Oct 8, 2003 7:33 AM
|Here is a link to an article that appeared on Carconnection.com, a website that until today I frequented. I'll warn you that it has some pretty deeps thoughts...
Oct 8, 2003 7:55 AM
|normally, this type of tripe doesnt bother me in the least, so I dont reply; but this one is amazing; my favorite line:
"riding a bicycle safely requires mastery of specific skills above and beyond those needed to safely operate a car or truck. How come bicyclists get an exemption?".
This is obviously one un-coordinated person we're dealing with.
He's also quite uneducated if he believes cyclists dont need to 'follow the same laws'. Speed limits and speed minimums are two different beasts, my friend.
|lol - ditto||innergel|
Oct 8, 2003 11:35 AM
|"riding a bicycle safely requires mastery of specific skills above and beyond those needed to safely operate a car or truck. How come bicyclists get an exemption?"
Obviously his children were never allowed to ride a bike until they turned 16 and had the "required masterey of the specific skills."
This moron is not worth the effort to reply to.
|semi-sarcastic email to the author||mldphish11|
Oct 8, 2003 8:23 AM
|i couldn't help myself on this one. i had to send him the following email:
you have made some excellent points in your article titled "bikes: sharing the road, or not?". i like your ideas on bicycles undergoing the same safety inspections as cars, after all, a bike with bald tires going 15-20 mph on the shoulder of the road is just as dangerous as a car with bald tires going 40-50-60-70 mph down the road. very good point. but let's not overlook the other group of people on the road that aren't subject to all these rules and regulations: pedestrians! i mean, how fast can a person leisurely walking down a country road travel? i'd say no more than 5-6 mph. and this is allowed?! and what about the condition of their shoes? why isn't anyone regularly checking the tread-wear on their shoes. sheesh. oh well. i'm with you on this one buddy. what'll it take for someone to step in and use some common sense in dealing with all these non-motorized vehicles.
Oct 8, 2003 11:25 AM
Oct 8, 2003 12:12 PM
|Did anyone catch the last paragraph?
"It is ironic that in our safety-obsessed and rule-festooned society, bicyclists are still lawfully entitled in most areas to peddle away at will, whenever, wherever."
|so now we need a business license too? nm||mohair_chair|
Oct 8, 2003 12:18 PM
|Well, hell, we HAVE to peddle now...||DrPete|
Oct 8, 2003 4:08 PM
|I sell fake Gucci and Rolex watches out of my back pockets when I ride. Gotta save up for my bike license, headlights, turn signals, tires with treads (so the inspectors don't think my Michelin Pro Races are "bald,") reflectors, a stabilizer system so pedaling doesn't send my bike careening into traffic, and reflective tape for my ass.
So I have to peddle. These are the times we live in.
Oct 8, 2003 9:05 AM
|"And while everyone else on the road must possess a valid driver's license "....
When the last time a Amish or any farmer with a tractor have a "valid driver's license"?.....For that matter I bet about 10% or people in cars don't even have a license....This dude can "Bite me"
|SERIOUS frame flex...||DrPete|
Oct 8, 2003 10:32 AM
|"Because they are self-propelled, bicycles often shift suddenly to the left or right with the weight/pedaling motion of the cyclist."
It's funny--I've never swerved left or right with each pedal stroke... It does conjure up a very humorous image of a pro peloton. all swerving around and whacking into each other because their bikes just can't stay straight when they "peddle."
What a load of crap. I want to write back, but I lack the time or emotional energy, and the guy still won't get it.
|I guess we should be glad....||PEDDLEFOOT|
Oct 8, 2003 10:41 AM
|...he didn't tell his readers to run us off the road.We should commend him on his restraint.Maybe a mass emailing to him with a simple message.LOL would do. :-)|
|Early days of motorcars...||DaveLobster|
Oct 8, 2003 11:08 AM
|I saw a PBS documentary about the early days of motorcars (http://www.pbs.org/horatio/), and there was broad sentiment against automobiles. Some states only allowed them on the road if they had an adult walking ahead of the car carrying a flag, and another required that you file public notice two weeks before you went out for a drive.
Roads existed before automobiles, and cars were only begrudingly allowed the use of them at first. The only roads that exist exclusively for the use of cars are limited access highways which are marked as such. Every other road in this country is fair game for pedestians, cyclists, horses & buggies, you name it. Car drivers who think that cyclists are using "their" roads need to look up the law in that area. Limiting the use of any or all surface level roads to cars alone has never and will never happen in this country.
Oct 8, 2003 11:14 AM
|What I always enjoy about these idiots is that they attempt to justify their hatred of bicyclists by pointing out the "inadequacies" of the law. As if licensing of drivers and safety inspections have resulted in safer roads. What kind of disconnect is there with these nuts that they miss this obvious flaw in their reasoning? I'm sure to them, all drivers are perfect, so therefore, all accidents must result from the actions of bicyclists.
I fully expect these people to suggest "laws" in other areas, such as requiring all dogs to understand English, so they will stop crapping on the sidewalk and peeing on trees. And turkey's must be raised without dark meat, because no one likes that part.
|Bald tires! HAHA!||The The|
Oct 8, 2003 11:20 AM
|The guy can't even spell "pedal" and "know" properly. He's just too easy a target.
What was truly a gem in his article was the bald tires concept. As though adding real "treads" to 700X23C, or similar, tires is going to give them better traction and handling. You know, because reducing the contact patch by putting grooves in the tires is a great idea...
