PDA

View Full Version : Shooting! please help me understand this....



Dr.Spoke
07-28-2009, 06:46 AM
This came up on a cycling forum I read....
http://www.wyff4.com/news/20187786/detail.html

Maybe some forumites local to this can explain it to me.

(And I guess explain why it's ok for people to be in a position to do this....)

WX
07-28-2009, 06:52 AM
There is nothing logical about the blokes actions. I'm just glad the helmet stopped the bullet. The whole thing smacks of insanity...he gets unset about the father riding with his child on a busy road, so he attempts to shoot the father!

skuthorp
07-28-2009, 07:02 AM
Only some Americans will begin to comprehend this. some will condem it, but many will view it as another 'anti-gun' thred and the original act will disappear in the usual nervous ditribes. I lke them all here, but I do not think I could live comfortably in the US.

Brian Palmer
07-28-2009, 07:40 AM
This American can't begin to comprehend it. And I don't expect you to either.

Brian

John Smith
07-28-2009, 07:48 AM
Some people shouldn't be cops. Some cops ought not carry guns.

Dr.Spoke
07-28-2009, 07:53 AM
Sorry, I guess I was making a sly dig at american "gun culture".... But still and all; this was a member of the emergency services ( even if a volunteer, still somebody that has some level of altruism) that obviously "flipped-out". And he had a gun to hand... I know he could have used his vehicle if he was so inclined, but handguns are just so easy...
The cyclist seems to have got lucky... But even reading some of the comments; there is a growing trend in all countries against cyclists. It would appear that we are becoming targets of "road-rage" more often, with serious consequences! How can cycling be so offensive?

Tom Montgomery
07-28-2009, 07:56 AM
The perp was an off-duty firefighter, not a policeman.

Insanity made deadly by firearms.

skuthorp
07-28-2009, 08:05 AM
Quote Dr Spoke: "How can cycling be so offensive?"
By challenging the automobile's absolute domination of the public roadway. And by 1: It costs a lot to run a car, apart from the price a bike is free and pays no part of the upkeep of the roads they use.
And 2: For many their car is an extension of their personality, indeed for some it is their personality, and a bicycle devalues that in that it demonstrates a car in unnecessary. A challenge to their masculinity in essence.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
07-28-2009, 08:07 AM
Was he a competent shot?
Or an inept loony?

skuthorp
07-28-2009, 08:14 AM
Maybe he doesn't like bike helmets? Maybe he just cracked, it can be a difficult job. Here they'd try to run you down, there are some who think it's funny. That's when it's good I don't have a gun!

martin schulz
07-28-2009, 08:15 AM
How can cycling be so offensive?

Well when you see the amount of money and effort put into making us believe that driving a car is real freedom with people buying all of that nonsense. And then when those people who do believe that driving a car will make them happy are constantly standing in traffic jams, are heavily regulated by speed limits and have to search for parking places, have to see bicycle riders driving around seemingly carefree - it is quite logical that they get upset.

I experience that every day, either on my scooter or on the bike. The moment I drive by a long lane of cars standing in front of traffic lights most car-drivers will get upset - because it is sooooo unfair that this chap on his 100 dollar bike can move around unhindered, while they are stuck in their 30.000 dollar car waiting in a traffic jam.

High C
07-28-2009, 08:19 AM
Some people shouldn't be cops. Some cops ought not carry guns.

What do "cops" have to do with this?

High C
07-28-2009, 08:20 AM
I used to work in Asheville, and I can understand why someone would be concerned about a child being carried on a bike on Tunnel Road....profoundly irresponsible, negligent even. However... :eek:

phiil
07-28-2009, 08:30 AM
apart from the price a bike is free and pays no part of the upkeep of the roads they use.


Um, yes, some of your gas tax is earmarked for highways. But so is part of local property tax, state sales tax, and federal income tax, which bicyclists pay just as drivers do.

Mrleft8
07-28-2009, 08:43 AM
Obviously the cyclist deserved what he got. How dare he ride a bike with a child in a child seat, while a psychotic with a gun was trying to drive on the same road! :rolleyes:

Dr.Spoke
07-28-2009, 08:47 AM
Martin and Skuthorp... Yeah, thinking along those lines as well.

High C - I never said he was a cop, think it was (mistakenly) John.
Concerned about a child's wellbeing - "Oh! I'll shoot his dad!" - I suspect he may have made that one up after the fact.

Quite clearly not a competent shot, my drunken amphibian, no cycling helmet is THAT good!:D

Botebum,
You are certainly correct that this was probably an incident waiting to happen. That the man's "high-stress" job contributed to it may well be the case... But I'm pretty sure that the cyclist and his family would have been happier had the man NOT had access to a hand-gun. How many other "incidents-waiting-to-happen" are there? And how many involve hand-guns?

I'm not anti-gun. Certain weapons have their place... But I still can't find a justification for multi-shot hand-guns in a sane society. They have only one purpose ( not a use, but more a design parameter); and as such should be left to trained professionals.

Thankfully this individual was too inept to use the weapon as designed - and hopefully will never own another one.

High C
07-28-2009, 08:59 AM
...High C - I never said he was a cop, think it was (mistakenly) John.....

Right, it was John that I quoted.

skuthorp
07-28-2009, 09:15 AM
Better enforcement of existing gun laws and proper treatment for mental conditions without the attached stigma are better deterrents to cases like these. Taking away the right of others to lawfully own weapons is not the answer. Do you take away the driving privelages of all because some people drive drunk or do you address the issue of drunk driving?

Doug

Told ya so, nervous lot aren't they?

Dr.Spoke
07-28-2009, 09:19 AM
Doug,
I understand the comparison to drink driving. On the face of it, I would have to agree.
If I may play devils advocate for a while?
A man is driving erratically, he is stopped by the police and found to be a little "over the limit". His driving license is suspended and he comes back to driving a changed man.
A man is found to be overworked, and a little aggressive to people in his local shop. His wife is a bit worried about him and calls their doctor... Does anybody suggest a suspension of his rights to own a weapon for a period - after all he's not ill just tired and in need of a holiday?
( I did this to a friend, it took a lot to persuade the police that they would be negligent to not look after his weapons for a period. When the time was right he had no problem getting them back - but they weren't hand-guns, and he was more danger to himself then others)
The problem breaks down when it is described as a right to own weapons... It is a priviledge to drive, but a right to own a device designed to kill... Go figure.

skuthorp
07-28-2009, 09:27 AM
And so it goes as usual. To quote Phillip Allen, "Oh well.."

Mrleft8
07-28-2009, 09:57 AM
A man is found to be overworked, and a little aggressive to people in his local shop. His wife is a bit worried about him and calls their doctor... Does anybody suggest a suspension of his rights to own a weapon for a period - after all he's not ill just tired and in need of a holiday?
. Occasionally this does happen. A friend (considerably older friend) was being harassed by his ex-wife. She went to extrordinary lengths... He lives in an old "hunting cabin" atop what was once an otherwise uninhabited mountain in Southern Vermont. Well ofcourse "flatlanders" bought up all the land around him, and put up ski chalets. Because he was "existing" he wasn't required to upgrade his systems to meet the new codes. He still gets his water from a pipe that runs down the hill above his cabin to a spring. It hooks into a faucet in the kitchen, and another in the bathroom. His waste water runs into a septic field just as up to code as all the others. The ex kept on writing letters to the town and state inspectors claiming code violations, and the inspectors would dutifully visit my friend and 'inspect". His electric was likewise perfectly functional and safe, just not "To code".... Same thing with inspectors. She kept this up for years, wearing him down, and needling at him. Finally one day they happened to bump into eachother at the local supermarket. Words were exchanged.
My friend got a visit from the local police, the state police, the county sheriff, and various other "officials". They took him in for psychiatric observation.
A psychologist who had never met him before, and knew nothing of the torment he'd been eduring, decided that he was a danger to society, over the course of a half hour interview. This 70 something year old gentle soul was commited to the state mental hospital for a week before his daughter was able to convince the state that they'd made a huge mistake. He was released on condition that he turn over his firearms...Mostly hunting gear, deer rifle, shotguns etc. and his WW2 .45 side arm. It took him 2 years to get his hunting gear back. He gave up on the .45 which he wore in both the european and pacific theaters or war.
So yes, in fact they do occasionally relieve people of their guns for safety sake.... Rarely.

