's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Should I not do this?(64 posts)

Should I not do this?rollo tommassi
Aug 29, 2001 5:14 PM
Don't you hate it when people run red lights?

Here's my little story on a Wednesday night ride. I live and work in downtown Chicago. I am riding up a major thoroughfare (Elston Ave.), and I come up to MAJOR intersection (Ashland). Elston is a four lane and Ashland is a four lane. Ahead of me on Elston I see a woman on a mtn bike - she proceeds to roll thru the intersection as the cars on Ashland start to go on their green light. Much consternation! One car nearly bumps another as the front car stops for her. Horns beeping, much unhappiness. Off she goes on her little way. I actually turned and looked at a driver waiting at the light with me and just shook my head, as did he.

I catch up with her at the next light. A car passes her and blares her horn at her. She turns and looks like, 'what's his problem', and I said to her (the words I now regret)

"I think he's pissed you ran that red light"

OH MY GOD SHE TOTALLY FREAKED OUT ON ME!!! She proceeds to berate me with more four-letters F words than you can powerlink together.

To quote:"Go F yourself!!" "GO preach your crap to someone who FF cares!!"

"Who are you to tell me blah blah blah" To which I said "because I care about your safety". WELL! THAT just send her around the BEND!!! "I ride a Harley with out a helmet blah blah blah" (I said "do you run red lights on your Harley too?)."Why don't you go drive a car" (that was my favorite line). "I'm in a hurry and I can't waste my time..." "Do you stop every car that runs a red light"(I wish I could, I said)

By now I'm laughing (really!) She just went on and on to the point I really was laughing out loud (and by now, OTHER cyclists commuting on the same route were watching!).

This woman was nicely dressed, nice haircut, perfect lipstick (a little too pink for her color, but, I decided it best, considering the circumstances, not to pick on her choice of toiletry) and a pair of Gucci sunglasses.

Ok, so my question is: should I or should I not chastise people for running red lights? I mean, really, this was someone cutting 8 lanes of traffic during rush hour. She was a danger to herself and, MOST importantly, to others.

We all talk about getting respect on the road - I just feel like it's a hopeless battle now. How can we reach out to people like this?

Alex Randhava - you know exactly where I'm coming from with this post! ;)

*Big sigh*
re: You were right...butRusty Coggs
Aug 29, 2001 5:24 PM
....even thought I do it all the time,,I also realize it is a lost cause.They are braindead and morons. Someone said'never argue with a moron,as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'. You got a good taste of it.
No, you should not...Vlad the Impaler
Aug 29, 2001 5:24 PM
chastise people for running red lights. That's what the police are for. People don't appreciate Joe Citizen reminding them of the law. If she wants to ride dangerously it's her right. She's a big girl and knows the risks. If she wants to risk getting flattened by a car then that's her right. Your heart is in the right place but in this day and age I think people are sick of being reminded what's best for them. Especially by a stranger.
Yeah, I understand what you mean...rollo tommassi
Aug 29, 2001 5:29 PM
I suppose I really scared her? I didn't ride up to her and start yelling at her, I just made a statement.

I wouldn't chastise a driver - because I perceive them as being dangerous.
I rather disagree with the ImpalerKristin
Aug 29, 2001 5:43 PM
I don't think you were wrong for saying something. She gave you a look, and in as much, it sounds like she invited you to sympathize with her. You gave your honest, calm opinion. She's obviously a person with maturity issues. Let it roll off.

Sidebar: Sometimes I wonder if its worth while to confront people anymore. It seems that people today just want their own way. Grown men & women throw tantrums when they don't get what they want. And the sad fact is, that most people aren't willing to take an honest self assessment. Perhaps we're reaching an age when its just better to mind ourselves and let fools go about thier business undisturbed.
The reason to say something to her,....PdxMark
Aug 29, 2001 5:59 PM
is not her personal well-being. She's a big girl and apparently thinks she understands the risks.

