturn.caps.maine.edu!maine.maine.edu!michael
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 12:26:10 EDT
From: Michael Johnson <MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Message-ID: <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com>
 <3rc11m$1e6o@news.doit.wisc.edu> <3rhkeh$d67@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
 <3ri1ga$k63@martha.utk.edu> <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>
 <3rk853$ef@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <3rltq7$r73@acmex.gatech.edu>
Lines: 52
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2241
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rltq7$r73@acmex.gatech.edu>, gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu (Tigress)
says:
>
>I agree stopping suddenly for a tailgater is stupid, but I slow down for
>them mainly for three reasons:
>1. Tailgaters piss me off. There are better ways of telling me to go
>faster. If they are going to piss me off, I will piss them off right back.

Very mature.

>2. When some one is tailgating me, I usually find going faster doesn't
>make them stop, and if I have to stop suddenly, I would rather it be
>slowly for them so that they have more time to stop.

By this do you mean that you would be making a panic stop?
This sounds good, but actually it doesn't work that way. Think about it.
No matter how fast you are going, the tailgater is the same distance
from your back end. If you slow from speed S to speed S-M where M is a
constant (say, 10 MPH) it will take them just as long to slow to your
new speed no matter how fast you are going relative to the pavement.
What matters is the relative velocity of your two vehicles.

>3. Tailgaters usually get the point when you slow down

Maybe. Often not.

>4. If they really piss me off, I will go snail speed, and if they never
>get the point, I accelerate away from them to show them that I was going
>slow on purpose, and beat their asses most of the time too.

See (1) above.

>5. Most of the times, I am only tailgated when I am behind some slow
>person and I can't do anything about it (that really pisses me off), so
>how am I supposed to speed up anyways?

Quite true.

>6. Last but definitely not least, tailgaters at night make me wonder if they
>are cops, which does not help them get me to go faster. I usually go
>slower 'cause I am freaking out.

Yep.

There is, however, a good reason to slow down when you are being tailgated,
at least if there is someone in front of you. Slowing give you more room in
front so that you are less likely to have to panic stop, even if the person
in front of you does. That makes it less likely that you will be rear-ended
by the tailgater, since you can apply the brakes more gently.

Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
michael@maine.maine.edu, michaelj@relay.relay.com
"I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose Free Will." -- Neil Peart

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:46:47 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA24005 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:46:46 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!gatech!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!usenet
From: asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 15:47:30 GMT
Organization: Centre de recherche VOLVOX inc.
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <3s6qii$59m@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.19.209.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2503
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU says...
>
>In article <3rltq7$r73@acmex.gatech.edu>, gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu (Tigress)
>says:
>>
>>I agree stopping suddenly for a tailgater is stupid, but I slow down for
>>them mainly for three reasons:
>>1. Tailgaters piss me off. There are better ways of telling me to go
>>faster. If they are going to piss me off, I will piss them off right back.
>
>Very mature.

   Do you have a better suggestion to get rid of tailgaters ?

>>2. When some one is tailgating me, I usually find going faster doesn't
>>make them stop, and if I have to stop suddenly, I would rather it be
>>slowly for them so that they have more time to stop.
>
>By this do you mean that you would be making a panic stop?
>This sounds good, but actually it doesn't work that way. Think about it.
>No matter how fast you are going, the tailgater is the same distance
>from your back end. If you slow from speed S to speed S-M where M is a
>constant (say, 10 MPH) it will take them just as long to slow to your
>new speed no matter how fast you are going relative to the pavement.
>What matters is the relative velocity of your two vehicles.

   This is not a physic course but it's the real world ! First some
cars brake much better than others by design. Second, I've noticed
that often, tailgaters have cars that seem to be poorly maintained,
so I expect their braking distance to be even longer. Third, I
drive an automatic and often use my left foot for the brake, giving
a faster reaction time... I might still have one foot on the gas when
I begin to brake !! So, in emergency situations, I don't want
a f*cking tailgater in my *ss because I'm almost sure he/she'll
rear-end me.

>>3. Tailgaters usually get the point when you slow down
>
>Maybe. Often not.

   Maybe we would need some James Bond gadget car with some device
to repulse tailgaters ? Splash some old oil in their winshield
or something :-) :-)

>>4. If they really piss me off, I will go snail speed, and if they never
>>get the point, I accelerate away from them to show them that I was going
>>slow on purpose, and beat their asses most of the time too.
>
>See (1) above.

   Myself, I'll try to safely get behind the tailgater and let him/her
annoy someone else. 


-- 
Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
alsouth@cam.org (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.
 


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:48:51 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA24485 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:48:51 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.sunbelt.net!udel!darwin.sura.net!martha.utk.edu!usenet
From: Scott Kirkham <kirkham@UTKVX.UTCC.UTK.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 15 Jun 1995 12:51:37 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <3rpacp$gl0@martha.utk.edu>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <3rc11m$1e6o@news.doit.wisc.edu> <3rhkeh$d67@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> <3ri1ga$k63@martha.utk.edu> <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <3rk853$ef@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news206.asa.utk.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
X-URL: news:3rk853$ef@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 2313
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

daglenn@prairienet.org (David Glenn) wrote:
>FZXQ53C@prodigy.com (Ryan Taylor) wrote:
>
>>That's what I always used when I had a pickup. I'd see the bottom of the 
>>headlights dip below my tailgate, and my foot would ease up on the 
>>accelerator. Once the headlights submerge beyond the tailgate, foot comes 
>>off the accelerator. If my tailgate starts eatin up the hood in the 
>>rearview mirror, the brakes come on.
>
>This is about the most insane, stupid behavior I can think of. Oh my,
>a tailgater, I know, I'll slow down, that'll teach him. If the average
>someone is tailgating (or driving remotely close to you) it should
>send a signal to your hopefully driving aware brain. I am blocking the
>road in some way, what can I do to alleviate this situation (I would
>exclude crass tailgating just to be tailgating types here). What are
>you about 78 years old?

No disrespect meant from this 26-year-old driver of a full size, but
my question is, do you drive a truck? If not, you wouldn't understand.
A tailgater behind a truck is a person asking for a sheet metal lunch.
Truck bumpers and Miatas don't get along too well. I do this to protect
the tailgating moron behind me as well as my truck. If I can't see their
headlights, they are way too damn close. When I am doing 55 in light to
medium traffic, and some retard in a Z28, whom I just passed about 1/2
a mile back, comes blowing up on my bumper, he's lucky I don't get out
and ask him (yes, him) if he wants to drive my truck for me, as he seems
to want to get in the bed. Little cars have a tendency to get lost in
the blind spot of a vehicle that is 4 times larger than they are. The
tailgate of a truck is just such a large blind spot, especially one as
high up as mine.
 Morons tailgating, etc, need a wake up call. A light touch of the 
brakes, just enough to light up the Christmas tree, is perfect for 
putting the fool that is creeping up back where the both of you are
 safe.

>This rates right up there with normal ice driving behavior in the
>midwest (bridges, sleet covered roads, etc.). People will fly along at
>55-60 and brake as the cross each ice covered bridge. These two
>situations are the absolute worse times to hit the brakes.
>
You mean that's not how it's supposed to be done ;).

Scott Kirkham
'95 Dodge Ram 1500 4x4


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:50:09 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA24979 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:50:08 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!acheron!philabs!nobody
From: jpc@philabs.philips.com (John P. Curcio)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 16:20:50 -0400
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, NY 10510
Lines: 28
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <3s7aj2$ets@condor.philabs.philips.com>
References: <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net> <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <3rja0u$km3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <DA9nJJ.BvL@freenet.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: condor.philabs.philips.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1083
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <DA9nJJ.BvL@freenet.carleton.ca>,
John Halbrook <cc631@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

>Guess what...it won't work!In fact it will increase the abuse as people
>become aware of the delay.What will work is enforcement by your local
>police.Specifically the enforcement of *AMBER* lights.Phone your local
>police and complain.

Ah, but once again, here is where we have a problem-- different laws
in different places...

In New York, it is entirely legal to enter an intersection while a
light is yellow.  The law states that the light is a signal to the
driver that the red is impending.  It does not even state what happens
if the light should turn red while you are in the intersection.

If you want a passage from the Vehicle and Traffic Law, I'll try to
get it...

-JPC



-- 
 -<=>- Just say NO! to Budmilloors...   Support your local MICROBREWERY -<=>-
John P. Curcio  jpc@philabs.philips.com  Philips Labs  Briarcliff Manor, NY
   "If nothing beats a Bud, given the choice, I'd take the nothing..."
   "No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'"  -BH

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:50:43 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA25158 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:50:42 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!emory!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!ukma!nntp.memphis.edu!cbu.edu!odin.cbu.edu!bvaughan
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950616150302.7419F-100000@odin.cbu.edu>
From: Indian Outlaw <bvaughan@odin.cbu.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:07:53 -0500
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3ri1ga$k63@martha.utk.edu>
 <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <3rja0u$km3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
 <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net>
Organization: Christian Brothers University
NNTP-Posting-Host: odin.cbu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net> 
Lines: 14
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 658
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Boy, do I hate this one. I see it happen so often that I'm surprised
> I haven't seen any accidents occur as a result.
> 
> Oh, and I usually stop at a yellow light. Considering all the people that
> I see who try to beat the light, I believe that I'm one of a few who do this.

I only "run" yellows if I know stopping will be a lot tougher for the 
brakes than normal-I'd hate to stop in the intersection :)  I don't like 
sudden stops/starts, call me a fluid driver.  
I therefore usually stop for the yellow.  Just be careful that Mr. 
Leadfoot behind you isn't assuming you're running the yellow too.  I have 
seen that happen before.  

Brent Vaughan

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:50:58 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA25207 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:50:57 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!emory!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!ukma!nntp.memphis.edu!cbu.edu!odin.cbu.edu!bvaughan
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950616150832.7419G-100000@odin.cbu.edu>
From: Indian Outlaw <bvaughan@odin.cbu.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:11:40 -0500
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3ri1ga$k63@martha.utk.edu>
 <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <3rja0u$km3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
 <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net>
Organization: Christian Brothers University
NNTP-Posting-Host: odin.cbu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net> 
Lines: 13
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 481
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 15 Jun 1995, Michael Glicksman wrote:

> My personal plan(shall I ever become Governor) is to have a delay when a
> light changes, to clear out the intersection. Instead of having a light
> change from red to green as soon as the other light changes from yellow
> to red, I would have both lights stay red for a second or two before one
> of them changes to green.

In my town, all the lights work like that.  Some stay red toooo long, 
longer than 2 seconds.  

Brent Vaughan


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:51:59 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA25440 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:51:58 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!netnews3.nwnet.net!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 10:28:37 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950619102117.16826A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3ri1ga$k63@martha.utk.edu> <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <3rja0u$km3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1287
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 15 Jun 1995, Michael Glicksman wrote:

> Oh, and I usually stop at a yellow light. Considering all the people
> that I see who try to beat the light, I believe that I'm one of a few 
> who do this.
>

I generally agree that it's a good practice to stop at a yellow signal.
OTOH, there are a few occasions on which it could be dangerous (IMO).
For instance, you are cruising at 40-50 MPH, with a car or two closely
following you, when the light in front of you turns yellow.  Under such
circumstances, I'd normally step on the gas and go through the inter-
section.

Some people slam on their brakes as soon as that happens, but that could 
cause the car behind you to rear-end theirs.  The worst action is to 
accelerate first, then think twice and suddenly stomp on the brakes.  


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:52:17 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA25511 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:52:16 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!hal.COM!nntp-sc.barrnet.net!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.sunbelt.net!udel!rochester!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!nn22+
From: "Nathan J. Nagel" <nn22+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 10:48:26 -0400
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 30
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <sjs4Uue00YUrQ8QSwq@andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <3rc11m$1e6o@news.doit.wisc.edu> <3rdn4g$pnv@metro.atlanta.com>
	<hhelanto.803175812@vipunen.hut.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <hhelanto.803175812@vipunen.hut.fi>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 922
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Excerpts from netnews.rec.autos.driving: 15-Jun-95 Re: Driving Pet
peeves by Henri R Helanto@vipunen. 
> dwarner@atlanta.com writes:
>  
> <re: tailgaters..>
>  
> >One defense: (IF they have room to pass on the right).. Carry a bag with an 

    Just a point....  NOBODY should ever pass you on the right, unless
you're about to make a left turn or get off on an off-ramp on the left
side of the freeway....

later,

Nate


> >assortment of gravel, from small pebbles to 1/2" rocks..  Just open your
> >sunroof and start pitching them up in the air, starting with the
small ones..
>  
> >Eggs work too, but they don't last long in the summer :-)
>  
>         Eggs just get better with time in the summer...
>         A friend of mine wired a switch to his backup lights, you can
>         imagine how people react when your backup lights light when
>         they're ten feet from your rear bumber ;-----)
>  
> -Henri


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:54:19 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA25939 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:54:19 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.drexel.edu!dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu!not-for-mail
From: st92j0gw@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Chris T. Papademetrious)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 09:40:24 -0400
Organization: Drexel University
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <3rs1k8$m7o@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 801
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

 Let's see, a couple of others...
 
 People who, when there's a straight-only and a turn-only lane, will go to
the end of the turn lane, then cut into a line of cars.  Or similar
situations, like people that go to the *end* of an exit ramp with a long
line of cars, then proceed to hold up highway traffic in the rightmost
lane until someone lets them in...
 
 The Parking Lot Drifters, those people who do 45mph diagonally through
parking lots without regard to safety or lane markings...
 

-- 
 | Chrispy                       | Dodge Omni GLH Turbo | Amiga Forever!  |
 | School: Drexel University     | 190hp, 2350lbs, 2.2L | (Commo-who?)    |
 | Workplace: Unisys Corporation | 0-60 in 6.2 s, cheap |_________________|
 |  (CMOS Processor Designer)    | to insure, looks like hell :)          |

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 19:58:02 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA26827 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:58:02 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!gatech!gt-news!cc.gatech.edu!not-for-mail
From: cnielsen@cc.gatech.edu (Carl Alex Friis Nielsen)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 12:43:42 -0400
Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Tech
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <3rscbu$55k@gaia.cc.gatech.edu>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <3rs1k8$m7o@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gaia.cc.gatech.edu
NNTP-Posting-User: cnielsen
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2570
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

And what about trucks pushing you of the higway, by changing lane into the
spot you are occupying - This has happened to me twice, and the first
time was only a week after I got my drivers license - fortunatly there was a
shoulder, I could escape onto.

Another one are people who speed up when you try to pass them.


I guess most problems in traffic are caused by

1. people who can't accept, that when driving you will get to your
destination in the most comfortable and fast way, if all the drivers
cooperate in keeping traffic flowing, instead of viewing it as a contest.
(weawers, tailgaters, passing-refusers etc.)

2. people who can't accept that buyond a certain point they are comitted
to going in a certain direction.
(people in the left lane suddenly realizing, that they have to exit 100
feet down the higway - and do it making unsafe lane changes all the way
instead of taking the next exit and doubling back, and people who are
surprised when the exit-only lane they have been driving in for the last 2
miles exits).

3. that many car drivers simply don't see smaller vehicles (a psycological
thing - the brain tends to ignore things, that aren't dangerous)
I bet most accidents involving bicycles and motorcycles are caused by this
effect. This is especially a problem in areas (Like her in Atlanta), where
there are very few bicycles in traffic to begin with, so drivers aren't
used to have to look out for them.

4. bad road design - at the shoulder of many roads, there is a drop of up to
a foot, forcing bikers to ride further away from it, than otherwise necesary.
Then there is an exit of I75, just north of the intersection with I285, where
it (the exit) merges wit an exit from I285, thus forcing traffic exiting
the two highways to cross - this often causes a huge traffic congestion.
I also once drove of an highway exit near Ossining(NY) - situation:
I was driwing at about 55 mph, the lane exits, the off-ramp curved sharply
immediatly after exiting the highway, no warning signs telling me of any
safe speed on the exit (would probably have been 25 mph or so), no lights,
no reflectors on the curve so it could bee seen from afar - result:
I learned what oversteering was, while I barely kept my Cougar on the road.
And all those right turn lanes allowing you to avoid going through the
intersection, are an invitation for an accident involving bicycles, since
they are then forced to cross in front of motor traffic.

5. DUI

Anybody who disagrees ?

-- 
-Carl Alex Friis Nielsen (cnielsen@cc.gatech.edu)
Love me - Take me as I think I am.

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:00:28 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA27529 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:00:27 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!philabs!nobody
From: jpc@philabs.philips.com (John P. Curcio)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 16:00:09 -0400
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, NY 10510
Lines: 27
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <3rsns9$sgu@condor.philabs.philips.com>
References: <19950612.7ACA090.106D4@julian.slip.uwo.ca> <3rk7kp$sjc@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <3rlguo$h7g_003@190.226.54.du.nauticom.net> <3roc0l$av7@nntp.atlanta.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: condor.philabs.philips.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1310
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3roc0l$av7@nntp.atlanta.com>,
 <dwarner@atlanta.com@atlanta.com> wrote:

>If you drive down the (clear) lane-that-ends, passing all the people who moved
>into the through lane early, intending to force your way into the queue in 
>front of everyone, you should be spread out and nailed to the end of that 
>lane as a deterrent to other line jumpers who might try the same (they'd 
>probably just run over you anyway).. 

Wait a minute.... why the hell should people merge before they have
to?  The only thing this accomplishes is to move the merge point
further back, increasing the delay for everyone else further back in
the pack.  This happens countless times at every merge I know--
whether it be a construction zone lane closing or a standard "lane
ends-- merge left" type of thing.

As long as the lane isn't a turn-only lane, I see no problem with this.
In fact, I have a bigger problem with people who wait in a half-mile
long line of traffic while the other lane has two cars in it.

-JPC

-- 
 -<=>- Just say NO! to Budmilloors...   Support your local MICROBREWERY -<=>-
John P. Curcio  jpc@philabs.philips.com  Philips Labs  Briarcliff Manor, NY
   "If nothing beats a Bud, given the choice, I'd take the nothing..."
   "No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'"  -BH

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:02:06 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA27998 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:02:04 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!martha.utk.edu!usenet
From: Scott Kirkham <kirkham@UTKVX.UTCC.UTK.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 11:58:35 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <3s3opb$937@martha.utk.edu>
References: <19950612.7ACA090.106D4@julian.slip.uwo.ca> <3rk7kp$sjc@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <3rlguo$h7g_003@190.226.54.du.nauticom.net> <3roc0l$av7@nntp.atlanta.com> <3rsns9$sgu@condor.philabs.philips.com> <3s32d3$40f@nntp.atlanta.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news206.asa.utk.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
X-URL: news:3s32d3$40f@nntp.atlanta.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 1226
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

dwarner@atlanta.com wrote:

>I feel that the through lane wouldn't be backed up at all if it weren't for the
>line jumpers forcing their way in (at low speed) at the head of the line.  If 
>the people in the through lane were able to cruise straight through without 
>waiting for the people ahead letting the jumpers in, there wouldn't be any 
>delay.

Nope. No way. Wouldn't happen. Have you ever been driving down an 
interstate, or heck, even a state highway, and encountered construction?
Regardless of how many people are on the road, most peoples' instinct
is to lift. You get Maw and Paw in their Crown Vic who hit their brakes 
whenever someone is headed their way, regardless of construction. 
Construction is a true challenge for them. People slow down when 
approaching construction. As they slow down, the person behind them
over-compensates, slowing down even more. It doesn't take a genius to 
realize that if everybody slows down more than the person in front of
them, eventually the traffic will come to a virtual standstill. I wish 
that this idealistic situation of people merging but maintaining speed
would happen as much as the rest, but it ain't gonna happen. Not in my
lifetime. anyway.

Scott Kirkham


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:03:23 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA28349 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:03:22 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet
From: daglenn@prairienet.org (David Glenn)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 23:36:03 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3rstak$do@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <19950612.7ACA090.106D4@julian.slip.uwo.ca> <3rk7kp$sjc@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <3rlguo$h7g_003@190.226.54.du.nauticom.net> <3roc0l$av7@nntp.atlanta.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: colt-18.slip.uiuc.edu
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent v0.55
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1357
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

dwarner@atlanta.com wrote:

>In <3rlguo$h7g_003@190.226.54.du.nauticom.net>, cornell@nauticom.net (Michael Cornell) writes:
>>Major peeve:
>>You're on a highway half a mile away from a construction zone where 2 lanes 
>>narrow to one, and the signs say "Use Both Lanes".  Two damn tractor-trailors 
>>are side-by-side, preventing you from continuing down the lane that ends.  
>>There's no traffic in that lane ahead of the truck.  Pass the self-righteous 

>(Major pet peeves.. Assholes who run down turn-only or blocked off lanes, 
>passing hundreds of cars who moved over early, where they then squeeze in 
>front of everyone (regardless of what the signs say)..

>(If you want to get past traffic, find another route, one that doesn't delay
>everyone else just so you can save some time.) 

Well, as I see it there are two situations here. A lane is open until
the barricade right? So if traffic is moving as normal I see no
problem with using the open lane until it is time to merge. Holds up
no one, blocks no one, uses the lane as intended. The other situation
is the 'oh god, we have to merge' syndrome, where the road is at a
practical standstill (or is) and the open lane traffic is a mile long,
people who rush up in the to be blocked lane and jump in line here are
causing a problem and should be dealt with as suggested. Simple,
common sense.


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:06:58 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA29864 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:06:57 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!usenet
From: leadfoot@julian.slip.uwo.ca (Alexander M. Bilan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 18:39:37
Organization: Street Rod Hell
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <19950616.7ACF170.10D83@julian.slip.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts10-5.slip.uwo.ca
X-Authenticated: jyergaw@ts10-5.slip.uwo.ca
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1228
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu 15-Jun-1995 11:57a, Michael L. Bohler wrote:

MB> a slow moving car.  I think you need to get reaquainted 
MB> with the vehicle laws in your area and learn your 
MB> responsibilities as a motorist.  As a cyclist, I know mine.

Just so long as you stop in the queue like a car would have to. Everyday on my
drive home from work, I've got 3 bicycles and 1 insane roller blader to deal
with. The bicyclists are acceptable, the roller blader is an a**hole, arms a
swinging, legs a kicking, weaving back and forth... 
But back to the bicyclists, =)  I hate it when they go sneaking back by me
when I am stopped at a light, here I go, have to pass them AGAIN... One day I
would like to hear the thud of one of these characters when they are
inatentive and run into the mirror on my truck as I am waiting at a light.
I've watched most of them as they come rolling along, and have had a few
suddenly wake up to the fact that this truck ain't got car mirrors.  

MB> No cyclist deserves to get hit.  And no cyclist takes up 

Except the ones being inconsiderate of everyone else. =)
 
Mr.V-8
  //  The opinions expressed above are strictly the opinions of my fingers
\X/   and may not reflect the opinions of the other apendages.

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:08:13 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA00291 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:08:13 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!usenet
From: leadfoot@julian.slip.uwo.ca (Alexander M. Bilan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 18:39:41
Organization: Street Rod Hell
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <19950616.7ACF170.10E73@julian.slip.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts10-5.slip.uwo.ca
X-Authenticated: jyergaw@ts10-5.slip.uwo.ca
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 924
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu 15-Jun-1995  9:21p, Brad Woods wrote:

BW> : I agree! No one owns the road.  It is very frustrating
BW> : to crawl along at 15mph just because some dummies on a bike won't single
BW> : file up and let cars by.

BW> : It is also frustrating to be riding and have drivers pass you within
BW> : inches just because they don't think that you belong there.

BW> It's not only frustrating Mariano, it is freakin' DANGEROUS.

Speaking of bikes in single file... Whats worse is when one of them comes
shooting out into the middle of the secondary highway (55mph speed limit) from
single file, and you are about 20 feet away from them.... A great way to break
in 4 brand new tires.... =\  
I can only hope that girl (about 17) learned her lesson about riding with
blinders on.  
 
Mr.V-8
  //  The opinions expressed above are strictly the opinions of my fingers
\X/   and may not reflect the opinions of the other apendages.

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:23:59 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA03666 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:23:58 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!usenet
From: leadfoot@julian.slip.uwo.ca (Alexander M. Bilan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 95 12:12:05
Organization: Street Rod Hell
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <19950617.7ACD6E0.ACAC@julian.slip.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts6-7.slip.uwo.ca
X-Authenticated: jyergaw@ts6-7.slip.uwo.ca
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 648
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri 16-Jun-1995  9:40a, Chris T. Papademetrious wrote:

CP>  The Parking Lot Drifters, those people who do 45mph diagonally through
CP> parking lots without regard to safety or lane markings...

And then they are so arrogant as to give you the finger when your driving down
the main roadway when you've locked up the brakes and blasted the horn...
Guess I should have kept going so he could have t-boned me and he could have
further explained to the officer why he did not stop at the stop sign...
 
Mr.V-8
  //  The opinions expressed above are strictly the opinions of my fingers
\X/   and may not reflect the opinions of the other apendages.

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:25:18 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA03949 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:25:18 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!usenet
From: leadfoot@julian.slip.uwo.ca (Alexander M. Bilan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 95 12:00:54
Organization: Street Rod Hell
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <19950618.7AC5F88.B363@julian.slip.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts6-13.slip.uwo.ca
X-Authenticated: jyergaw@ts6-13.slip.uwo.ca
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 426
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


With all this talk about rotten bicyclists (not to terribly bad if they have
only just begun to decompose... =\  ) I witnessed today a cyclists which
actually did not go squeezing between the curb and row of cars. He was
actually waiting in place!  My hat goes off to him.  

 
 
Mr.V-8
  //  The opinions expressed above are strictly the opinions of my fingers
\X/   and may not reflect the opinions of the other apendages.

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:25:42 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA04102 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:25:42 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!boulder!rintintin.Colorado.EDU!dey
From: dey@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Michael E. Dey)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 15:41:57 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <3s45s5$he3@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
References: <19950618.7AC5F88.B363@julian.slip.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rintintin.colorado.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 625
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


I'm wondering if it would be effective, if when a light turned green, 
everyone started rolling instantaneously.  As it is, it takes forever for 
all the idiots ahead of you to wait for the car in front of them to go 
before they can go.  If we all left a few feet inbetween and started 
going right away, I imagine we could get twice as many people through 
busy interesections.
-- 
  Michael Dey         
    School of Engineering and Applied Science    National Center for
  University of Colorado at Boulder                 Atmospheric Research
dey@rintintin.colorado.edu                               dey@ncar.ucar.edu

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:26:40 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA04398 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:26:40 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet
From: daglenn@prairienet.org (David Glenn)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 21:07:13 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <3s4hnl$270@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <19950618.7AC5F88.B363@julian.slip.uwo.ca> <3s45s5$he3@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruger-61.slip.uiuc.edu
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent v0.55
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1022
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

dey@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Michael E. Dey) wrote:

>I'm wondering if it would be effective, if when a light turned green, 
>everyone started rolling instantaneously.  As it is, it takes forever for 
>all the idiots ahead of you to wait for the car in front of them to go 
>before they can go.  If we all left a few feet inbetween and started 
>going right away, I imagine we could get twice as many people through 
>busy interesections.

Michael, your applying too much logic to this driving thing, It'll
only frustrate you. This is a great and obvious solution, but will
never work because of the 'crowd-on-in' syndrome. I regularly leave
extra space between my and the car in front of me at lights or
crawling traffic, but the 'crowders' can't stand it and honk, yell,
harrumph or cut in front of me. I say everyone should be forced to
drive a manual transmission equipped car. This would fix the rampant
brakers and crowders tendency to make every foot count, no matter how
much it slows me (and everyone else) down.


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:31:29 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA05611 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:31:28 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.bluesky.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!newshub.nosc.mil!rcp6.elan.af.mil!ada1!eric
From: eric@ada1.elan.af.mil (Eric Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 14 Jun 1995 21:06:05 GMT
Organization: Edwards Air Force Base
Lines: 23
Sender: eric@ada1 (Eric Edwards)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3rnivt$l62@rcp6.elan.af.mil>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
Reply-To: eric@ada1.elan.af.mil (Eric Edwards)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ada1-fddi.elan.af.mil
X-Newsreader: mxrn 6.18-14
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71632 rec.bicycles.soc:19749
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1172
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


In article <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> dey@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Michael E. Dey) writes:
>
>In number (4) you recognize that bicycles are indeed considered vehicles, 
>and then you go on in number (5) to say that cyclists are 'stupid' to ride 
>in the middle of the road.  It is much safer for the cyclist to be in the 
>middle of the lane (that he is legally entitled to occupy) than to hug 
>the curb and let cars pass in the same lane.

No.  It is *only* safer when the cyclist can keep up with traffic.  In heavy
traffic in Columbia, MO I road in the middle of the lane.  No problem.

Here in the southern California desert that kind of behavoir will get you
killed.  Roads are wider.  Traffic is comparatively lighter.  Traffic on
city streets moves at 60+.  I will ride on the right edge, thank you.

A cyclist should ride as safely as possible within the law. If that means 
changing strategies to match the conditions than so be it.