Dr.Spoke
07-28-2009, 10:14 AM
Sorry to hear about your friend MrLeft8, but it is encouraging to hear ( even if that case was a little mis-guided).

oznabrag
07-28-2009, 11:48 AM
I experience that every day, either on my scooter or on the bike. The moment I drive by a long lane of cars standing in front of traffic lights most car-drivers will get upset - because it is sooooo unfair that this chap on his 100 dollar bike can move around unhindered, while they are stuck in their 30.000 dollar car waiting in a traffic jam.

We don't get upset because we resent your freedom, or anything. We get upset because we just managed to edge around your slow ass without slamming you into the ditch. We have just gone to great pains, and no small personal risk to ourselves, to get safely past you.

Then you pass us on the right, ILLEGALLY, so that we are faced, YET AGAIN, with tempting Death and all the Fates in our efforts to get past your miserable, slow, erratic, unprotected, scofflaw ass AGAIN!!!

If you will obey the rules of the road, come to a complete stop at the signal, do not pass stopped cars on the right, and wait your friggen turn, you will see a whole lot fewer glares out there. I promise.

Edited to add ANOTHER THING! You say "sooooo unfair that this chap on his 100 dollar bike can move around unhindered", and this merely highlights the scofflaw attitude that permeates the bicycling community: You are NOT free to move about unhindered! You are 'free' to enjoy the privileges of using the public roadway in a manner consistent with the laws governing such use. Passing cars stopped at a light is ILLEGAL!!! If I were to open my door on you, YOU would be at fault! It would be YOU who was where he shouldn't be, YOU who was in the comission of a moving violation at the time of impact.

Rant mode off.

2MeterTroll
07-28-2009, 12:32 PM
Dunno Dr.Spoke
i think in some ways since we militarized just about all of our emergency services this is on the up tic. we live in an us and them society and it is concentrated in some of theses services.

When i fought fire i met lots of fire fighters that thought the public needed protection from its self. I got to hear time and again how there "ought to be a law", "how about i put his life in danger" or simply "i can make them stop" kind of thinking. add stress and a weapon and you have a problem.

the root is not the object, the root is the thought process that leads folks to thinking they know whats best and have the power to do something about it.

BrianW
07-28-2009, 12:50 PM
I was told the USA wasn't the 'center of the world'?

Why would someone from Sweden start a thread on a shooting in Asheville?

peter radclyffe
07-28-2009, 01:02 PM
take away his gun and give him cycling lessons, courtesy lessons, humanitarian lessons, well just teach him anything really

Gonzalo
07-28-2009, 01:33 PM
I was told the USA wasn't the 'center of the world'?

Why would someone from Sweden start a thread on a shooting in Asheville?Why would someone from Alaska start a thread on an incident in France?

BrianW
07-28-2009, 01:45 PM
It was a Yahoo headline.

My point refers to that thread, thanks for making that clear.

htom
07-28-2009, 02:23 PM
What I don't understand is how the bicyclist is alive. The rest of it is ordinary stupid human gun misbehavior. Maybe we need a law saying that people should obey the laws? Like those against shooting people?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
07-28-2009, 02:40 PM
It was a Yahoo headline.

...

And engendered a response from a yahoo?

Paul Pless
07-28-2009, 02:45 PM
Sorry to hear about your friend MrLeft8, but it is encouraging to hear ( even if that case was a little mis-guided).What was encouraging about a clear case of harrassment?:rolleyes:

Gonzalo
07-28-2009, 03:27 PM
It is no more a problem, IMHO, for Brian to comment on a Yahoo headline than for our Swedish colleague to comment on what he read in his cycling blog. Hey, that's what the Bilge is for.

Gonzalo
07-28-2009, 03:38 PM
You've allowed your rights to be dismantled and it hasn't ensured your safety one iota.Botebum, Skulthorp has less chance of being offed by a gun-toting criminal in Melbourne than we do here in the Old North State. I'd say his safety is definitely improved over ours. But that applies to residents of almost every other country, at least outside of war zones.

RodB
07-28-2009, 03:47 PM
The shooter is mental and needs to be locked up ... the cyclist is a fricking idiot... anyone here who has ever rode a bike on a busy street knows you are just asking for it considering the times, etc... if you take your kid with you, you are a negligent dolt and not playing with a full deck.



R

stevebaby
07-28-2009, 04:09 PM
I was told the USA wasn't the 'center of the world'?

Why would someone from Sweden start a thread on a shooting in Asheville?Maybe the same reason that someone from Alaska would start a thread about an accidental fire in France?

stevebaby
07-28-2009, 04:36 PM
Check your facts gonzalo. Aussie crime rates have not dropped because of the gun ban.
I don't want to get into a big debate over gun/self defense. My guns are not for self defense. They are for killing animals. I feel pretty secure in my home and neighborhood. I'll call the law and wait 20 minutes before I'll shoot some thief on my property. Killing someone just isn't worth it. I'd have to live with it the rest of my life, right or wrong.

Doug
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24198307-2862,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24198307-2862,00.html
http://abc.gov.au/news/stories/2009/07/22/2633220.htm?site=news
http://www.borderwatch.com.au/archives/267
http://www.shop.nsw.gov.au/pubdetails.jsp?publication=7106
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/31/2406627.htm
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=6219&m=53&s=6
Crime rates have fallen overall.
Most Australians live in urban areas and have little need of hunting wapons. For those who want them, they can buy and own them.
The only person I ever knew to get a pistol permit for self-defence had the weapon used against him by his girlfriend during an argument.

Bruce Hooke
07-28-2009, 04:43 PM
The shooter is mental and needs to be locked up ... the cyclist is a fricking idiot... anyone here who has ever rode a bike on a busy street knows you are just asking for it considering the times, etc... if you take your kid with you, you are a negligent dolt and not playing with a full deck.

R

While I don't make a habit or riding on really busy city-center streets, I certainly ride my bike on city streets and often feel safer on the somewhat more major streets where there are typically less likely to be cars parking along the sides and people are less likely to come out of driveways without looking, as can happen on small, residential neighborhood streets.

I certainly find the idea that cyclists should not ride on busy city streets quite absurd.

stevebaby
07-28-2009, 05:22 PM
The shooter is mental and needs to be locked up ... the cyclist is a fricking idiot... anyone here who has ever rode a bike on a busy street knows you are just asking for it considering the times, etc... if you take your kid with you, you are a negligent dolt and not playing with a full deck.



RAnyone who ever drove a car on a busy highway is "asking for it" from a semi-trailer, and anyone who carries kids in their car is a "negligent dolt".
Same logic.

Bob Adams
07-28-2009, 05:48 PM
Steve(I ain't callin' you baby), You've shown yourself to be anti-gun over and over. I have no doubt that you can pull up stats that "prove" your case. I've read other studies that show that Aussie crime has not dropped as a result(read that carefully), as a result of the gun ban. I'm so glad that you are happy with your restrictive laws. Feel free to stay there and enjoy it. I like it here.

