> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:26 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: bikes v. cars > > > On 10/10/2007, at 7:23 AM, jon louis mann wrote: > > > > i think riders should do as least as much as drivers to accommodate > > each other, if for no other reason than they are more vulnerable. > > there is a too much hostility and frustration on the road to risk > > generating more. those sanctimonious riders who insist on their right > > of way, even if it means snarling up traffic, are asking for trouble. > > > "Sanctimonious"? How much of a "snarl-up" is "asking for trouble"?
First, I have trouble with the phrase "asking for trouble", although I know what it means. It sounds too much like justifying violence for my tastes. Even so, I think I know what the phrase intends to convey. The clearest example of this would be a white person driving into Watts (a black LA ghetto), rolling down the window and shouting "Get a job you lazy N...s". I would prosecute blacks who beat that white person, but I would also consider the white stupid beyond belief. So, since I cannot think of a good substitute, let me use it with the caveat that "asking for trouble" never justifies the trouble that may come. I would guess that the example I gave of miles long backup would be "asking for trouble", although not nearly as badly as the previous example. I didn't actually see that long of a snarl, but I did see a half mile long backup while cyclists were deliberately slowing traffic on a freeway frontage road. That was on the borderline. I would guess you would consider these cyclists idiots for not letting traffic by, or riding in on a parallel paved path without the traffic. They don't deserve to be hit, but I think it would be reasonable to write laws that included fines for this type of action. As an aside, I have some knowledge of the difficulty for commuting cyclists. A long time ago, when I first started working in Houston, I commuted 3 miles each way by bike for a while. I took side roads, sidewalks, etc., because I wasn't going to ride in Westheimer commuter traffic (a very busy road in Houston). Even so, I was hit twice while riding. Neither time was it a serious at all, but I decided that, with two accidents in 6 months, accidents had to be considered a regular occurrence, and that there was a reasonable chance the next one would be worse. That was the end of my commuting by bike. > Is using the inside lane for 200ft before turning "asking for > trouble"? Is taking the lane at the traffic lights so that one can > overtake 4 or 5 slower riders when the lights change "being > sanctimonious"? (because that precise action got myselt and another > honked at on the red... "honk" *look round* *see bloke waving wildly > for us to move* um, no. None of those actions by you seem unreasonable. The bloke you referred to, on the other hand, does seem unreasonable. > What you're saying is that the weak should give up their rights to > the strong. Actually, while "asking for trouble" is a poor choice of words, I don't think that he's advocating that the weak should give up rights to the strong. I don't consider riding on any particular road a fundamental right. I don't think the prohibition of bikes on freeways, for example, is a step on the way to a loss of liberty. > > That's how America started, right? No... wait... the weak *took back > their rights*. Remember? Cyclists with bikes that cost more than $500 are usually more likely to be among those in the upper half of income in the US. The truly powerless rarely have nice bikes. The folks I've seen who ride on/near high traffic high speed roads usually look as though they have a good deal of disposable income. The designer riding outfits, along with the very nice bikes, are my clues. Also, I don't see operating a given means of transportation on a given road a fundamental right like "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Prohibiting bikes from high traffic high speed roads does not strike me as an essential affront to liberty like "taxation without representation" or the forced quartering of soldiers. And, I know/knew cyclists who are sanctimonious, like the ones who told me that massive backups "should be a signal that cars are wrong." Finally, you may not appreciate the background against which this argument takes place in the US. In particular, I'm thinking of the lawsuits. I'll give an example. An emotionally disabled youth, after stealing something from a store, ran out of the store, and into a car driving by in the parking lot. He ended up dying. The key fact here is that he ran into the side of the car, not in front of the car. I'm not sure how a driver could possibly stop someone from running into their car...especially darting out into the road like that. The driver is being sued for nearly a million dollars. It is likely she'll lose her driver's license...since she's elderly. The sanctimony I've seen includes suing up the hilt for technical violations of the law after baiting someone into them. All that said, none of your actions as a cyclist seem to be problematic. They motorist who honked at you, from what I read, appears to be a rude idiot. Further, I agree that, since cyclists are much more likely to be killed than a driver in a car-bike collision, road rage by drivers is far more of a problem than road rage by cyclists. Nonetheless, if Houston were to prohibit bikes from the main lanes on certain roads, (e.g. high volume streets like Westheimer, and freeway frontage roads) I would not consider that an affront to liberty. If there were a law requiring cyclists to get off the road and let cars backed up behind them to go by (instead of it just being common courtesy), then I don't see cyclists as victims. Rather, I think it is a common sense response to traffic problems. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