-- 
Eric Edwards = eric@exile.org or eric@ada.elan.af.mil  ||  "The Sony
Walkman will become obsolete thanks to the Sony rnman. The instructions will 
be on a seperate device, the Sony manman" -- The HAPPYNET Manifesto

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:32:06 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA05758 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:32:05 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!news.onramp.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!wag.caltech.edu!cbm
From: cbm@wag.caltech.edu (Charles B. Musgrave)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 14 Jun 1995 21:17:50 GMT
Organization: M/MSC
Lines: 26
Sender: cbm@sgi1 (Charles B. Musgrave)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3rnjlu$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rl0np$ot9@kiki.icd.teradyne.com> <jtchewDA6F97.5qC@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgi1.wag.caltech.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71281 rec.bicycles.soc:19678
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1124
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <jtchewDA6F97.5qC@netcom.com>, jtchew@netcom.com (Joe Chew) writes:
|> As both a driver and a cyclist, I am equally peeved (at different
|> times) by drivers who think it's worth a cyclist's life to get
|> somewhere five seconds sooner, and by cyclists who are above -- or
|> just oblivious to --  safety and courtesy.
|> 
|> The road is a shared resource, friends, and if everybody just chills
|> out we'll ALL get where we're going, safely, in a reasonable amount
|> of time.

I'm a cyclist too and I agree. Then again, when a cyclist messes up he
generally only hurts himself, while when someone driving a 3,000 pound
car screws up he can kill whole families at once.

I've been hit 6 times...all were the fault of the car driver (btw-5 out
of six of the drivers were female). Average damage to bike was 900 dollars.


|> 
|> --Joe

Charles
PS: I saw Thurlow Rodgers riding today (84 olympic team, 7-11 team,
rode in the tour de France, etc.) He was riding partially in the lane
(just far enough so cars had to get partially into the next lane to 
get around him). That's exactly what you are supposed to do. 

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:51:59 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10463 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:51:59 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!not-for-mail
From: batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM (KP)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 09:21:38 -0400
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: park.rdcs.kodak.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71259 rec.bicycles.soc:19676
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3625
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) writes:
>KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:
>
   big snip of my previous article.
>: crunch, and who gets the verbal abuse???? 
>
>I bicycle and drive.  And where I live there are a fair number of bicyclers.
>I have yet to find an inconsiderate bicycler.  They certainly don't bike down
 
 I am very happy for you.

>the middle of the road for fear of their safety.  Atleast 2 or 3 times a week
>I'll have a close call with a car, or a car will cut me off.
>
   and of course you have never contributed to the above situation in the
slightest have you.

>Also, I have never -- not once in my entire freakin' life, been driving along
>in my car when all of a sudden a bicycler comes whizzing by me and yells
>in my ear "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" or anything like that.

  I am assuming you are trying to make a car horn noise here. If so, I'll 
agree with you, its rude and dangerous (because of the distraction it will
cause). However; I was not complaining about the volume of noise I have had
to endure, it is the language its self. When a bicyclist has to run off the
road or loose control because he has run a stop sign while squeezing between 
the curb and my big bad car just as I make a right hand turn... it is of
course all MY fault and I am deserving of all the verbal abuse in the world.
right??    

>Further, such a biker would have about zero chance of causing me ANY physical
>damage.  The reverse is not true.

  Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting
sued... guess who's insurance gets jacked up... and if the biker is killed...
guess who not only suffers all the above but also stands the chance of loosing
their license, or at a min. being harrassed by the state for several years
and forced to take periodic driving tests for no reason.  

  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience
I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault. From the experience of
my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
situation like above is unfortunately killed.

>
>In otherwords, I have no sympathy for you car-driving pigs.

  Earlier in this thread someone stated that even if all bikers were to 
become 100% safe responsible drivers you would still have motor vehicle
operators who would find something to complain about. Don't be so blind,
the same is true in reverse.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
still find something to complain about... resorting to name calling for 
any one who drives a car ("car-driving pigs") kinda drives that point home.

- jim 

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:01 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10470 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:00 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:27:00 GMT
Lines: 43
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71495 rec.bicycles.soc:19725
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1965
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
)In article <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) writes:
)
) Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
)windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
)in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
)wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
)all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
)guess who gets to pay the medical bills.

The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.

) Guess who stands the chance of getting
)sued...

If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.

)  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
)while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
)are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.

This is not true.

) From personal experience
)I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
)as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
)the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.

This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
See 21950(b):

21950.  (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
   (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
 -Tom

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:03 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10484 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:02 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!bone.think.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!not-for-mail
From: batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM (KP)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 13:31:56 -0400
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <3rsf6c$n85@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
References: <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: park.rdcs.kodak.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71350 rec.bicycles.soc:19689
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 4813
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:
>In article <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
>KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
>)In article <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) writes:
>)
>)guess who gets to pay the medical bills.
>
>The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.

  Not if they bicyclist is treated as a pedestrian.. please see below 
>
>) Guess who stands the chance of getting
>)sued...
>
>If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.

  Never assume that. My brother was stopped behind a lady at a stop sign,
she had pulled to far ahead, put the car in reverse and slammed into him.
Lots of folks reported just that, minor damage to both cars, and everyone
walked away. Almost a year to the date he was informed that she was sueing
him (so was her husband since she could no longer perform in bed for him
as a result of this tramatic accident). Don't know how it turned out for 
the poor husband, but fortunately for my brother he was on company business
in a company car. Their insurance paid out.. even though it was not by 
brothers fault.

>
>)  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
>)while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
>)are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
>
>This is not true.
  
  I can only go by what I am told, perhaps it is not true, I don't care to
put myself in the position to find out. I would also prefer I don't be PUT
in the position to find out.

>
>) From personal experience
>)I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
>)as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
>)the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.
>
>This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
>See 21950(b):

  Which state is this code from please?

>
>21950.  (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
>a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
>within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
>provided in this chapter.
>   (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
>from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
>shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
>into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
>immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
>traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

  This does not entirely address what I was talking about, actually after 
reading it over a few times I do not see where it addresses any of what 
I've said. While it does say what vehicles and pedistrians must do, it does
not say what they can do about it after the fact.

  alas, you seem more prepared with section codes and all that, however...

Oct. 30, 1993 I was heading East on a major road, a city bus was parked
facing West. Just as I got parallel to its rear bumper a 14 year old boy
jumped out from behind it and landed directly in front of my van just left
of center. Fortunately for him I was not in a hurry and was well below the
speed limit, he got hurt, but nothing as serious as broken bones.. did a good
number on the front end of my van however.

  The bus driver was watching through his side mirror, the boys sister was 
watching from inside the bus, and the cars coming in the opposite direction
saw it as well. Without hesitation, every person said there was nothing I
could do, there was no room or time to move towards the right and away from
him, there was NO time for me to attempt to come to a stop before hitting
him. The police did all their measurements and concluded that I was well
within the posted speed limit.

  Next thing I know my insurance rates go up. I try to fight it, but NY
state law says that in a vehicle/pedestrian accident, regardless as to who
is at fault the vehicles insurance must handle the medical bills. Also,
the insurance company can (and does) raise your rates as a result (its not
the same as an act of nature when a deer runs out in front of you).
It was also suggested by my lawyer that I sue the child and his parents to
recoup the damages to my car. He doubted that we would win, but felt by
us starting an action it may help offset anything the kids family could 
eventually come after us with. We opted not to follow this advice, but
have held our breath ever since.

  As I said Tom, I do not have the section codes that cover this, but do 
know regardless what 21950 says is the responsibilty of the pedestrian,
there is a law out there that says what the responsibility of the driver
is if the pedestirian does not obey 29150.

> -Tom

- jim



From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:04 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10501 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:03 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDAA5xD.3uE@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> <3rsf6c$n85@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 19:24:49 GMT
Lines: 88
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71886 rec.bicycles.soc:19813
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 4127
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rsf6c$n85@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
)In article <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:
)>
)>If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.
)
)  Never assume that. My brother was stopped behind a lady at a stop sign,
)she had pulled to far ahead, put the car in reverse and slammed into him.
)Lots of folks reported just that, minor damage to both cars, and everyone
)walked away. Almost a year to the date he was informed that she was sueing
)him (so was her husband since she could no longer perform in bed for him
)as a result of this tramatic accident). Don't know how it turned out for 
)the poor husband, but fortunately for my brother he was on company business
)in a company car. Their insurance paid out.. even though it was not by 
)brothers fault.

Did they lose the case, or settle?  Do you have a case reference?  I
simply cannot accept this at face value.

)>)  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
)>)while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
)>)are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
)>
)>This is not true.
)  
)  I can only go by what I am told, perhaps it is not true, I don't care to
)put myself in the position to find out. I would also prefer I don't be PUT
)in the position to find out.

I'd prefer not to be in the situation, either, but the legal system generally
works in a reasonable manner, and it most assuredly does not put the full
onus of responsibility for accidents on drivers.

)>) From personal experience
)>)I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
)>)as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
)>)the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.
)>
)>This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
)>See 21950(b):
)
)  Which state is this code from please?

California.

)>   (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
)>from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
)>shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
)>into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
)>immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
)>traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
)
)  This does not entirely address what I was talking about, actually after 
)reading it over a few times I do not see where it addresses any of what 
)I've said. While it does say what vehicles and pedistrians must do, it does
)not say what they can do about it after the fact.

The courts interpret the law, they don't make it.  When deciding on fault
in an accident situation, this section tells the courts to take into 
consideration the fact that a pedestrian must exercise due care when crossing 
the road in deciding whether he was at fault in an accident.  A driver
who wants to fight a claim from a pedestrian he injured will have to 
prove that the pedestrian didn't exercise due care.

)  Next thing I know my insurance rates go up. I try to fight it, but NY
)state law says that in a vehicle/pedestrian accident, regardless as to who
)is at fault the vehicles insurance must handle the medical bills. 

Well, OK, in states with no-fault insurance things may be different.
Actually, I'd question the constitutionality of this even there (it may
not have been tested yet).

)  As I said Tom, I do not have the section codes that cover this, but do 
)know regardless what 21950 says is the responsibilty of the pedestrian,
)there is a law out there that says what the responsibility of the driver
)is if the pedestirian does not obey 29150.

Yes, actually, 21950(c) says:

   (c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not relieve a driver
of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of
any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection.


Basically, these sections should cancel out, and the person who is at
fault should be the one paying for injuries.
 -Tom

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:07 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10520 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:06 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDAC82t.AKL@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950616155752.7419L-100000@odin.cbu.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 22:06:29 GMT
Lines: 10
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71685 rec.bicycles.soc:19758
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 457
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950616155752.7419L-100000@odin.cbu.edu>,
Indian Outlaw  <bvaughan@odin.cbu.edu> wrote:
)
)Tell that to the McDonald's that paid millions to someone who spilled 
)coffee on her self.  Laws and jury decisions don't always see eye to eye.

First of all, that reward was reduced significantly on appeal.  Second of
all, the jury heard the case, and you did not, so I suggest that they knew
more about the situation than you did.
 -Tom

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:09 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10540 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:08 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!mead2.u.washington.edu!ion
From: "Ion C. Freeman" <ion@u.washington.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 17:33:41 -0700
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91j.950616173038.16252G-100000@mead2.u.washington.edu>
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
Reply-To: freeman@ocean.washington.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: mead2.u.washington.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-User: ion
In-Reply-To: <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
Return-Receipt-To: ion@u.washington.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71456 rec.bicycles.soc:19718
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 753
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

> )  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
> )while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
> )are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
> 
> This is not true.
> 
	i have got to say, that when i called the insurance company after
being hit recently, they said that i would be treated like a pedestrian (i
was going to object strenuously, but the guy explained this meant my
medical bills would be paid as i went along).  i think that to the
government, you are a vehicle, and to the insurance companies, you are a
pedestrian.
				Cheers,
     o__    ____ 		Ion C. Freeman
    _,>/'_  -----http://ocean.washington.edu/people/grads/freeman/resume.html 
   (_) \(_) ------




From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:06 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10512 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:05 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!emory!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!ukma!nntp.memphis.edu!cbu.edu!odin.cbu.edu!bvaughan
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950616155752.7419L-100000@odin.cbu.edu>
From: Indian Outlaw <bvaughan@odin.cbu.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:59:43 -0500
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
 <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
 <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
Organization: Christian Brothers University
NNTP-Posting-Host: odin.cbu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> 
Lines: 51
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71913 rec.bicycles.soc:19821
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2245
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 16 Jun 1995, Tom Holub wrote:

> In article <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
> KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
> )In article <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) writes:
> )
> ) Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
> )windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
> )in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
> )wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
> )all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
> )guess who gets to pay the medical bills.
> 
> The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.
> 
> ) Guess who stands the chance of getting
> )sued...
> 
> If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.
> 
> )  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
> )while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
> )are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> ) From personal experience
> )I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
> )as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
> )the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.
> 
> This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
> See 21950(b):
> 
> 21950.  (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
> a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
> within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
> provided in this chapter.
>    (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
> from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
> shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
> into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
> immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
> traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
>  -Tom
> 
> 

Tell that to the McDonald's that paid millions to someone who spilled 
coffee on her self.  Laws and jury decisions don't always see eye to eye.
  

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:15 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10574 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:15 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!not-for-mail
From: batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM (KP)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 16:06:49 -0400
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <3rso8p$q1e@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
References: <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: park.rdcs.kodak.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71411 rec.bicycles.soc:19701
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 5892
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu> kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler) writes:
>KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:
>
>:   Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
>: he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
>: a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
>: windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
>
>Are you seriously complaining that bicyclists are endangering "a fool
>[who] comes blasting down the road and rams into" them because they may
>then come through the windshield and cause injury?  Can you cite a
>single incident of a motorist being injured in this way, or are you
>just making this up?

  Just making this up? Are you talking about people injured by a deer 
coming through a windshield? Happens all the time. Can I cite an instance
where this has happend with a bike? I can cite where a pedestrian was struck 
two years ago and went part way through the windshield. The driver alas
was drunk and drove all the way home with this body hanging half way out
his windshield.. are you going to say that a bicycle and its rider would 
cause less damage? And where the hell do you get off insinuating that I
am more worried about the stupid driver who drives recklessly into an 
innocent biker. If you have been following this thread you will see that
I am pissed at both, the reckless auto driver AND reckless behavior from 
the bicyclist. The above quote of mine that you yanked out was in reply
to someone who claimed that there is no way possible for a biker to cause
physical harm to the vehicle driver.


>
>: in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
>: wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
>: all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
>: guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting
>
>Okay, I'll guess - not the motorist.  If you can cite a single instance
>in which all interested parties and witnesses agree that the cyclist is
>at fault, but the motorist is forced to pay the cyclist's medical
>views, I will admit that my guess was wrong.  Otherwise, I will claim

  Please see another follow up article by me as a reply to someone who
showed a vehicle code that shows what people are supposed to do. No, I dont
have proof that the bicyclist is treated the same as a pedestrian.. it
is true that I've only been told that, but as I say in my other article,
I don't wish to find out if its true, and I don't want some idiot on a bike
causing an accident and forcing me to find out.

 In any case, in the event of a pedestrian vs. auto accident, read my personal
experience in my other posting.

>you are just setting up another straw-man argument.

  This straw-man argument has cost me plenty in the form of raised insurance
premiums. 

>
>Your opinion, then, is that being forced to take a driving test merely 
>for killing a cyclist constitutes harassment?

  You need to get a life.. I would have hoped that all that riding in the 
fresh air would have helped clear your head. Please for the love of God
read my original posting that you are clipping this from. I said that even
in the event of it being the fault of the person who was killed in an 
accident, the driver is harassed by repeated follow up driving tests. If
that person WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the accident, yet they are singled out
for repeated check ups.. then yes, they are being harrassed. There is NO
merely killing anyone. That is a terrible event, your making slight of it
is more than just rude.

>
>:   I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
>: while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
>: are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience
>
>I don't know what a "pedistian" is.  Do you mean "pedestrian"?
>

  Typical reponse. You don't have anything relevent to say one way or the
other... but you really want to make some noise, so 'lets attack the 
spelling'. In many cases, proper spelling and punctuation is really required
to get a thought across.. if you don't have the deductive abilities to
understand  what I was saying.. well then maybe I can understand your 
problem in relating to the topic where this all came from. Pet Peeves,
mine was when a bicyclist does something stupid... most of the other peeves
were about things that other car drivers do that tick us off. Things did not
get personal and hateful until rec.bicycles.soc somehow got included.

  Who's big idea was it to include these children into our party any how?

>: I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
>: as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
>: the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.  From the experience of
>: my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
>: situation like above is unfortunately killed.
>
>Well, don't leave us in suspense.  What does your state say?  I assume
>you mean, "as expressed in its laws", rather than "as expressed in the
>general opinion of your friends".  And what are the results of such an
>accident?

  No, I'm talking about personal experience, complete with lawyers and 
a nice hike in my insurance.

>
>:				.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
>: drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
>: still find something to complain about...
>
>Try us.

  I already find you very trying.. I think I'll just leave you alone now and 
wait until you fully blossom into this beautiful creature you seem to think
all bicyclists metamorph into. Perhaps then you can discuss, instead of just
posting condescending drival.


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:18 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10590 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:17 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!engr.orst.edu!kennino
From: kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 16 Jun 1995 23:54:36 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Oregon State University
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <3rt5js$acs@engr.orst.edu>
References: <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu> <3rso8p$q1e@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sard.cs.orst.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71448 rec.bicycles.soc:19714
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 9137
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:
: In article <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu> kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler) writes:
: >KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:
: >
: >:   Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
: >: he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
: >: a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
: >: windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
: >
: >Are you seriously complaining that bicyclists are endangering "a fool
: >[who] comes blasting down the road and rams into" them because they may
: >then come through the windshield and cause injury?  Can you cite a
: >single incident of a motorist being injured in this way, or are you
: >just making this up?

:   Just making this up? Are you talking about people injured by a deer 
: coming through a windshield? Happens all the time. Can I cite an instance
: where this has happend with a bike? I can cite where a pedestrian was struck 
: two years ago and went part way through the windshield. The driver alas
: was drunk and drove all the way home with this body hanging half way out
: his windshield.. are you going to say that a bicycle and its rider would 
: cause less damage?

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of the story about the drunk driver
and the pedestrian.  Shall I interpret your answer to mean that, no, you
cannot cite any incident in which this has happened with a cyclist?

:		      And where the hell do you get off insinuating that I
: am more worried about the stupid driver who drives recklessly into an 
: innocent biker. If you have been following this thread you will see that
: I am pissed at both, the reckless auto driver AND reckless behavior from 
: the bicyclist. The above quote of mine that you yanked out was in reply
: to someone who claimed that there is no way possible for a biker to cause
: physical harm to the vehicle driver.

I have just gone back and re-read the entire thread and have found no
statement by you either expressing concern for the cyclist involved in
the above hypothetical incident, nor criticizing the behavior of the
motorist, other than in the quote above where you refer to him as a
fool (and which I included).  I don't see that it is necessary for me
to insinuate anything.

: >: in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
: >: wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
: >: all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
: >: guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting
: >
: >Okay, I'll guess - not the motorist.  If you can cite a single instance
: >in which all interested parties and witnesses agree that the cyclist is
: >at fault, but the motorist is forced to pay the cyclist's medical
: >views, I will admit that my guess was wrong.  Otherwise, I will claim

:   Please see another follow up article by me as a reply to someone who
: showed a vehicle code that shows what people are supposed to do. No, I dont
: have proof that the bicyclist is treated the same as a pedestrian.. it
: is true that I've only been told that, but as I say in my other article,
: I don't wish to find out if its true, and I don't want some idiot on a bike
: causing an accident and forcing me to find out.

You seem to be the one who first started playing lawyer in this
thread.  When you make statements about what will happen in particular
juridical situations, it is reasonable to ask you to back those
statements up with references to law.

:  In any case, in the event of a pedestrian vs. auto accident, read my personal
: experience in my other posting.

: >you are just setting up another straw-man argument.

:   This straw-man argument has cost me plenty in the form of raised insurance
: premiums. 

As I stated in my post (and which you deleted without addressing)
insurance rates are typically raised after any accident, regardless of
whether cyclists are involved.

: >Your opinion, then, is that being forced to take a driving test merely 
: >for killing a cyclist constitutes harassment?

:   You need to get a life..

I have one, thanks, and I'd like to hang onto it despite riding in
traffic.  That's what this discussion is about.  I'm sorry that you
find it necessary to descend to the level of overused catcalls.

:			     I would have hoped that all that riding in the 
: fresh air would have helped clear your head. Please for the love of God
: read my original posting that you are clipping this from. I said that even
: in the event of it being the fault of the person who was killed in an 
: accident, the driver is harassed by repeated follow up driving tests. If
: that person WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the accident, yet they are singled out
: for repeated check ups.. then yes, they are being harrassed. There is NO
: merely killing anyone. That is a terrible event, your making slight of it
: is more than just rude.

You are disingenuous in pretending not to recognize the literary device
of irony.  You know very well that I am not making slight of the
cyclist's death; indeed, it is a principle point of my argument that
the death of the cyclist is more significant than the inconvenience to
the motorist.

: >:   I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
: >: while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
: >: are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience
: >
: >I don't know what a "pedistian" is.  Do you mean "pedestrian"?
: >

:   Typical reponse.

I suppose I could have refrained from that comment.  I do think, though,
that careful use of language is useful in this sort of discussion.

:							         Things did not
: get personal and hateful until rec.bicycles.soc somehow got included.

Discussions about actions which cause death and injury tend to be more
impassioned when the victims are included than they are when the
perpetrators are talking only among themselves.  I wouldn't classify
pointing out a spelling error as "hateful".

:   Who's big idea was it to include these children into our party any how?

Name-calling again?  I wasn't aware that it was a private party.
Perhaps I was misled by the fact that it was held on a public forum.

: >: I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
: >: as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
: >: the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.  From the experience of
: >: my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
: >: situation like above is unfortunately killed.
: >
: >Well, don't leave us in suspense.  What does your state say?  I assume
: >you mean, "as expressed in its laws", rather than "as expressed in the
: >general opinion of your friends".  And what are the results of such an
: >accident?

:   No, I'm talking about personal experience, complete with lawyers and 
: a nice hike in my insurance.

Again, the insurance hike is not specific to involvement with a cyclist
or a pedestrian.  I am still curious, since you brought it up, to learn
what your state's laws have to say on the subject of collisions
involving pedestrians.

: >:				.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
: >: drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
: >: still find something to complain about...
: >
: >Try us.

:   I already find you very trying..

My meaning was that you've made a very simple assumption which cannot be
disproven.  I could as easily say that if we could all get along together
then pigs could fly.  You can't judge what cyclists would do unless
you're willing to be respectful of cyclists.

:				     I think I'll just leave you alone now and 
: wait until you fully blossom into this beautiful creature you seem to think
: all bicyclists metamorph into. Perhaps then you can discuss, instead of just
: posting condescending drival.

I actually think that many cyclists are quite irresponsible in their
behavior.  However, the consequences of their irresponsible actions are
far less serious for other road users than are the consequences of the
actions of irresponsible motorists.  I have nowhere argued that
cyclists don't cause accidents, nor that they should not be held
accountable for those which they cause.  I have merely challenged your
claim that cyclists can cause serious injury to motorists by coming
through the windshield in a collision, and criticized your apparent
sympathy for the inconvenience to the motorist in accidents which
result in the death of a cyclist.  My post was intended as discussion;
I'm sorry that you can find no response to it other than name-calling.
If you don't wish to discuss it, that is, of course, your right.  I
won't bother to point out the correct spelling of drivel.

========================
Ken Ferschweiler                         Internet: kennino@cs.orst.edu
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:20 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10609 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:19 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.sunbelt.net!udel!gatech!ukma!nntp.memphis.edu!cbu.edu!odin.cbu.edu!bvaughan
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950616135103.5455I-100000@odin.cbu.edu>
From: Indian Outlaw <bvaughan@odin.cbu.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:53:55 -0500
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
 <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
 <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Organization: Christian Brothers University
NNTP-Posting-Host: odin.cbu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> 
Lines: 9
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71388 rec.bicycles.soc:19691
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 113
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

A pansy wrote:
> In otherwords, I have no sympathy for you car-driving pigs.
> 
> B


Oink, oink.

Brent Vaughan

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:23 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10625 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:22 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!gt-news!prism!prism!not-for-mail
From: gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu (Tigress)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:58:11 -0400
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 63
Sender: gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu
Message-ID: <3rsupj$c9k@acmez.gatech.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acmez.gatech.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71445 rec.bicycles.soc:19713
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3308
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Brad Woods (bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu) wrote:
: KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:

: :   At last, we got to my bet peeve. Yes, the cyclist is entitled to the use 
: : of the lane. Quite often around here I'll see a bicycle riding down the 
center
: : of the lane, and while I have to take a deep breath, I wait until it is safe
: : to change lanes to pass them. Actually, this part is OK in my book, if they
: : are right on the edge I may be tempted to pass them when it really is not 
: : safe to do, I don't mind waiting that few extra seconds it usually takes.

: :   BUT, after I've waited for the chance to safely pass and have done so, I
: : end up at a traffic light only to find the biker squeezing between my car
: : and the curb to get back in front of not only me, but the entire line of
: : traffic causing a whole new bottle neck.

: :   How about being stopped at a traffic sign waiting to make a right hand
: : turn? No problems to your right, check to the left, no problem, start to 
make
: : your turn and suddenly you realize that Mr. "I have the same road rights as 
: : you" has decided he can pass you against the curb and run the stop sign.. 
near
: : crunch, and who gets the verbal abuse???? 

: I bicycle and drive.  And where I live there are a fair number of bicyclers.
: I have yet to find an inconsiderate bicycler.  They certainly don't bike down
: the middle of the road for fear of their safety.  Atleast 2 or 3 times a week
: I'll have a close call with a car, or a car will cut me off.

: Also, I have never -- not once in my entire freakin' life, been driving along
: in my car when all of a sudden a bicycler comes whizzing by me and yells
: in my ear "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" or anything like that.
: Further, such a biker would have about zero chance of causing me ANY physical
: damage.  The reverse is not true.

: In otherwords, I have no sympathy for you car-driving pigs.

: B

I've been reading your posts, and from what I gather, you seem to believe
that cyclists should have all rights. I do believe cars should not pass
cyclists an inch away, but I think they should only have the same rights
as cars, not more. Passing cars while they are stopped and running red
lights makes _you_ the dangerous driver.
Yeah cars are more dangerous to you, but _you_ are the one making the danger
by pulling these manuvers. My biggest peeve about cyclists is that I have
not come across one that will not pass all the cars that just passed him,
which is the most stupidest manuver I have seen pulled. You are causing
yourself and the car drivers (by having to pull out into the opposite
lane) more danger by pulling this manuver. And by no rights should a
cyclist be able to pass cars on the right so that he blocks a car that
passed him who wants to turn right. Plus, that is even more danger that
the _cyclist_ creates because the driver of the car turning right may not
expect you to go in front of him or see you (you are small and in his blind
spot). Point is, many times it is not the drivers causing the danger, it is
the cyclists. 

Tigress
-- 
      |\      _,,,---,,_		Tigress
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ 		gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)                cat drawn by: Felix Lee

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:24 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10642 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:23 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: tomswen@aol.com (TomSwen)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 14 Jun 1995 23:02:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 31
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ro7t3$huh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <joliver3.289.0010C547@alp541.srl.ford.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1581
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <joliver3.289.0010C547@alp541.srl.ford.com>,
joliver3@alp541.srl.ford.com (John Oliver) writes:

>Whenever I'm in my car and see a cyclist doing what Mr. Nielsen
describes, I 
>think to myself, "Great, there goes another asshole making my life as a 
>cyclist more difficult!"  He pisses off some driver(s), and the next
cyclist 
>that driver sees (maybe me) is likely to bear the brunt of the driver's 
>frustration!  FWIW, I never run red lights or stop signs when on my
>bike (or in my car, for that matter), and when in doubt, I yield to the
car --
>after all, it only outweighs me by maybe 20:1!  

I saw a prime example of this on my commute this morning.  I passed this
guy riding a hybird.  He had no helmet (probably didn't want to mess up
his pony tail).  About .2 mile later I encountered a red light.  I
positioned myself on the left side of the right lane and came to a full
stop.  As I'm waiting for the light. This "dude" passed me on my right and
blew the light.  The shoulder became a right turn only lane at the next
intersection.  This Bozo continued into the right turn only lane. Of
course, he did not turn right.  Instead of he  blew straight through a
second red light.  I caught the "dude" again within .5 mile of the
intersection.  As I passed him, I heard the gym bag he had straped to his
rack rubbing his rear tire.   

My all time favorite are kids (almost always sans helmet) riding towards
me against the traffic on heavily traveled roads.  I usually point right
at them, hollor "pass me on this side", then point to my right.