The thing about her behavior that directly affects you, and all the rest of us, is that she demonstrated for alot of motorists that cyclists are irresponsible and inconsiderate. Of course, we are entitled to be on the road (well, apparently, except in Chicago, if I remember a court case correctly), but it's much easier for us out there we can engender considerate road-sharing with motorists. Her actions planted in a few minds the notion that cyclists shouldn't be on the road. She deserved to hear about it...
Seems like everyone is on the defensiveVlad the Impaler
Aug 29, 2001 6:10 PM
It does seem like there has been a fundamental shift in the basic disposition of your average American over the last couple of decades. Everyone has such a short fuse. The attitiude of "If you don't like it then F#$% you!" seems so much more prevelent now. I think it seems to many people like more and more people are trying to mind others' business these days. That might not be the case. Maybe that's just the perception of a populace that's increasingly on the defensive, on edge and angry. Something to ponder.
self responsibilityTig
Aug 29, 2001 6:15 PM
We all have to be responsible for our own actions, on and off the bike. That's the price of freedom. Self governing keeps us on the good guy side and usually avoids new constrictive laws that we just don't need. One of the best tips I heard about group rides is to not take someone's word that the intersection/lane is "clear". Take a quick look for yourself. We must be the final say when it comes to out safety. We should also try to look out for our fellow riders.

When on a bike, we are ambassidors for our sport so I agree that he should have kindly told her what she did wrong. Her reaction reflected her ignorance of what happens when you take a bike to a car fight, as well as her mental issues. We can guide others with our actions (lead by example) and occasional verbal reminders. On group rides, I see people do some really stupid stuff and don't mind reminding them of what happens when a car pops them. They're on their own after that. We are free to make safe or stupid choices, but sometimes we need to be reminded of what is really important. Saving a few seconds is never worth the risk a broken bones, head trauma, or death.

OK, I'll step off my soapbox now. My .02 is up!
Sorry Vlad & All...Kristin
Aug 30, 2001 6:58 AM
Sleep deprivation is well at work in my life. I disagreed with you, then turned around and reinforced your very point. I re-read it later and realized that my disagreement was really an agreement. I think I'll sleep here for a bit!
re: Should I not do this?harlett
Aug 29, 2001 6:14 PM
if someone is thoughtless enough to endanger themselves and others then I don't see a rational approach working. I would have ridden up behind her and just as the light was going to turn green I would have plunged a knife tip into her rear tire.....well i guess that's thoughtless and irrational too.....let me think.....OH yeah...I would reach deep down inside (to that place where I love all the earths creatures) and pull out the words.."have a wonderful day and I hope you don't kill yourself today"
two words: Trailer Parkcyclopathic
Aug 29, 2001 6:19 PM
you're waisting your time pal!
I've given up.terry_b
Aug 29, 2001 6:45 PM
I posted a similar story here about a month ago - person stopped on busy path, making everyone go around, creating unsafe situation. My polite warning nearly brought me to fisticuffs with a fat, nasty mountain biker. My conclusion - manners and common sense have gone the way of Suntour and Biorings. No more safety warnings from me, if they want to die, so be it.
You Did The Right ThingJon Billheimer
Aug 29, 2001 7:21 PM
Both with respect to her own safety, the safety of other motorists, and to the benefit of the cycling community. In a
certain sense we are our brothers' keeper. Part of the problem is that individual rights in our society have been
way overemphasized to the detriment of the rights and welfare of the community. If everyone is left to his own
devices, eventually we arrive at anarchy. Stupid woman. Your response was warranted and responsible.

Just my opinion.
You Did The Right ThingBirddog
Aug 29, 2001 8:00 PM
Be careful with that kind of thinking. Individual rights are extremely important and as such make our country and our communities what they are. America is unique in the world because of individual rights. If the community had it's way, they would put us on bike paths. This person broke the law, and that was a willful act to violate other people's rights. I don't mean to chastise, just a heads up.
You Did The Right ThingJon Billheimer
Aug 29, 2001 8:49 PM
I knew I'd open a can of worms with my remarks. But consider this, an individual such as this woman
by her behaviour not only creates a negative consequence for herself but for many others. In the
end the community--through our insurance premiums--pays the cost for her irresponsible behaviour.
Remember Mills' "Harm to Others" principle? And just because American society (and its neighbours)
was founded on individual rights doesn't give the idea the absolute, immutable, and universal status of
some metaphysical law. There has to be a balance. And in my not-so-mainstream opinion, a lot
of our social problems stem from this "me first" attitude.