Doug

The ignore feature is a wonderful thing, Stevebaby was the first one I put on mine.

stevebaby
07-28-2009, 06:27 PM
Steve(I ain't callin' you baby), You've shown yourself to be anti-gun over and over. I have no doubt that you can pull up stats that "prove" your case. I've read other studies that show that Aussie crime has not dropped as a result(read that carefully), as a result of the gun ban. I'm so glad that you are happy with your restrictive laws. Feel free to stay there and enjoy it. I like it here.

DougI'm neither pro nor anti guns. I've owned a couple and carried one on the job. If I had a use for a weapon, I'd get one. I don't have any such need. I don't have a problem with your, or anyone elses hunting rifles at all.
I never would have bought into the debate had it not been for the deliberate lies spread by the NRA about gun ownership in Australia, and I'll take issue with the use of concealable handguns as effective defensive weapons in most situations.
As far as I'm concerned, allowing anyone to have firearms without restriction just because they want them is on a par with allowing people to possess dangerous drugs, poisons, explosives, toxic chemicals etc. without protective restrictions.
BTW, I don't believe that the Second Amendment specifically mentions a right to own firearms, only "the right to bear arms". There are plenty of other "arms" that are restricted in the USA, without anyone's rights seemingly infringed.
When you compare murder rates in comparable nations i.e. Western industrial nations, the only logical conclusions are that either Americans are much more homicidal than others, or that the easy availability of concealable handguns is a large contributing factor.
The argument that criminals will get guns anyway is ridiculous. It could just as easily be argued that alcoholics, juveniles and drug addicts will get restricted substances, but very few of the pro-gun lot will argue for unrestricted possession of drugs and alcohol, with education in the correct use of those substances.
What I have learned from reluctant participation in numerous debates on the subject of gun ownership, is that there are way more very silly people in possession of firearms than I would have thought,whom I would not trust with a box of matches.

LeeG
07-28-2009, 06:51 PM
DrSpoke, I'll give you a C+ for trolling. A nut job with a gun in Asheville doesn't indicate a trend in the country. When I road regularly in Calif. 30yrs ago you simply got used to other young men in cars feeling as though their territory was being threatened and that there would be altercations.

We're a manly country of men doing manly things with wheels and engines. Don't get in our way. It's the way we roll.

BEEP BEEP!!

stevebaby
07-28-2009, 06:51 PM
I have a beagle, she killed a rabbit this morning, should we outlaw beagles?????Ask the rabbits.

stevebaby
07-28-2009, 06:54 PM
Threads like this reassure me. It's comforting to know so many undesirables won't be moving here.

Now, if we could come up with a subject which could convince domestic undesirables to leave.......then the Native Americans would get their country back.
But where would you go?

The Bigfella
07-28-2009, 07:18 PM
Steve(I ain't callin' you baby), You've shown yourself to be anti-gun over and over. I have no doubt that you can pull up stats that "prove" your case. I've read other studies that show that Aussie crime has not dropped as a result(read that carefully), as a result of the gun ban. I'm so glad that you are happy with your restrictive laws. Feel free to stay there and enjoy it. I like it here.

Doug

First distortion - what gun ban are you talking about? There is no gun ban in Australia. Perhaps you mean the gun safety legislation? It did not ban gun ownership.

Second distortion - that gun crime has not dropped in Australia. Aussie gun crime has most certainly dropped as a result of the gun safety legislation in this country. Verifiable fact. I've pointed it out before. The more interesting issue is why the facts don't stick with some people, why the distortion keeps rising to the surface?

Third distortion - that Steve (and myself for that matter) are anti-gun. Steve's answered for himself. I still own the same number of guns that I had in the early 1990's.

Maybe you guys should take a long hard look at some facts sometime.

Bob Cleek
07-28-2009, 08:08 PM
Well, I think folks are overlooking the fact that this guy was from North Carolina. You see, there is a certain percentage of "crazies" out there and, given the odds, somebody's bound to run into one every now and then. If you are in North Carolina, I'd guess the odds of that are better.

That said, there IS a difference with bicycles in America. I haven't ridden a bike in decades, but I was a very unusual "bike commuter" in my college years, simply because I couldn't afford a car and school at the same time. I got a good ten speed road bike and it took me wherever I wanted to go, within reason. Ten speeds were pretty unusual back then, outside the serious bike crowd, which pretty much existed in Europe alone.

Fast forward to the present and you'll see bicycling has become a hugely popular recreational activity in the US. Still, it's done more for recreation than for practical travel. I live in the "Wine Country" in Sonoma, California. It's a very pretty rural area with vineyards and winding country roads. What happens here is that all the "city slickers" drive in on the weekends and unload their bikes and proceed to ride them as if the local roads were built solely for their recreational entertainment. Certainly, the local tourist bureaus do nothing to discourage this perception. Fact is, roads aren't amusement parks, they are for transportation. What we have to live with are groups of "wanna-be" Lance Armstrongs zipping around blind curves in their spandex skivvies four abreast, like some "pod" or whatever the biking term for a pack of racers is. Sometimes you damn near accidentially kill a half dozen of them when you are driving and other times you are stuck behind them while they continue to play make-believe Tour d' France.

The difference here in the US is with the "right of way." I remember the rules of the road when I visited Amsterdam, which I expect is much the same for the rest of Europe. The rule is "Size matters." The smaller you are, the better able you are to get out of the way of the larger object. Thus, pedestrians are at the bottom of the food chain, with bicyclists directly above, followed by cars and trucks, with trains, I guess, as the capital predators. Here in the US, it's completely different. It's upside down. The pedestrian has the right of way over everything else, then bicycles and so on backwards up the food chain.

You can imagine, then, that in Europe, when a car comes along, the bike gives it a wide berth, while here, the clown on the bike just keeps lollygagging along in the middle of the lane with a chain of cars following behind because "he has as much right to use the road as anybody else." It isn't a long stretch from that to some guy with a short fuse capping somebody like that.

Shouldn't have shot the guy, I suppose, but then, that's what "anger management classes" are for. Every cloud has ha silver lining. Maybe fewer families will climb on bikes and treat the highways like their personal playgrounds.

Pugwash
07-28-2009, 08:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv2shcX_iB8

*shrug*

:)

2MeterTroll
07-28-2009, 08:36 PM
...then the Native Americans would get their country back.
But where would you go?
why we would come home. can you think of the distraction to your culture when all of the folks you have sent here come home all at the same time.

so reverse it and think about how it feels in this country when we get all your dunder heads showing up on the door step.

stevebaby
07-28-2009, 08:42 PM
The difference here in the US is with the "right of way." I remember the rules of the road when I visited Amsterdam, which I expect is much the same for the rest of Europe. The rule is "Size matters." The smaller you are, the better able you are to get out of the way of the larger object. Thus, pedestrians are at the bottom of the food chain, with bicyclists directly above, followed by cars and trucks, with trains, I guess, as the capital predators. Here in the US, it's completely different. It's upside down. The pedestrian has the right of way over everything else, then bicycles and so on backwards up the food chain.

You can imagine, then, that in Europe, when a car comes along, the bike gives it a wide berth, while here, the clown on the bike just keeps lollygagging along in the middle of the lane with a chain of cars following behind because "he has as much right to use the road as anybody else." Dutch law is that in any collision between a cyclist and a motorist the motorist is almost always assumed to be at fault. Likewise for collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. Right of way isn't determined by the relative size. It's determined by the direction of travel, traffic lights and the road markings.
Most motorists in Holland are also cyclists, which makes Holland the most cycling friendly country in the world. Motorists respect cyclists rights there.
Your experience of Amsterdam differs from mine, and pretty much everyone else who has seen for themselves.

stevebaby
07-28-2009, 08:50 PM
why we would come home. can you think of the distraction to your culture when all of the folks you have sent here come home all at the same time.

so reverse it and think about how it feels in this country when we get all your dunder heads showing up on the door step. The very few Australians who have migrated to the USA would be most welcome, and would cause no disruption whatsoever.
My local Member of Parliament was born in the USA. You can have her back if you like, but I think we'll keep her.BTW, she's eligible to become the Prime Minister here, unlike the USA where being born there is a requirement of the President's office.
You can have the illegal American immigrants if you like though. I don't think we'd miss them much.