Tom Swenson

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:26 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10654 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:25 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hp-cv!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!netnews.cc.wwu.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 12:09:26 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 933
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 13 Jun 1995, BARRACUDA wrote:

> We can all thank Jimmy Carter for these wonderful laws.  I hate 
> cyclists.  I do my best to not hit them or scare them, but I dont go 
> out of my way.  I dont wait untill the left lane is clear to go by 
> them either.
> 
> BARRACUDA
> 

Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.  There,
cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama      << borap@paul.spu.edu >>         |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac    << 92 Acura Integra GS-R >>      |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                                           \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright |
                                            *----------------------------*


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:28 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10672 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:27 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!news.onramp.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!wag.caltech.edu!cbm
From: cbm@wag.caltech.edu (Charles B. Musgrave)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 14 Jun 1995 21:25:15 GMT
Organization: M/MSC
Lines: 30
Sender: cbm@sgi1 (Charles B. Musgrave)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3rnk3r$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgi1.wag.caltech.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1274
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu>, Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu> writes:
|> On 13 Jun 1995, BARRACUDA wrote:
|> 
|> > We can all thank Jimmy Carter for these wonderful laws.  I hate 
|> > cyclists.  I do my best to not hit them or scare them, but I dont go 
|> > out of my way.  I dont wait untill the left lane is clear to go by 
|> > them either.
|> > 
|> > BARRACUDA
|> > 
|> 
|> Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.  There,
|> cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
|> 

Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just learn
to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you...you "driving
maniac".

|> 
|>       |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
|>  |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama      << borap@paul.spu.edu >>         |
|>  |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
|>  +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac    << 92 Acura Integra GS-R >>      |
|>  | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
|>                                            \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright |
|>                                             *----------------------------*
|> 

Charles

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:29 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10678 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:28 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!netnews3.nwnet.net!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 10:13:47 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950619101016.15460C-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3rnk3r$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <EMLAM.461.2FE028C8@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EMLAM.461.2FE028C8@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1076
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


Charles B. Musgrave writes:

> Dai F Toyama wrote:
> >
> >Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.
> >There, cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
>  
> Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just learn
> to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you...you "driving
> maniac".
> 

I can say the exact same thing to the cyclers.  'So you wanna ride on
the carriageway?  Good thinking... so the drivers can run over you?  Just
learn to cycle and the pedestrians won't be such a problem to you.' :-)


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:33 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10703 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:32 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!agate!library.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!fonorola!Rezonet.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!usenet
From: asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 14:12:08 GMT
Organization: Centre de recherche VOLVOX inc.
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rpgof$6pk@canyon.sr.hp.com> <3rq8hv$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.19.209.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71938 rec.bicycles.soc:19823
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2314
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rq8hv$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu says...
>
>Frank Hamlin (frankh@sr.hp.com) wrote:
>: This thread started over in rec.autos.driving.  It makes interesting reading
>: if you think that automobile drivers will respect cyclists and obey the laws
>: if ALL cyclists suddenly become 100 perfect.  Too many automobile
>: drivers consider perfect as OUT OF MY WAY, NO MATTER WHAT I AM DOING
>: WRONG.  
>
>You got that right, Frank.  A lot of lumpheads don't see the imbalance in the
>situation, i.e. a car can easily kill or cripple a person.  A bicycler has
>no such chance against a person in a car.  It boils down to inconsiderate
>driving pigs who think that a few seconds of their time is worth a lot more
>than another human life.

   Yeah, it's true. I wonder why so many cyclists do stupid things such as
to ignore traffic signs when they know they don't stand a chance against
a car... Do they only want to make a big lawsuit or something ?

   Don't get me wrong, I try to co-exist as much as possible with cyclists,
but many seem to do everything to get hit or simply do everything to
annoy car drivers. For instance, in some streets here, we have a cyclist
path just between the road and the sidewalk. But many cyclist still
ride on the road itself instead of the cycle path. The road is narrower
than it was because they built a cycle path, so it's more dangerous for
cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.

   Another example, a bike ignoring a stop sign while riding at 35 mph+.
The car driver does it's stop and slowly starts (after looking on all
sides). The cyclist almost hit the car... And you want to blame the
car driver ? Get real ! If cyclist are to share the same roads as cars,
they should obey the same rules. BTW, I've seen plenty ov cyclist in
infraction of the law, but never saw a police arrest them. Perhaps they
should ?

>N.B.  Anyone who disagrees with the above is either a lying s.o.b. or an
>embecile, just keep that in mind before flaming me.

   So, you're the holder of the holy truth ?

-- 
Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
alsouth@cam.org (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.
 


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:31 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10688 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:30 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hplextra!news.dtc.hp.com!canyon.sr.hp.com!frankh
From: frankh@sr.hp.com (Frank Hamlin)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 15 Jun 1995 14:40:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Sonoma County
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <3rpgof$6pk@canyon.sr.hp.com>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsrfeh.sr.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71194 rec.bicycles.soc:19665
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 498
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

This thread started over in rec.autos.driving.  It makes interesting reading
if you think that automobile drivers will respect cyclists and obey the laws
if ALL cyclists suddenly become 100 perfect.  Too many automobile
drivers consider perfect as OUT OF MY WAY, NO MATTER WHAT I AM DOING
WRONG.  

--

Frank Hamlin, Santa Rosa Systems, Hewlett Packard      __@ __@  
1400 Fountaingrove Pkwy, Santa Rosa, Calif           _-\<,-\<, 
frankh@sr.hp.com                                    (*)/---/(*) 


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:12 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10552 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:12 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.sunbelt.net!udel!gatech!emf.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!engr.orst.edu!kennino
From: kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:48:35 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Oregon State University
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu>
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sard.cs.orst.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71369 rec.bicycles.soc:19690
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3056
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:

:   Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
: he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
: a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
: windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are

Are you seriously complaining that bicyclists are endangering "a fool
[who] comes blasting down the road and rams into" them because they may
then come through the windshield and cause injury?  Can you cite a
single incident of a motorist being injured in this way, or are you
just making this up?

: in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
: wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
: all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
: guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting

Okay, I'll guess - not the motorist.  If you can cite a single instance
in which all interested parties and witnesses agree that the cyclist is
at fault, but the motorist is forced to pay the cyclist's medical
views, I will admit that my guess was wrong.  Otherwise, I will claim
you are just setting up another straw-man argument.

: sued... guess who's insurance gets jacked up... and if the biker is killed...

Your insurance will also go up if you hit an automobile whose driver is
completely in the wrong.

: guess who not only suffers all the above but also stands the chance of loosing
: their license, or at a min. being harrassed by the state for several years
: and forced to take periodic driving tests for no reason.  

Your opinion, then, is that being forced to take a driving test merely 
for killing a cyclist constitutes harassment?

:   I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
: while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
: are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience

I don't know what a "pedistian" is.  Do you mean "pedestrian"?

: I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
: as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
: the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.  From the experience of
: my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
: situation like above is unfortunately killed.

Well, don't leave us in suspense.  What does your state say?  I assume
you mean, "as expressed in its laws", rather than "as expressed in the
general opinion of your friends".  And what are the results of such an
accident?

:				.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
: drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
: still find something to complain about...

Try us.

========================
Ken Ferschweiler                         Internet: kennino@cs.orst.edu
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:49 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10813 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:48 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!almach.caltech.edu!shoppa
From: shoppa@almach.krl.caltech.edu (Timothy D. Shoppa)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 16:30 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 33
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <19JUN199516304394@almach.caltech.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rpgof$6pk@canyon.sr.hp.com> <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: almach.krl.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72059 rec.bicycles.soc:19847
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1661
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>, asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere) writes...
>...
> 
>   Don't get me wrong, I try to co-exist as much as possible with cyclists,
>but many seem to do everything to get hit or simply do everything to
>annoy car drivers. For instance, in some streets here, we have a cyclist
>path just between the road and the sidewalk. But many cyclist still
>ride on the road itself instead of the cycle path. The road is narrower
>than it was because they built a cycle path, so it's more dangerous for
>cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.

There are a few problems with the cycle paths on the right hand sides of
the road here in Pasadena:

1.  Cars park in them, even if it is illegal to park there.
Actually, this is a big problem on 4-lane
city streets without bike paths as well.  If given a choice between
weaving left and right to avoid cars parked in the bike lane, or
staying to the left of all the parked cars and driving in a safe,
predictable manner, I'll choose the straighter, safer route.

2.  The bike lane often becomes the right-turn lane for cars at
every intersection.  More than once I've been moving at a good clip
down the bike lane when a car slides into the bike lane, and nearly into
me, while preparing for a right turn.

Don't get me wrong; bike lanes are a Good Thing.  We just need the
motorists to realize that bikes use them!  (And to get them to realize
that they can no longer park on the street on Hill between Del Mar and
Colorado here in Pasadena!  I wouldn't notice so much if it wasn't
part of my daily commute...)

Tim. (shoppa@altair.krl.caltech.edu)

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:50 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10825 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:50 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!csun.edu!hfmus001
From: hfmus001@huey.csun.edu (darien mann)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 16 Jun 1995 04:42:07 GMT
Organization: California State University, Northridge
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <3rr22v$ksc@dewey.csun.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: huey.csun.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71769 rec.bicycles.soc:19779
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 579
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

I enjoyed reading this thread. I even own a registered, insured motor
vehicle, although I rarely find a reason to use it. 

On the subject of waiting behind the last car at a red light so that it
won't pass you again later. That would make sense on a two lane road with
great distances between lights. But in the city, a simple joy of cycling
is passing by the HUNDREDS cars stuck at lights. The last in line won't
see you again that day. And you don't have to pass on the right, when
you're moving faster than traffic, just move left all the way to the
centerline if necessary.

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:40 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10758 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:38 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!netnet2.netnet.net!en.com!news.erinet.com!pagesat.net!sloth.swcp.com!tesuque.cs.sandia.gov!lynx.unm.edu!cybele.math.unm.edu!javance
From: javance@cybele.math.unm.edu (John Vance)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 21:59:15 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <3s4rvj$p61@lynx.unm.edu>
References: <3rpgof$6pk@canyon.sr.hp.com> <3rq8hv$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cybele.math.unm.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72085 rec.bicycles.soc:19850
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1783
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca> asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere) writes:
>
>   Don't get me wrong, I try to co-exist as much as possible with cyclists,
>but many seem to do everything to get hit or simply do everything to
>annoy car drivers. For instance, in some streets here, we have a cyclist
>path just between the road and the sidewalk. But many cyclist still
>ride on the road itself instead of the cycle path. The road is narrower
>than it was because they built a cycle path, so it's more dangerous for
>cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.
>

It is unfortunate that your community chose to narrow a perfectly good
roadway in order to install a dangerous bicycle sidepath.  It has been
known for more than 20 years that 9 out of 10 bicycle/motor vehicle
accidents are the result of one vehicle turning or crossing the path of
another.  Cyclists using such sidepaths risk collisions with turning motor
vehicles at every driveway, side street, and intersection that the path
crosses.  AASHTO recognizes these dangers, and specifically advises
against the construction of cycle paths parallel to roadways. 
Additionally, such paths make it difficult, if not impossible, for a
cyclist to make a safe and proper left turn. 

I suggest that you contact your city councillor about this dangerous
sidepath.  Tell him that you do not mind sharing the roadway with lawful
cyclists, but that the sidepath narrows the roadway, making it difficult
to pass cyclists who, understandably, do not wish to endanger and
inconvenience themselves by using the sidepath.  Ask that the path be
removed, and the curbside travel lane be widened sufficiently to allow for
easy overtaking of bicyclists (14 feet is considered adequate.)


John Vance


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:53 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10834 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:52 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: bohlerml@aa.wpafb.af.mil (Michael L. Bohler)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 15 Jun 1995 11:57:48 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 21
Sender: nobody@cs.utexas.edu
Message-ID: <9506151704.AA11089@ace.aa.wpafb.af.mil>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.cs.utexas.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1016
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

If you are caused to serve into the path of an on-
coming car then you have already broken the law. 
Most vehicle codes require cars to maintain a safety
zone of at least three feet round bicycles and mo-peds.
Also, you may pass a bicycle only when it is safe to do
so, that is, then there are no cars approaching from the
other direction - kind of like how you would wait to pass
a slow moving car.  I think you need to get reaquainted 
with the vehicle laws in your area and learn your 
responsibilities as a motorist.  As a cyclist, I know mine.
 
No cyclist deserves to get hit.  And no cyclist takes up 
as much room on the road as a car.  On your next commute
in your car, count the number of times you are delayed
by other cars in traffic.  Also count the number of times
you are delayed by bicyclists.  I'm sure the latter number
will be much smaller.  Somehow motorists have come to the
conclusion that delays caused by motor vehicle overcrowding 
are acceptable, where delays caused by bicycles are not.



From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:56 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10862 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:54 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!bone.think.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!newsserver.bisco.kodak.com!not-for-mail
From: bilbo@bisco.kodak.com (Charles Tryon)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 15 Jun 1995 22:28:04 -0400
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company; Rochester, NY
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <3rqq7k$mar@fellis.bisco.kodak.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950613185424.8067A-100000@odin.cbu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: fellis.bisco.kodak.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71720 rec.bicycles.soc:19770
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 815
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


  My biggest peeve is motorist who whine about how much time they lost one
  time when they got "stuck" behind a couple of cyclists who were riding
  side by side.

  Get a friggin life!  On my bike, I waste more time waiting for motorists
  and motorist induced delays in one day than most motorists loose in a
  year's worth of driving.  (Ever heard of a "stop light"?)


  (Oh yea, one more thing...
            You "drive" a car.
            You "ride" a bike.
                     What's wrong with this picture? ;-)


--
    Your Servant,                           bilbo@kodak.com
    B. Baggins                              bilbo@amusing.roc.servtech.com
  _________________________________________________________________________
    The fastest way to get a job done is to not have to do it over again.  

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:45 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10786 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:43 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!fonorola!cynic.portal.ca!curt
From: curt@cynic.portal.ca (Curt Sampson)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 22:02:18 GMT
Organization: Internet Portal Services, Ltd.
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3s4s5b$afq@news.fonorola.net>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rpgof$6pk@canyon.sr.hp.com> <3rq8hv$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cynic.portal.ca
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72047 rec.bicycles.soc:19843
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1285
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>,
Alain Southiere <asouthie@volvox.qc.ca> wrote:

>   Don't get me wrong, I try to co-exist as much as possible with cyclists,
>but many seem to do everything to get hit or simply do everything to
>annoy car drivers. For instance, in some streets here, we have a cyclist
>path just between the road and the sidewalk. But many cyclist still
>ride on the road itself instead of the cycle path. The road is narrower
>than it was because they built a cycle path, so it's more dangerous for
>cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.

You're quite right that cyclists shouldn't be ignoring lights, stop 
signs, or any other rules of the road.

As for the path, there may be good reasons for the cyclist to ride on
the street instead. Paths can be quite hazardous due to bad placement,
pedestrians, gravel, glass and the like in them. It would most likely
have been more sensible for the right-hand lane to have been made
wider, rather than putting a path in.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson    curt@portal.ca		Retrogrouch n. a person who spurns
Internet Portal Services, Ltd.		clipless pedals, and is still dubious
Vancouver, BC   (604) 257-9400		about whether index shifting is a
Info at http://www.portal.ca/		really good idea.

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:04 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10921 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:03 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: rcmoeur@aol.com (RCMoeur)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 15:13:23 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 30
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3rsl4j$jb5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3rq7ib$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Reply-To: rcmoeur@aol.com (RCMoeur)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71390 rec.bicycles.soc:19692
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1227
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) did post:
- How about some kind of nation-wide bicyclers group to effect legislative
- reform with regard to road safety?  Mothers against drunk drivers have
been
- fairly successful at tightening-up drunk-driving laws and enforcement.


If I recall correctly, the League of American Bicyclists has been working
toward this goal in cooperation with other traffic safety organizations
over the past few years.

The name for the program is the "Safe Roads Movement". This is named after
the "Good Roads Movement", of which the League was a significant proponent
back in the early 1900s, along with early motoring organizations.

Yes, there is a national effort underway - let's hope it is as effective
as
MADD and other groups.



* Richard C. Moeur        P.E.,  E.C.I.,  N7WTB,  whatever...
* Practicing Traffic Engineer (I'll get it right someday...)
* Phoenix, Arizona, USA
* "Hit it with the hammer, Big Ed! No, the hammer! That's a wrench,
* that long thingie's a hammer..." - Animaniacs, "Ups & Downs"
* The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
* any organization to which I may be affiliated, grouped,
* or linked by incriminating evidence. Necessarily, that is.
:9

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:08 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10950 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:07 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!tksavery
From: tksavery@netcom.com (Techs Avery)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <tksaveryDAG5ut.5rC@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3rnk3r$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <EMLAM.461.2FE028C8
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 01:08:53 GMT
Lines: 32
Sender: tksavery@netcom20.netcom.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1100
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dai F Toyama (borap@paul.spu.edu) wrote:

: Charles B. Musgrave writes:

: > Dai F Toyama wrote:
: > >
: > >Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.
: > >There, cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
: >  
: > Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just learn
: > to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you...you "driving
: > maniac".
: > 

: I can say the exact same thing to the cyclers.  'So you wanna ride on
: the carriageway?  Good thinking... so the drivers can run over you?  Just
: learn to cycle and the pedestrians won't be such a problem to you.' :-)


In almost ever state in the US, it is ILLEGAL for bicyclists, even 
juveniles, to ride on the sidewalk. And the ticket goes on your DMV 
record and is counted by insurance companies. If your bicycle is on the 
sidewalk, you are supposed to walk it.

Go figure.

:       |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
:  |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
-- 
Techs Avery
tksavery@netcom.com     


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:09 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10963 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:09 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!netnews.cc.wwu.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 07:25:55 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3rnk3r$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <EMLAM.461.2FE028C8 <tksaveryDAG5ut.5rC@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <tksaveryDAG5ut.5rC@netcom.com> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1945
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Techs Avery wrote:

> Dai F Toyama (borap@paul.spu.edu) wrote:
> 
> : Charles B. Musgrave writes:
> 
> : > Dai F Toyama wrote:
> : > >
> : > >Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.
> : > >There, cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
> : >  
> : > Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just
> : > learn to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you... 
> : > "you driving maniac".
> 
> : I can say the exact same thing to the cyclers.  'So you wanna ride on
> : the carriageway?  Good thinking... so the drivers can run over you?  
> : just learn to cycle and the pedestrians won't be such a problem to 
> : you.' :-)
> 
> In almost ever state in the US, it is ILLEGAL for bicyclists, even 
> juveniles, to ride on the sidewalk. And the ticket goes on your DMV 
> record and is counted by insurance companies. If your bicycle is on the 
> sidewalk, you are supposed to walk it.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Techs Avery
> 

I suggest that you read my original statement above.  That's why I like
it better in Japan in this respect --- the cyclists MUST ride on the
'sidewalk' there, where there is one.  I'm not saying which method is
better; it's just that I'd much prefer the Japanese way in this sense.

Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists to ride on
the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know the reason behind it.


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:12 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10980 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:11 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 20:30:35 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <3s7b5b$5n4@nnrp1.primenet.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3s76c2$e1t@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr4.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1508
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Geoff Miller (geoffm@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu> asks:
: > Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists
: > to ride on the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know
: > the reason behind it.
: Presumably because cyclists are more likely to run into pedestrians
: when they ride on the sidewalk, since there are no pedestrians on
: the street for them to hit.

: You know, this has given me the germ of an idea.  I suspect that the
: reason for the inferiority complexes from which so many cyclists 
: seem to suffer might be that they perceive themselves to be at the
: bottom of the pecking order, transportation-wise.  Maybe if it's

That is, if you assume that bicyclists don't have cars. Most do, and are 
riding for exercise. Get a job using computers every day and you'll 
understand by the time your 25.

: food chain from somebody else -- pedestrians -- they'll acquire the
: self esteem necessary to enable them to ride without getting in the
: way of motorized traffic.  And as a bonus, this newfound self esteem
: might just imbue them with the inner strength necessary to allow them

In Los Angeles, the bicyclists carry guns. Especially junior high school kids.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
steph@primenet.com           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:14 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10992 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:13 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!pulm1.accessone.com!usenet
From: Chris Newman <cnewman@accessone.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 21:27:45 GMT
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3s7egi$i0p@pulm1.accessone.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3s76c2$e1t@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cnewman.accessone.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:3s76c2$e1t@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 705
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Geoff,
     Apparently the smell of gasoline fumes has affected that tiny 
little brain of yours. As a bicyclist, I do not consider myself inferior 
to anyone using any other type of transportation. On the contrary, I 
consider myself superior to people such as yourself who have no respect 
for the rights of others. These rights include the right to choose a 
source of transportation that uses no fossil fuels, provides one with a 
great amount of cardiovascular exercise, and allows our brains to 
develop to the point where we don't feel the need to "smear the road" 
with anybody. I hope your not the next one to mow down an innocent 
cyclist. Your attitude will surely result in your conviction.



From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:16 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11003 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:15 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 20:45:09 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <3s7c0l$5n4@nnrp1.primenet.com>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3rnk3r$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <EMLAM.461.2FE028C8
 <tksaveryDAG5ut.5rC@netcom.com> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr4.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1465
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dai F Toyama (borap@paul.spu.edu) wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Techs Avery wrote:
: > 
: > In almost ever state in the US, it is ILLEGAL for bicyclists, even 
: > juveniles, to ride on the sidewalk. And the ticket goes on your DMV 
: > record and is counted by insurance companies. If your bicycle is on the 
: > sidewalk, you are supposed to walk it.
: > 

: I suggest that you read my original statement above.  That's why I like
: it better in Japan in this respect --- the cyclists MUST ride on the
: 'sidewalk' there, where there is one.  I'm not saying which method is
: better; it's just that I'd much prefer the Japanese way in this sense.

It's pretty inconvenient to go on and off the curb every 75 meters, which 
is the average block length. I can just picture all those cylists on busy 
downtown steets in Tokyo with all of those pedestrians packed shoulder to 
shoulder!

: Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists to ride on
: the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know the reason behind it.

Elderly pedestrians have a great deal of political clout in local elections.
They fear young whippersnappers on those newfangled two wheeled monstrosities!

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
steph@primenet.com           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:17 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11015 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:17 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!not-for-mail
From: batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM (KP)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 09:21:38 -0400
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: park.rdcs.kodak.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71259 rec.bicycles.soc:19676
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3625
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) writes:
>KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:
>
   big snip of my previous article.
>: crunch, and who gets the verbal abuse???? 
>
>I bicycle and drive.  And where I live there are a fair number of bicyclers.
>I have yet to find an inconsiderate bicycler.  They certainly don't bike down
 
 I am very happy for you.

>the middle of the road for fear of their safety.  Atleast 2 or 3 times a week
>I'll have a close call with a car, or a car will cut me off.
>
   and of course you have never contributed to the above situation in the
slightest have you.

>Also, I have never -- not once in my entire freakin' life, been driving along
>in my car when all of a sudden a bicycler comes whizzing by me and yells
>in my ear "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" or anything like that.

  I am assuming you are trying to make a car horn noise here. If so, I'll 
agree with you, its rude and dangerous (because of the distraction it will
cause). However; I was not complaining about the volume of noise I have had
to endure, it is the language its self. When a bicyclist has to run off the
road or loose control because he has run a stop sign while squeezing between 
the curb and my big bad car just as I make a right hand turn... it is of
course all MY fault and I am deserving of all the verbal abuse in the world.
right??    

>Further, such a biker would have about zero chance of causing me ANY physical
>damage.  The reverse is not true.

  Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting
sued... guess who's insurance gets jacked up... and if the biker is killed...
guess who not only suffers all the above but also stands the chance of loosing
their license, or at a min. being harrassed by the state for several years
and forced to take periodic driving tests for no reason.  

  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience
I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault. From the experience of
my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
situation like above is unfortunately killed.

>
>In otherwords, I have no sympathy for you car-driving pigs.

  Earlier in this thread someone stated that even if all bikers were to 
become 100% safe responsible drivers you would still have motor vehicle
operators who would find something to complain about. Don't be so blind,
the same is true in reverse.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
still find something to complain about... resorting to name calling for 
any one who drives a car ("car-driving pigs") kinda drives that point home.

- jim 

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:19 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11028 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:18 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:27:00 GMT
Lines: 43
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71495 rec.bicycles.soc:19725
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1965
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
)In article <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) writes:
)
) Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
)windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
)in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
)wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
)all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
)guess who gets to pay the medical bills.

The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.

) Guess who stands the chance of getting
)sued...

If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.

)  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
)while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
)are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.

This is not true.

) From personal experience
)I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
)as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
)the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.

This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
See 21950(b):

21950.  (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
   (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
 -Tom

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:20 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11040 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:20 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!bone.think.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!not-for-mail
From: batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM (KP)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 13:31:56 -0400
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <3rsf6c$n85@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
References: <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: park.rdcs.kodak.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71350 rec.bicycles.soc:19689
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 4813
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:
>In article <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
>KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
>)In article <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) writes:
>)
>)guess who gets to pay the medical bills.
>
>The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.

  Not if they bicyclist is treated as a pedestrian.. please see below 
>
>) Guess who stands the chance of getting
>)sued...
>
>If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.

  Never assume that. My brother was stopped behind a lady at a stop sign,
she had pulled to far ahead, put the car in reverse and slammed into him.
Lots of folks reported just that, minor damage to both cars, and everyone
walked away. Almost a year to the date he was informed that she was sueing
him (so was her husband since she could no longer perform in bed for him
as a result of this tramatic accident). Don't know how it turned out for 
the poor husband, but fortunately for my brother he was on company business
in a company car. Their insurance paid out.. even though it was not by 
brothers fault.

>
>)  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
>)while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
>)are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
>
>This is not true.
  
  I can only go by what I am told, perhaps it is not true, I don't care to
put myself in the position to find out. I would also prefer I don't be PUT
in the position to find out.

>
>) From personal experience
>)I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
>)as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
>)the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.
>
>This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
>See 21950(b):

  Which state is this code from please?

>
>21950.  (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
>a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
>within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
>provided in this chapter.
>   (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
>from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
>shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
>into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
>immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
>traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

  This does not entirely address what I was talking about, actually after 
reading it over a few times I do not see where it addresses any of what 
I've said. While it does say what vehicles and pedistrians must do, it does
not say what they can do about it after the fact.

  alas, you seem more prepared with section codes and all that, however...

Oct. 30, 1993 I was heading East on a major road, a city bus was parked
facing West. Just as I got parallel to its rear bumper a 14 year old boy
jumped out from behind it and landed directly in front of my van just left
of center. Fortunately for him I was not in a hurry and was well below the
speed limit, he got hurt, but nothing as serious as broken bones.. did a good
number on the front end of my van however.

  The bus driver was watching through his side mirror, the boys sister was 
watching from inside the bus, and the cars coming in the opposite direction
saw it as well. Without hesitation, every person said there was nothing I
could do, there was no room or time to move towards the right and away from
him, there was NO time for me to attempt to come to a stop before hitting
him. The police did all their measurements and concluded that I was well
within the posted speed limit.

  Next thing I know my insurance rates go up. I try to fight it, but NY
state law says that in a vehicle/pedestrian accident, regardless as to who
is at fault the vehicles insurance must handle the medical bills. Also,
the insurance company can (and does) raise your rates as a result (its not
the same as an act of nature when a deer runs out in front of you).
It was also suggested by my lawyer that I sue the child and his parents to
recoup the damages to my car. He doubted that we would win, but felt by
us starting an action it may help offset anything the kids family could 
eventually come after us with. We opted not to follow this advice, but
have held our breath ever since.

  As I said Tom, I do not have the section codes that cover this, but do 
know regardless what 21950 says is the responsibilty of the pedestrian,
there is a law out there that says what the responsibility of the driver
is if the pedestirian does not obey 29150.

> -Tom

- jim



From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:24 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11056 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:23 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDAA5xD.3uE@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> <3rsf6c$n85@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 19:24:49 GMT
Lines: 88
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71886 rec.bicycles.soc:19813
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 4127
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rsf6c$n85@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
)In article <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:
)>
)>If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.
)
)  Never assume that. My brother was stopped behind a lady at a stop sign,
)she had pulled to far ahead, put the car in reverse and slammed into him.
)Lots of folks reported just that, minor damage to both cars, and everyone
)walked away. Almost a year to the date he was informed that she was sueing
)him (so was her husband since she could no longer perform in bed for him
)as a result of this tramatic accident). Don't know how it turned out for 
)the poor husband, but fortunately for my brother he was on company business
)in a company car. Their insurance paid out.. even though it was not by 
)brothers fault.

Did they lose the case, or settle?  Do you have a case reference?  I
simply cannot accept this at face value.

)>)  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
)>)while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
)>)are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
)>
)>This is not true.
)  
)  I can only go by what I am told, perhaps it is not true, I don't care to
)put myself in the position to find out. I would also prefer I don't be PUT
)in the position to find out.

I'd prefer not to be in the situation, either, but the legal system generally
works in a reasonable manner, and it most assuredly does not put the full
onus of responsibility for accidents on drivers.

)>) From personal experience
)>)I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
)>)as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
)>)the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.
)>
)>This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
)>See 21950(b):
)
)  Which state is this code from please?

California.

)>   (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
)>from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
)>shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
)>into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
)>immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
)>traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
)
)  This does not entirely address what I was talking about, actually after 
)reading it over a few times I do not see where it addresses any of what 
)I've said. While it does say what vehicles and pedistrians must do, it does
)not say what they can do about it after the fact.