I ride in the rain on slicks and I have yet to experience a problem. The narrower the tire the better, imho.
|Bald tires! HAHA!||wily in pacifica|
Oct 8, 2003 2:11 PM
|Why no inspection?
Maybe because bikes are not a motorized vehicle?
Why do bikes take up the lane on uphills and slow down traffic?
Maybe because they didn't build in a bike lane when they designed the road.
The cost to the drivers having to move slowly behind a bicycle is because they did not want to pay the cost of a bike lane in the first place.
|The us and them thing always baffles me...||No_sprint|
Oct 8, 2003 11:52 AM
|Nearly everyone who is a cyclist is also a driver (I know maybe a whopping single person who is bike and no car, never had a car at all) and conversely, I know very few who have never ridden a bike on a street, driver or not. So, the whole thing should just be "us".
I think the most dangerous things out there currently are those skateboards with a steering stick that have motors attached to them. In my area we've got tons of about 12 or 13 year olds speeding around on them.
|WE've got tons of kids speeding around on THEM??!! :) nm||DrPete|
Oct 8, 2003 4:03 PM
|Invitation to author and website editor to join this forum||innergel|
Oct 8, 2003 11:54 AM
|Mr. Peters and Mr. Eisenstein,
Your article entiled Bikes: Sharing the Road, or Not? is patently ridiculous. The logic in this article appears to me to say "since cyclists are slower and smaller than cars, then they should be banned from using the roads because it is an inconvenience to car users." If you extrapolate this logic out, you could say that "cars are smaller and slower than 18-wheelers, so cars should be banned from where ever 18-wheelers drive because they are an inconvenience to 18-wheelers."
If you would like an intelligent discussion of this topic, I invite both of you to join the General Discussion group at www.roadbikereview.com. Here, you will be able to voice your opinions to a large cross-section of road bicyclists. You will most assuredly get a lively debate from virtually everyone that is a member. There is no cost to sign up, so it will only take a bit of your time to come in and defend this most ridiculous of articles.
This article has already been posted to the forum, and has received several comments from many of our members.
|My e-mail response:||tirider|
Oct 8, 2003 7:55 PM
|Power to the SUV! How dare someone use a mode of transportation that doesn't use petrolium based products on our roads. This is AMERICA for Christ's sake! And while we're at it, BAN the GOD damn Honda Civics that can't go 85 mph. Cars made this country great. If it takes a few American Soldiers dying every week to keep the oil fields under our control so be it. It pissed me off, just thinking about all those bicyclists paying their taxes and not driving cars on a daily basis. GOD DAMN communists. Keep up the brilliant articles.|
|Let's be honest, we've brought this on ourselves..........||Len J|
Oct 9, 2003 3:28 AM
|with the way we sometimes behave on the roads.
Anyone who has ridden any length of time has seen the following:
Group rides unpredictibly, all over the road.
Inexperienced riders on the wrong side of the roads.
Riders running stop signs and red lights.
Other discourtesies that you all could list.
Let's face it, there are more drivers than cyclists and we (as a group) have done many things to piss drivers off. This article is the result of that (IMO). And you know what, oponions like this are going to get louder & louder as long as we behave as if riding on the roads is a right. It's not, it's a privlidge, a privlidge that can be taken away.
This guy may have been weak in his arguments but don't underestimate the level of emotion underneath the arguments. And he is not alone.
Think about this the next time you run a light.
ps Let the flames begin
|No flames from me, Len.||KG 361|
Oct 9, 2003 5:38 AM
|I agree to a point. However, motorists have to understand that we have as much a right to the road as they do; their driving is also a privilege, not a right (although very few people realize this). They have to understand that our riding is not a threat to them but rather and aid, especially those of us who commute.|
Oct 9, 2003 12:09 PM
|I would argue that the main reason motorists get upset when I run a light is not out of anger at my blatant disregard for personal safety (I only do it when the road is clear anyway), but rather because motorists get upset by the idea of a non-motorized vehicle getting somewhere ahead of them. I've been honked at many times to get off the road, only to enjoy the look on the motorists' faces as I pass them.
I think it feeds into the aggression that pervades the roads, at least here in the DC area--I spent $xx,xxx on my car and $x.xx a gallon for gas and xxx.xx every year in taxes, so it's my god-given right to drive without interruption or inconvenience and in any way I please. All the
"rational" arguments about registering bikes and license plates, etc. are great cover for the author's anger at the fact that there are times he doesn't get to blow by the cyclist, and he pays a lot of money to drive!
|Maybe but.............||Len J|
Oct 9, 2003 12:42 PM
|Substitute a car behaving the way some cyclistsbehave. Do you suppose the drivers anger would be any different?
|My e-mail||KG 361|
Oct 9, 2003 5:50 AM
|I took the "nice" approach.
I was made aware of your article on roadbikereview.com's message board. It is a shame that you feel this way. How, exactly, are we harming/threatening you by riding our bicycles? Realize that many of us not only ride for recreation; we ride to commute to and from our jobs (yes, most of us are gainfully employed). We are helping you in many ways;
1) 1 less car on the road, aiding congestion
2) 1 less parking space taken
3) gallons of your precious gasoline saved (I saved approx 50 gallons of gas last year ALONE)
4) Less wear and tear on your roads
5) healthier population, not contributing to insurance costs
There are,I'm sure, many more reasons.
So give us a break.