This is not to belittle your caution. I just think we're treading a dangerous line, what with all the
different sort of "rages" being acted out these days.


Reactionary Jon (LOL)
Hey Birddog - get a gripMJ
Aug 30, 2001 12:33 AM
do you really need to be reminded that:
1. America is not unique in the world - poeple in many countries enjoy individual rights - some countries much more so than in the US of A (I know it's popular thinking that America alone has a grasp of freedom and individual rights in the world and alone defends these ideals.) I know you're not saying that other countries don't have individual rights - what are you saying? Try saying that stuff in France.
2. America has transgressed, and continues to transgress, on countless people (it's own citizens and foreign countries) in pursuit of its policies which are the antithesis of elevating individual rights.
3. comments like these, while apparently very moving to people who actually believe, are usually based more upon one's social standing, colour and gender far more than one cares to appreciate
4. the world isn't run by America or any 'ideals' and hasn't been for a while - it's run by large corporations that provide policy to the governments of the world (not just America)

sorry - but I can't let that swill go unchecked :-)

and I agree that Rollo was spot on to say something - the woman wanted his sympathy - he only explained why the guy was honking at her - I'd say it may even be a duty - she won't be a commuter for long as she's likely to get injured - Rollo don't take any crap from the ignorant - laughing is the best policy (unless you would consider spitting on her/holding on to her seat rail or putting your lock through her rear wheel and frame at the traffic light!! - you'd really get some swearing then)
Hey MJ and American dissenters - READ MY LIPS!Uncle Sam
Aug 30, 2001 7:52 AM
To those of you who like to bash the good ol' US of A I can't agree with you more. We should keep our nose out of other countries affairs and we should close our borders to the rest of the world. Let's see, I guess all of the Russians, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis, Albanians, Egyptians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and multitude of others that have invaded my home town probably feel the same about America. After all, they had all of the freedoms you say exists everywhere else on Earth. I would venture to guess that a good portion of you here bashing the US are living in the US now. We should have stayed out of the World Wars and other foreign conflicts too. Most of you would probably be speaking German now. We should also cut off all of the trillions of foreign aid we send to all of the countries I mentioned including France. Yes France gets good ol' US dollars too. I am sick of all the America bashing. When other nationals become patriotic for their country it is OK, but when an American does it it is seen looked upon as conceit and saber rattling.
Hey MJ and American dissenters - READ MY LIPS!MJ
Aug 30, 2001 8:18 AM
great handle

patriotism is fine (and should be encouraged) but my point is it's unfair to think that patriotism or freedom is a concept or practice limited to the US

I don't think I said freedom exists everywhere else on Earth now did I? (be honest)

US = melting pot = exactly who is a foreigner? people that aren't white? people that don't speak English? people/families who have been in the US less than 5 years, 10 years, 100 years - you see where this is going don't you?

clearly isolation isn't an acceptable approach to dealing with the world - the economy won't stand for it - and that at the end of the day is hte bottom line - not swill re individual freedom

France gets foreign aid - please elaborate

what about the UN dues the US owes?

we wouldn't be speaking German - we would be speaking Russian - they were the ones who actually won the second world war (at least in Europe)
The Russians Won?Uncle Sam
Aug 30, 2001 8:35 AM
They came in on the heels of US military men. Their soldiers were starving and ill equipped. They would have lost had it not been for the D-Day invasion. Where do you get you facts from? Yes France receives a stipend if you will, for not selling their technology to hostile nations. Why should we as Americans have to pay off the French Govt? Come to think of it, the British and French have pretty much invaded all lands and have claimed them for their own. As NOVA stated, if America had notions of ruling the world we could have done so. Based on history, the British and the French may have done so had they had the technology to do so.
The Russians Won?MJ
Aug 30, 2001 9:02 AM
The Russians were indeed ill equipped (in many regards) and lost many as a result - but they were the ones who conquered Germany - read the books, look at the maps - D-Day was a (bloody) PR excercise -

my facts are from any History book concerning the subject - not from films (start with Antony Beevor's Stalingrad - a good read in any event - then you could move on to Stokebury's A Short History of WW2 - a more general approach)

sound like a good deal if the US is paying the French not to sell stuff to hostile nations - most people call that a 'contract' - it means that places like Iraq don't get stuff to shoot down NATO (read US & UK) jets - it's about money