The Bigfella
07-28-2009, 09:07 PM
Probably because the "facts" in a nation with 21+ million folks don't coincide with the "facts" in a nation with far more. Per capita statistics don't work either, so don't bother. Comparing stats between Australia and the US, or Canada and the US, is useless. There's no comparison. We have more, and more disparate, people, in much smaller spaces than both combined.

Try comparing the cost of enforcing gun regulations in a nation of 21 million to the cost in a nation of 330 million.

You talk about our culture of violence, as compared to yours. What you're missing is we are made up of all your cultures. Our base was just as violent. BabySteve hinted at it. Leave only the native Americans, and you have warring tribal cultures.

Well, that's about as obtuse a response to your quote of mine as you can get. The quote, in case it has disappeared into the leathery ether, was...


The more interesting issue is why the facts don't stick with some people...



.. and, of course, I hadn't done any of the supposed comparisons that you bring up. I probably should though, because comparisons are what actually drives progress in the real world - and by any measure you care to bring up, on the issue of gun safety, the US trails the rest of the developed world.

Incidentally, the cost of enforcing gun safety regulations in a country of 307 million (is your 330 million figure a spelling error?) is pretty much the same, per capita, as it is in a country of 22 million (was your 21 million figure another spelling error, or just you not bothering to get the facts right?) - with some, probably small, variations based on differing factors - such as different regulations, etc.

2MeterTroll
07-28-2009, 09:14 PM
The very few Australians who have migrated to the USA would be most welcome, and would cause no disruption whatsoever.
My local Member of Parliament was born in the USA. You can have her back if you like, but I think we'll keep her.BTW, she's eligible to become the Prime Minister here, unlike the USA where being born there is a requirement of the President's office.
You can have the illegal American immigrants if you like though. I don't think we'd miss them much.

hmm let me see you folks can just move on in and we have to fight to get in. no problem we'll take them back. they cant be worse than the thousands we get from all and sundry. as long as you take all of your back i think it will be a good trade and i do mean all of them including Murdock. great for your eventual PM hope she is happy and content.

Bob Cleek
07-28-2009, 09:18 PM
Dutch law is that in any collision between a cyclist and a motorist the motorist is almost always assumed to be at fault. Likewise for collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. Right of way isn't determined by the relative size. It's determined by the direction of travel, traffic lights and the road markings.
Most motorists in Holland are also cyclists, which makes Holland the most cycling friendly country in the world. Motorists respect cyclists rights there.
Your experience of Amsterdam differs from mine, and pretty much everyone else who has seen for themselves.

Like I said, it was Amsterdam, so my first-hand perceptions are not necessarily to be trusted.

stevebaby
07-28-2009, 09:20 PM
hmm let me see you folks can just move on in and we have to fight to get in. no problem we'll take them back. they cant be worse than the thousands we get from all and sundry. as long as you take all of your back i think it will be a good trade and i do mean all of them including Murdock. great for your eventual PM hope she is happy and content.Rupert Murdoch is an American citizen. He's yours now.:D

2MeterTroll
07-28-2009, 09:29 PM
oh no you dont you take em all back including him or no deal. duel citizen ship if it comes from your way counts cause by law we cant have duel from our side. so get him back heck i'll even throw in one doctor to make up the diffrence.

The Bigfella
07-28-2009, 09:36 PM
Actually, one third of one percent of Australian residents were American-born.

Mrs Bigfella is just back from the US. Her first trip there. She found it rather interesting - didn't particularly like the effusiveness of service staff, nor the tipping system. She had to teach her 300lb friend how to eat properly - and she was amazed at the ridiculous amounts of meat and cheese on takeaway foods. She was appalled at the wages on offer to school teachers - half what they are here.

seanz
07-28-2009, 09:37 PM
He's non-refundable......

Australia doesn't allow dual citizenship for its citizens.......does allow dual citizenship if you migrate to Australia though.

2MeterTroll
07-28-2009, 09:41 PM
nope he came from you he goes back to you. we are in no way responcible for the guy even by proxy.

Big Fella we know theres a problem with education pay but currently the administration, police, and military honchos are paying them selves all the money teachers should be making.

stevebaby
07-28-2009, 11:52 PM
Actually, one third of one percent of Australian residents were American-born.

Mrs Bigfella is just back from the US. Her first trip there. She found it rather interesting - didn't particularly like the effusiveness of service staff, nor the tipping system. She had to teach her 300lb friend how to eat properly - and she was amazed at the ridiculous amounts of meat and cheese on takeaway foods. She was appalled at the wages on offer to school teachers - half what they are here.Teacher's salaries may be dependant on location in the US. IIRC, Teachers in NYC are paid a lot more than Australian teachers, outside the large cities, much less as you say.

seanz
07-29-2009, 12:02 AM
nope he came from you he goes back to you. we are in no way responcible for the guy even by proxy.

What got him (IIRC) was the media ownership laws.....bet you didn't see that coming.
:):)

He's all yours now.





You've been out-FOXed.

:p

LeeG
07-29-2009, 12:07 AM
The difference here in the US is with the "right of way." I remember the rules of the road when I visited Amsterdam, which I expect is much the same for the rest of Europe. The rule is "Size matters." The smaller you are, the better able you are to get out of the way of the larger object. Thus, pedestrians are at the bottom of the food chain, with bicyclists directly above, followed by cars and trucks, with trains, I guess, as the capital predators. Here in the US, it's completely different. It's upside down. The pedestrian has the right of way over everything else, then bicycles and so on backwards up the food chain.

You can imagine, then, that in Europe, when a car comes along, the bike gives it a wide berth, while here, the clown on the bike just keeps lollygagging along in the middle of the lane with a chain of cars following behind because "he has as much right to use the road as anybody else." It isn't a long stretch from that to some guy with a short fuse capping somebody like that.

.

I wonder what a "European" would say. My very limited interaction riding a bicyle in England and seeing how a couple of sport sedans in Austria came upon some middle aged cyclists on a valley road was that the interactions were much more civilized than what I'd experienced in the S.F. Bay Area and rest of California.

2MeterTroll
07-29-2009, 12:16 AM
take him back or we will send Darth Chainy to do a two year traveling symposium on business ethics.

:(



;)

seanz
07-29-2009, 12:21 AM
Rupert and Dick can't be in the same room, it causes too great an imbalance in the force.

You're stuck with Murdoch......always check the fine print.

Dr.Spoke
07-29-2009, 12:41 AM
:pThanks Lee for the grade! Feels like being back at school!

There were two reasons for the thread... Both stated in the first post. The questioning of gun-law also admitted again later, but definately secondary, to the question of why people get so angry at cyclists on the road.
Shooting cyclists is thankfully not a trend anywhere yet; but I hear of more cases of "road-rage" directed toward cyclists from all over the world. These are from simple verbal abuse, to quite extreme levels of violence ( considerably more than was displayed by our man in NC). This is probably still fairly uncommon, but every week I hear of a new case.
Here in Stockholm we have many cycling commuters, most of them are only riding in the summer ( only the mad/dedicated can bother to commute in -22F - I include myself here). They ride on cycle lanes for the most part, and the majority shouldn't be allowed on the road. Turn signal, shoulder check, traffic lights.... All appear to be something intended for other people.
I drive and cycle ( but mainly cycle), when driving I avoid bikes, when cycling I sometimes give advice on safe cycling practices ( and driving practice, wrt cyclists, when in a good position to do so.... Usually when atop a motorists hood).
But I never have a need to get angry, or even, with another road user.... That way anarchy lies!
How often, when driving, do we sometimes realise ( in the nick of time) that we almost caused an accident or another road-user to avoid us.... And how often are we oblivious to the fact? With that thought can I drive/ride through streets without being angry at other road users for their "mistakes". It is enough that I avoided the accident, and when possible alert the road user to their omission ( without shouting).
So, back on track? Are people becoming less courteous on the road? Are cyclists more of a target? If so, why?

martin schulz
07-29-2009, 03:08 AM
About cycling in Europe.