The courts interpret the law, they don't make it.  When deciding on fault
in an accident situation, this section tells the courts to take into 
consideration the fact that a pedestrian must exercise due care when crossing 
the road in deciding whether he was at fault in an accident.  A driver
who wants to fight a claim from a pedestrian he injured will have to 
prove that the pedestrian didn't exercise due care.

)  Next thing I know my insurance rates go up. I try to fight it, but NY
)state law says that in a vehicle/pedestrian accident, regardless as to who
)is at fault the vehicles insurance must handle the medical bills. 

Well, OK, in states with no-fault insurance things may be different.
Actually, I'd question the constitutionality of this even there (it may
not have been tested yet).

)  As I said Tom, I do not have the section codes that cover this, but do 
)know regardless what 21950 says is the responsibilty of the pedestrian,
)there is a law out there that says what the responsibility of the driver
)is if the pedestirian does not obey 29150.

Yes, actually, 21950(c) says:

   (c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not relieve a driver
of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of
any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection.


Basically, these sections should cancel out, and the person who is at
fault should be the one paying for injuries.
 -Tom

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:28 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11092 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:27 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!emory!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!ukma!nntp.memphis.edu!cbu.edu!odin.cbu.edu!bvaughan
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950616155752.7419L-100000@odin.cbu.edu>
From: Indian Outlaw <bvaughan@odin.cbu.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:59:43 -0500
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
 <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
 <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
Organization: Christian Brothers University
NNTP-Posting-Host: odin.cbu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> 
Lines: 51
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71913 rec.bicycles.soc:19821
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2245
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 16 Jun 1995, Tom Holub wrote:

> In article <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
> KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
> )In article <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) writes:
> )
> ) Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
> )windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
> )in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
> )wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
> )all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
> )guess who gets to pay the medical bills.
> 
> The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.
> 
> ) Guess who stands the chance of getting
> )sued...
> 
> If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.
> 
> )  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
> )while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
> )are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> ) From personal experience
> )I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
> )as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
> )the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.
> 
> This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
> See 21950(b):
> 
> 21950.  (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
> a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
> within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
> provided in this chapter.
>    (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
> from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
> shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
> into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
> immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
> traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
>  -Tom
> 
> 

Tell that to the McDonald's that paid millions to someone who spilled 
coffee on her self.  Laws and jury decisions don't always see eye to eye.
  

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:30 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11117 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:30 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDAC82t.AKL@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950616155752.7419L-100000@odin.cbu.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 22:06:29 GMT
Lines: 10
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71685 rec.bicycles.soc:19758
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 457
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950616155752.7419L-100000@odin.cbu.edu>,
Indian Outlaw  <bvaughan@odin.cbu.edu> wrote:
)
)Tell that to the McDonald's that paid millions to someone who spilled 
)coffee on her self.  Laws and jury decisions don't always see eye to eye.

First of all, that reward was reduced significantly on appeal.  Second of
all, the jury heard the case, and you did not, so I suggest that they knew
more about the situation than you did.
 -Tom

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:33 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11130 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:32 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!mead2.u.washington.edu!ion
From: "Ion C. Freeman" <ion@u.washington.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 17:33:41 -0700
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91j.950616173038.16252G-100000@mead2.u.washington.edu>
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
Reply-To: freeman@ocean.washington.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: mead2.u.washington.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-User: ion
In-Reply-To: <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
Return-Receipt-To: ion@u.washington.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71456 rec.bicycles.soc:19718
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 753
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

> )  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
> )while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
> )are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
> 
> This is not true.
> 
	i have got to say, that when i called the insurance company after
being hit recently, they said that i would be treated like a pedestrian (i
was going to object strenuously, but the guy explained this meant my
medical bills would be paid as i went along).  i think that to the
government, you are a vehicle, and to the insurance companies, you are a
pedestrian.
				Cheers,
     o__    ____ 		Ion C. Freeman
    _,>/'_  -----http://ocean.washington.edu/people/grads/freeman/resume.html 
   (_) \(_) ------




From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:52:57 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10879 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:52:57 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!agis!vtc.tacom.army.mil!news1.oakland.edu!newshub.gmr.com!news.delcoelect.com!c23st
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:40:57 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.
Lines: 26
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <3rsfn9$j0r@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950613185424.8067A-100000@odin.cbu.edu> <3rqq7k$mar@fellis.bisco.kodak.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kocrsw06.delcoelect.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71391 rec.bicycles.soc:19694
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1155
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rqq7k$mar@fellis.bisco.kodak.com>,
Charles Tryon <bilbo@bisco.kodak.com> wrote:
>  My biggest peeve is motorist who whine about how much time they lost one
>  time when they got "stuck" behind a couple of cyclists who were riding
>  side by side.

The problem is not time lost; the problem is when someone in a car 
tries to pull a heroic and pass, the bikes and a few cars, or where
the bicyclists take a column of cars along for the ride in a no pass
or crowded zone... For the most part the bicyclists don't cause the
trouble but the end result is the same; I can wait for the bikes
ahead of me, will Bubba in his rusted out '74 pickup wait as well?

>  Get a friggin life!  On my bike, I waste more time waiting for motorists
>  and motorist induced delays in one day than most motorists loose in a
>  year's worth of driving.  (Ever heard of a "stop light"?)

You mean, bicycle yield signs? :-)

Spiros


-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                  Kokomo, IN 46904   (317) 451-0815
Software Development Tools                 c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Delco Electronics Corporation             "Reading, 'Rithmetic, and Readnews"

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:37 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11167 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:36 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM!not-for-mail
From: batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM (KP)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 16:06:49 -0400
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <3rso8p$q1e@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
References: <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: park.rdcs.kodak.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71411 rec.bicycles.soc:19701
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 5892
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu> kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler) writes:
>KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:
>
>:   Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
>: he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
>: a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
>: windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
>
>Are you seriously complaining that bicyclists are endangering "a fool
>[who] comes blasting down the road and rams into" them because they may
>then come through the windshield and cause injury?  Can you cite a
>single incident of a motorist being injured in this way, or are you
>just making this up?

  Just making this up? Are you talking about people injured by a deer 
coming through a windshield? Happens all the time. Can I cite an instance
where this has happend with a bike? I can cite where a pedestrian was struck 
two years ago and went part way through the windshield. The driver alas
was drunk and drove all the way home with this body hanging half way out
his windshield.. are you going to say that a bicycle and its rider would 
cause less damage? And where the hell do you get off insinuating that I
am more worried about the stupid driver who drives recklessly into an 
innocent biker. If you have been following this thread you will see that
I am pissed at both, the reckless auto driver AND reckless behavior from 
the bicyclist. The above quote of mine that you yanked out was in reply
to someone who claimed that there is no way possible for a biker to cause
physical harm to the vehicle driver.


>
>: in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
>: wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
>: all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
>: guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting
>
>Okay, I'll guess - not the motorist.  If you can cite a single instance
>in which all interested parties and witnesses agree that the cyclist is
>at fault, but the motorist is forced to pay the cyclist's medical
>views, I will admit that my guess was wrong.  Otherwise, I will claim

  Please see another follow up article by me as a reply to someone who
showed a vehicle code that shows what people are supposed to do. No, I dont
have proof that the bicyclist is treated the same as a pedestrian.. it
is true that I've only been told that, but as I say in my other article,
I don't wish to find out if its true, and I don't want some idiot on a bike
causing an accident and forcing me to find out.

 In any case, in the event of a pedestrian vs. auto accident, read my personal
experience in my other posting.

>you are just setting up another straw-man argument.

  This straw-man argument has cost me plenty in the form of raised insurance
premiums. 

>
>Your opinion, then, is that being forced to take a driving test merely 
>for killing a cyclist constitutes harassment?

  You need to get a life.. I would have hoped that all that riding in the 
fresh air would have helped clear your head. Please for the love of God
read my original posting that you are clipping this from. I said that even
in the event of it being the fault of the person who was killed in an 
accident, the driver is harassed by repeated follow up driving tests. If
that person WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the accident, yet they are singled out
for repeated check ups.. then yes, they are being harrassed. There is NO
merely killing anyone. That is a terrible event, your making slight of it
is more than just rude.

>
>:   I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
>: while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
>: are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience
>
>I don't know what a "pedistian" is.  Do you mean "pedestrian"?
>

  Typical reponse. You don't have anything relevent to say one way or the
other... but you really want to make some noise, so 'lets attack the 
spelling'. In many cases, proper spelling and punctuation is really required
to get a thought across.. if you don't have the deductive abilities to
understand  what I was saying.. well then maybe I can understand your 
problem in relating to the topic where this all came from. Pet Peeves,
mine was when a bicyclist does something stupid... most of the other peeves
were about things that other car drivers do that tick us off. Things did not
get personal and hateful until rec.bicycles.soc somehow got included.

  Who's big idea was it to include these children into our party any how?

>: I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
>: as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
>: the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.  From the experience of
>: my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
>: situation like above is unfortunately killed.
>
>Well, don't leave us in suspense.  What does your state say?  I assume
>you mean, "as expressed in its laws", rather than "as expressed in the
>general opinion of your friends".  And what are the results of such an
>accident?

  No, I'm talking about personal experience, complete with lawyers and 
a nice hike in my insurance.

>
>:				.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
>: drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
>: still find something to complain about...
>
>Try us.

  I already find you very trying.. I think I'll just leave you alone now and 
wait until you fully blossom into this beautiful creature you seem to think
all bicyclists metamorph into. Perhaps then you can discuss, instead of just
posting condescending drival.


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:39 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11183 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:38 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!engr.orst.edu!kennino
From: kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 16 Jun 1995 23:54:36 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Oregon State University
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <3rt5js$acs@engr.orst.edu>
References: <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu> <3rso8p$q1e@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sard.cs.orst.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71448 rec.bicycles.soc:19714
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 9137
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:
: In article <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu> kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler) writes:
: >KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:
: >
: >:   Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
: >: he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
: >: a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
: >: windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
: >
: >Are you seriously complaining that bicyclists are endangering "a fool
: >[who] comes blasting down the road and rams into" them because they may
: >then come through the windshield and cause injury?  Can you cite a
: >single incident of a motorist being injured in this way, or are you
: >just making this up?

:   Just making this up? Are you talking about people injured by a deer 
: coming through a windshield? Happens all the time. Can I cite an instance
: where this has happend with a bike? I can cite where a pedestrian was struck 
: two years ago and went part way through the windshield. The driver alas
: was drunk and drove all the way home with this body hanging half way out
: his windshield.. are you going to say that a bicycle and its rider would 
: cause less damage?

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of the story about the drunk driver
and the pedestrian.  Shall I interpret your answer to mean that, no, you
cannot cite any incident in which this has happened with a cyclist?

:		      And where the hell do you get off insinuating that I
: am more worried about the stupid driver who drives recklessly into an 
: innocent biker. If you have been following this thread you will see that
: I am pissed at both, the reckless auto driver AND reckless behavior from 
: the bicyclist. The above quote of mine that you yanked out was in reply
: to someone who claimed that there is no way possible for a biker to cause
: physical harm to the vehicle driver.

I have just gone back and re-read the entire thread and have found no
statement by you either expressing concern for the cyclist involved in
the above hypothetical incident, nor criticizing the behavior of the
motorist, other than in the quote above where you refer to him as a
fool (and which I included).  I don't see that it is necessary for me
to insinuate anything.

: >: in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
: >: wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
: >: all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
: >: guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting
: >
: >Okay, I'll guess - not the motorist.  If you can cite a single instance
: >in which all interested parties and witnesses agree that the cyclist is
: >at fault, but the motorist is forced to pay the cyclist's medical
: >views, I will admit that my guess was wrong.  Otherwise, I will claim

:   Please see another follow up article by me as a reply to someone who
: showed a vehicle code that shows what people are supposed to do. No, I dont
: have proof that the bicyclist is treated the same as a pedestrian.. it
: is true that I've only been told that, but as I say in my other article,
: I don't wish to find out if its true, and I don't want some idiot on a bike
: causing an accident and forcing me to find out.

You seem to be the one who first started playing lawyer in this
thread.  When you make statements about what will happen in particular
juridical situations, it is reasonable to ask you to back those
statements up with references to law.

:  In any case, in the event of a pedestrian vs. auto accident, read my personal
: experience in my other posting.

: >you are just setting up another straw-man argument.

:   This straw-man argument has cost me plenty in the form of raised insurance
: premiums. 

As I stated in my post (and which you deleted without addressing)
insurance rates are typically raised after any accident, regardless of
whether cyclists are involved.

: >Your opinion, then, is that being forced to take a driving test merely 
: >for killing a cyclist constitutes harassment?

:   You need to get a life..

I have one, thanks, and I'd like to hang onto it despite riding in
traffic.  That's what this discussion is about.  I'm sorry that you
find it necessary to descend to the level of overused catcalls.

:			     I would have hoped that all that riding in the 
: fresh air would have helped clear your head. Please for the love of God
: read my original posting that you are clipping this from. I said that even
: in the event of it being the fault of the person who was killed in an 
: accident, the driver is harassed by repeated follow up driving tests. If
: that person WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the accident, yet they are singled out
: for repeated check ups.. then yes, they are being harrassed. There is NO
: merely killing anyone. That is a terrible event, your making slight of it
: is more than just rude.

You are disingenuous in pretending not to recognize the literary device
of irony.  You know very well that I am not making slight of the
cyclist's death; indeed, it is a principle point of my argument that
the death of the cyclist is more significant than the inconvenience to
the motorist.

: >:   I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
: >: while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
: >: are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience
: >
: >I don't know what a "pedistian" is.  Do you mean "pedestrian"?
: >

:   Typical reponse.

I suppose I could have refrained from that comment.  I do think, though,
that careful use of language is useful in this sort of discussion.

:							         Things did not
: get personal and hateful until rec.bicycles.soc somehow got included.

Discussions about actions which cause death and injury tend to be more
impassioned when the victims are included than they are when the
perpetrators are talking only among themselves.  I wouldn't classify
pointing out a spelling error as "hateful".

:   Who's big idea was it to include these children into our party any how?

Name-calling again?  I wasn't aware that it was a private party.
Perhaps I was misled by the fact that it was held on a public forum.

: >: I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
: >: as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
: >: the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.  From the experience of
: >: my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
: >: situation like above is unfortunately killed.
: >
: >Well, don't leave us in suspense.  What does your state say?  I assume
: >you mean, "as expressed in its laws", rather than "as expressed in the
: >general opinion of your friends".  And what are the results of such an
: >accident?

:   No, I'm talking about personal experience, complete with lawyers and 
: a nice hike in my insurance.

Again, the insurance hike is not specific to involvement with a cyclist
or a pedestrian.  I am still curious, since you brought it up, to learn
what your state's laws have to say on the subject of collisions
involving pedestrians.

: >:				.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
: >: drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
: >: still find something to complain about...
: >
: >Try us.

:   I already find you very trying..

My meaning was that you've made a very simple assumption which cannot be
disproven.  I could as easily say that if we could all get along together
then pigs could fly.  You can't judge what cyclists would do unless
you're willing to be respectful of cyclists.

:				     I think I'll just leave you alone now and 
: wait until you fully blossom into this beautiful creature you seem to think
: all bicyclists metamorph into. Perhaps then you can discuss, instead of just
: posting condescending drival.

I actually think that many cyclists are quite irresponsible in their
behavior.  However, the consequences of their irresponsible actions are
far less serious for other road users than are the consequences of the
actions of irresponsible motorists.  I have nowhere argued that
cyclists don't cause accidents, nor that they should not be held
accountable for those which they cause.  I have merely challenged your
claim that cyclists can cause serious injury to motorists by coming
through the windshield in a collision, and criticized your apparent
sympathy for the inconvenience to the motorist in accidents which
result in the death of a cyclist.  My post was intended as discussion;
I'm sorry that you can find no response to it other than name-calling.
If you don't wish to discuss it, that is, of course, your right.  I
won't bother to point out the correct spelling of drivel.

========================
Ken Ferschweiler                         Internet: kennino@cs.orst.edu
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:42 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11203 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:42 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!gt-news!prism!prism!not-for-mail
From: gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu (Tigress)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:58:11 -0400
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 63
Sender: gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu
Message-ID: <3rsupj$c9k@acmez.gatech.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acmez.gatech.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71445 rec.bicycles.soc:19713
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3308
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Brad Woods (bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu) wrote:
: KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:

: :   At last, we got to my bet peeve. Yes, the cyclist is entitled to the use 
: : of the lane. Quite often around here I'll see a bicycle riding down the 
center
: : of the lane, and while I have to take a deep breath, I wait until it is safe
: : to change lanes to pass them. Actually, this part is OK in my book, if they
: : are right on the edge I may be tempted to pass them when it really is not 
: : safe to do, I don't mind waiting that few extra seconds it usually takes.

: :   BUT, after I've waited for the chance to safely pass and have done so, I
: : end up at a traffic light only to find the biker squeezing between my car
: : and the curb to get back in front of not only me, but the entire line of
: : traffic causing a whole new bottle neck.

: :   How about being stopped at a traffic sign waiting to make a right hand
: : turn? No problems to your right, check to the left, no problem, start to 
make
: : your turn and suddenly you realize that Mr. "I have the same road rights as 
: : you" has decided he can pass you against the curb and run the stop sign.. 
near
: : crunch, and who gets the verbal abuse???? 

: I bicycle and drive.  And where I live there are a fair number of bicyclers.
: I have yet to find an inconsiderate bicycler.  They certainly don't bike down
: the middle of the road for fear of their safety.  Atleast 2 or 3 times a week
: I'll have a close call with a car, or a car will cut me off.

: Also, I have never -- not once in my entire freakin' life, been driving along
: in my car when all of a sudden a bicycler comes whizzing by me and yells
: in my ear "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" or anything like that.
: Further, such a biker would have about zero chance of causing me ANY physical
: damage.  The reverse is not true.

: In otherwords, I have no sympathy for you car-driving pigs.

: B

I've been reading your posts, and from what I gather, you seem to believe
that cyclists should have all rights. I do believe cars should not pass
cyclists an inch away, but I think they should only have the same rights
as cars, not more. Passing cars while they are stopped and running red
lights makes _you_ the dangerous driver.
Yeah cars are more dangerous to you, but _you_ are the one making the danger
by pulling these manuvers. My biggest peeve about cyclists is that I have
not come across one that will not pass all the cars that just passed him,
which is the most stupidest manuver I have seen pulled. You are causing
yourself and the car drivers (by having to pull out into the opposite
lane) more danger by pulling this manuver. And by no rights should a
cyclist be able to pass cars on the right so that he blocks a car that
passed him who wants to turn right. Plus, that is even more danger that
the _cyclist_ creates because the driver of the car turning right may not
expect you to go in front of him or see you (you are small and in his blind
spot). Point is, many times it is not the drivers causing the danger, it is
the cyclists. 

Tigress
-- 
      |\      _,,,---,,_		Tigress
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ 		gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)                cat drawn by: Felix Lee

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:34 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11142 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:33 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.sunbelt.net!udel!gatech!emf.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!engr.orst.edu!kennino
From: kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:48:35 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Oregon State University
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <3rsg5j$lk3@engr.orst.edu>
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sard.cs.orst.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71369 rec.bicycles.soc:19690
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3056
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

KP (batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM) wrote:

:   Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
: he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
: a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
: windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are

Are you seriously complaining that bicyclists are endangering "a fool
[who] comes blasting down the road and rams into" them because they may
then come through the windshield and cause injury?  Can you cite a
single incident of a motorist being injured in this way, or are you
just making this up?

: in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
: wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
: all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
: guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting

Okay, I'll guess - not the motorist.  If you can cite a single instance
in which all interested parties and witnesses agree that the cyclist is
at fault, but the motorist is forced to pay the cyclist's medical
views, I will admit that my guess was wrong.  Otherwise, I will claim
you are just setting up another straw-man argument.

: sued... guess who's insurance gets jacked up... and if the biker is killed...

Your insurance will also go up if you hit an automobile whose driver is
completely in the wrong.

: guess who not only suffers all the above but also stands the chance of loosing
: their license, or at a min. being harrassed by the state for several years
: and forced to take periodic driving tests for no reason.  

Your opinion, then, is that being forced to take a driving test merely 
for killing a cyclist constitutes harassment?

:   I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
: while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
: are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience

I don't know what a "pedistian" is.  Do you mean "pedestrian"?

: I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
: as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
: the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.  From the experience of
: my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
: situation like above is unfortunately killed.

Well, don't leave us in suspense.  What does your state say?  I assume
you mean, "as expressed in its laws", rather than "as expressed in the
general opinion of your friends".  And what are the results of such an
accident?

:				.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
: drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
: still find something to complain about...

Try us.

========================
Ken Ferschweiler                         Internet: kennino@cs.orst.edu
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:46 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11225 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:45 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hp-cv!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!netnews.cc.wwu.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 12:09:26 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 933
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 13 Jun 1995, BARRACUDA wrote:

> We can all thank Jimmy Carter for these wonderful laws.  I hate 
> cyclists.  I do my best to not hit them or scare them, but I dont go 
> out of my way.  I dont wait untill the left lane is clear to go by 
> them either.
> 
> BARRACUDA
> 

Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.  There,
cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama      << borap@paul.spu.edu >>         |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac    << 92 Acura Integra GS-R >>      |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                                           \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright |
                                            *----------------------------*


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:40 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11193 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:40 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!nntp.sunbelt.net!udel!gatech!ukma!nntp.memphis.edu!cbu.edu!odin.cbu.edu!bvaughan
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950616135103.5455I-100000@odin.cbu.edu>
From: Indian Outlaw <bvaughan@odin.cbu.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:53:55 -0500
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
 <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com>
 <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Organization: Christian Brothers University
NNTP-Posting-Host: odin.cbu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> 
Lines: 9
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71388 rec.bicycles.soc:19691
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 113
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

A pansy wrote:
> In otherwords, I have no sympathy for you car-driving pigs.
> 
> B


Oink, oink.

Brent Vaughan

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:50 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11267 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:50 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!netnews3.nwnet.net!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 10:13:47 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950619101016.15460C-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3rnk3r$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <EMLAM.461.2FE028C8@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EMLAM.461.2FE028C8@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1076
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


Charles B. Musgrave writes:

> Dai F Toyama wrote:
> >
> >Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.
> >There, cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
>  
> Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just learn
> to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you...you "driving
> maniac".
> 

I can say the exact same thing to the cyclers.  'So you wanna ride on
the carriageway?  Good thinking... so the drivers can run over you?  Just
learn to cycle and the pedestrians won't be such a problem to you.' :-)


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:53 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11288 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:52 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hplextra!news.dtc.hp.com!canyon.sr.hp.com!frankh
From: frankh@sr.hp.com (Frank Hamlin)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 15 Jun 1995 14:40:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Sonoma County
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <3rpgof$6pk@canyon.sr.hp.com>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsrfeh.sr.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71194 rec.bicycles.soc:19665
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 498
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

This thread started over in rec.autos.driving.  It makes interesting reading
if you think that automobile drivers will respect cyclists and obey the laws
if ALL cyclists suddenly become 100 perfect.  Too many automobile
drivers consider perfect as OUT OF MY WAY, NO MATTER WHAT I AM DOING
WRONG.  

--

Frank Hamlin, Santa Rosa Systems, Hewlett Packard      __@ __@  
1400 Fountaingrove Pkwy, Santa Rosa, Calif           _-\<,-\<, 
frankh@sr.hp.com                                    (*)/---/(*) 


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:48 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11244 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:47 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!news.onramp.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!wag.caltech.edu!cbm
From: cbm@wag.caltech.edu (Charles B. Musgrave)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 14 Jun 1995 21:25:15 GMT
Organization: M/MSC
Lines: 30
Sender: cbm@sgi1 (Charles B. Musgrave)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3rnk3r$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgi1.wag.caltech.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1274
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu>, Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu> writes:
|> On 13 Jun 1995, BARRACUDA wrote:
|> 
|> > We can all thank Jimmy Carter for these wonderful laws.  I hate 
|> > cyclists.  I do my best to not hit them or scare them, but I dont go 
|> > out of my way.  I dont wait untill the left lane is clear to go by 
|> > them either.
|> > 
|> > BARRACUDA
|> > 
|> 
|> Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.  There,
|> cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
|> 

Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just learn
to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you...you "driving
maniac".

|> 
|>       |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
|>  |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama      << borap@paul.spu.edu >>         |
|>  |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
|>  +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac    << 92 Acura Integra GS-R >>      |
|>  | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
|>                                            \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright |
|>                                             *----------------------------*
|> 

Charles

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:10 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA10970 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:10 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!venus.sun.com!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!usenet
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving
Date: 20 Jun 1995 19:08:50 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <3s76c2$e1t@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.eng.sun.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1406
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 



Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu> asks:

> Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists
> to ride on the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know
> the reason behind it.


Presumably because cyclists are more likely to run into pedestrians
when they ride on the sidewalk, since there are no pedestrians on
the street for them to hit.

You know, this has given me the germ of an idea.  I suspect that the
reason for the inferiority complexes from which so many cyclists 
seem to suffer might be that they perceive themselves to be at the
bottom of the pecking order, transportation-wise.  Maybe if it's
made more widely known that the reason why they're required to ride
on the street is because they're essentially a notch farther up the
food chain from somebody else -- pedestrians -- they'll acquire the
self esteem necessary to enable them to ride without getting in the
way of motorized traffic.  And as a bonus, this newfound self esteem
might just imbue them with the inner strength necessary to allow them
to outgrow those silly little helmets with the dentists' mirrors on
them.


Geoff "and perhaps eventually, the goofy Spandex shorts" Miller


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
         "I smear the road with bicycles." -- Phillip J. Birmingham
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-



From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:02 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11361 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:01 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!netnet2.netnet.net!en.com!news.erinet.com!pagesat.net!sloth.swcp.com!tesuque.cs.sandia.gov!lynx.unm.edu!cybele.math.unm.edu!javance
From: javance@cybele.math.unm.edu (John Vance)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 21:59:15 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <3s4rvj$p61@lynx.unm.edu>
References: <3rpgof$6pk@canyon.sr.hp.com> <3rq8hv$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cybele.math.unm.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72085 rec.bicycles.soc:19850
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1783
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca> asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere) writes:
>
>   Don't get me wrong, I try to co-exist as much as possible with cyclists,
>but many seem to do everything to get hit or simply do everything to
>annoy car drivers. For instance, in some streets here, we have a cyclist
>path just between the road and the sidewalk. But many cyclist still
>ride on the road itself instead of the cycle path. The road is narrower
>than it was because they built a cycle path, so it's more dangerous for
>cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.
>

It is unfortunate that your community chose to narrow a perfectly good
roadway in order to install a dangerous bicycle sidepath.  It has been
known for more than 20 years that 9 out of 10 bicycle/motor vehicle
accidents are the result of one vehicle turning or crossing the path of
another.  Cyclists using such sidepaths risk collisions with turning motor
vehicles at every driveway, side street, and intersection that the path
crosses.  AASHTO recognizes these dangers, and specifically advises
against the construction of cycle paths parallel to roadways. 
Additionally, such paths make it difficult, if not impossible, for a
cyclist to make a safe and proper left turn. 

I suggest that you contact your city councillor about this dangerous
sidepath.  Tell him that you do not mind sharing the roadway with lawful
cyclists, but that the sidepath narrows the roadway, making it difficult
to pass cyclists who, understandably, do not wish to endanger and
inconvenience themselves by using the sidepath.  Ask that the path be
removed, and the curbside travel lane be widened sufficiently to allow for
easy overtaking of bicyclists (14 feet is considered adequate.)


John Vance


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:56 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11306 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:54 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!agate!library.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!fonorola!Rezonet.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!usenet
From: asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 14:12:08 GMT
Organization: Centre de recherche VOLVOX inc.
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rpgof$6pk@canyon.sr.hp.com> <3rq8hv$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.19.209.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71938 rec.bicycles.soc:19823
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2314
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rq8hv$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu says...
>
>Frank Hamlin (frankh@sr.hp.com) wrote:
>: This thread started over in rec.autos.driving.  It makes interesting reading
>: if you think that automobile drivers will respect cyclists and obey the laws
>: if ALL cyclists suddenly become 100 perfect.  Too many automobile
>: drivers consider perfect as OUT OF MY WAY, NO MATTER WHAT I AM DOING
>: WRONG.  
>
>You got that right, Frank.  A lot of lumpheads don't see the imbalance in the
>situation, i.e. a car can easily kill or cripple a person.  A bicycler has
>no such chance against a person in a car.  It boils down to inconsiderate
>driving pigs who think that a few seconds of their time is worth a lot more
>than another human life.

   Yeah, it's true. I wonder why so many cyclists do stupid things such as
to ignore traffic signs when they know they don't stand a chance against
a car... Do they only want to make a big lawsuit or something ?

   Don't get me wrong, I try to co-exist as much as possible with cyclists,
but many seem to do everything to get hit or simply do everything to
annoy car drivers. For instance, in some streets here, we have a cyclist
path just between the road and the sidewalk. But many cyclist still
ride on the road itself instead of the cycle path. The road is narrower
than it was because they built a cycle path, so it's more dangerous for
cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.