America does rule the world - it's about money

and Rollo was right to say something to the idiot woman :-)
The Russians Won?nova
Aug 30, 2001 9:56 AM
It isn't appropriate to discount the fact that the Russians needed a second front to be opened in the West. This drew German resources away from the Eastern front, and gave the Russians some room to maneuver.

It also isn't appropriate to overlook the fact that Eisenhower made a concious decision to not take Berlin in large part because of the projected casualty rates. Factor that in with the political importance of letting Russia be first to Berlin, (revenge for Stalingrad being one of the reasons) and you have the outcome that we know and love to read about today.
The Russians Won?MJ
Aug 30, 2001 12:40 PM
Theran, Yalta and Potsdam all acknowledged the facts on the ground - the Russians won the war -and 'we' were mopping up, trying to get a big piece of the pie

the Russians needed a western front in 1942 - by 1944 they had everything in hand

Eisenhower had nothing to do with Berlin - that was Stalin & Co - anyways Montgomery (useless, arrogant Pom) was in charge in the north and couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag
Air battle and bombing runs?nova
Aug 30, 2001 2:39 PM
From your perspective (which I respect) did the eradication of the luftwaffe and subsequent bombing campaigns against German manufacturing not have anything to do with the outcome? On either front?

Maybe we should drop this. :-)
Air battle and bombing runs?Vlad the Impaler
Aug 30, 2001 6:42 PM
Good point. There are just too many variables. It's impossible to quantify each one and it's effect on the others
Let me remind younutmegger
Aug 30, 2001 5:44 PM
that the Russians relied heavily on US support to withstand the Nazi's. See Lend Lease and see the exploits of Merchant Marine making the Murmansk Run. Let me also remind you the Germans were within sight of Moscow before they were stopped. I tend to think US support had something to do with stopping them although there are many other factors to consider. The Russians did not conquer Germany. In fact they conquered a relatively small albeit important part. The majority of Germany was overrun from the west as was the eastern part of Czechoslovakia and Austria. I direct you to old maps of East and West Germany which were generally, although not precisely, divided along the final lines where the western allies linked up with the Russians.
Truely a joint effortVlad the Impaler
Aug 30, 2001 6:32 PM
I think either the western allies or the Russians would have had a REALLY hard time beating the Germans without both fronts fighting towards the center. From June 6th 1944 to the end of the war the Germans only had 1/4 to 1/3 of there troops on the western front. The bulk of German troops were always on the eastern front. The Russians, by the spring offensives in '44 were extremely strong. Once the ground thawed from the winter and the mud dried out close to 2 million! Russian soldiers began the assult. The Germans were frequently outnumbered 20 to 1 or more and were just annihalated by overwhelming firepower. At the same time though Stalin was begging the western allies to open the second front. Russian casualties were too big. By the end of the war the U.S. had lost 200,000 dead (roughly) fighting the Germans the Russians had lost close to 25,000,000! O.K., O.K. I'm not sure what this has to do with bikes or even how it responds to your post. My degree is in modern military history so I tend to ramble on when given the opportunity... now back to bikes
You Did The Right ThingDougal
Aug 30, 2001 1:22 AM
"America is unique in the world because of individual rights..."

No, you're just the opnly country in the world that constantly goes on about it as if it a great idea that nobody else has thought of...
LOL - Ethnocentrism Called Out!Kristin
Aug 30, 2001 7:14 AM
And Americans are infested with the disease.
Well, actuallynova
Aug 30, 2001 7:36 AM
We tend to think that because our system of government was founded in a very dramatic fashion (revolution against the British Empire) and it was founded upon the concept of individual freedoms (Constitution, Bill of Rights). But let's not overlook the hypocrisy of slavery or the current socio-economic divisions in the USA.