I guess one fundamental thing is the same wherever you go.

1. People in cars tend to think the road is theirs
2. they are very often frustrated, because their mobility-device is more often hindered in its mobility then actually moving
3. they have to follow every law/regulation or else get caught/pay a fine

Cyclists on the other hand (those relying on their bike for transportation)

1. Know that they are inferior to cars but also know they have the same rights
2. Some claim to have a moral right of way, because they don't pollute, jam, endanger...
3. Often ignore traffic laws (which are there to regulate car traffic)

So it is no surprise that the frustrated car driver and the arrogant free cyclist don't get along well.

pipefitter
07-29-2009, 03:45 AM
Incidentally, the cost of enforcing gun safety regulations in a country of 307 million (is your 330 million figure a spelling error?) is pretty much the same, per capita, as it is in a country of 22 million (was your 21 million figure another spelling error, or just you not bothering to get the facts right?) - with some, probably small, variations based on differing factors - such as different regulations, etc.

Is that 307 million estimate including the 20 million or so illegal immigrants as well? I suppose if those are added, it is closer to 330 million.

As far as the topic is concerned, the illegals, some of who will commit crimes with illegal firearms, should be considered part of the population.

Dr.Spoke
07-29-2009, 04:38 AM
As far as the topic is concerned, the illegals, some of who will commit crimes with illegal firearms, should be considered part of the population.[/quote]

But this wasn't an illegal with an illegally held weapon: it would appear to be a public servant with a legally held firearm....
Illegal weapons will occur... always!
Can somebody find the number of incidents, leading to injury or death of "civilians" ( ie. non criminal or law enforcemenyt) with legally versus illegally held firearms. As a contrast, also the number of criminal incidents thwarted by privately held legal firearms...

The British system would appear to be safest to me - you are found in possession of a handgun ( semi-auto or revolver): GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT 200! There is no complicated legal process - you are criminal for owning, there is no defence. There are shootings of innocents by criminals, but there are almost no "accidental" shootings (with handguns) by otherwise law-abiding citizens.
People still kill people, criminals still terrorize, very few "accidents" occur.

martin schulz
07-29-2009, 04:44 AM
People still kill people, criminals still terrorize, very few "accidents" occur.

Yes, but Guns don't kill people.
So why ban guns - they are just innocent bystanders mishandled by criminals and maniacs. They are not at fault. I mean they were constructed and built to efficiently hurt/kill living beings, but they can't do anything by themselves. They need at least a competent owner ... or a child, that is able to pull the trigger.

;-)

The Bigfella
07-29-2009, 04:48 AM
One million dead Americans due to firearms in the last 30 years. Who cares anyhow? Their problem, not ours.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
07-29-2009, 04:49 AM
As far as the topic is concerned, the illegals, some of who will commit crimes with illegal firearms, should be considered part of the population.

But this wasn't an illegal with an illegally held weapon: it would appear to be a public servant with a legally held firearm....
Illegal weapons will occur... always!
Can somebody find the number of incidents, leading to injury or death of "civilians" ( ie. non criminal or law enforcemenyt) with legally versus illegally held firearms. As a contrast, also the number of criminal incidents thwarted by privately held legal firearms...

The British system would appear to be safest to me - you are found in possession of a handgun ( semi-auto or revolver): GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT 200! There is no complicated legal process - you are criminal for owning, there is no defence. There are shootings of innocents by criminals, but there are almost no "accidental" shootings (with handguns) by otherwise law-abiding citizens.
People still kill people, criminals still terrorize, very few "accidents" occur.[/quote]

I cannot think of a case of a person being killed with a legally held handgun in this country, other than by a Police officer, since the Dunblane massacre of schoolchildren, but there have been killings in error by the Police - the killing of a Brazilian electrician, Jean-Charles de Menenzes, comes immediately to mind, but there have been others.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
07-29-2009, 04:49 AM
The cyclist was not shot.

His hat was.

This might have been a (vigorous) fashion statement rather than an attempted murder.

LeeG
07-29-2009, 06:04 AM
: So, back on track? Are people becoming less courteous on the road? Are cyclists more of a target? If so, why?


ahh, you're not sure? Have you experienced greater altercations with drivers? Leaving out the feedback loops of internet forums and the medias ability to provide near instantaneous information on a million events across the globe my experience is that it's the same as it ever was.

Here's my pet peeve: When riding down a road with a very wide shoulder and high speed traffic, 45-55mph, every once in a while a car comes by with it's right wheel right on the line marking the shoulder THEN it pulls back into the middle of it's lane after passing. Only about 2% of the cars do this. The shoulder is almost 5'- 8' wide, paved. I ride about 18" from the very edge of the road on the right. After the car passes it's obvious they'e driving in a straight line but for the moment they passed me it's on the very edge of their lane next to me while all the other cars in front of them simply stayed in the middle of their lane.

In Sweden do rude drivers have a particular epithet for cyclists? Over here it's "get off the road asshole" or GOTRA. There isn't much opportunity to respond but the two left hand movements I've used to acknowledge their communication or presence is left hand at hip level with fingers together blade like pointing forward and moving my hand outward about a foot. As I ride in a straight line I hope the impression is one designating "more room".
The other response is reserved for GOTRA or similar rude behaviour and it's the left hand reaching down as though I was pinching someones ass with all four fingers and thumb, it's a somewhat incongruous movement. It can't be confused with giving a finger salute but could be contrued as having a large watermelon seed shot their way or a baton being passed forward. Or if they had a large ass I would be giving it a squeeze. I've never had a bad reaction to it whereas flipping the finger or yelling back in similar spirit has had negative reactions.

Dr.Spoke
07-29-2009, 08:09 AM
Yes Andrew, that is the impression I've got from Britain since that piece of legislation subsequent to Dunblane. I know that guncrime, as a whole, is on the increase... But all incidents appear to be criminal, and the rise is lower than in other gun-liberal cultures.

Lee,
My impression is that drivers are being less courteous to cyclists, converse to the increase in cyclists. At the same time the severity of reactions on the road appear to be escalating... Sweden has yet to see a surge in general "road-rage" crimes, but I am aware of many incidents directed toward cyclists. The media is also reacting, through editorial pieces and readers letters, in a less than friendly manner toward cyclists. Much of this is directed toward more "serious" cyclists ( lycra clad), and of course the growing band of "dangerous" fixie riders.
All-in-all I find myself much more defensive on the road, and am very careful when playing in the cars territory... But I'm not going to stop anytime soon.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
07-29-2009, 08:43 AM
I was a member of a pistol shooting club; when I woke up to hear the news of Dunblane (done by a gun club member, with legal guns) I felt physically sickened. I entirely support the present law.

Dr.Spoke
07-29-2009, 10:35 AM
I was a member of a pistol shooting club; when I woke up to hear the news of Dunblane (done by a gun club member, with legal guns) I felt physically sickened. I entirely support the present law.

I also shot a great deal when I was younger, but never owned a weapon or had any need to have one at home. The ranges I shot small-bore on almost never had larger caliber weapons. We occaisionally competed with larger caliber - but they were supplied at the range.
I never competed with large caliber pistols - not much internationally recognized competition - but have fired some. I don't think anybody "needs" to learn to handle one for normal life...IMHO If you need one you need to look at your life, or your society.