   Another example, a bike ignoring a stop sign while riding at 35 mph+.
The car driver does it's stop and slowly starts (after looking on all
sides). The cyclist almost hit the car... And you want to blame the
car driver ? Get real ! If cyclist are to share the same roads as cars,
they should obey the same rules. BTW, I've seen plenty ov cyclist in
infraction of the law, but never saw a police arrest them. Perhaps they
should ?

>N.B.  Anyone who disagrees with the above is either a lying s.o.b. or an
>embecile, just keep that in mind before flaming me.

   So, you're the holder of the holy truth ?

-- 
Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
alsouth@cam.org (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.
 


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:53:43 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11212 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:53:43 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: tomswen@aol.com (TomSwen)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 14 Jun 1995 23:02:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 31
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3ro7t3$huh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <joliver3.289.0010C547@alp541.srl.ford.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1581
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <joliver3.289.0010C547@alp541.srl.ford.com>,
joliver3@alp541.srl.ford.com (John Oliver) writes:

>Whenever I'm in my car and see a cyclist doing what Mr. Nielsen
describes, I 
>think to myself, "Great, there goes another asshole making my life as a 
>cyclist more difficult!"  He pisses off some driver(s), and the next
cyclist 
>that driver sees (maybe me) is likely to bear the brunt of the driver's 
>frustration!  FWIW, I never run red lights or stop signs when on my
>bike (or in my car, for that matter), and when in doubt, I yield to the
car --
>after all, it only outweighs me by maybe 20:1!  

I saw a prime example of this on my commute this morning.  I passed this
guy riding a hybird.  He had no helmet (probably didn't want to mess up
his pony tail).  About .2 mile later I encountered a red light.  I
positioned myself on the left side of the right lane and came to a full
stop.  As I'm waiting for the light. This "dude" passed me on my right and
blew the light.  The shoulder became a right turn only lane at the next
intersection.  This Bozo continued into the right turn only lane. Of
course, he did not turn right.  Instead of he  blew straight through a
second red light.  I caught the "dude" again within .5 mile of the
intersection.  As I passed him, I heard the gym bag he had straped to his
rack rubbing his rear tire.   

My all time favorite are kids (almost always sans helmet) riding towards
me against the traffic on heavily traveled roads.  I usually point right
at them, hollor "pass me on this side", then point to my right.

Tom Swenson

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:10 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11434 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:10 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!csun.edu!hfmus001
From: hfmus001@huey.csun.edu (darien mann)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 16 Jun 1995 04:42:07 GMT
Organization: California State University, Northridge
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <3rr22v$ksc@dewey.csun.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: huey.csun.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71769 rec.bicycles.soc:19779
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 579
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

I enjoyed reading this thread. I even own a registered, insured motor
vehicle, although I rarely find a reason to use it. 

On the subject of waiting behind the last car at a red light so that it
won't pass you again later. That would make sense on a two lane road with
great distances between lights. But in the city, a simple joy of cycling
is passing by the HUNDREDS cars stuck at lights. The last in line won't
see you again that day. And you don't have to pass on the right, when
you're moving faster than traffic, just move left all the way to the
centerline if necessary.

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:12 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11447 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:11 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: bohlerml@aa.wpafb.af.mil (Michael L. Bohler)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 15 Jun 1995 11:57:48 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 21
Sender: nobody@cs.utexas.edu
Message-ID: <9506151704.AA11089@ace.aa.wpafb.af.mil>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.cs.utexas.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1016
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

If you are caused to serve into the path of an on-
coming car then you have already broken the law. 
Most vehicle codes require cars to maintain a safety
zone of at least three feet round bicycles and mo-peds.
Also, you may pass a bicycle only when it is safe to do
so, that is, then there are no cars approaching from the
other direction - kind of like how you would wait to pass
a slow moving car.  I think you need to get reaquainted 
with the vehicle laws in your area and learn your 
responsibilities as a motorist.  As a cyclist, I know mine.
 
No cyclist deserves to get hit.  And no cyclist takes up 
as much room on the road as a car.  On your next commute
in your car, count the number of times you are delayed
by other cars in traffic.  Also count the number of times
you are delayed by bicyclists.  I'm sure the latter number
will be much smaller.  Somehow motorists have come to the
conclusion that delays caused by motor vehicle overcrowding 
are acceptable, where delays caused by bicycles are not.



From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:14 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11464 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:13 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!bone.think.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!newsserver.bisco.kodak.com!not-for-mail
From: bilbo@bisco.kodak.com (Charles Tryon)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 15 Jun 1995 22:28:04 -0400
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company; Rochester, NY
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <3rqq7k$mar@fellis.bisco.kodak.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950613185424.8067A-100000@odin.cbu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: fellis.bisco.kodak.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71720 rec.bicycles.soc:19770
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 815
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


  My biggest peeve is motorist who whine about how much time they lost one
  time when they got "stuck" behind a couple of cyclists who were riding
  side by side.

  Get a friggin life!  On my bike, I waste more time waiting for motorists
  and motorist induced delays in one day than most motorists loose in a
  year's worth of driving.  (Ever heard of a "stop light"?)


  (Oh yea, one more thing...
            You "drive" a car.
            You "ride" a bike.
                     What's wrong with this picture? ;-)


--
    Your Servant,                           bilbo@kodak.com
    B. Baggins                              bilbo@amusing.roc.servtech.com
  _________________________________________________________________________
    The fastest way to get a job done is to not have to do it over again.  

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:16 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11489 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:15 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!agis!vtc.tacom.army.mil!news1.oakland.edu!newshub.gmr.com!news.delcoelect.com!c23st
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:40:57 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.
Lines: 26
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <3rsfn9$j0r@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950613185424.8067A-100000@odin.cbu.edu> <3rqq7k$mar@fellis.bisco.kodak.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kocrsw06.delcoelect.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71391 rec.bicycles.soc:19694
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1155
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rqq7k$mar@fellis.bisco.kodak.com>,
Charles Tryon <bilbo@bisco.kodak.com> wrote:
>  My biggest peeve is motorist who whine about how much time they lost one
>  time when they got "stuck" behind a couple of cyclists who were riding
>  side by side.

The problem is not time lost; the problem is when someone in a car 
tries to pull a heroic and pass, the bikes and a few cars, or where
the bicyclists take a column of cars along for the ride in a no pass
or crowded zone... For the most part the bicyclists don't cause the
trouble but the end result is the same; I can wait for the bikes
ahead of me, will Bubba in his rusted out '74 pickup wait as well?

>  Get a friggin life!  On my bike, I waste more time waiting for motorists
>  and motorist induced delays in one day than most motorists loose in a
>  year's worth of driving.  (Ever heard of a "stop light"?)

You mean, bicycle yield signs? :-)

Spiros


-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                  Kokomo, IN 46904   (317) 451-0815
Software Development Tools                 c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Delco Electronics Corporation             "Reading, 'Rithmetic, and Readnews"

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:19 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11522 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:19 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: rcmoeur@aol.com (RCMoeur)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 16 Jun 1995 15:13:23 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 30
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3rsl4j$jb5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <3rq7ib$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Reply-To: rcmoeur@aol.com (RCMoeur)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:71390 rec.bicycles.soc:19692
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1227
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) did post:
- How about some kind of nation-wide bicyclers group to effect legislative
- reform with regard to road safety?  Mothers against drunk drivers have
been
- fairly successful at tightening-up drunk-driving laws and enforcement.


If I recall correctly, the League of American Bicyclists has been working
toward this goal in cooperation with other traffic safety organizations
over the past few years.

The name for the program is the "Safe Roads Movement". This is named after
the "Good Roads Movement", of which the League was a significant proponent
back in the early 1900s, along with early motoring organizations.

Yes, there is a national effort underway - let's hope it is as effective
as
MADD and other groups.



* Richard C. Moeur        P.E.,  E.C.I.,  N7WTB,  whatever...
* Practicing Traffic Engineer (I'll get it right someday...)
* Phoenix, Arizona, USA
* "Hit it with the hammer, Big Ed! No, the hammer! That's a wrench,
* that long thingie's a hammer..." - Animaniacs, "Ups & Downs"
* The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
* any organization to which I may be affiliated, grouped,
* or linked by incriminating evidence. Necessarily, that is.
:9

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:25 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11571 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:25 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!venus.sun.com!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!usenet
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving
Date: 20 Jun 1995 19:08:50 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <3s76c2$e1t@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.eng.sun.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1406
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 



Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu> asks:

> Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists
> to ride on the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know
> the reason behind it.


Presumably because cyclists are more likely to run into pedestrians
when they ride on the sidewalk, since there are no pedestrians on
the street for them to hit.

You know, this has given me the germ of an idea.  I suspect that the
reason for the inferiority complexes from which so many cyclists 
seem to suffer might be that they perceive themselves to be at the
bottom of the pecking order, transportation-wise.  Maybe if it's
made more widely known that the reason why they're required to ride
on the street is because they're essentially a notch farther up the
food chain from somebody else -- pedestrians -- they'll acquire the
self esteem necessary to enable them to ride without getting in the
way of motorized traffic.  And as a bonus, this newfound self esteem
might just imbue them with the inner strength necessary to allow them
to outgrow those silly little helmets with the dentists' mirrors on
them.


Geoff "and perhaps eventually, the goofy Spandex shorts" Miller


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
         "I smear the road with bicycles." -- Phillip J. Birmingham
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-



From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:26 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11586 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:26 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 20:30:35 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <3s7b5b$5n4@nnrp1.primenet.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3s76c2$e1t@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr4.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1508
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Geoff Miller (geoffm@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu> asks:
: > Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists
: > to ride on the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know
: > the reason behind it.
: Presumably because cyclists are more likely to run into pedestrians
: when they ride on the sidewalk, since there are no pedestrians on
: the street for them to hit.

: You know, this has given me the germ of an idea.  I suspect that the
: reason for the inferiority complexes from which so many cyclists 
: seem to suffer might be that they perceive themselves to be at the
: bottom of the pecking order, transportation-wise.  Maybe if it's

That is, if you assume that bicyclists don't have cars. Most do, and are 
riding for exercise. Get a job using computers every day and you'll 
understand by the time your 25.

: food chain from somebody else -- pedestrians -- they'll acquire the
: self esteem necessary to enable them to ride without getting in the
: way of motorized traffic.  And as a bonus, this newfound self esteem
: might just imbue them with the inner strength necessary to allow them

In Los Angeles, the bicyclists carry guns. Especially junior high school kids.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
steph@primenet.com           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:28 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11604 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:28 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 20:45:09 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <3s7c0l$5n4@nnrp1.primenet.com>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3rnk3r$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <EMLAM.461.2FE028C8
 <tksaveryDAG5ut.5rC@netcom.com> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr4.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1465
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dai F Toyama (borap@paul.spu.edu) wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Techs Avery wrote:
: > 
: > In almost ever state in the US, it is ILLEGAL for bicyclists, even 
: > juveniles, to ride on the sidewalk. And the ticket goes on your DMV 
: > record and is counted by insurance companies. If your bicycle is on the 
: > sidewalk, you are supposed to walk it.
: > 

: I suggest that you read my original statement above.  That's why I like
: it better in Japan in this respect --- the cyclists MUST ride on the
: 'sidewalk' there, where there is one.  I'm not saying which method is
: better; it's just that I'd much prefer the Japanese way in this sense.

It's pretty inconvenient to go on and off the curb every 75 meters, which 
is the average block length. I can just picture all those cylists on busy 
downtown steets in Tokyo with all of those pedestrians packed shoulder to 
shoulder!

: Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists to ride on
: the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know the reason behind it.

Elderly pedestrians have a great deal of political clout in local elections.
They fear young whippersnappers on those newfangled two wheeled monstrosities!

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
steph@primenet.com           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:05 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11383 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:04 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!fonorola!cynic.portal.ca!curt
From: curt@cynic.portal.ca (Curt Sampson)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 22:02:18 GMT
Organization: Internet Portal Services, Ltd.
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3s4s5b$afq@news.fonorola.net>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rpgof$6pk@canyon.sr.hp.com> <3rq8hv$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cynic.portal.ca
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72047 rec.bicycles.soc:19843
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1285
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>,
Alain Southiere <asouthie@volvox.qc.ca> wrote:

>   Don't get me wrong, I try to co-exist as much as possible with cyclists,
>but many seem to do everything to get hit or simply do everything to
>annoy car drivers. For instance, in some streets here, we have a cyclist
>path just between the road and the sidewalk. But many cyclist still
>ride on the road itself instead of the cycle path. The road is narrower
>than it was because they built a cycle path, so it's more dangerous for
>cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.

You're quite right that cyclists shouldn't be ignoring lights, stop 
signs, or any other rules of the road.

As for the path, there may be good reasons for the cyclist to ride on
the street instead. Paths can be quite hazardous due to bad placement,
pedestrians, gravel, glass and the like in them. It would most likely
have been more sensible for the right-hand lane to have been made
wider, rather than putting a path in.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson    curt@portal.ca		Retrogrouch n. a person who spurns
Internet Portal Services, Ltd.		clipless pedals, and is still dubious
Vancouver, BC   (604) 257-9400		about whether index shifting is a
Info at http://www.portal.ca/		really good idea.

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:08 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11410 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:07 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!almach.caltech.edu!shoppa
From: shoppa@almach.krl.caltech.edu (Timothy D. Shoppa)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 19 Jun 1995 16:30 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 33
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <19JUN199516304394@almach.caltech.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rpgof$6pk@canyon.sr.hp.com> <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: almach.krl.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72059 rec.bicycles.soc:19847
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1661
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3s40jo$t12@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>, asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere) writes...
>...
> 
>   Don't get me wrong, I try to co-exist as much as possible with cyclists,
>but many seem to do everything to get hit or simply do everything to
>annoy car drivers. For instance, in some streets here, we have a cyclist
>path just between the road and the sidewalk. But many cyclist still
>ride on the road itself instead of the cycle path. The road is narrower
>than it was because they built a cycle path, so it's more dangerous for
>cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.

There are a few problems with the cycle paths on the right hand sides of
the road here in Pasadena:

1.  Cars park in them, even if it is illegal to park there.
Actually, this is a big problem on 4-lane
city streets without bike paths as well.  If given a choice between
weaving left and right to avoid cars parked in the bike lane, or
staying to the left of all the parked cars and driving in a safe,
predictable manner, I'll choose the straighter, safer route.

2.  The bike lane often becomes the right-turn lane for cars at
every intersection.  More than once I've been moving at a good clip
down the bike lane when a car slides into the bike lane, and nearly into
me, while preparing for a right turn.

Don't get me wrong; bike lanes are a Good Thing.  We just need the
motorists to realize that bikes use them!  (And to get them to realize
that they can no longer park on the street on Hill between Del Mar and
Colorado here in Pasadena!  I wouldn't notice so much if it wasn't
part of my daily commute...)

Tim. (shoppa@altair.krl.caltech.edu)

From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:27 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11595 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:27 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!pulm1.accessone.com!usenet
From: Chris Newman <cnewman@accessone.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 21:27:45 GMT
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3s7egi$i0p@pulm1.accessone.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3s76c2$e1t@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cnewman.accessone.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:3s76c2$e1t@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 705
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Geoff,
     Apparently the smell of gasoline fumes has affected that tiny 
little brain of yours. As a bicyclist, I do not consider myself inferior 
to anyone using any other type of transportation. On the contrary, I 
consider myself superior to people such as yourself who have no respect 
for the rights of others. These rights include the right to choose a 
source of transportation that uses no fossil fuels, provides one with a 
great amount of cardiovascular exercise, and allows our brains to 
develop to the point where we don't feel the need to "smear the road" 
with anybody. I hope your not the next one to mow down an innocent 
cyclist. Your attitude will surely result in your conviction.



From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:23 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11554 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:22 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!tksavery
From: tksavery@netcom.com (Techs Avery)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <tksaveryDAG5ut.5rC@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3rnk3r$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <EMLAM.461.2FE028C8
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 01:08:53 GMT
Lines: 32
Sender: tksavery@netcom20.netcom.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1100
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dai F Toyama (borap@paul.spu.edu) wrote:

: Charles B. Musgrave writes:

: > Dai F Toyama wrote:
: > >
: > >Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.
: > >There, cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
: >  
: > Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just learn
: > to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you...you "driving
: > maniac".
: > 

: I can say the exact same thing to the cyclers.  'So you wanna ride on
: the carriageway?  Good thinking... so the drivers can run over you?  Just
: learn to cycle and the pedestrians won't be such a problem to you.' :-)


In almost ever state in the US, it is ILLEGAL for bicyclists, even 
juveniles, to ride on the sidewalk. And the ticket goes on your DMV 
record and is counted by insurance companies. If your bicycle is on the 
sidewalk, you are supposed to walk it.

Go figure.

:       |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
:  |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
-- 
Techs Avery
tksavery@netcom.com     


From kevina  Tue Jun 20 20:54:24 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id UAA11562 for kevina; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:54:23 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!netnews.cc.wwu.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 07:25:55 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <hart.86-140795132955@slip3-33.acs.ohio-state.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950614120348.22992A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3rnk3r$8ls@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <EMLAM.461.2FE028C8 <tksaveryDAG5ut.5rC@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <tksaveryDAG5ut.5rC@netcom.com> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1945
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Techs Avery wrote:

> Dai F Toyama (borap@paul.spu.edu) wrote:
> 
> : Charles B. Musgrave writes:
> 
> : > Dai F Toyama wrote:
> : > >
> : > >Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.
> : > >There, cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
> : >  
> : > Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just
> : > learn to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you... 
> : > "you driving maniac".
> 
> : I can say the exact same thing to the cyclers.  'So you wanna ride on
> : the carriageway?  Good thinking... so the drivers can run over you?  
> : just learn to cycle and the pedestrians won't be such a problem to 
> : you.' :-)
> 
> In almost ever state in the US, it is ILLEGAL for bicyclists, even 
> juveniles, to ride on the sidewalk. And the ticket goes on your DMV 
> record and is counted by insurance companies. If your bicycle is on the 
> sidewalk, you are supposed to walk it.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Techs Avery
> 

I suggest that you read my original statement above.  That's why I like
it better in Japan in this respect --- the cyclists MUST ride on the
'sidewalk' there, where there is one.  I'm not saying which method is
better; it's just that I'd much prefer the Japanese way in this sense.

Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists to ride on
the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know the reason behind it.


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*


From kevina  Wed Jun 21 03:37:25 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id DAA08608 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:37:24 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!gt-news!prism!prism!not-for-mail
From: gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu (Tigress)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 21 Jun 1995 01:14:59 -0400
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 21
Sender: gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu
Message-ID: <3s89sj$21g@acmez.gatech.edu>
References: <3rf42f$n2v@news3.digex.net> <3rgaik$fsj@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3rkcpo$hnr@mozz.unh.edu> <3s5t13$p7k@bubba.NMSU.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acmez.gatech.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 834
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Matthew T. Carlton (mcarlton@nmsu.edu) wrote:

: It's customary to get out of the way of fast-moving drivers.  If you're 
: far enough ahead of the other guy that the person behind you can fit 
: through, you deserve what you get.  Mind you, I NEVER cut ppl off under 
: normal circumstances, but when someone is moving fast and you're in the 
: way....move!

: Speedfreak

Uh, maybe she was trying not to cut off the person in the right lane ?
Whoa! Revalation! Actually being polite to other drivers (including the
guy behind her trying to get ahead of her, but he was too impatient to see
that she was going to get out of his way).

Tigress
-- 
      |\      _,,,---,,_		Tigress
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ 		gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)                cat drawn by: Felix Lee

From kevina  Wed Jun 21 12:14:14 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA22490 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 12:14:13 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!usenet
From: asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 21 Jun 1995 14:06:10 GMT
Organization: Centre de recherche VOLVOX inc.
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <3s990i$396@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <3s6qii$59m@rcogate.rco.qc.ca> <3s74dh$57i@nnrp1.primenet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.19.209.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3367
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3s74dh$57i@nnrp1.primenet.com>, steph@primenet.com says...
>
>Alain Southiere (asouthie@volvox.qc.ca) wrote:
>: In article <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU says
>...
>: >
>: >In article <3rltq7$r73@acmex.gatech.edu>, gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu (Tigress)
>: >says:
>: >>
>: >>I agree stopping suddenly for a tailgater is stupid, but I slow down for
>: >>them mainly for three reasons:
>: >>1. Tailgaters piss me off. There are better ways of telling me to go
>: >>faster. If they are going to piss me off, I will piss them off right back.
>: >
>: >Very mature.
>
>:    Do you have a better suggestion to get rid of tailgaters ?
>
>Yes. MOVE OVER AND LET THEM PASS. They're going to go faster than you anyway.
>What's the problem? I can't understand why you guys can't figure this out 
>for yourself. 

   No need for moronic shouting like that... We're not talking about someone
who wants to pass, but about TAILGATERS, you know, the kind of morons who
stick at less than 3 feet behind your read bumper, whatever you do ? The
kind that stay in you *ss wether you speed 20 mph over the limit or you
slow down 20 mph under the limit. I've even had some follow me between
lane changes !

   Moreover, I never ride in the left lane except to pass, the tailgaters
I'm talking about are people who don't want to pass me, they're just
morons. The left lane is open if they would want to pass, but they don't !
According to you, I should go onto the shoulder ? Stupid !

   The only way I've found to get rid of these morons is to get in the
left (passing lane) without signaling when there's noone on the lane
and then slam the brakes and return to the right lane. When I have to
do stunts like that to get rid of a tailgater, you can see (I hope
you can, or you're more stupid than you above statement imply) that
those tailgaters don't want to pass, they just want to tailgate !

>:    This is not a physic course but it's the real world ! First some
>: cars brake much better than others by design. Second, I've noticed
>: that often, tailgaters have cars that seem to be poorly maintained,
>: so I expect their braking distance to be even longer. Third, I
>: drive an automatic and often use my left foot for the brake, giving
>: a faster reaction time... I might still have one foot on the gas when
>: I begin to brake !! So, in emergency situations, I don't want
>: a f*cking tailgater in my *ss because I'm almost sure he/she'll
>: rear-end me.
>
>Better to have them in front of you than behind you.

   Exactly the point.

>: >>3. Tailgaters usually get the point when you slow down
>: >Maybe. Often not.
>
>And how do they communicate to you to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!      

   No it's not, read above paragraphs and get a clue.

>:    Myself, I'll try to safely get behind the tailgater and let him/her
>: annoy someone else. 
>
>Why didn't you just say this in the first place? It is the only safe 
>solution. Playing games on the road is a sure sign that someone shouldn't 
>have gotten their license in the first place.

   Who talked about playing games ? Don't you read a post before
replying ? 

-- 
Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
alsouth@cam.org (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.
 


From kevina  Wed Jun 21 16:32:58 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id QAA15329 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 16:32:56 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!netnews.cc.wwu.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:51:37 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950621104722.16387A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <3rja0u$km3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net> <3rsqlq$spr@condor.philabs.philips.com> <3s6cnv$6me@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> <Pine.A32.3.91j.950620172650.56380A-100000@homer27.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.91j.950620172650.56380A-100000@homer27.u.washington.edu> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1684
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 21 Jun 1995, Andreas Michaelides wrote:
 
> jpc@philabs.philips.com (John P. Curcio) wrote:
> 
> >In article <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net>, Michael Glicksman <slam@clark.net> wrote:
> >>In article <3rja0u$km3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
> 
> >>My personal plan(shall I ever become Governor) is to have a delay when a
> >>light changes, to clear out the intersection. Instead of having a light
> >>change from red to green as soon as the other light changes from yellow
> >>to red, I would have both lights stay red for a second or two before one
> >>of them changes to green.
> 
> >Don't most traffic lights do that?  Most of the ones I've seen here in
> >the Northeast, as well as those in the Midwest, seem to have a delay
> >built in.
> 
> I don't know about the states, but all the lights in New Zealand have
> two reds for a second.
> 

Same here in the Pacific Northwest.  Most signals stay red for a second
after the crossing ones turn red.

I know of one exceptioin near the Seattle Centre.  The lights on the main
road turn green at exactly the same as those on the crossing road turn
red.  You don't want to run the yellow; a lot of people do signal-racing
there!

Cheers!


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*


From kevina  Wed Jun 21 16:35:17 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id QAA16430 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 16:35:15 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 21 Jun 1995 11:56:35 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <3s9j03$m41@phobos.cs.utexas.edu>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950613185424.8067A-100000@odin.cbu.edu> <3rqq7k$mar@fellis.bisco.kodak.com> <1995Jun21.152317.11548@dg-rtp.dg.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: phobos.cs.utexas.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72358 rec.bicycles.soc:19918
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1613
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <1995Jun21.152317.11548@dg-rtp.dg.com>,
David Pressley <pressley@fireball.rtp.dg.com> wrote:
>In article <3rqq7k$mar@fellis.bisco.kodak.com> bilbo@bisco.kodak.com (Charles Tryon) writes:
>>
>>  My biggest peeve is motorist who whine about how much time they lost one
>>  time when they got "stuck" behind a couple of cyclists who were riding
>>  side by side.
>
>I really despise idiot cyclists who ride side by side.  I don't know how
>many times I have been driving 55 mph, go around a curve in the road and
>come upon cyclists blocking the road doing...what...15-20 mph???

Without going into the moral implications of side by side bicycling,
I'd like to point out that if you were surprised by cyclists
"blocking" the road doing 15-20 mph, you were going *way* too fast for
the conditions.

A speed limit of 55 doesn't mean that it's legal or safe to drive 55
everywhere along the road.  The basic speed law still applies - this
means that at any point you're supposed to be driving slow enough that
you can safely stop for anything that might appear on the road.  If
instead of two bikes moving at 15-20, there had been a car that was
stopped (0 mph) around that bend, then it would have been your
responsibility to be able to safely stop for it.  This is with a
closing speed of 55 mph.  The closing speed with the bikes would only
have been 35-40 mph, and you should very easily be able to avoid them.

By the way, using the road for its intended purpose, i.e., travelling
on it legally, is not considered "blocking" the road.

-- 
Siddarth Subramanian
siddarth@cs.utexas.edu
Austin, Texas, USA

From kevina  Wed Jun 21 19:31:53 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA01352 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:31:52 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 21 Jun 1995 23:03:38 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <3sa8ga$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <3s6qii$59m@rcogate.rco.qc.ca> <3s74dh$57i@nnrp1.primenet.com> <3s990i$396@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr1.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2418
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Alain Southiere (asouthie@volvox.qc.ca) wrote:
: In article <3s74dh$57i@nnrp1.primenet.com>, steph@primenet.com says...
: >
: >Yes. MOVE OVER AND LET THEM PASS. They're going to go faster than you anyway.
: >What's the problem? I can't understand why you guys can't figure this out 
: >for yourself. 

:    No need for moronic shouting like that... We're not talking about someone
: who wants to pass, but about TAILGATERS, you know, the kind of morons who
: stick at less than 3 feet behind your read bumper, whatever you do ? The
: kind that stay in you *ss wether you speed 20 mph over the limit or you
: slow down 20 mph under the limit. I've even had some follow me between
: lane changes !

I let them pass the moment they appear on my rear, unless there's no 
shoulder, no other lanes, or nothing I can do. I don't play games, I 
don't speed up, I have no reason to hold my position. 

:    Moreover, I never ride in the left lane except to pass, the tailgaters
: I'm talking about are people who don't want to pass me, they're just
: morons. The left lane is open if they would want to pass, but they don't !
: According to you, I should go onto the shoulder ? Stupid !

I guess I'm fortunate that I've never encountered one of these. 

:    The only way I've found to get rid of these morons is to get in the
: left (passing lane) without signaling when there's noone on the lane
: and then slam the brakes and return to the right lane. When I have to
: do stunts like that to get rid of a tailgater, you can see (I hope
: you can, or you're more stupid than you above statement imply) that
: those tailgaters don't want to pass, they just want to tailgate !

Weird! Either this is rare or a regional thing. Must make you wish you 
had a gun in your car.

: >solution. Playing games on the road is a sure sign that someone shouldn't 
: >have gotten their license in the first place.

:    Who talked about playing games ? Don't you read a post before
: replying ? 

No offense meant. I've never encountered a tailgater that didn't just 
want to go faster than me. I'm pretty responsive to this since I keep an 
eye on the rearview alot.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
steph@primenet.com           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Wed Jun 21 19:32:13 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA01509 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:32:12 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!noc.near.net!news3.near.net!saturn.caps.maine.edu!maine.maine.edu!michael
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 15:12:16 EDT
From: Michael Johnson <MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Message-ID: <95172.151216MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com>
 <3rc11m$1e6o@news.doit.wisc.edu> <3rhkeh$d67@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
 <3ri1ga$k63@martha.utk.edu> <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>
 <3rk853$ef@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <3rltq7$r73@acmex.gatech.edu>
 <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <95172.074955MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Lines: 60
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3083
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <95172.074955MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, I said:
>
>   course, it is not going to be. The rate of velocity change is actually a
>   parabolic curve, so that the velocity curve is a third-order curve and
>   the actual distance traveled is a fourth-order curve.

Actually, upon reflection, the rate of velocity change (e.g. deceleration)
is a constant (A=F/M) so the velocity curve is a second-order curve and the
distance curve is a third-order curve.