Likewise, let's not overlook the US civil war which started for economic reasons, but ultimately ended because of the recognition of the hypocrisy in this country. There really was a *genuine* attempt at the Federal level to create equality for all citizens. The body count illustrates that point.

With that said, perhaps those of you who have pointed out that the US isn't the only country which places value on individual freedoms could educate us a little about the other countries that do so? Really, because I don't know. (Must be that lackluster US education system)

BTW: Nice to know that the French value their freedom as much as we do, especially since France wouldn't have been liberated without so much sacrifice by the American people.
When I was at the American cemetery in Normandy a couple of years ago, I couldn't get over how many of us died so that Europe could be free.
We didn't die for Europe...we did it for ourselvesKristin
Aug 30, 2001 7:52 AM
Don't be fooled. If America fought in WWII for the preservation of liberty for non-Americans, we would have got into it much sooner. No. Though many American's wanted to join the war sooner (many men traveled to Canada to join the effort from there); the American Government didn't participate until it behooved us to do so. I'm not saying it was a wrong decision. But lets not give ourselves credit for nobility that we don't possess. The men who died fighting, should be honored. However, they weren't sent over to protect the Jews from the Germans. They were sent to protect our economy and way of life. We are, as a nation and individually, primarily a self centered people.

Okay, flame away!!!
We didn't die for Europe...we did it for ourselvesnova
Aug 30, 2001 8:37 AM
"We are, as a nation and individually, primarily a self centered people."

Really? No foolin'? :-)

"The men who died fighting, should be honored. However, they weren't sent over to protect the Jews from the Germans. They were sent to protect our economy and way of life."

So if England was invaded and Europe fell entirely, we would have had no foothold in Europe. You could argue that we had to liberate France and the Jews as a necessary by-product of protecting our economy and way of life. But does that mean that doing so wasn't a good thing for which our nation cannot take some credit?

Colin Powell said that the Gulf War was "primarily about oil" and to think otherwise would be foolish. But if I said that liberating Kuwait was a good thing, you (and the angry guy below) would condemn me as being an uneducated simpleton brainwashed by Hollywood.

I submit for your (and angry guy's) consideration the posibility that you are jaded, and that he is narrow-minded.
Not JadedKristin
Aug 30, 2001 9:19 AM
Okay, I don't want to veer too far off the subject of cycling here.... oops. Way, WAY too late for that. But I'm not a jaded person. For goodness sake, I'm a daughter of the American Revolution. The good state of CT was founded on the furrowed brow of my ansestors--three rich guys from England. Hey someone had to lead the pilgrims! :-)

In your original post sounded as if American's fought in WW2 because of our good hearts and love for fellow mankind. It may be recorded that way in high school history books, but if you dig a little you find other reasons. I think that fighting Hilter and Husein were both VERY GOOD choices on many levels. But political decisions to fight these battles weren't made with lilly white motives. That's all I'm saying.
Rollo was rightnova
Aug 30, 2001 9:49 AM
As I just told MJ, I was trying to take a neutral position to encourage a conversation instead of the usual "American's are fat stupid slobs" stuff. (Most of us are indeed over weight, see, and our education system is indeed poor). I failed, and I'm sorry that I got bogged down in the whole thing.
Well, actuallyMJ
Aug 30, 2001 8:08 AM
the oldest arguments are always the best aren't they?

the revolution was about a bunch of old (slave owning) white guys who didn't want to pay taxes - don't believe th propaganda about wanting individual freedom - Bill of Rights etc. - it was about money - if you mean individual right not to pay taxes then that's another story we can start discussing things

The US Civil War ended because the Confederacy couldn't match the economic power of the north and lost too many troops in battle - not because of a philosophical revelation that they were wrong or the Union was right after all - once again it was (and is) about money - BTW the Federal approach was about federalism not about levelling the playing field - just look at the occupation of the South after the 'War of Northern Aggression' for proof

did US soldiers die so Europe could be free? - or so America could sell Europe loads of stuff on the terms of unfair contracts?