I was living in Edinburgh when Dunblane occured, but wasn't actively shooting - so I have little experience of how it affected the gun community.

LeeG
07-29-2009, 11:09 AM
All-in-all I find myself much more defensive on the road, and am very careful when playing in the cars territory... But I'm not going to stop anytime soon.


It's a smart acknowledgment that you are in their territory. Sounds like you're reading too much bad news.

Going in a straight line is the best thing a cyclist can do. A couple months ago I was on a big four lane road with tree lined divider. 35mph limit where the cars go 40+. The traffic was light on a weekend morning and I was approaching a couple a few years older than me obviously out for their ride on hybrid bikes. The man was riding between 3' from the curb and the middle of the lane and the woman was riding about 1'-3' from the curb. From 100yds back all I could think of was that they looked like kids who should be riding on the sidewalk as it was obvious they didn't know where to ride and couldn't ride in a straight line. I greeted them as I swung wide around them then rode the straightest line about 1' from the gutter hoping they'd notice the boundary I'd set for myself.

Dr.Spoke
07-29-2009, 11:20 AM
Lee,
That's pretty much how I approch inexperienced cyclists, weaving all over the place.
About a week ago I was following a women travelling at about 15mph, weaving all over the cycle path and road. I followed her for about 2 miles at a distance of about 1 foot to the right and behind her rear wheel ( she had pulled out eratically and nearly hit me but was oblivious, so after about 20 yards I decided to see how long before she noticed me ). When we pulled up at some lights she was shocked I was there. I explained why, and that I'd watched her riding. I tried to explain that she should look over her shoulder before a manouver... She didn't get it! I asked if she looked in the rear-view mirror when driving before she changed lanes - of course "BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT!"

Bruce Hooke
07-29-2009, 12:03 PM
Going fast on a bike path I assume that anyone I am coming up behind will not stop to think about whether someone might be overtaking them before they weave or turn. So, I almost always say something like "coming by on your left." If, as is quite common, there are young children involved, I slow way down on the assumption that if I don't say something the kid might weave in front of me, and if I do they may turn to look at me and really weave in front of me!

Bruce Hooke
07-29-2009, 12:07 PM
I heard somewhere that one of the most common situations to provoke road-rage is when someone feels stuck behind someone they think is going to slow. Why this is so annoying to drivers is beyond me. However, given that this is apparently one of the most anger producing situations to many drivers, it should be no surprise that cyclists, who sometimes force drivers to slow down (whether or not the cyclist is in the right in doing so) often provoke rage from drivers.

Bruce Hooke
07-29-2009, 12:10 PM
About cycling in Europe.

I guess one fundamental thing is the same wherever you go.

1. People in cars tend to think the road is theirs
2. they are very often frustrated, because their mobility-device is more often hindered in its mobility then actually moving
3. they have to follow every law/regulation or else get caught/pay a fine

Cyclists on the other hand (those relying on their bike for transportation)

1. Know that they are inferior to cars but also know they have the same rights
2. Some claim to have a moral right of way, because they don't pollute, jam, endanger...
3. Often ignore traffic laws (which are there to regulate car traffic)

So it is no surprise that the frustrated car driver and the arrogant free cyclist don't get along well.

That sums up the situation quite nicely...

LeeG
07-29-2009, 12:23 PM
I heard somewhere that one of the most common situations to provoke road-rage is when someone feels stuck behind someone they think is going to slow. Why this is so annoying to drivers is beyond me. However, given that this is apparently one of the most anger producing situations to many drivers, it should be no surprise that cyclists, who sometimes force drivers to slow down (whether or not the cyclist is in the right in doing so) often provoke rage from drivers.

which is why it is soo easy to give them what they want sometimes. If you're riding up a hill ride the straightest line possible and give a friendly low handed wave for them to pass indicating there's nothing to be worried about. Or if you're at an intersection near the curb and they want to turn right make it obvious you are aware of their presence and lean the bike to the right, put your foot on the sidewalk and give a friendly wave for them to pass. The opportunities to let cars know you are aware of their predicament with you is one less chance they're going to curse you.

Although I did lose it one time on a busy street that has no parking with multiple business entrances so the max speed limit of 25mph is only met when there's few cars. I heard a car honk a distance back, 50yds, and it was the car behind an elderly couple that were driving slow BEFORE they came up to me as I was riding about 17mph. I had glanced back a couple times to ascertain this. As they approached me I did a friendly wave for them to pass and they did with no problem and at the very moment they were passing the guy who was honking was tail gating them less than 10' and honked again. It wasn't me he was pissed off at it was them. As his right quarter panel passed me I struck it with my hand nice and hard. I had to provide some boundaries too.

Bruce Hooke
07-29-2009, 06:44 PM
which is why it is soo easy to give them what they want sometimes. If you're riding up a hill ride the straightest line possible and give a friendly low handed wave for them to pass indicating there's nothing to be worried about. Or if you're at an intersection near the curb and they want to turn right make it obvious you are aware of their presence and lean the bike to the right, put your foot on the sidewalk and give a friendly wave for them to pass. The opportunities to let cars know you are aware of their predicament with you is one less chance they're going to curse you.

Yup! I agree.

If I have to swing wide to get around a parked car I try to wait until I will not slow down a car behind me. However, having done that I am not afraid to swing wide and actually use up the lane to avoid the risk of getting a door opened in my face.

Riding on a bike path recently I was actually impressed with how consistently nice people where about giving me the right of way when the path crossed a road, even when they probably had the right of way legally and I was going very slow or stopped when they waved me across ahead of them. I tried to always give them a friendly wave of thanks. So, it is not all bad out there!

Phillip Allen
07-29-2009, 06:54 PM
And so it goes as usual. To quote Phillip Allen, "Oh well.."

I'm not sure how to think of this... :)

The Bigfella
07-29-2009, 07:08 PM
Is that 307 million estimate including the 20 million or so illegal immigrants as well? I suppose if those are added, it is closer to 330 million.

As far as the topic is concerned, the illegals, some of who will commit crimes with illegal firearms, should be considered part of the population.

The estimated number of illegal (undocumented) immigrants was 11 million in 2005. Yes, they are in the 307 million figure and are considered part of the resident population.

paladin
07-29-2009, 07:37 PM
Get caught with a handgun in Saudi Arabia and you might as well kiss your fanny goodbye...they can sentence you to a firing squad before dinner.

Captain Blight
07-29-2009, 09:59 PM
It's been maddening, reading this thread and not being able to reply for having been banned. Anywhoozle, to the people who are angry at cyclists, I want to say a couple things:

First of all, if you want cyclists to obey all--every and all--traffic laws, then you should by the Good Lloyd not get pissed off when we take up a whole lane. You want me to act like a car, then I will act like a car; I'm not impeding traffic, I am traffic.

Or, if I don't get to use the whole blessed lane: then allow me the courtesy of understanding that I ride this thing every day about 25 or 30 miles, all of it in urban traffic. My sense of my surroundings has been honed much more sharply than 'most every driver, and I know, know what I am and am not capable of on that machine. If I am to be considered a pedestrian, than allow me to progress as one (albeit one moving pretty fast).


You don't get to have it both ways, guys.

Too, about being passed by bicycles on the right: Well, Minnesota law requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practical. Practical: not possible. If the shoulder of the road is a moraine field of patched concrete and broken beer bottles, I'm not riding anywhere near there. Your having left late does not invalidate my need for puncture-free tires. So, it's entirely possible I could be out in the middle of the right lane and be fully within my rights. There might be somebody next to me, as Minnesota law allows for cyclists to ride two-abreast. Should I or we swerve out into traffic further just so you can be comforted by being passed on the left? I don't think so.