There will be a little bit of deviation from constant deceleration due to
rolling resistance and wind resistance, but that only comes into play at
high speeds and favors the trailing car anyway.

Further on I wrote:

>3. I assumed that car 1 stops braking when it has changed speed by 10 mph.
>   Usually sudden braking in highway situations will be like this. However,
>   it is possible that someone might be making a panic stop, in which case
>   their velocity continues to drop, at an increasing rate, while the car
>   behind is losing velocity, but always at a lesser rate.

Actually, once car 2 gets on the brakes, the two cars will once again have a
constant (but non-zero) relative velocity.

>   In this case, it DOES make a difference how fast you are going, because
>   the time it takes to slow from 90 mph to 0 mph is greater than the time it
>   takes to slow from 50 mph to 0 mph, during all of which time car 2 is
>   closing on car 1 at an INCREASING rate, up until the time that car 1 comes
>   to a stop, at which point car 2 is closing at a DECREASING rate.

The closure rate is actually constant, until car 1 comes to a stop, then the
closure rate starts dropping.

The rest of what I wrote still holds true. The only consequence of my
error (i.e. assuming that deceleration was parabolic) is that the necessary
following distance to avoid a collision decreases.

The time to go from speed to zero increases linearly with speed, since
the rate of velocity change is linear with respect to time. So moving at
90 mph means it takes twice as long to stop as it does from 45 mph. Assuming
a velocity drop of 10 mph before car 2 gets on the brakes, that means that
car 2 is closing on car 1 at 10 mph for the entire time they are both slowing
down. So for a speed of 90 mph, car 2 should be twice as far back from car 1
as for 45 mph in order to avoid a collision. This is why the 2-second
following rule works.

Note that this does not change the case where both cars decelerate by an
equal amount (e.g. 10 mph) from a given speed (e.g. 90 mph or 50 mph). The
only reason why following distances need to be longer for 90 mph than for
45 mph is that the total time before car 2 comes to rest relative to car 1
differs in panic stops from those two speeds.

Again, if car 2 has better brakes than car 1, then the safe following
distance decreases by some factor.

Pardon my errata, it's been a number of years since I did a physics lab.

Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
michael@maine.maine.edu, michaelj@relay.relay.com
"I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose Free Will." -- Neil Peart

From kevina  Wed Jun 21 19:32:52 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA01723 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:32:51 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!netnews.cc.wwu.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:51:37 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950621104722.16387A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <3rja0u$km3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net> <3rsqlq$spr@condor.philabs.philips.com> <3s6cnv$6me@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> <Pine.A32.3.91j.950620172650.56380A-100000@homer27.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.91j.950620172650.56380A-100000@homer27.u.washington.edu> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1684
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 21 Jun 1995, Andreas Michaelides wrote:
 
> jpc@philabs.philips.com (John P. Curcio) wrote:
> 
> >In article <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net>, Michael Glicksman <slam@clark.net> wrote:
> >>In article <3rja0u$km3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
> 
> >>My personal plan(shall I ever become Governor) is to have a delay when a
> >>light changes, to clear out the intersection. Instead of having a light
> >>change from red to green as soon as the other light changes from yellow
> >>to red, I would have both lights stay red for a second or two before one
> >>of them changes to green.
> 
> >Don't most traffic lights do that?  Most of the ones I've seen here in
> >the Northeast, as well as those in the Midwest, seem to have a delay
> >built in.
> 
> I don't know about the states, but all the lights in New Zealand have
> two reds for a second.
> 

Same here in the Pacific Northwest.  Most signals stay red for a second
after the crossing ones turn red.

I know of one exceptioin near the Seattle Centre.  The lights on the main
road turn green at exactly the same as those on the crossing road turn
red.  You don't want to run the yellow; a lot of people do signal-racing
there!

Cheers!


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*


From kevina  Wed Jun 21 19:33:57 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA02153 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:33:56 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.service.uci.edu!apollo.adcom.uci.edu!kokayasu
From: kokayasu@apollo.adcom.uci.edu (Kazuto Okayasu)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 21 Jun 1995 22:15:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 39
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <3sa5lb$kd2@news.service.uci.edu>
References: <3rqptm$nu0@clark.net> <3rja0u$km3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <DA9nJJ.BvL@freenet.carleton.ca> <3s7aj2$ets@condor.philabs.philips.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: apollo.adcom.uci.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1918
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3s7aj2$ets@condor.philabs.philips.com>,
John P. Curcio <jpc@philabs.philips.com> wrote:
>
>Ah, but once again, here is where we have a problem-- different laws
>in different places...
>
>In New York, it is entirely legal to enter an intersection while a
>light is yellow.  The law states that the light is a signal to the
>driver that the red is impending.  It does not even state what happens
>if the light should turn red while you are in the intersection.
>
>If you want a passage from the Vehicle and Traffic Law, I'll try to
>get it...
>
>-JPC
>

Hmm...  I don't see how this would be different in different places.  
According to the textbooks I have on traffic/signaling, its perfectly
legal to enter an intersection on yellow.  It can even turn red while
you're in it, and its still OK.  I'm trying to remember exactly where this
is from, but I don't recall at this moment.
If its done the way its _supposed_ to, the yellow and red-in-all-directions
(called an All-Red) is calculated together, and the All-Red is also
calculated on its own, and is subtracted to get the yellow.  This time
is calculated such that its long enough for a car entering the
"point-of-no-return" can make it across the street before the other side
turns green.  Some of the parameters are pretty conservative, so its pretty
safe.  Its true, though, that some jurisdictions don't have an All-Red
interval, and just extend the yellow (to a certain extent).
I have the equations and I'll post them if there's enough interest.
  BTW, these things are available in most any traffic engineering text. 


--
School of Civil Engineering       **Kazuto Okayasu**      Microcomputer Support
University of California, Irvine                                 AdCom Services
D.G.I.F. #3052                                               <kokayasu@uci.edu>
["I love it when a plan comes together"-Col. John "Hannibal" Smith; The A-Team]

From kevina  Wed Jun 21 19:37:34 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA03643 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:37:34 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!unixg.ubc.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.ucalgary.ca!acs4.acs.ucalgary.ca!hhmwan
From: hhmwan@acs4.acs.ucalgary.ca (Herman Hiu-man Wan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 21 Jun 1995 21:50:20 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <3sa46s$i1u@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
References: <eaeg375.803193896@taurus.oac.uci.edu> <DA9Gp4.Jz9@hpqmoea.sqf.hp.com> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950619144207.2740B-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hhmwan@acs4.acs.ucalgary.ca
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2572
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dai F Toyama (borap@paul.spu.edu) wrote:
: On Fri, 16 Jun 1995, Stuart Leitch wrote:
: > [snip]
: > _very_ heavy hammer, walked up to the XR3i and said to the guy, move or 
: > I'll break every piece of glass on your car.  He moved.
: > 
: > Stuart
: > 

	Stuart,
	Wow... maybe I should try that sometime. :)

: That's pretty wild...  I always park rear-in.  What I usually do when
: I've found a spot in the car park is to stop and block the space, turn
: on the hazard flashers so that the car(s) behind me will know what I
: mean to do, and then move forward and park the car.  It's probably less
: stressful than to carry a big hammer all the time. :-)

	Dai,
	Hello!  Well, talking about parking rear-in... I do that
too!  And, yes, just like you, I've learnt to block the space,
and use signals/hazards (depending on my mood :) ) to indicate to
EVERYONE that I'm taking the spot.  It's effective, alright, but,
there's always that bonehead who doesn't know what I'm trying to
do.... just like today..... I almost got hit when I was backing
my Accord into a narrow slot by a Caddy!  Good thing I backed up
quickly.
	But, really, do you think backing-in should be the way
that everybody should park?  I think it should, but it's rarely
done here in Calgary.... except for some places like Chinatown
(quite a few people there learnt driving in another country,
where they're taught to), or my old high school (the slots are so
damn narrow that you can barely open the door, even if you're
only driving a Tercel, Miata or Civic).  What cracks me up
though, are some carparks that have slots with signs labelled "do
not back in", while the slot and/or aisle is so narrow that backing in is the
logical way.  For me, I just ignore the sign, and back right
in... I've never got fined this way...:)

Anyway, enough babbling...

Happy driving!

PS.  BTW, Last time I answered your Civic question, right?  Now,
I have one for you.... on Hondas, of course!  Here it is:

	I've read somewhere (location forgotten) that the current
Integra has the 4 round lights replaced by rectangular lamps.  Is
this true?  And if so, please state the models/countries where
the rectangular lamp is being used.  If Honda's gonna replace the
4 round lamps on the entire Integra line, I'll weep.  Why?  I
think the round lights look unique!  But, this is only personal
opinion.

	Anyway, thanks in advance!!

later!!
----------
Herman WAN                                         -0-0-
Univ of Calgary: hhmwan@acs.ucalgary.ca              o
Calgary FreeNet: wan@freenet.calgary.ab.ca           U

From kevina  Wed Jun 21 19:39:27 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA04345 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:39:26 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!sec396-news.jpl.nasa.gov!sebastian!tony
From: tony@sebastian (Antonio S. Esporma )
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 21 Jun 1995 23:37:38 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <3saag2$8en@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <seb-2006951847100001@slip181.sirius.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <dooshDAJ477.6w@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.79.118.102
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72451 rec.bicycles.soc:19947
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2337
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <dooshDAJ477.6w@netcom.com> doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:
>In article <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com>,
>Steph Greenberg <steph@primenet.com> wrote:
>)
>)I can't believe you actually advocate side by side riding. This is 
>)unbelievably rude.
>
>Certainly no ruder than driving a car.
>
<snip>


>Please explain why riding double-file makes things "more dangerous for
>everyone."  It makes it safer for the cyclist, certainly, and I fail to
>see how it creates hazards for the motorist.
>
>Remember that two cyclists ahead of you will *always* slow you down *less*
>than two cars; you wait a few seconds, at most, then you pass them and
>get right back into the same road position you were in before (except, of
>course, that two other road users are behind you).
> -Tom

(1) In my home city, Irvine, the previous mayor, Agran, a socialist of the two 
    wheel kind, endowed all of our major streets with wide bicycle lanes.

(2) However, Agran (he of New York bust fame) also realized that the good
    bourgois citizens of the city would not tolerate our motor vehicles 
    slowed by pedal pushing zealots so he passed a law prohibiting side by 
    side riding and riding outside of the bicycle lane.  Fair enough as the 
    lanes are wide most such local riders agreed.

(3) Well, wouldn't you know, some politically concious activist-wannabes 
    from the hallowed grounds of the University of  California at Irvine 
    decided to upturn the law by organizing some mass rides using 'Le Peloton'
    style a la Tour de France.

(4) Naturally, our fascist police, smelling overtime and free donuts, 
    arranged to swell the coffers of the city rather handsomly during these 
    running dog reactionary neo marxist rides.

(5) Needless to say, UCI students and faculty returned to their ivory towers,
    Larry Agran got ousted from the Irvine Taj Majal (City Hall) and the city
    is now once again suffering from cash starvation.

(6) So please, please come on down to Irvine and ride in double file.  You
    need not worry about Bubba in a pickup, but bring you VISA (American 
    Express too) 'cause the flashing lights  behind you will make sure that
    our parks are well maintained and that the donut shops are kept in the
    black.

Thanks 
tony

PS: Don't bother with your helmets either......



From kevina  Wed Jun 21 19:46:50 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA07156 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:46:49 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.charm.net!sun.cais.com!simtel!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDAJHts.4Ko@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rp9ts$4hn@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <seb-2006951847100001@slip181.sirius.com> <jenkins-2106951347020001@metech.me.sc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 20:20:16 GMT
Lines: 18
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72412 rec.bicycles.soc:19937
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 858
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <jenkins-2106951347020001@metech.me.sc.edu>,
Robert S. Jenkins <jenkins@metech.me.scarolina.edu> wrote:
)
)Well I will tell you what I think,(let me first say I too ride a bike, I
)also ride a motorcycle).
)To begin with car owners are the ones who pay for the upkeep of the roads and 
)highways with the tax on gas, now I as a car owner am paying for you to
)have a road to drive on, no you should not have extra rights.

Actually, roads are heavily subsidized from the general funds (various 
statistics posted for various states in rec.bicycles.soc within the last
couple weeks if you need to verify), therefore car owners are *not* paying
for the upkeep of the roads.

I personally don't think bicycles should have "extra" rights.  However, I
personally believe bicycles are not, in reality, granted the rights they
legally should have.
 -Tom

From kevina  Wed Jun 21 22:45:20 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA03505 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 22:45:19 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 21 Jun 1995 23:45:01 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rl0np$ot9@kiki.icd.teradyne.com> <jtchewDA6F97.5qC@netcom.com> <3rp9ts$4hn@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <seb-2006951847100001@slip181.sirius.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <marquisDAJ9L3.2A9@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr1.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72456 rec.bicycles.soc:19948
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2406
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Roger Marquis (marquis@netcom.com) wrote:
: Steph Greenberg (steph@primenet.com) wrote:
: >While I ride my bike for anything under 5 miles (daylight hours), I'm on 
: >the side of r.a.d. posters. You arrogant jerks are making riding more 
: >dangerous for everyone, simply by declaring yourself more environmentally 
: >friendly and thereby advocating behavior that angers and frustrates 
: >people who need to transport themselves from one destination to another 
: >in a car.

: Thanks Steph, for the excellent example of rudeness and aggression.
: You have my sympathies too.  If I had to drive in the smog and traffic
: of LA I'd probably be a road-hogging, hot under the collar,
: hyper-aggressive driver too.

Well, the smog isn't as bad as it used to be when I was growning up here, 
even though we have 3 times the population. I thank the EPA, may they 
continue their success. The traffic . . . well you have no idea what that 
does to your brain.

: And no, while I do probably put in more time cycling than driving I do
: not advocate riding double file unless there's enough room for
: motorists to pass or the group is very large.  In the first case (room
: to pass) some drivers don't feel they should have to cross the
: center-line to pass (is this lazy or what?) and in the second (large
: group) it's often easier to pass a short-wide group of cyclists than a
: long-skinny group.

OK, let's take this tack: If you are going to occupy a lane, it is 
illegal to double up, at least here in California. Also, I hope you're 
not advocating motorists crossing double yellow lines to pass cyclists. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that road construction funds in the US 
largely come from gasoline taxes. In a technical sense the roads belong 
to motorists.

I suspect that people who commute largely by bicycle, but also drive 
sometimes are more aware of what's going on than those who commute solely 
by bicycle or occasionally use bicycles for pleasure or exercise. It's an 
unfortunate fact of life that anyone can bike just by plunking down their 
money, and it doesn't take much more to drive.

: Roger Marquis

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
steph@primenet.com           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Wed Jun 21 22:49:15 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA04672 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 22:49:13 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dbisna.com!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!sunsrvr6!ddg
From: ddg@cci.com (D. Dale Gulledge)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
In-Reply-To: bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu's message of 15 Jun 1995 21:09:31 GMT
Message-ID: <DDG.95Jun21170820@sun86.cci.com>
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Sender: root@sunsrvr6.cci.com (Operator)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc., D&OS
References: <1995Jun12.084415.24643@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
	<3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rq7ib$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:08:20 GMT
Lines: 47
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72460 rec.bicycles.soc:19949
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2719
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3rq7ib$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) writes:

   How about some kind of nation-wide bicyclers group to effect legislative
   reform with regard to road safety?  Mothers against drunk drivers have been
   fairly successful at tightening-up drunk-driving laws and enforcement.
   Well, why not BADD: Bikers (Bicyclers if you wish) Against Dangerous Drivers?
   The first law could be federal zero-tolerance for car phone, i.e. use one
   and lose your car and license.  Car phones are a lot more dangerous to a biker
   or pedestrian than a joint.  The guy that hit me (he was turning right at a red
   light was on his car phone, but didn't smell like he had been smoking-out or
   drinking.

I have the same feeling about this that I have about the annual flurry of
legislative activity called the federal crime bill.  I don't honestly think
that our country is badly in need of new laws.  We simply need enforcement of
the existing ones.  When a car hits a bike and the driver is at fault, charges
should be filed and the sentencing should be no different than when a car hits
another car.  Too often, this is not the case.

   I'm dead serious here, folk.  Anyone who has been hit by a car while on their
   bike or knows someone else who has knows what I mean.

   I bike to work most every day (I'm lucky, I live in SoCal).  I help to keep
   the level of air polution down, I help to lower the amount of traffic, I
   help to keep the demand, hence price of gas down, AND if I should hit anyone
   (which I haven't done yet in about 14 years of heavy bike-riding) I will
   not kill or cripple them, SO I want some respect and some rights on the
   road.

I'm rather proud of being in my 6th summer of bicycle commuting.  I consider
the fact that my Motobecane is on its 3rd saddle and just had its bottom
bracket worked over to be badges of honor.  I earned those with lots of
peddling in three cities.  I'm happy to say that the majority of drivers I
meet share the road rather amiably.  But the respect that I deserve is not
earned by doing anyone else a favor.  My taxes help to pay for the road I am
using.  Like every driver and pedestrian on it, I am entitled to use it within
the constraints set down by law to maintain safety.  As long as I stay under
the speed limit, right of center, signal properly and so forth, I have as much
right to a piece of the road as anyone else doing the same.

- Dale
--
'95 bicycle commuting season: 45 days, 370 km
Weather today: cold, drizzle, overcast.  Of course I rode to work!
--
ddg@cci.com, D. Dale Gulledge, Software Engineer, Northern Telecom,
Directory & Operator Services, 97 Humboldt St., Rochester, NY 14609

From kevina  Wed Jun 21 23:09:28 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA09807 for kevina; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 23:09:27 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 21 Jun 1995 23:45:01 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rl0np$ot9@kiki.icd.teradyne.com> <jtchewDA6F97.5qC@netcom.com> <3rp9ts$4hn@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <seb-2006951847100001@slip181.sirius.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <marquisDAJ9L3.2A9@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr1.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72456 rec.bicycles.soc:19948
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2406
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Roger Marquis (marquis@netcom.com) wrote:
: Steph Greenberg (steph@primenet.com) wrote:
: >While I ride my bike for anything under 5 miles (daylight hours), I'm on 
: >the side of r.a.d. posters. You arrogant jerks are making riding more 
: >dangerous for everyone, simply by declaring yourself more environmentally 
: >friendly and thereby advocating behavior that angers and frustrates 
: >people who need to transport themselves from one destination to another 
: >in a car.

: Thanks Steph, for the excellent example of rudeness and aggression.
: You have my sympathies too.  If I had to drive in the smog and traffic
: of LA I'd probably be a road-hogging, hot under the collar,
: hyper-aggressive driver too.

Well, the smog isn't as bad as it used to be when I was growning up here, 
even though we have 3 times the population. I thank the EPA, may they 
continue their success. The traffic . . . well you have no idea what that 
does to your brain.

: And no, while I do probably put in more time cycling than driving I do
: not advocate riding double file unless there's enough room for
: motorists to pass or the group is very large.  In the first case (room
: to pass) some drivers don't feel they should have to cross the
: center-line to pass (is this lazy or what?) and in the second (large
: group) it's often easier to pass a short-wide group of cyclists than a
: long-skinny group.

OK, let's take this tack: If you are going to occupy a lane, it is 
illegal to double up, at least here in California. Also, I hope you're 
not advocating motorists crossing double yellow lines to pass cyclists. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that road construction funds in the US 
largely come from gasoline taxes. In a technical sense the roads belong 
to motorists.

I suspect that people who commute largely by bicycle, but also drive 
sometimes are more aware of what's going on than those who commute solely 
by bicycle or occasionally use bicycles for pleasure or exercise. It's an 
unfortunate fact of life that anyone can bike just by plunking down their 
money, and it doesn't take much more to drive.

: Roger Marquis

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
steph@primenet.com           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Thu Jun 22 19:52:42 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA19033 for kevina; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 19:52:41 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 18:47:25 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <3s753t$57i@nnrp1.primenet.com>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <3rc11m$1e6o@news.doit.wisc.edu> <3rdn4g$pnv@metro.atlanta.com> <sjs4Uue00YUrQ8QSwq@andrew.cmu.edu> <3s6epr$lr4@batph8.bnr.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr4.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1338
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chung Lu (chunglu@bnr.ca) wrote:
: "Nathan J. Nagel" <nn22+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
: > 
: >     Just a point....  NOBODY should ever pass you on the right, unless
: > you're about to make a left turn or get off on an off-ramp on the left
: > side of the freeway....

: 	What about the Camero that STOPped from 75 mph on the far left lane
: only because he missed the left exit?

: 	I believe you will find me guilty passing the whole traffic on the
: far right lane. I do that when that's the only open space to get through
: those good ole citizens playing road block for the smoky.

I agree with Chung. NOBODY should ever be in the left lane unless they 
are passing. Since that is never true in the US (anywhere from my driving 
experience), neither is the passing on the right rule, unless it IS 
illegal AND enforced. In the US, people are equally likely to cut in 
front of you without looking if you are driving on the left or right. 

NOBODY who lives in a city would ever suggest NOT passing on the right at 
one time or another, though it is not prefered.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
steph@primenet.com           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Thu Jun 22 19:54:38 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA19610 for kevina; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 19:54:38 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 20 Jun 1995 18:35:29 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <3s74dh$57i@nnrp1.primenet.com>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <3s6qii$59m@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr4.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2301
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

Alain Southiere (asouthie@volvox.qc.ca) wrote:
: In article <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU says...
: >
: >In article <3rltq7$r73@acmex.gatech.edu>, gt3220a@prism.gatech.edu (Tigress)
: >says:
: >>
: >>I agree stopping suddenly for a tailgater is stupid, but I slow down for
: >>them mainly for three reasons:
: >>1. Tailgaters piss me off. There are better ways of telling me to go
: >>faster. If they are going to piss me off, I will piss them off right back.
: >
: >Very mature.

:    Do you have a better suggestion to get rid of tailgaters ?

Yes. MOVE OVER AND LET THEM PASS. They're going to go faster than you anyway.
What's the problem? I can't understand why you guys can't figure this out 
for yourself. 

:    This is not a physic course but it's the real world ! First some
: cars brake much better than others by design. Second, I've noticed
: that often, tailgaters have cars that seem to be poorly maintained,
: so I expect their braking distance to be even longer. Third, I
: drive an automatic and often use my left foot for the brake, giving
: a faster reaction time... I might still have one foot on the gas when
: I begin to brake !! So, in emergency situations, I don't want
: a f*cking tailgater in my *ss because I'm almost sure he/she'll
: rear-end me.

Better to have them in front of you than behind you.

: >>3. Tailgaters usually get the point when you slow down
: >Maybe. Often not.

And how do they communicate to you to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!	

:    Myself, I'll try to safely get behind the tailgater and let him/her
: annoy someone else. 

Why didn't you just say this in the first place? It is the only safe 
solution. Playing games on the road is a sure sign that someone shouldn't 
have gotten their license in the first place.

: -- 
: Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
: asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
: alsouth@cam.org (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.
:  


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
steph@primenet.com           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Thu Jun 22 19:55:46 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA19847 for kevina; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 19:55:45 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!tomk
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <tomkDAK3GE.423@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <seb-2006951847100001@slip181.sirius.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <dooshDAJ477.6w@netcom.com> <3saag2$8en@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 04:07:25 GMT
Lines: 18
Sender: tomk@netcom6.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72502 rec.bicycles.soc:19963
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 751
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <3saag2$8en@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Antonio S. Esporma  <tony@sebastian> wrote:
>
>(6) So please, please come on down to Irvine and ride in double file.  You
>    need not worry about Bubba in a pickup, but bring you VISA (American 
>    Express too) 'cause the flashing lights  behind you will make sure that
>    our parks are well maintained and that the donut shops are kept in the
>    black.

Sounds really interesting there Tony. Another point is that it is strictly
counter to state and local driving regulations that have priority.
Maybe Bill King will institute a law suit down there after he's through
kicking some butts up in Pleasanton. Irvine sounds like it has some
really wealthy taxpayers that are ripe for the picking.

>



From kevina  Thu Jun 22 19:57:51 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA20396 for kevina; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 19:57:50 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news2.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDALFpG.1qn@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <dooshDAJ477.6w@netcom.com> <3saag2$8en@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov> <tomkDAK3GE.423@netcom.com> <3scjsu$qc4@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 21:29:40 GMT
Lines: 29
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72596 rec.bicycles.soc:19988
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1219
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <3scjsu$qc4@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Antonio S. Esporma  <tony@sebastian> wrote:
)
)Besides, double file riding is against California law anyhow.

Exactly how many times do I have to explain that double-file riding is not
against California law?  Please cite the relevant code if you have 
information that I don't.

)  How would
)you feel if after spending tons of money to build all those wide bicycle 
)lanes, bicyclists decided to ignore them and ride on the car lanes?

I would feel that maybe I should have listened to the cyclists who were
telling them than bike lanes are not reasonable solutions for bicyclists.

)IMHO, if I can get a ticket for driving on a bicycle lane, then bicyclists
)should also get a ticket when they ride outside of the lane (when not making
)a turn that is...). 

Which is why smart bicyclists don't want bike lanes; it is safest when
cyclists have full rights to use the roads, and people who want bikes in
bike lanes want to curtail our rights.  Bike lanes exist because CAR
DRIVERS WANT BIKES OUT OF THE WAY, not because bicyclists want bike lanes.

)They are designed to safely segregate the traffic,

It is not possible to safely segregate traffic by vehicle type.
 -Tom

From kevina  Thu Jun 22 22:18:07 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA27653 for kevina; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 22:18:07 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!buffnet2.buffnet.net!buffnet1!operdude
From: operdude@buffnet.net (Tom Gentry)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 22 Jun 1995 19:20:16 GMT
Organization: BuffNET
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <3scfpg$13l@buffnet2.buffnet.net>
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: buffnet1.buffnet.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72637 rec.bicycles.soc:20004
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2893
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Tom Holub (doosh@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
: KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
: )In article <3rq805$o78@gap.cco.caltech.edu> bradley@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Brad Woods) writes:
: )
: ) Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
: )windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
: )in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
: )wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
: )all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
: )guess who gets to pay the medical bills.

: The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.

Please tell me in what states a bicyclist is required to carry liability 
insurance.

: ) Guess who stands the chance of getting
: )sued...

: If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.

: )  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
: )while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
: )are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.

: This is not true.

: ) From personal experience
: )I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
: )as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
: )the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.

: This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
: See 21950(b):

: 21950.  (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
: a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
: within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
: provided in this chapter.
:    (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
: from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
: shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
: into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
: immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
: traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
:  -Tom

I'm sorry Tom, but you're point falls a little short of the mark.  Yes, 
the law still perceives the cyclist as a vehicle, but the insurance 
companies don't.  Therefore the driver's liability insurance pays for any 
and all medical bills incurred even at the fault of the cyclist.  On top 
of which, becuase the cyclist doesn't carry liablity, any damage 
occurring to the car is paid for by the drivers collision insurance.  No 
matter what in this situation, the driver pays.

BTW I commute daily by bicycle.  I have no overt love for commuting by 
car, buy I don't hate them either.  I just hate the drivers.  Just like 
the computer, it is not the machine that creates or causes a problem, it 
is the person who is operating it.


From kevina  Thu Jun 22 22:18:59 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA27900 for kevina; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 22:18:58 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDALMq6.E98@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3rk8v0$5gd@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> <3scfpg$13l@buffnet2.buffnet.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 00:01:18 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Lines: 37
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72633 rec.bicycles.soc:20000
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1494
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <3scfpg$13l@buffnet2.buffnet.net>,
Tom Gentry <operdude@buffnet.net> wrote:
)Tom Holub (doosh@netcom.com) wrote:
): In article <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
): KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
): )wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
): )all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
): )guess who gets to pay the medical bills.
)
): The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.
)
)Please tell me in what states a bicyclist is required to carry liability 
)insurance.

None.  Most probably carry health insurance, however, which is likely what 
would pay for the medical bills in an accident where the cyclist was at
fault.

)I'm sorry Tom, but you're point falls a little short of the mark.  Yes, 
)the law still perceives the cyclist as a vehicle,

Actually, that's not strictly true in many states (including mine).

) but the insurance 
)companies don't.  Therefore the driver's liability insurance pays for any 
)and all medical bills incurred even at the fault of the cyclist.

You've provided an assertion.  I've provided law.  I suggest, if you want
to argue that the law is not followed by the insurance companies, that you
provide some proof.

)  On top 
)of which, becuase the cyclist doesn't carry liablity, any damage 
)occurring to the car is paid for by the drivers collision insurance. 

The driver can sue the cyclist for damages if the cyclist is at fault.
 -Tom

From kevina  Fri Jun 23 01:10:16 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id BAA11905 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:10:16 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news2.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!nexus.coast.net!news.kei.com!wang!news
From: lws+@transarc.com (Lyle Seaman)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 12:22:35 GMT
Message-ID: <wjuK2=KSMUw8IXpMYz@transarc.com>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rl0np$ot9@kiki.icd.teradyne.com> <jtchewDA6F97.5qC@netcom.com> <3rp9ts$4hn@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <seb-2006951847100001@slip181.sirius.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <marquisDAJ9L3.2A9@netcom.com> <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>
Sender: news@wang.com
Lines: 13
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72643 rec.bicycles.soc:20006
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 598
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg) writes:
> Another thing to keep in mind is that road construction funds in the US 
> largely come from gasoline taxes. In a technical sense the roads belong 
> to motorists.