last time I was in Normandy - there were soldiers from alot of other (non-European) countries too (it was a world war after all) - what does the modern French approach to personal freedoms and anti-US hegemoney have to do with the history of the second world war - did they lose/capitulate because they didn't like individual freedom - I think not - how many US soldiers died in Europe has nothing to do with the current state of play - if you want to talk history - let's talk about something you haven't seen a movie about

if you want to learn about other places you should

1. go to school and get a reasonable education or even buy a book and read it for yourself (I could even suggest a few...)
2. get a passport and travel a bit - find out for yourself - your comment is typically American - to be so lazy as to demand everything be put into a convenient spoon sized soundbite - that's how (we?) ended up with GW in the White House - style over substance once again - he can't even find places on the map. much less pronounce them, and he's in charge of the whole shooting (hope not) match!
3. do not rely on (Hollywood) films for your version of events (The Patriot & U571, amongst others, wasn't an accurate representation of things - chest thumping, teary eyed moments though they were...)

at the end of the day - it's not fair to assert things that are so close minded and exclusive - just like so many other examples that you could think up yourself

and I still think Rollo was right to say something when the crazy woman looked to him for sympathy :-)
Well, actuallynova
Aug 30, 2001 8:28 AM
Kristin's response was reasonable. Yours is representative of a self-esteem issue.

My post was an invitation for residents of other countries who claim to live in a nation focused on individual freedoms to provide some level of detail about their country rather than simply attacking the United States. To do so is as ignorant as thinking that the US has the best interests of the world at heart.

I'll listen to your arguments about why the country you live in is so wonderful, but I'm not going to stand for gratuitous attacks on the United States.

Oh and yes, those men who died in Normanday were thinking "I'm doing this so that my children can sell durable and cyclical consumer goods to post-war European Socialists." No wonder they fought so hard against the Germans!

But if you think about it - at one time we were the only nation in the world in possession of atomic weapons, AND we had military forces deployed around the world. If the US were as evil as many beleive, why didn't we bomb the Russians and Chinese into submission? (I guess that would have taken fewer than 10 bombs)

If you want to compare travel histories or level of formal education, I'm up to the challenge. You go first. If you live in Europe and vacation in a neighboring country, it doesn't count.
Well, actuallyMJ
Aug 30, 2001 8:54 AM
my comments orignated from Birddog's earlier post which seemed to indicate that America alone had cornered the market on individual freedom - typically, like most comments in that vein, it excluded every other country imaginable - if one exclude's everyone - the burden of proof rests with Birddog - it also overlooks the many, many problems with America's claim to fame in this regard

other people don't have to prove to the US that there country respects freedom - that's crazy talk

not attacking the states in anyway whatsoever (trust me I'm a fan) - sorry if you think I have been - just not gonna let people get away with (as Kristin put it nicely) ethnocentric comments that are based on ignorance, for lack of a better word

I'm sure you are well educated and well travelled - but I'm not here to continue it for you - if you want to find out more I'm not stopping you - if you think that there are no other countries that have personal freedom at an equal or greater level than the US please explain - that's the point

the guys that died in Normandy were certainly not thinking about consumer durables - the guys that sent them were - anyways - the Russians won the second world war not the US - by comparison we just showed up for it (and gave lots of stuff to the Russians - again = money)