The Bigfella
07-29-2009, 10:07 PM
One must question the mind of a man who quibbles over tiny percentages, while ignoring all issues.

Got a citation showing illegals are counted in the census?

If that's the case, what's the answer to the same question with regard to someone who quibbles over every spelling error or typo he sees?

Care to tell me all the issues I've ignored, or are you just another empty noise?

307 to 330 - that's a 7.5% over-estimation btw, not a tiny percentage - or don't any of your accuracy concerns ever relate to you?

Yeah - the citation is the 2006 US Census notes and explanation documents.

Dr.Spoke
07-29-2009, 10:20 PM
Get caught with a handgun in Saudi Arabia and you might as well kiss your fanny goodbye...they can sentence you to a firing squad before dinner.

Didn't know that... Interesting... Heard of anybody shooting cyclists there, or anybody shooting anybody for that matter? Mind you they have a fairly tough judicial system there, and it would appear to be at least two-tier... So probably not a model this socialist would want to see enacted at home....

stevebaby
07-30-2009, 01:57 AM
It's been maddening, reading this thread and not being able to reply for having been banned. Anywhoozle, to the people who are angry at cyclists, I want to say a couple things:

First of all, if you want cyclists to obey all--every and all--traffic laws, then you should by the Good Lloyd not get pissed off when we take up a whole lane. You want me to act like a car, then I will act like a car; I'm not impeding traffic, I am traffic.

Or, if I don't get to use the whole blessed lane: then allow me the courtesy of understanding that I ride this thing every day about 25 or 30 miles, all of it in urban traffic. My sense of my surroundings has been honed much more sharply than 'most every driver, and I know, know what I am and am not capable of on that machine. If I am to be considered a pedestrian, than allow me to progress as one (albeit one moving pretty fast).


You don't get to have it both ways, guys.

Too, about being passed by bicycles on the right: Well, Minnesota law requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practical. Practical: not possible. If the shoulder of the road is a moraine field of patched concrete and broken beer bottles, I'm not riding anywhere near there. Your having left late does not invalidate my need for puncture-free tires. So, it's entirely possible I could be out in the middle of the right lane and be fully within my rights. There might be somebody next to me, as Minnesota law allows for cyclists to ride two-abreast. Should I or we swerve out into traffic further just so you can be comforted by being passed on the left? I don't think so.Egg-sacly right.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
07-30-2009, 04:03 AM
It's been maddening, reading this thread and not being able to reply for having been banned. Anywhoozle, to the people who are angry at cyclists, I want to say a couple things:

First of all, if you want cyclists to obey all--every and all--traffic laws, then you should by the Good Lloyd not get pissed off when we take up a whole lane. You want me to act like a car, then I will act like a car; I'm not impeding traffic, I am traffic.

Or, if I don't get to use the whole blessed lane: then allow me the courtesy of understanding that I ride this thing every day about 25 or 30 miles, all of it in urban traffic. My sense of my surroundings has been honed much more sharply than 'most every driver, and I know, know what I am and am not capable of on that machine. If I am to be considered a pedestrian, than allow me to progress as one (albeit one moving pretty fast).


You don't get to have it both ways, guys.

Too, about being passed by bicycles on the right: Well, Minnesota law requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practical. Practical: not possible. If the shoulder of the road is a moraine field of patched concrete and broken beer bottles, I'm not riding anywhere near there. Your having left late does not invalidate my need for puncture-free tires. So, it's entirely possible I could be out in the middle of the right lane and be fully within my rights. There might be somebody next to me, as Minnesota law allows for cyclists to ride two-abreast. Should I or we swerve out into traffic further just so you can be comforted by being passed on the left? I don't think so.

I also drive and cycle.

There is a real danger in getting too close to the edge of the road - a bad surface may pitch you out into the traffic lane.

I don't understand cycling clubs who choose four lane highways for practicing time trials, however. (NB - THE BRITISH OLYMPIC TEAM - THIS INCLUDES YOU!!! - A14 three weekends ago:mad:)

downthecreek
07-30-2009, 04:39 AM
I remember the rules of the road when I visited Amsterdam, which I expect is much the same for the rest of Europe.

Europe is a collection of separate and very different nations, each with their own histories, culture, language and customs. This is a mighty big assumption you make here. :)

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
07-30-2009, 08:28 AM
I also drive and cycle.

There is a real danger in getting too close to the edge of the road - a bad surface may pitch you out into the traffic lane.

I don't understand cycling clubs who choose four lane highways for practicing time trials, however. (NB - THE BRITISH OLYMPIC TEAM - THIS INCLUDES YOU!!! - A14 three weekends ago:mad:)

A465 - most weekends - past Clencher, up the hill (BIG) round the roundabout (busy) and back down....

Cyclist V Cyclist rant (http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27360)

Arko
07-30-2009, 09:01 AM
[QUOTE=Dr.Spoke;2271028]Doug,
A man is driving erratically, he is stopped by the police and found to be a little "over the limit". His driving license is suspended and he comes back to driving a changed man.

He comes back to driving a changed man? Like the man who came back to driving two times a changed man and slaughtered my mother and father on the third? But no one here will even address that issue because most of them drink, probably alot and have probably driven in that condition but got away with it.

oznabrag
07-30-2009, 11:04 AM
It's been maddening, reading this thread and not being able to reply for having been banned. Anywhoozle, to the people who are angry at cyclists, I want to say a couple things:

First of all, if you want cyclists to obey all--every and all--traffic laws, then you should by the Good Lloyd not get pissed off when we take up a whole lane. (I don't) You want me to act like a car, then I will act like a car; I'm not impeding traffic, I am traffic. (Just because you ramble yo skinny, fragile, slow self out into traffic doesn't mean you ARE traffic, all it means is that you cannot keep up with the big boys and have to be gingerly negotiated around. There are typically myriad, alternate routes that have speed limits commensurate with the top speed of your typical bicycle commuter. USE THEM! If you can't run with the big dogs, you oughtta do yourself AND them a big favor and stay under the porch.)

Or, if I don't get to use the whole blessed lane: then allow me the courtesy of understanding that I ride this thing every day about 25 or 30 miles, all of it in urban traffic. My sense of my surroundings has been honed much more sharply than 'most every driver, and I know, know what I am and am not capable of on that machine. If I am to be considered a pedestrian, than allow me to progress as one (albeit one moving pretty fast). (No problem, dude, I do just exactly that all the time. I am not anti-bicycle, I am anti-IDIOT.)


You don't get to have it both ways, guys.

Too, about being passed by bicycles on the right: Well, Minnesota law requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practical. Practical: not possible. If the shoulder of the road is a moraine field of patched concrete and broken beer bottles, I'm not riding anywhere near there. (Just what in the wall-eyed Hell are you doing on a manic thoroughfare with yo skinny, fragile, self, anyway? I am QUITE POSITIVE you are aware that there is a residential street that runs parallel to this broken minefield of a deathtrap? You do know it is a deathtrap? If someone blows out a tire out here, it is pretty clear you may just have to DIE. The speed limit on that residential street is just about exactly the limit of your ability to propel that crumple-zone you call a bicycle.) Your having left late does not invalidate my need for puncture-free tires. (I have made a practice of punctuality, and consider it to be a valuable life skill. I am very nearly always on time with time to spare, but, apparently, your having not one clue about the physical reality of a 3,000 pound vehicle occupying the same space as your crumple zone does not invalidate the fact that, if things go the least bit haywire, you get 'totalled' and I get a greasy spot on my fender.) So, it's entirely possible I could be out in the middle of the right lane and be fully within my rights. (Or within your body-bag, as the case may be. Being ground to a pulp for the sake of being 'right' doesn't sound like a real smart choice.) There might be somebody next to me, as Minnesota law allows for cyclists to ride two-abreast. Should I or we swerve out into traffic further just so you can be comforted by being passed on the left? I don't think so.(I take no comfort from being passed at a stop light AT ALL, thank you very much. If you belonged in the stream of high-speed (to YOU) commuter traffic, you wouldn't have to pass everybody else at the stoplight. USE THE GOLDURN STREETS THAT ACCOMODATE YOUR VEHICLE BEST!)