1.  Road construction funds in the US largely come from the federal
government, and are thus funded by deficit spending.  In a technical
sense, the roads belong to your unborn offspring.

2. The larger portion of road and fuel taxes are paid by trucking
companies. Those costs are passed on to consumers.  In a technical
sense, the roads belong to purchasers of produce and furniture.


From kevina  Fri Jun 23 01:12:50 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id BAA12400 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:12:50 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news2.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.ultranet.com!augenstein.ultranet.com!rba
From: rba@augenstein.ultranet.com (Bruce Augenstein)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 21:12:34 GMT
Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc.
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <rba.76.001E534E@augenstein.ultranet.com>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <dooshDAJ477.6w@netcom.com> <3sa1k8$g50@mrnews.mro.dec.com> <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: augenstein.ultranet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #4]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72640 rec.bicycles.soc:20005
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2251
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

In article <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com> doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:
>From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
>Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 02:39:29 GMT

>In article <3sa1k8$g50@mrnews.mro.dec.com>,
>Bruce Augenstein  <Augenstein@mr4dec.enet.dec.com> wrote:

Tons of stuff that basically shows neither party can get a grip on the other 
party's viewpoint. 

Last paragraph from Tom........
>The basic stuff like the law, I already understand.  The basic stuff like
>the fact that motorists don't respect the law, or the cyclist's right to
>travel, I also understand.  What *you* fail to understand is that motorists
>are *wrong* to disrespect the law and the cyclist's right to travel.

Tom, any motorist who respects the law is a danger to his or her fellow 
drivers. Motorists know the speed laws are ridiculous, and drive accordingly. 
We have a tradition dating back to before the revolution that we'll openly 
disobey laws we consider unfair, or those that make no sense. There is no 
better example than our roadways, where most motorists drive at the speeds 
they feel safe at, and, to *be* safe, one should drive at the prevailing 
speeds. For you to say motorists are "*wrong*" (your emphasis) is only useful 
stuff if you're running for office. Any reasonable individual  who drives 
knows what is safe and what isn't. What is "safe" is generally 10 to 15 mph 
over the limit. If you go the limit, you're an obstruction, and it's plain to 
anybody out on the roadways that people going the speed limit are a menace to 
the other 99.9% of us.

It isn't that anybody objects to cyclists. We object to anyone who is an 
obstruction.

I am stating absolute facts as regards human nature and the motorist. Right or 
wrong isn't the issue. How people will react pretty much ten times out of ten 
*is* the issue.

As a cyclist, if you insist on equal rights to road use, you will get 
statistically killed, or cause someone else (typically a motorist) to be 
to be statistically killed.

Many cyclists quote the law under these circumstances, which is just so much 
silliness when we all know exactly what goes on out on the roads, why people 
get killed, and why speed differential is so much a part of this.

Bruce


From kevina  Fri Jun 23 01:16:52 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id BAA13077 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 01:16:52 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!sec396-news.jpl.nasa.gov!sebastian!tony
From: tony@sebastian (Antonio S. Esporma )
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 23 Jun 1995 00:09:40 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <3sd0o4$16h@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <tomkDAK3GE.423@netcom.com> <3scjsu$qc4@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov> <dooshDALFpG.1qn@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.79.118.102
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72647 rec.bicycles.soc:20009
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1090
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <dooshDALFpG.1qn@netcom.com> doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:
>In article <3scjsu$qc4@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>Antonio S. Esporma  <tony@sebastian> wrote:
>)
>
<snip, snip... we're talking about bicycle lanes now!!>

>)They are designed to safely segregate the traffic,
>
>It is not possible to safely segregate traffic by vehicle type.
> -Tom

But, it is possible to segregate the usenet groups.  This thread has gotten
really stupid.  In the future, we'd all be better off if you took your 
discussions into your bicycle group and we kept ours in the autos group.

It is obvious that this is becoming an ad hominen threat.  We don't see
DOS folks crossposting on Mac groups to tell them that they are full of it,
nor viceversa, do we?

Since we all are converted in our ways, lets keep our churches equal and
separate and from now lets remove the crossposting from this thread.

We'll keep our driving pet peeves and you'll get your riding pet peeves.  Does
any one remember who was the idiot that crossposted this thead?  I'd like
to put him in my kill file.

thanks

tony


From kevina  Fri Jun 23 14:22:24 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id OAA00679 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:22:23 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news2.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDALzv1.BAw@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3sa1k8$g50@mrnews.mro.dec.com> <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com> <rba.76.001E534E@augenstein.ultranet.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 04:45:00 GMT
Lines: 35
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72671 rec.bicycles.soc:20022
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1644
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <rba.76.001E534E@augenstein.ultranet.com>,
Bruce Augenstein <rba@augenstein.ultranet.com> wrote:
)>The basic stuff like the law, I already understand.  The basic stuff like
)>the fact that motorists don't respect the law, or the cyclist's right to
)>travel, I also understand.  What *you* fail to understand is that motorists
)>are *wrong* to disrespect the law and the cyclist's right to travel.
)
)Tom, any motorist who respects the law is a danger to his or her fellow 
)drivers. Motorists know the speed laws are ridiculous, and drive accordingly. 

How exactly do motorists "know" this?  Why is the person who is obeying
the law the one who is creating the danger?  If your speed is too high to
safely share the road with all reasonable road users (including bicyclists),
then your speed IS TOO HIGH.

)It isn't that anybody objects to cyclists. We object to anyone who is an 
)obstruction.

I object to anyone who insists on driving 10MPH over the speed limit, and
the law agrees with me.

)As a cyclist, if you insist on equal rights to road use, you will get 
)statistically killed, or cause someone else (typically a motorist) to be 
)to be statistically killed.

Actually, riding on the roads, using the vehicular rules of the road, is
the safest way known to cycle.

)Many cyclists quote the law under these circumstances, which is just so much 
)silliness when we all know exactly what goes on out on the roads, why people 
)get killed, and why speed differential is so much a part of this.

Please provide some statistics which show that speed differential is so
much a part of people getting killed on the roads.
 -Tom

From kevina  Fri Jun 23 14:23:35 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id OAA01040 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:23:34 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news2.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!timlee
From: timlee@netcom.com (Timothy J. Lee)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <timleeDAM0ru.8yu@netcom.com>
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Sender: timlee@netcom20.netcom.com
Reply-To: timlee@netcom.com (Timothy J. Lee)
References: <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com> <rba.76.001E534E@augenstein.ultranet.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:04:41 GMT
Lines: 38
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72675 rec.bicycles.soc:20026
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1907
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

rba@augenstein.ultranet.com (Bruce Augenstein) writes:
|doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:
|>The basic stuff like the law, I already understand.  The basic stuff like
|>the fact that motorists don't respect the law, or the cyclist's right to
|>travel, I also understand.  What *you* fail to understand is that motorists
|>are *wrong* to disrespect the law and the cyclist's right to travel.
|
|Tom, any motorist who respects the law is a danger to his or her fellow 
|drivers. Motorists know the speed laws are ridiculous, and drive accordingly. 

_Some_ speed limits in the USA are ridiculous, others are not.

|                                    Any reasonable individual  who drives 
|knows what is safe and what isn't.

Unfortunately, most motorists have such poor driving skills that they
often do not realize what is safe and what is not.  Here are some dangerous
driving habits that I see often:

*  Following too closely.  It is common to see one car length following
   distances on highways.  Seems like this is an easy way to turn a two
   car crash into a multi car crash.
*  Right of way confusion at stop signs.
*  Merging too slowly onto a highway.
*  Passing in the right lane or going slowly in the left lane on a highway.
*  Weaving through traffic even when it is obvious that such action is
   probably futile due to heavy traffic.
*  Not adjusting driving for weather conditions (rain, fog, etc.).

You should also realize that cyclists are generally easy to pass safely,
and they contribute far less to traffic jams (i.e. delays) than additional
cars would, since they take up much less room and can often use road space
that a car cannot use (e.g. sharing a lane with a car).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee                                        timlee@netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

From kevina  Fri Jun 23 14:28:10 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id OAA02028 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:28:10 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!fido.asd.sgi.com!ratliff!renglish
From: renglish@ratliff.engr.sgi.com (Bob English)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 23 Jun 1995 18:04:29 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <3sevnd$gjp@fido.asd.sgi.com>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <dooshDAJ477.6w@netcom.com> <3sa1k8$g50@mrnews.mro.dec.com> <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com> <rba.76.001E534E@augenstein.ultranet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ratliff.engr.sgi.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72745 rec.bicycles.soc:20046
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1651
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

Bruce Augenstein (rba@augenstein.ultranet.com) wrote:
: Any reasonable individual  who drives knows what is safe and what isn't.

Actually, that isn't true.  Personal experience is not an effective
teacher when it comes to safety.

Suppose, for example, that you consider one automobile/pedestrian
accident per driver-career to be an acceptable accident rate.  It is
unlikely that someone who has driven 20 years will have accumulated
enough experience to know whether their driving practices will achieve
that accident rate.  If you don't think that every driver should expect
to hit a pedestrian, then several lifetimes may not give enough
experience to make accurate judgements.

The vast majority of drivers consider themselves to be "above average"
(myself included :-)).  Yet most drivers have at least one collision
during their life.  Because the obstacles they most frequently encounter
are other cars (with drivers similarly armored), the consequences are
muted.  Road users who aren't armored (like me) find protestations of
safety from roadway users who regularly collide with other users of the
roadway less than reassuring, because the safety records of drivers
suggest that they will collide with us at least once in _our_ lifetime.

When I ride to work (typically 7-20 miles), I typically have to take
evasive action two or three times to avoid being struck by a car backing
out of a driveway, running a stop sign, making an unsafe left turn, etc.
This has become so normal for me that I don't even get upset about it.
It is so common that I would be hard-pressed to tell you how many times
it happens during any single ride.

--bob--

From kevina  Fri Jun 23 14:29:16 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id OAA02361 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:29:15 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!smiale@cs.indiana.edu
From: "Steven Miale" <smiale@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <1995Jun23.082127.7511@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <dooshDAJ477.6w@netcom.com> <3sa1k8$g50@mrnews.mro.dec.com> <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:21:20 -0500
Lines: 22
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72707 rec.bicycles.soc:20034
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 993
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com>, Tom Holub <doosh@netcom.com> wrote:
>Look, the speed limit is supposed to be a *limit*.  There's nothing rude
>about travelling under the speed limit, on a bike *or* in a car.

So does that mean it is OK for me to go, say, 1mph on a road?

Let me explain why *I* don't like double-file bikes. Take the town I live
in - Charlottesville. Most of the roads are wide and no-passing. The roads
are wide enough such that, if I am behind a bike and wish to pass, I can
pull over a bit and do so, without entering the other lane, without coming
within inches of the bike, and without affecting any cars going in the
opposite direction. 

However, if those bikers are double-file, then I cannot pass (since the
road is marked no-passing.) And even if I could pass, I'd have to wait
for a lack of cars in the opposite direction, etc.

So it's easier for me to pass bikes going single-file.

Steve
-- 
Steven Miale  <http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/smiale.html>

From kevina  Fri Jun 23 14:29:45 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id OAA02495 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:29:44 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!doosh
From: doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <dooshDAMtF5.L3A@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3sa1k8$g50@mrnews.mro.dec.com> <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com> <1995Jun23.082127.7511@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 15:23:29 GMT
Lines: 14
Sender: doosh@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72728 rec.bicycles.soc:20039
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 714
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <1995Jun23.082127.7511@news.cs.indiana.edu>,
Steven Miale <smiale@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
)In article <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com>, Tom Holub <doosh@netcom.com> wrote:
)>Look, the speed limit is supposed to be a *limit*.  There's nothing rude
)>about travelling under the speed limit, on a bike *or* in a car.
)
)So does that mean it is OK for me to go, say, 1mph on a road?

It means it's OK for you to use any reasonable method of transportation
on the roads.  That include bicycling and even walking if no sidewalk
exists.  It is not legal to intentionally block traffic, but if for some
reason you were limited to 1MPH, you would still have a right to travel and
hence a right to use the road.
 -Tom

From kevina  Fri Jun 23 14:35:38 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id OAA04073 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:35:37 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hp-cv!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!netnews.cc.wwu.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 09:14:10 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950623091154.10919C-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <marquisDAJ9L3.2A9@netcom.com> <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com> <dooshDAJsy4.4qH@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dooshDAJsy4.4qH@netcom.com> 
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72733 rec.bicycles.soc:20041
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1185
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Tom Holub wrote:

> In article <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>,
> Steph Greenberg <steph@primenet.com> wrote:
> )
> )OK, let's take this tack: If you are going to occupy a lane, it is 
> )illegal to double up, at least here in California.
> 
> No, it is not.  If you believe differently, please cite the relevant code.
> 

A simple question.  If it's not illegal to double up, could two motor-
cycles go parallel to each other on a lane?  What about if a motorbike
tries to sneak through the heavy traffic jam?  I thought they were both
illegal in this country.  And if they are in fact illegal, should they
not be applied to bicycles also?

Thanks and regards,


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << borap@paul.spu.edu >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*


From kevina  Fri Jun 23 14:37:38 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id OAA04569 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:37:38 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 23 Jun 1995 12:17:16 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <3sesus$rtd@phobos.cs.utexas.edu>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com> <dooshDAJsy4.4qH@netcom.com> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950623091154.10919C-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: phobos.cs.utexas.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72738 rec.bicycles.soc:20044
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1636
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950623091154.10919C-100000@paul.spu.edu>,
Dai F Toyama  <borap@paul.spu.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Tom Holub wrote:
>
>> In article <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>,
>> Steph Greenberg <steph@primenet.com> wrote:
>> )
>> )OK, let's take this tack: If you are going to occupy a lane, it is 
>> )illegal to double up, at least here in California.
>> 
>> No, it is not.  If you believe differently, please cite the relevant code.
>> 
>
>A simple question.  If it's not illegal to double up, could two motor-
>cycles go parallel to each other on a lane?  

This might vary from state to state, but here in Texas, I know that
two motorcycles can share a lane by mutual consent.

>What about if a motorbike
>tries to sneak through the heavy traffic jam?  

This does vary from state to state.  I know it's illegal here, but
it's legal in the LA area (don't know about the rest of CA).

>I thought they were both
>illegal in this country.  And if they are in fact illegal, should they
>not be applied to bicycles also?

Like I said it's not illegal, so the question doesn't apply.  The
interesting thing is that you didn't ask if it was legal for a car to
sneak past a cyclist within a lane, since it would be illegal to sneak
past a motorcyclist or another car (if the lane were *that* wide).  In
most states there are explicit exceptions to the lane laws that permit
a vehicle to pass a bike within a lane if it is safe to do so.  By
default, however, a bike still has the right to a lane.




-- 
Siddarth Subramanian   http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/siddarth
mailto:siddarth@cs.utexas.edu
Austin, Texas, USA

From kevina  Fri Jun 23 14:40:41 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id OAA05351 for kevina; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:40:40 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!fonorola!Rezonet.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!usenet
From: asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 23 Jun 1995 14:30:07 GMT
Organization: Centre de recherche VOLVOX inc.
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <3sej5f$ah4@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <3s6qii$59m@rcogate.rco.qc.ca> <3s74dh$57i@nnrp1.primenet.com> <3s990i$396@rcogate.rco.qc.ca> <3sa8ga$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.19.209.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3698
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <3sa8ga$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>, steph@primenet.com says...
>
>Alain Southiere (asouthie@volvox.qc.ca) wrote:
>: In article <3s74dh$57i@nnrp1.primenet.com>, steph@primenet.com says...
>: >
>: >Yes. MOVE OVER AND LET THEM PASS. They're going to go faster than you anyway.
>: >What's the problem? I can't understand why you guys can't figure this out 
>: >for yourself. 
>
>:    No need for moronic shouting like that... We're not talking about someone
>: who wants to pass, but about TAILGATERS, you know, the kind of morons who
>: stick at less than 3 feet behind your read bumper, whatever you do ? The
>: kind that stay in you *ss wether you speed 20 mph over the limit or you
>: slow down 20 mph under the limit. I've even had some follow me between
>: lane changes !
>
>I let them pass the moment they appear on my rear, unless there's no 
>shoulder, no other lanes, or nothing I can do. I don't play games, I 
>don't speed up, I have no reason to hold my position. 

   How can we make you comprehend ??? Many tailgater DON'T WANT TO PASS !
Tailgating is the way they drive. Can't you understand that when you have
to pull the stunts I've described below, the tailgater in question doesn't
want to pass !!!

>:    Moreover, I never ride in the left lane except to pass, the tailgaters
>: I'm talking about are people who don't want to pass me, they're just
>: morons. The left lane is open if they would want to pass, but they don't !
>: According to you, I should go onto the shoulder ? Stupid !
>
>I guess I'm fortunate that I've never encountered one of these. 

   Yeah ! I whish I'd never encounter them too... Makes driving too
stressfull.

>:    The only way I've found to get rid of these morons is to get in the
>: left (passing lane) without signaling when there's noone on the lane
>: and then slam the brakes and return to the right lane. When I have to
>: do stunts like that to get rid of a tailgater, you can see (I hope
>: you can, or you're more stupid than you above statement imply) that
>: those tailgaters don't want to pass, they just want to tailgate !
>
>Weird! Either this is rare or a regional thing. Must make you wish you 
>had a gun in your car.

   Well, I'm in province of Quebec (in Canada) and drivers here are often
real morons. When I read someone complaining about bad drivers in the USA,
it makes me laugh ! They should come here a few days. For instance, I've
recently went on vacation for about 10 days. We went in Ohio, Pennsylvania
and New-Yor state. Driving over there was a real plasure. As soon as we
passed the border, we thought we entered hell, especially as we go nearer
to Montreal (principal city, about 3M people, including suburbs). In fact,
the only place I've seen that's worse than Quebec is New-York city. Even
in Boston, which about about the same size as Montreal, people are much
more courteous and les dangerous drivers.

>: >solution. Playing games on the road is a sure sign that someone shouldn't 
>: >have gotten their license in the first place.
>
>:    Who talked about playing games ? Don't you read a post before
>: replying ? 
>
>No offense meant. I've never encountered a tailgater that didn't just 
>want to go faster than me. I'm pretty responsive to this since I keep an 
>eye on the rearview alot.

   I do too ! People who have rode with me usually say that I'm a good
driver, expect for the fact that I drive a little too fast (always a
few MPH over the limit, that scare some people :-).


-- 
Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
alsouth@cam.org (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.
 


From kevina  Sat Jun 24 01:10:32 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id BAA21740 for kevina; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 01:10:31 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!ratty.wolfe.net!josh
From: josh@Wolfe.NET (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 23 Jun 1995 19:08:09 GMT
Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C.
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <3sf3ep$a22@news1.wolfe.net>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <marquisDAJ9L3.2A9@netcom.com> <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com> <dooshDAJsy4.4qH@netcom.com> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950623091154.10919C-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gonzo.wolfe.net
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72760 rec.bicycles.soc:20049
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2373
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

In <Pine.OSF.3.91.950623091154.10919C-100000@paul.spu.edu> Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu> writes:

>On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Tom Holub wrote:

>> In article <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>,
>> Steph Greenberg <steph@primenet.com> wrote:
>> )
>> )OK, let's take this tack: If you are going to occupy a lane, it is 
>> )illegal to double up, at least here in California.
>> 
>> No, it is not.  If you believe differently, please cite the relevant code.
>> 

>A simple question.  If it's not illegal to double up, could two motor-
>cycles go parallel to each other on a lane?  What about if a motorbike
>tries to sneak through the heavy traffic jam?  I thought they were both
>illegal in this country.  And if they are in fact illegal, should they
>not be applied to bicycles also?

First, I'll note up front that I'm in Washington, not California,
so your mileage may vary: traffic laws are a state matter, not
federal.

Second, there are many regulations that apply only to motor
vehicles, not vehicles in general.  A law that applies only to
motor vehicles, e.g. motorcycles, does not apply to non-motor
vehicles, e.g. bicycles, horse carts, etc.

Third, specific legislative action in many states specifically
permits cyclists to ride two-abreast on public roadways, e.g.

RCW 46.61.770  Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. 
  (2)  Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride 
more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set 
aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.


Fourth, note that this rule does not grant the cyclists exemption
from any other rules of the road, such as:

RCW 46.61.427  Slow moving vehicle to pull off roadway.  
  On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of 
traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow 
moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed 
in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area 
for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles 
following to proceed.  As used in this section a slow moving 
vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less 
than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and 
place.

--

Josh@WOLFE.net  is  Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
                     "My other bike is a car."                   
 Bike parts for sale: finger Joshua_Putnam@gonzo.wolfe.net for list.

From kevina  Sat Jun 24 10:54:08 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id KAA26378 for kevina; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 10:54:08 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!noc.near.net!news3.near.net!saturn.caps.maine.edu!maine.maine.edu!michael
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 11:32:22 EDT
From: Michael Johnson <MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Message-ID: <95173.113222MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com>
 <3rc11m$1e6o@news.doit.wisc.edu> <3rhkeh$d67@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
 <3ri1ga$k63@martha.utk.edu> <3rids6$1gdi@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>
 <3rk853$ef@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <3rltq7$r73@acmex.gatech.edu>
 <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <95172.074955MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
 <95172.151216MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Lines: 60
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3544
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

Alain still doesn't get it. He whined to me privately about how "that's
physics, I'm talking about the real world" and went on about a bunch of
irrelevancies, such as:

- Different cars have different braking abilities (for lots of reasons)
- Different drivers have different reaction times

Never mind that physics is the most accurate way we have of modeling the
real world, neither of those points changes the fact that:

For a given pair of cars and drivers (i.e. you and that moron on your butt),
you speeding up or slowing down is not going to reduce the chances of a
collision, if the tailgater sticks to you. Note that we're talking about a
specific tailgater here. If a different tailgater gets on you, the numbers
change, but the basic principle does not. Here's why.

- The tailgater pretty much has a consistent reaction time, on the order of
  less than a second generally. Let's say it's 0.5 sec, a convenient number
  for doing the math. It might be more or less, it doesn't really matter.

- If you hit the brakes, the tailgater will always have the same velocity
  relative to your vehicle when THEY START BRAKING, because you will be
  decelerating at a constant rate (say 32 ft/sec/sec) for the period of that
  reaction time. So let's say that by the time they get on the brakes, there
  is a relative velocity of 16 ft/sec between the two vehicles. This will be
  true whether you were going 90mph before you hit the brakes or 50 mph. You
  are not going to come to a stop before the tailgater can get on the brakes,
  if you are traveling at highway speeds.

- If the tailgater is really close, they are going to hit you before they even
  have a chance to get on the brakes. Again, your initial velocity does not
  change this. This might even be the most likely outcome, if they're three
  feet off your bumper.

- If the tailgater doesn't hit you before they get on the brakes, then for a
  given pair of cars both braking hard, there is going to be a fixed amount of
  time (given a fixed initial following distance) before the trailing car will
  either match velocity with the leading car or hit it. The initial velocity
  does not matter. What matters is the relative velocity of the two cars, and
  if they brake at different rates, the relative deceleration of the two cars.
  The closer the tailgater is, the smaller this time slice will be.

If you are moving really slowly, you might manage to stop before this time
elapses. Alternatively, you might take your foot off the brake and resume a
constant speed. This is probably the best thing (other than hitting the gas)
that you could do to avoid a collision at this point, because it gives the
trailing car a better chance to match your speed before it hits you.

Please note that I'm not saying that slowing down is a bad idea. There are
reasons why it is a good idea. However, the idea that slowing down is going
to reduce the chance of a collision, if you have to suddenly brake hard, is
a fallacy. The only way this would be true is if you slowed down so much that
the tailgater was perforce maintaining a safe following distance. Since they
are probably going to come even closer to you as you slow down, you'd probably
have to come almost to a dead stop. And because they are coming closer to
you, you are actually INCREASING the chance that they will hit you if you
have to brake hard.

Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
michael@maine.maine.edu, michaelj@relay.relay.com
"I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose Free Will." -- Neil Peart

From kevina  Sat Jun 24 10:54:23 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id KAA26419 for kevina; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 10:54:23 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!nexus.coast.net!news.kei.com!sundog.tiac.net!ceylon!news
From: Jeff Witzer <muthiah@sunflash.eng.usf.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 23 Jun 1995 17:45:45 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <3seuk9$h59@ceylon.gte.com>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <95173.113222MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.83.164.29
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1611
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael Johnson <MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> wrote:
>
> For a given pair of cars and drivers (i.e. you and that moron on your butt),
> you speeding up or slowing down is not going to reduce the chances of a
> collision,

[snip]
 
> Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
> michael@maine.maine.edu, michaelj@relay.relay.com
> "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose Free Will." -- Neil Peart

Remember, Michael, that you and I drive RX-7s and, until the new 911 Turbo
came out, no-one on the road can outbrake us.  We must use motorcycle
mentality to survive... namely, if they're on your butt and you don't feel
like (or traffic keeps you from) blowing away from them, slow down enough
to prompt the ass-sucker to pass.

As a general question:

Why do (WARNING: stereotype to follow) testosterone-enhanced, 
grey-matter-deprived, backwards-baseball-cap-wearing 18 year old
boys in lowered 1987 Honda Accords with  hyper-offset tiny wheels
(175/20R12 sticking 8 inches past the fenders) feel the NEED to challenge
generally law abiding (speed limits aside) drivers just because we're
driving hi-tech, hi-capability cars?  And why do they seem to think
that the closer they are to your ass, the more they've "proven" that
their car is as good or better than yours?  And if you do decide to 
put an end to their little game by blasting away from them, why do
they seem to think they're so victorious when they catch up to you 3 
miles and 5 minutes later after you've resumed an appropriate speed?

Jeff Witzer (using a friend's account)
1993 Mazda RX-7 R1 Competition Yellow Mica / Pettit Turn Key Terror

From kevina  Sat Jun 24 21:37:53 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id VAA24843 for kevina; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 21:37:52 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!usenet
From: leadfoot@julian.slip.uwo.ca (Alexander M. Bilan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 18:31:56
Organization: Street Rod Hell
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <19950624.7C27208.10F59@julian.slip.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts8-12.slip.uwo.ca
X-Authenticated: jyergaw@ts8-12.slip.uwo.ca
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1503
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri 23-Jun-1995  6:04p, Bob English wrote:

BE> roadway less than reassuring, because the safety records of drivers
BE> suggest that they will collide with us at least once in _our_ lifetime.

If your lucky. I've managed to fill that statistic 3 times already. 1
rear-ender, one "head on"--idiot turned left while I was still in the way, and
one guy who changed lanes into the bed of my pickup truck.  Which could have
been many more if I was to drive like the rest of 'em =)  with blinders on
oblivious to the rest of the world.  

BE> This has become so normal for me that I don't even get upset about it.
BE> It is so common that I would be hard-pressed to tell you how many times
BE> it happens during any single ride.

Its an obstacle course out there. I had one twit in a little honda accord,
stop for his stop sign, and then proceed into the main thoroughfair, lucky for
him nobody else was on the road and I was able to do a sideways slide or he
would have been dead. Literally, he was that f-ing close when he tried that
stunt.

Speaking of which, anybody recall the title of the movie where the brother of
a traffic victem builds up an armoured pickup truck and takes the
"enforcement" of road laws into his own hands? 
I've seen the movie once about 10 years ago, and never seen any similar
description in the ole tv guide since.  

        
 
Mr.V-8
  //  The opinions expressed above are strictly the opinions of my fingers
\X/   and may not reflect the opinions of the other apendages.

From kevina  Sat Jun 24 21:39:20 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id VAA25475 for kevina; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 21:39:19 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 24 Jun 1995 18:29:37 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <3shlih$ivm@nnrp3.primenet.com>
References: <3rabr4$fv@noc2.drexel.edu> <3raq3l$1v1@news.primenet.com> <95170.122611MICHAEL@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <3s6qii$59m@rcogate.rco.qc.ca> <3s74dh$57i@nnrp1.primenet.com> <3s990i$396@rcogate.rco.qc.ca> <3sa8ga$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com> <3sej5f$ah4@rcogate.r
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr3.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2414
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

Alain Southiere (asouthie@volvox.qc.ca) wrote:

:    Well, I'm in province of Quebec (in Canada) and drivers here are often
: real morons. When I read someone complaining about bad drivers in the USA,
: it makes me laugh ! They should come here a few days. For instance, I've
: recently went on vacation for about 10 days. We went in Ohio, Pennsylvania
: and New-Yor state. Driving over there was a real plasure. As soon as we
: passed the border, we thought we entered hell, especially as we go nearer
: to Montreal (principal city, about 3M people, including suburbs). In fact,
: the only place I've seen that's worse than Quebec is New-York city. Even
: in Boston, which about about the same size as Montreal, people are much
: more courteous and les dangerous drivers.

Nothing is more frustrating than trying to drive in NY City. My uncle was 
a cab driver there most of his life (one of the few English speaking 
ones) and he died of a heart attack at 60. I'm surprised he made it that far.