the US didn't want to continue figjhting at the end of WW2 (and didn't have anymore nuclear weapons (certainly not enough to do the job prior to 1947) - and were vastly outnumbered by the Russians and Chinese) - the US wanted to sell things to people - war is pointless - selling stuff is where it's at - it's all about money, not about individual 'rights' - except the right to buy and sell
Well, actuallynutmegger
Aug 30, 2001 6:05 PM
the Russians had a big hand in starting WWII. Who invaded Poland right after the Germans in September 1939? Who then signed the Non-Aggression Pact with the Germans, essentially carving up the spoils? If the Russians won the war as you say, let's have an account from you of their motives. Let's have an account of their massacre of Polish military officers who surrendered. Let's have an account of their treatment of other captured soldiers and how they fared. The Russians, my friend, were every bit as bad as the Nazi's and look what they did as a victorious nation to the people of Eastern Europe for 50 years. I think you owe US leadership for the beneficence displayed not only to Germany but to the rest of Europe under the Marshall Plan. We had no obligation to clean up that Euro mess but we did. Did we benefit much from it? Debatable. We've had to carry the defense load in Europe and the rest of the world ever since to the exclusion of domestic priorities. Maybe there is something to be said for isolationism. Less blood and the treasure stays at home.
Well, actuallyMJ
Aug 31, 2001 12:18 AM
you're absolutely right about the Russians - but they did win the war, whether they were 'good' or not is another discussion

Marshall Plan and defense in = money for the US

w/o that = no treasure, or not nearly as much treasure

anyways - the US hasn't cornered the market on individual rights and freedom - and Rollo was right

isolation always results in more blood contrary to what GW may tell you
and another thingnova
Aug 30, 2001 8:48 AM
Can you understand that by making un-informed conclusions about myself, you are demonstrating the very ignorance which you accuse me of possessing? I was inviting a dialogue, not an argument.

This is an Internet bulletin board for God's sake. Get a life.

Oh wait, you have one, you just aren't happy with the way it is going. That much is obvious... Don't understand how I overlooked that fact... Oh wait, I'm an uneducated American who watches too many war movies... that explains it....
and another thingMJ
Aug 30, 2001 9:06 AM
that's not nice - don't take offence so easily - it's about the bike - let's be friends
No helmets in Chicago?nova
Aug 30, 2001 9:37 AM
All I'm saying is that I was trying to start up a dialogue in lieu of rote anti-American postings. I was also trying to take a relatively neutral position to encourage constructive posts. (did you catch the self-deprecating part in my first post?) I failed, and I became bogged down in the very thing I was trying to avoid.

Anyway - what is the deal with the lack of helmets in Chicago? When I'm there I see cyclists and bikers (people on motorcycles) going sans helmet more often than not. In the end, I'm glad Rollo said something to that woman. It resulted in an interesting thread!
Question for Kristin and BJnova
Aug 30, 2001 9:00 AM
This is a legitimate question for you. The answer involves political and economic power. The question cuts to the heart of the roles that those types of power play in history and in making the world what it is today. There is no need for flames or attacks.

The question: Space (as in The Universe) is three-dimensional at the least. There is no up, down, Top, Bottom, left or right in Space. Why then, are Europe and "North" America on the upper portion of the world as we know it?

Hint: The correct answer involves whom the mapmakers have been throughout history.
you've never seen an Australian map have you?MJ
Aug 30, 2001 9:08 AM
it also has to do with the fact that one half (the 'Southern' hemisphere is 3/4 water)
Hey, I saw that "West Wing" episode too...LOL (nm)RhodyRider
Aug 30, 2001 9:26 AM
Blech! Who watches that? Guess they had a writer whonova
Aug 30, 2001 9:39 AM
took an undergrad philosophy/sociology/economics class at some point. :)
Geez, you are contentious today!RhodyRider
Aug 30, 2001 9:55 AM
I just threw that absurd reference in there to lighten this thread up a little. You don't need to pass judgement on an individual's right to mindless fluff TV entertainment too, do you?!? Or the course selections of some unknown TV writer? Have you considered that those who don't share your education/experience/point of view/etc. may just be DIFFERENT, not necessarily WRONG?
No, but I think I have OCD!nova
Aug 30, 2001 9:58 AM
Maybe I need to look into some Prozac!
Touche! Self-effacing works every time. Peace. (nm)RhodyRider
Aug 30, 2001 10:05 AM
Well, actuallyPave
Aug 30, 2001 10:13 AM
...and America would not have been liberated were it not for the French. Just a bit further back.
An often overlooked fact (nm)nova
Aug 30, 2001 2:35 PM
Workers of the World Unite!Valdimir Ilyich Lenin
Aug 30, 2001 6:45 AM
The rights of the party supercede the rights of the individual!
I'm with youmr_spin
Aug 30, 2001 7:27 AM
I keep my mouth shut. The only situation where I'll say anything is when my safety or the safety of others is directly affected. Guys on aero bars speeding down a crowded bike path, for instance. But red light runners? No way. Self-righteous idiots can feel free to place themselves in harms way all they want.
I think you did the right thingbianchi boy
Aug 29, 2001 7:19 PM
It's not like you told her she was an idiot. You, in a subtle way, suggested that it wasn't such a good idea running the red light. Maybe after she cooled down she realized it was a stupid thing to do .... Nah ... She sounds like a future candidate for the Darwin awards.
re: Should I not do this?Buzzkill
Aug 29, 2001 8:17 PM
A pad on the back for the concern, but if that is the way people feel maybe a little population control is not such a bad thing now and then.
Wow! Good Show!MrCelloBoy
Aug 29, 2001 9:37 PM
I think you did good. You had as much right to express your concerns as she had to make an idiot of herself. I'm sorry, but she was in the wrong!
I feel the same way about folks who pitch cigarettes or trash from cars. Execpt I never open my pie-hole lest I get creamed. If I was Bruce Lee I'd probably yap at them!
Aug 30, 2001 2:32 AM
I think you did the right thing. Sometimes you have to tell people what they are doing is wrong(just like little kids and pets). Its possible that the next time this lady is in a similar situation she --might-- act more like a responsible adult.
rhymes with 'rich"??Rusty McNasty
Aug 30, 2001 7:08 AM
She sounds like a real b!tch! I'd hate to be the one SHE comes home to!!
Give her a couple of Midols, and don't even try to argue. You can't win against PMS.
I think that was my ex-girlfriend (nm)Aristotle
Aug 30, 2001 7:14 AM
That's how they make angels...grzy mnky
Aug 30, 2001 7:56 AM
At least that's what my mom would say. Some people just don't get it and unfortunately it makes the rest of the cycling world look bad. Darwinism will take over. You should be commended for trying.
That's how they make angels...Jon Billheimer
Aug 30, 2001 12:52 PM
A good buddy of mine likes to say, "There goes another organ donor."

P.S. I STILL agree with Rollo, and this is not about geo-politics or American ethnocentrism, although
some of you folks seem to have very fragile national egos.
re: Should I not do this?Rich Clark
Aug 30, 2001 8:17 AM
re: Should I not do this?MeDotOrg
Aug 30, 2001 8:54 AM
What a thread... a woman runs a red light in Chicago, and pretty soon we're talking about foreign aid to France...

People have said that the woman has the "right" to act as she pleases. She may have the "freedom" to act as she pleases (in the sense that she is not physically prohibited from running a red light) but legally she does not have the "right" any more than she has the "right" to murder someone.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that your right to swing your arm while walking down the street ends where my nose begins.

As for those who say you shouldn't have said anything, what about your rights? You have the right to freedom of speech. When people need to fear the fact that they have merely pointed out to someone that they broke the law, then we are in trouble.
I'm not a paragon of lawfulnessAlex-in-Evanston
Aug 30, 2001 9:28 AM
But I know stupidity when I see it, and I've made a choice not to ride with groups that make me feel unsafe. As far as being a voice for good citizenship; that's a personal choice.

How are things otherwise? Are you going to race CX this fall? I plan on doing the Rockford series, and since my girlfriend is doing time at Wash U. in St. Louis, I'll time my trips to do a series down there too.



BTW, those straps are still in my toolbox. Your attendance on Tuesdays sort of lagged there at the end.
Answering your question with a question...RhodyRider
Aug 30, 2001 9:37 AM
Namely: would you have posted if the woman had not reacted so irrationally to your initial contact with her? If she had said something like "yeah, I know it was foolish, but I'm in a big hurry..." would you have related that story here? I'm not trying to be inflammatory; I think you did absolutely the right thing by approaching her, especially since you did so in a mature manner. But if it had been a calm, reasonable exchange, I'm guessing you would have soon forgotten it. Yes? No?