I think people in LA are: afraid of Lawsuits that could deprive them of 
everything no matter how much insurance they have (California has a 
slight lawyer population control problem--they have no known natural 
enemies), and there is a genuine possibility that the guy being tailgated 
will shoot you (admittedly not much of one, but it has happened).

: >No offense meant. I've never encountered a tailgater that didn't just 
: >want to go faster than me. I'm pretty responsive to this since I keep an 
: >eye on the rearview alot.

:    I do too ! People who have rode with me usually say that I'm a good
: driver, expect for the fact that I drive a little too fast (always a
: few MPH over the limit, that scare some people :-).

: Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
: asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd

Thanks for the warning about Montreal driving. I might have to go there 
sometime (one of the major Computer Graphic animation software companies 
are there). Other than the tailgating problem, it sounds like a nice place.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg              "No one lies in their deathbed wishing          
steph@primenet.com            that they'd spent more time at work."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Sat Jun 24 22:03:53 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA03099 for kevina; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:03:53 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!olivea!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!wdl1.wdl.loral.com!sparky!bvu3-mac14.bvu-lads.loral.com!user
From: ckaan@bvu-lads.loral.com (Carson Kaan)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <ckaan-220695102806@bvu3-mac14.bvu-lads.loral.com>
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Sender: news@bvu-lads.loral.com
Organization: Loral ADS
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rl0np$ot9@kiki.icd.teradyne.com> <jtchewDA6F97.5qC@netcom.com> <3rp9ts$4hn@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <seb-2006951847100001@slip181.sirius.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <marquisDAJ9L3.2A9@netcom.com> <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 18:28:06 GMT
Lines: 34
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72871 rec.bicycles.soc:20075
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1773
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <3saatt$tf@nnrp2.primenet.com>, steph@primenet.com (Steph
Greenberg) wrote:

> 
> Another thing to keep in mind is that road construction funds in the US 
> largely come from gasoline taxes. In a technical sense the roads belong 
> to motorists.
> 

This is a truly silly argument.  Along this line of inane reasoning . . . 
Schools in the US are largely funded by property taxes, therefore people
who don't own property shouldn't be allowed to send their kids to school. 
Local roads, sidewalks and bridges (at least in Seattle) are largely funded
by local property and sales taxes, therefore motorists, pedestrians, the
homeless, etc who don't own property should likewise be kicked off of them.
 And if they need police services, or get in an accident and have to be
take to the county hospital, likewise, since the gas tax doesn't pay for
any of these things.  And let's not forget the gasoline itself, the supply
of which is insured by the carrier task force we have kept near the Persian
Gulf for the past 20 years  --  motorists who don't pay significant amounts
of income taxes should have not be allowed to buy gasoline.  And on and on
and on . . .

As for the premise that gas taxes pay for road construction and
maintenance, it isn't even true.  For instance, the last time I was in the
Bay Area (1/95), there were all these signs on I280 stating that
"Construction paid for by proposition A  --  your tax dollars at work",
with proposition A being a .5% sales tax increase.  Why the voters would
increase their sales tax to pay for freeway construction mystifies me, but
then, the car religion is the US is pretty strong and the auto and oil
industries do spend billions of dollars every year on advertising to
brainwash the American public.

Carson

From kevina  Sat Jun 24 22:04:36 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA03567 for kevina; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:04:35 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!steph
From: steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 24 Jun 1995 17:53:04 GMT
Organization: PrimeNet
Lines: 34
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3shje0$ivm@nnrp3.primenet.com>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3rl0np$ot9@kiki.icd.teradyne.com> <jtchewDA6F97.5qC@netcom.com> <3rp9ts$4hn@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <seb-2006951847100001@slip181.sirius.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <marquisDAJ9L3.2A9@netcom.com> <
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr3.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72858 rec.bicycles.soc:20071
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1796
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Casey Kobyluk ~ (ckobyluk@gomez.sc.intel.com) wrote:
: Roger Marquis (marquis@netcom.com) wrote:

: > And no, while I do probably put in more time cycling than driving I do
: > not advocate riding double file unless there's enough room for
: > motorists to pass or the group is very large.

: I believe Roger and Steph are both from California.  California has a law
: against riding double file.  Bicyclists are only allowed to be side by side
: when one is passing the other.  Also, California requires motorists on
: freeways to stay to the right unless they are passing some one.  As a
: motorist (I also bicycle) I am delayed by slow cars in the fast lane almost
: every day; it has been months since I was delayed by a bicycle.

: The opinions expressed are my own, and are not meant to represent
: the views of my employer.  Casey Kobyluk (ckobyluk@gomez.intel.com)

I'm not concerned with delays caused by bicycles. I'm worried about 
bicyclist's safty, my own in particular. I remember how angry I was when 
these two shitheads on Haight Street in SF were riding side by side in 
such a way that they couldn't be passed without crossing the 2bl yellow. 
I wanted to kill them. Really. When I'm riding my bike, I don't want some 
driver remembering his/her similar experience, because they might take it 
out on me.

Side by side riding, when it forces cars to queue up behind you, is rude 
and dangerous. And it endangers people who may be totally innocent of 
double riding. 

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg              "No one lies in their deathbed wishing          
steph@primenet.com            that they'd spent more time at work."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Sat Jun 24 22:05:46 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA03807 for kevina; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:05:46 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!banders
From: banders@netcom.com (Brad Anders)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Message-ID: <bandersDAp5G1.8CG@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
References: <marquisDAJ9L3.2A9@netcom.com> < <3shje0$ivm@nnrp3.primenet.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 21:38:25 GMT
Lines: 22
Sender: banders@netcom18.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72874 rec.bicycles.soc:20077
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1305
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <3shje0$ivm@nnrp3.primenet.com> steph@primenet.com (Steph Greenberg) writes:
>I'm not concerned with delays caused by bicycles. I'm worried about 
>bicyclist's safty, my own in particular. I remember how angry I was when 
>these two shitheads on Haight Street in SF were riding side by side in 
>such a way that they couldn't be passed without crossing the 2bl yellow. 
>I wanted to kill them. Really. When I'm riding my bike, I don't want some 
>driver remembering his/her similar experience, because they might take it 
>out on me.

Steph, it's drivers with attitudes like yours ("I wanted to kill them. Really.")
that have formed my entire philosophy about riding in traffic. I just assume
they're all like you, and that some act of mine, legal (like riding two 
abreast) or perhaps illegal, will set them off. I make sure that they have as
little opportunity to put their thoughts into action as possible. Thanks for
reminding me that guys like you are out there.


-- 
*******************************************************************************
* Brad Anders / Sunnyvale CA * ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ba/banders/index.html *
*     banders@netcom.com     * ---------------------------------------------- *
*******************************************************************************

From kevina  Sun Jun 25 00:13:42 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA01353 for kevina; Sun, 25 Jun 1995 00:13:41 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cam.news.pipex.net!pipex!edi.news.pipex.net!pipex!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!news.funet.fi!nntp.hut.fi!vipunen.hut.fi!hhelanto
From: hhelanto@vipunen.hut.fi (Henri R Helanto)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 25 Jun 95 00:12:14 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
Lines: 26
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <hhelanto.804039134@vipunen.hut.fi>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950620072055.5980A-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3s76c2$e1t@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3s7egi$i0p@pulm1.accessone.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vipunen.hut.fi
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1279
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chris Newman <cnewman@accessone.com> writes:

<snip>
>little brain of yours. As a bicyclist, I do not consider myself inferior 
>to anyone using any other type of transportation. On the contrary, I 
>consider myself superior to people such as yourself who have no respect 
>for the rights of others. These rights include the right to choose a 
>source of transportation that uses no fossil fuels, provides one with a 
>great amount of cardiovascular exercise, and allows our brains to 
>develop to the point where we don't feel the need to "smear the road" 
>with anybody.

	I personally prefer not to stink like sh*t when I arrive hence
	I drive a car. Go get your cardiovascular excercise at a gym
	or at a dojo and preferably not in rec.autos.driving. Thank you.
	(And 'superiority' is a nice thing, a couple of my friends who
	drive trailer trucks have told me nice stories about bicyclists
	who have genuinely believed that they're superior to a 90-ton
	Kenworth ;-)

-Henri
-- 
######  Henri Helanto         ###  heku@muncca.fi / hhelanto@vipunen.hut.fi  
#####  Architecture Major    ####  Nissan Skyline GT-R 'Janspeed Special'
####  Net Admin             #####  '71 LS-6 454 Corvette Coupe
###  Sports Car Enthusiast ######  Fiat Uno Turbo - 'AARGH! Front wheel drive!'

From kevina  Sun Jun 25 00:17:20 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA02140 for kevina; Sun, 25 Jun 1995 00:17:20 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.ultranet.com!augenstein.ultranet.com!rba
From: rba@augenstein.ultranet.com (Bruce Augenstein)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 23:36:28 GMT
Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc.
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <rba.77.001E3EEC@augenstein.ultranet.com>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3sa1k8$g50@mrnews.mro.dec.com> <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com> <rba.76.001E534E@augenstein.ultranet.com> <dooshDALzv1.BAw@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: augenstein.ultranet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #4]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72896 rec.bicycles.soc:20081
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3532
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

In article <dooshDALzv1.BAw@netcom.com> doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:

>Bruce Augenstein <rba@augenstein.ultranet.com> wrote:
>)Tom, any motorist who respects the law is a danger to his or her fellow 
>)drivers. Motorists know the speed laws are ridiculous, and drive accordingly. 

>How exactly do motorists "know" this?  Why is the person who is obeying
>the law the one who is creating the danger?  If your speed is too high to
>safely share the road with all reasonable road users (including bicyclists),
>then your speed IS TOO HIGH.

They know this because they can all take curves at a minimum 50% over the 
posted speed without anyone in the car becoming uncomfortable. They know this 
because they tend to drive in a way that makes them feel safe and in control 
of the vehicle, and when they look at the speedometer it's at minimum 10 or 15 
mph over the posted limit. They know this because the speed limits on major 
roadways used to be 10 or 15 mph higher than they are now.

The person obeying the law is creating the danger in a way that has been 
already explained. To recap, it's because they're an obstruction, because 
the other 99.9% of us are speeding, and we're speeding because we know 
we're still safe while doing so, except for the people who either 
shouldn't be out there because they can't go with the flow, or those who 
are making a statement. 

I agree that our speeds are "TOO HIGH" to share the roads safely with 
cyclists. They're not going to change anytime soon.

Tom, you asked because you wish to argue the point. I am *not* taking a stand 
here. I am reporting the facts. I don't give the south end of a north 
facing rat about arguing the point. If you'd like to win an argument, 
fine. Consider yourself the victor. 

You, of course, *are* taking a stand, and  that's fine with me, but stop 
making this an argument.

>)It isn't that anybody objects to cyclists. We object to 
anyone who is an >)obstruction.

>I object to anyone who insists on driving 10MPH over the speed limit, and
>the law agrees with me.
Tom, as I 've already explained, we don't care about the law that you care 
about. Your objection to 99.9% of the driving population is duly noted.

>)As a cyclist, if you insist on equal rights to road use, you will get 
>)statistically killed, or cause someone else (typically a motorist) to be 
>)to be statistically killed.

>Actually, riding on the roads, using the vehicular rules of the road, is
>the safest way known to cycle.
This doesn't address the point in any way that I can see. The fact that 
cyclists can get hurt or killed more often while driving on the sidewalks 
doesn't mean that mixing cyclists and motorists is in any way safe.

>)Many cyclists quote the law under these circumstances, which is just so much 
>)silliness when we all know exactly what goes on out on the roads, why people 
>)get killed, and why speed differential is so much a part of this.

>Please provide some statistics which show that speed differential is so
>much a part of people getting killed on the roads.

Sorry, I have none, and wouldn't quote them if I did, since they're so easily 
skewed. However, if you'd care to delve into any auto safety reports from 
NHTSA or even the insurance nazis (IIHS, et al), they'll all make the same 
point over and over about speed differential.

See a back issue of Car & Driver (sometime in '94) quoting some NHTSA folks, 
or go directly to NHTSA.

Speed differential is an absolute linchpin of most published safety reports.

Bruce


From kevina  Sun Jun 25 00:18:23 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA02252 for kevina; Sun, 25 Jun 1995 00:18:23 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.ultranet.com!augenstein.ultranet.com!rba
From: rba@augenstein.ultranet.com (Bruce Augenstein)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 23:51:50 GMT
Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc.
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <rba.78.002C50CD@augenstein.ultranet.com>
References: <3rkdg4$sud@park.rdcs.kodak.com> <3s9bjd$1f7@nnrp2.primenet.com> <dooshDAJ477.6w@netcom.com> <3sa1k8$g50@mrnews.mro.dec.com> <dooshDAJzDt.J35@netcom.com> <rba.76.001E534E@augenstein.ultranet.com> <3sevnd$gjp@fido.asd.sgi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: augenstein.ultranet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #4]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:72899 rec.bicycles.soc:20082
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1977
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

In article <3sevnd$gjp@fido.asd.sgi.com> renglish@ratliff.engr.sgi.com (Bob English) writes:
>Bruce Augenstein (rba@augenstein.ultranet.com) wrote:
>: Any reasonable individual  who drives knows what is safe and what isn't.

>Actually, that isn't true.  Personal experience is not an effective
>teacher when it comes to safety.
stuff cut..........
>The vast majority of drivers consider themselves to be "above average"
>(myself included :-)).  Yet most drivers have at least one collision
>during their life.  Because the obstacles they most frequently encounter
>are other cars (with drivers similarly armored), the consequences are
>muted.  Road users who aren't armored (like me) find protestations of
>safety from roadway users who regularly collide with other users of the
>roadway less than reassuring, because the safety records of drivers
>suggest that they will collide with us at least once in _our_ lifetime.

Let's assume two, or even three, accidents in a lifetime. I would not equate 
this with being above average or below average as a driver. Furthermore, it 
probably *is* "safe" from an armored perspective, and of course obviously not 
if you're on a bicycle. Remember, my position is mainly as reporter here, and 
people behave in a car in ways that make them feel safe, but those habits make 
for unsafe roadways with bicyclists around. The solution is bike lanes, and 
there ain't no other - know-what-ah-mean, Vern? :-)
.

>When I ride to work (typically 7-20 miles), I typically have to take
>evasive action two or three times to avoid being struck by a car backing
>out of a driveway, running a stop sign, making an unsafe left turn, etc.
>This has become so normal for me that I don't even get upset about it.
>It is so common that I would be hard-pressed to tell you how many times
>it happens during any single ride.

I've stopped riding a motorcycle for this very reason, but I understand it's 
human nature, so there's no sense bitchin'.

Bruce


From kevina  Sun Jun 25 00:19:59 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA02582 for kevina; Sun, 25 Jun 1995 00:19:59 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!holonet!colossus.holonet.net!icom!jim.poston
Distribution: world
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
From: jim.poston@megasystem.com (Jim Poston)
Message-ID: <215.24600.1259@megasystem.com>
References: <3s45s5$he3@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:38:00 -0800
Organization: MegaSystem * 702-359-2666 * 18 Nodes *
Lines: 35
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1581
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael E. Dey:
MED| I'm wondering if it would be effective, if when a light turned
   | green, everyone started rolling instantaneously.  As it is, it
   | takes forever for all the idiots ahead of you to wait for the car
   | in front of them to go before they can go.  If we all left a few
   | feet inbetween and started going right away, I imagine we could
   | get twice as many people through busy interesections.

   Sure, and if we all followed two feet behind the car ahead at
   70 mph, we'd improve freeway throughput, too.

   If you think about it, what we're doing when accelerating from a
   stop is transitioning from sufficient following distance at 0 mph,
   to sufficient following distance at x mph.  The faster you get
   going, the more space you need to leave in front of you.  It takes
   a while to attain that space, so that's why you can't move out like
   a train (where the inter-car space is constant - or nearly slow,
   discounting slack).

   So, you *have* to wait when traffic starts to move.  Of course,
   this doesn't take into account the guy who's still reading the
   paper, and who now has sufficient following distance even if he was
   doing 300 mph!!

-- Jim
   jim.poston@megasystem.com

---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ    "It has many other uses as well.  Allow me." - Worf


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jim.poston@megasystem.com (Jim Poston)
This message was processed by NetXpress from Merlin Systems Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Mon Jun 26 15:43:49 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA24159 for kevina; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 15:43:47 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.sprintlink.net!simtel!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!cbm
From: cbm@athena.mit.edu (Charles Bruce Musgrave)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 26 Jun 1995 18:16:53 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 54
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3smtil$ntd@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
References: <dooshDAJ477.6w@netcom.com> <3saag2$8en@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov> <tomkDAK3GE.423@netcom.com> <3scjsu$qc4@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kfj1-sun.mit.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:73123 rec.bicycles.soc:20154
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2453
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <3scjsu$qc4@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov>, tony@sebastian (Antonio S. Esporma ) writes:
|> In article <tomkDAK3GE.423@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
|> >In article <3saag2$8en@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov>,
|> >Antonio S. Esporma  <tony@sebastian> wrote:
|> >>
|> >>(6) So please, please come on down to Irvine and ride in double file.  You
|> >>    need not worry about Bubba in a pickup, but bring you VISA (American 
|> >>    Express too) 'cause the flashing lights  behind you will make sure that
|> >>    our parks are well maintained and that the donut shops are kept in the
|> >>    black.
|> >
|> >Sounds really interesting there Tony. Another point is that it is strictly
|> >counter to state and local driving regulations that have priority.
|> >Maybe Bill King will institute a law suit down there after he's through
|> >kicking some butts up in Pleasanton. Irvine sounds like it has some
|> >really wealthy taxpayers that are ripe for the picking.
|> >
|> 
|> Nope, after the Orange County financial debacle, we have a lot of very
|> hungry and nasty lawyers and a very pissed off bourgeoise.
|> 
|> Besides, double file riding is against California law anyhow.  How would

It is not.

|> you feel if after spending tons of money to build all those wide bicycle 
|> lanes, bicyclists decided to ignore them and ride on the car lanes?

Does it say car lanes on those lanes? I rarely see any lanes that say
"car lane" on them. Anyway, bike lanes rarely are in good areas going
anywhere a cyclist would want to go.

|> 
|> IMHO, if I can get a ticket for driving on a bicycle lane, then bicyclists
|> should also get a ticket when they ride outside of the lane (when not making
|> a turn that is...).  The bicycle lane laws apply equally to cars and bicycles.

Well that is not the law. Bike lanes are supposed to be an area where cyclists
can be protected from 2500 lb cars...I know you must be greatly inconvenienced
by cyclists, but it is nowhere near as inconvenienced as being hit by a 
car while on a bike.

|> They are designed to safely segregate the traffic, if you ignore them, in a
|> bicycle, no less. I dare say you are a fool just looking to get trampled.
|> On the other hand, I do not condone bubbas careening into the bicycle lanes
|> for the heck of it.
|> 
|> tony
|> 

Now how do with get a special lane on this newsgroup to separate the
fools from those who would like to read something sensible?

Charles

From kevina  Fri Jun 30 00:12:50 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id AAA03265 for kevina; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 00:12:49 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.sprintlink.net!wanda.pond.com!wanda.pond.com!not-for-mail
From: russotto@wanda.pond.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving Pet peeves
Date: 27 Jun 1995 11:51:58 -0400
Organization: FishNet
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <3sp9eu$3ft@wanda.pond.com>
References: <19950610.7B0F718.F0FC@julian.slip.uwo.ca> <3rfa6r$lae@larry.cc.emory.edu> <3rju43$apf@martha.utk.edu> <DAr1GH.21z@bokonon.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wanda.pond.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1342
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <DAr1GH.21z@bokonon.UUCP>, Hi Ho Silver <silver@bokonon.UUCP> wrote:
}In article <3rju43$apf@martha.utk.edu> Scott Kirkham <kirkham@utkvx.utk.edu> writes:
}$lparker@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
}$>People who are stopped behind the white line at a left turn intersection 
}$>and then make the turn after their light has turned red.  
}$
}$Even worse, those that pull up into a left turn lane that should get the
}$arrow, but because they don't realize or know that the register must be 
}$triggered to turn the left turn only light on, they either pull past the
}$register (not so bad, as you can pull up on the register) or stop with 
}
}   Personally, if the choice came down to picking the worse of a
}dangerous asshole or an inconsiderate slowpoke, I'd say the guy
}who runs red lights is by far the worst.

If the lights are timed the way they are in MD, running the red in
that circumstance isn't all that dangerous, though it cuts into the
double-red period.  What has happened is that the signal for the road
the left-turner was driving on has just turned red, and the signal for
the road he was about to turn onto has just turned green.  Had he been
in the intersection (as he should have been), it would have been fine.
Since he was at the white line, traffic may start moving before he
completes his turn.

From kevina  Fri Jul 28 02:42:41 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA21444 for kevina; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 02:42:41 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.bridge.net!brickell.bridge.net!bozak
From: bozak@bridge.net (jjbl)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 25 Jul 1995 15:15:35 GMT
Organization: BridgeNet, LC - 100 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1315, Miami FL.
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <3v31qn$6j2@news.bridge.net>
References: <3slfba$4ij@nnrp3.primenet.com> <3trpl1$mao@wanda.pond.com> <3trqoq$lf4@wolfe.wimsey.com> <3tujbs$se@wanda.pond.com> <3tul02$rfk@wolfe.wimsey.com> <lmp-1207952006000001@lmp.vip.best.com> <mpd4-120795232343@cu-dialup-0811.cit.cornell.edu> <lmp-
NNTP-Posting-Host: brickell.bridge.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:77553 rec.bicycles.soc:21228
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1512
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

1307951851030001@lmp.vip.best.com>
Organization: BridgeNet Information Systems, Miami Florida, 305.374.3031 
for Customer Assistance Distribution: 

lmp (lmp@lmarie.com) wrote:

: Maybe I'm speeding, maybe I'm not.  People *do* speed.  And while you're
: riding you're bike at the speed limit insisiting you have a right to be
: there, I suggest you look out for the speeder behind you...that is if
: you're interested in living.

How very intelligent of you.  I suppose you think the laws apply to 
everyone except you.  Most states' traffic laws state that bicyclists 
have *all* the rights and responsibilities of automotive traffic.  If 
you're so happy about wantonly putting lives in danger because you don't 
like the law, then you shouldn't be on the road.

: It's great how you ignored the part about the cyclist who was riding
: recklessly and wound up on the ground in the middle of the road around the
: curve.  I point out again, I avoided him, he point my life in danger...he
: was reckless, not me.

If you were travelling over the posted speed limit you'd both be at fault..

It is your responsibility to do everything within reason and safety to 
avoid a crash, whether you put yourself in the situation or not.  That's 
part of the privelege of driving.  If you don't like it, walk..

: **This is a no trolling zone; I don't want to meet any trolls :)**

I'd say you're more chumming than trolling.

--
-----
You have just been verbally molested by: bozak@bridge.net
Was it good for you?
-----

From kevina  Fri Jul 28 02:42:48 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA21470 for kevina; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 02:42:47 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!serval.net.wsu.edu!qemac1.ug.eds.com!user
From: royce@ug.eds.com (Royce Myers)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Sender: news@serval.net.wsu.edu (News)
Message-ID: <royce-2607951556200001@qemac1.ug.eds.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 23:56:20 GMT
References: <3slfba$4ij@nnrp3.primenet.com> <3trqoq$lf4@wolfe.wimsey.com> <3tujbs$se@wanda.pond.com> <royce-1707951306380001@qemac1.ug.eds.com> <3uh6t6$42g@wanda.pond.com>
Organization: EDS Unigraphics, Cypress CA
Lines: 40
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:77685 rec.bicycles.soc:21259
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1547
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3uh6t6$42g@wanda.pond.com>, russotto@wanda.pond.com wrote:

> In article <royce-1707951306380001@qemac1.ug.eds.com>,
> Royce Myers <royce@ug.eds.com> wrote:

> }In other words, Russotto feels that cyclists who fail to stay out of his
> }way are open game.  Game is not out of line for him, he because feels that
> }cyclists who block lanes are starting a competition:
> 
> Cyclists here have said as much.

I'm sure you won't mind providing citations; otherwise we might think you
made it up.

> }
> }No, Russotto.  He's trying to make you wait until it's safe.  You'll kill
> }yourself with your own impatience, but it won't be the cyclist's fault.
> 
> It would have been safe except that the cyclist moved out and blocked
> the lane.  So now I can either pass unsafely, or sit behind the
> cyclist for several miles until the next passing zone.

1. It would have been safe...for whom?  Can you honestly say you were
blocked by a cylist in a situation where it was absolutely safe for
everyone if you passed?

Or are you making this up?

2. Can you please tell me where you were blocked by cyclists for "several
miles"?  Provide the location, date, distance and the speed at which the
cyclist was travelling every time this has happened to you.  Please note
how long you spent at the next light, and if you made up any time by
speeding.

This _has_ happened to you, hasn't it?  You wouldn't be spouting off about
something that in fact is so rare that you've never actually seen it
happen?

-- 
Royce Myers          Royce@ug.eds.com

From kevina  Fri Jul 28 02:42:54 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id CAA21505 for kevina; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 02:42:53 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!news.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!serval.net.wsu.edu!qemac1.ug.eds.com!user
From: royce@ug.eds.com (Royce Myers)
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Sender: news@serval.net.wsu.edu (News)
Message-ID: <royce-2607951559350001@qemac1.ug.eds.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 23:59:35 GMT
References: <dooshDAJ477.6w@netcom.com> <3tbohs$8q6@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <royce-0707950729050001@qemac1.ug.eds.com> <DC0LIt.LD4@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: EDS Unigraphics, Cypress CA
Lines: 31
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:77752 rec.bicycles.soc:21270
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1372
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <DC0LIt.LD4@festival.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

> In article <royce-0707950729050001@qemac1.ug.eds.com> royce@ug.eds.com
(Royce Myers) writes:
> 
> >And Eddie, one last thing.  As a safety lecturer you should be able to
> >answer the following questions: 
> >- How many cyclists are struck from behind?  
> >- How many of these cyclists are riding side-by-side?  
> >- What percentage of overall injuries result from this kind of collision?  
> 
> >If you answer honestly, you'll realize that this is not a significant
> >problem compared to, say, cross traffic collisions, which can be reduced
> >in some situations by side-by-side riding.
> 
> Something wrong with the logic here. Statistics indicate that being
> hit by a car while riding on the wrong side of the road wearing a
> gorilla mask is a very rare kind of accident indeed. There is
> therefore no reason to advise someone to stop doing this?

The advice Eddie gave me, but which you chose to edit out, provided advice
which traded one set of risks for another.  The dangerss he suggested
avoiding are already very rare (which is why I asked him to quantify these
risks), so the result of following his advice could be a net increase in
overall risk.

It was comparable to telling cyclists that they are safer on the sidewalk.

-- 
Royce Myers          Royce@ug.eds.com

From kevina  Tue Aug  1 08:49:07 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id SAA23004 for kevina; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 18:23:05 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!wanda.pond.com!wanda.pond.com!not-for-mail
From: russotto@wanda.pond.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
Date: 28 Jul 1995 15:11:49 -0400
Organization: FishNet
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <3vbcpl$99c@wanda.pond.com>
References: <3slfba$4ij@nnrp3.primenet.com> <royce-1707951306380001@qemac1.ug.eds.com> <3uh6t6$42g@wanda.pond.com> <royce-2607951556200001@qemac1.ug.eds.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wanda.pond.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:78019 rec.bicycles.soc:21335
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1858
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <royce-2607951556200001@qemac1.ug.eds.com>,
Royce Myers <royce@ug.eds.com> wrote:
}In article <3uh6t6$42g@wanda.pond.com>, russotto@wanda.pond.com wrote:
}
}> In article <royce-1707951306380001@qemac1.ug.eds.com>,
}> Royce Myers <royce@ug.eds.com> wrote:
}
}> }In other words, Russotto feels that cyclists who fail to stay out of his
}> }way are open game.  Game is not out of line for him, he because feels that
}> }cyclists who block lanes are starting a competition:
}> 
}> Cyclists here have said as much.
}
}I'm sure you won't mind providing citations; otherwise we might think you
}made it up.

Tom Hoblub (sp?) is the cyclist I had in mind.  I don't archive posts,
in general.

}> }No, Russotto.  He's trying to make you wait until it's safe.  You'll kill
}> }yourself with your own impatience, but it won't be the cyclist's fault.
}> 
}> It would have been safe except that the cyclist moved out and blocked
}> the lane.  So now I can either pass unsafely, or sit behind the
}> cyclist for several miles until the next passing zone.
}
}1. It would have been safe...for whom?  Can you honestly say you were
}blocked by a cylist in a situation where it was absolutely safe for
}everyone if you passed?
}
}Or are you making this up?

Absolutely safe?  There's no such thing.

}2. Can you please tell me where you were blocked by cyclists for "several
}miles"?  Provide the location, date, distance and the speed at which the
}cyclist was travelling every time this has happened to you.  Please note
}how long you spent at the next light, and if you made up any time by
}speeding.

Don't be silly -- I didn't sit behind them, I passed them, illegally
and (relatively) unsafely.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto      russotto@pond.com     russotto@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