It's like I say: I am not anti-bicycle, I am anti-idiot. If you insist on interposing your crumple-zone betwixt a horde of cars, sooner or later, you are going to lose. That means that someone will have to live with having taken your life, all because you wouldn't take responsibility for it.

LeeG
07-30-2009, 01:20 PM
Europe is a collection of separate and very different nations, each with their own histories, culture, language and customs. This is a mighty big assumption you make here. :)

I was wondering when someone else would comment on that. I'm sure Bob would recognize differences in driving manners between residents Sonoma and San Francisco county.

Phillip Allen
07-30-2009, 05:06 PM
if the bullet got caught in one of those styro-foam hats, it must have been a pellet gun...anyone know?

Bob Adams
07-30-2009, 07:14 PM
To sum it up, there is no excuse for shots to be fired in this situation, complete insanity. Of course, if he'd have simply hit him with his car, it would have never made the news. (No excuse for that either)

Keith Wilson
07-30-2009, 08:06 PM
I am not anti-bicycle, I am anti-idiot. Yeah, right. The hostility is quite obvious, and kind of surprising. You apparently don't believe that a bicycle has the same right to use the road - any road except a freeway - as you do in your car, nor that it is your responsibilty to avoid bicycles and give them plenty of room, even if it inconveniences you (overtaking vehicle, remember?) . A pity you don't agree with the law, but you have to obey it just like the rest of us. Yes, some bicyclists ride like complete idiots; and immortal idiots at that. That does not subtract one bit from your responsibilities while driving.

AFAIK, Minnesota law allows a bicyclist to pass a line of stopped traffic on the right at a red light if there's enough room, although not to run the red light. I don't know about other states.

oznabrag
07-30-2009, 09:44 PM
A pity you don't agree with the law, but you have to obey it just like the rest of us. Yes, some bicyclists ride like complete idiots; and immortal idiots at that. That does not subtract one bit from your responsibilities while driving.



I do agree with the law.

I obey it quite handily, thank you very much.

The fact that it is impossible to tell the idiots from the level-headed at any given moment is enough to deal with in traffic without the dang 'running of the bulls' BS, and I do, indeed, drive responsibly. Unfortunately, I am confronted with a pack of morons who think that they belong in heavy commuter traffic. They don't. They don't belong there anymore than they do on the freeway.

The idealistic BS that they are 'equals' is utter stuff and nonsense. They are no more equals than a cockroach and the heel of my boot. It has been a while since I used a bike as transportation, but I can tell you without any reservation that, should I choose to do so, the average motorist would never, ever see me at all, because I wouldn't be anywhere near him. Neither would this lack of interaction slow my progress across the city in any way. There are plenty of back streets and bike paths to choose from, and the only reason I can see for a bicyclist to choose a manic, commuter thoroughfare is a simple death-wish or some self-destructive need to control others through exposing one's self to damage by them. Much like chaining one's self to some building to prevent it's being razed or something.

Sick.

Keith Wilson
07-30-2009, 11:00 PM
Unfortunately, I am confronted with a pack of morons who think that they belong in heavy commuter traffic. They don't. The idealistic BS that they are 'equals' is utter stuff and nonsense. They are no more equals than a cockroach and the heel of my boot. You may think so, but the law says that you are required to drive as if they were.

Phillip Allen
07-31-2009, 06:17 AM
guys, nearly all bikers I have encountered are just people...there are some though who are arrogant for their own reasons and make trouble...the easy comparison is the clod in a small sail boat who demands large ships give right of way to their "sail". It happens all the time

stevebaby
07-31-2009, 06:54 AM
guys, nearly all bikers I have encountered are just people...there are some though who are arrogant for their own reasons and make trouble...the easy comparison is the clod in a small sail boat who demands large ships give right of way to their "sail". It happens all the timeMy experience of driving large commercial vessels in a busy harbour, and as a member of a sailing club, is that the overwhelming majority of small boat sailors are conversant with rule 8, and comply accordingly.
Your experience of driving large commercial vesels on the busy harbours of Arizona may differ.
As a cyclist, I'd be interested to know how it is "arrogant" to for cyclists to expect that their legal rights should be observed by other road users.
Naturally, I will not expect a coherent answer.

Phillip Allen
07-31-2009, 07:00 AM
My experience of driving large commercial vessels in a busy harbour, and as a member of a sailing club, is that the overwhelming majority of small boat sailors are conversant with rule 8, and comply accordingly.
Your experience of driving large commercial vesels on the busy harbours of Arizona may differ.
As a cyclist, I'd be interested to know how it is "arrogant" to for cyclists to expect that their legal rights should be observed by other road users.
Naturally, I will not expect a coherent answer.

Oh, come on Steve...re-read my post..."...most are just people" I am simply acknowledging the exceptions...or are you saying there are NO exceptions?

BTW, I know some of the exceptions PERSONALLY and they are jerks...they make a nuisance of themselves in the belief that they are superior for having done it. I don’t just drive past these guys on the roads…I sit with them at meals and used to play USVBA volley ball with them

oznabrag
07-31-2009, 09:51 AM
Quote:
"Unfortunately, I am confronted with a pack of morons who think that they belong in heavy commuter traffic. They don't. The idealistic BS that they are 'equals' is utter stuff and nonsense. They are no more equals than a cockroach and the heel of my boot."

You may think so, but the law says that you are required to drive as if they were.

You are usually so bright, Keith. Don't get confused here. The law does not say they 'belong' in heavy commuter traffic. The law says they have rights and responsibilities equal to automobiles.

There is no law in the Universe that can ever make a 45 MPH, 4500 pound, metal-clad behemoth, and a 200 pound, 25 MPH pipsqueak made of flesh into equals.

The fully-laden 3/4 ton pick-up truck will crush the juice out of a cyclist as easily as the heel of my boot crushes a cockroach, and the cyclist will leave a very similar greasy spot when all is said and done.

The fact is that if I blow out a tire I may lose a little control and ding someone's fender. Unless they happen to be on a bicycle, in which case I may well have to carry the burden of their untimely death for the rest of my days. This is only one example of the incontrovertible FACT that a bicycle and a car are NOT equals, and you can pile up laws until you croak from exhaustion, and it will not change that fact.

That is the problem.

So...If you're tired of talking about the problem, perhaps it would be more productive to talk about solutions. :)

My good Girl has been a frequent Critical Mass rider, and she understands that I am not a road-raging imbecile. She understands that I do NOT treat bicyclists as equals in traffic. She 'gets it' that I am hyper-sensitive to the fragile creature blazing down the street willy-nilly. She knows that if a bicyclist could choose the auto-driver in the lane behind him, I would be an excellent choice. She knows that I am willing, on an instant's notice, to take a header into oncoming traffic to keep his dumb ass alive. She agrees with me that the regulation of bicycle traffic is woefully inadequate. Here in Austin, which touts itself as being bike-friendly, the whole 'bike route' thing is a joke. An ugly, dark, fatal joke. The City has laid out all these 'bike routes', but they are simply the thoroughfares that the autos use. They are narrow and they are fast. Bikes can't flow with traffic. Every so often, somebody dies. How many bicyclists have to die or get mangled before those who regulate our roadways come to understand that bikes and cars are NOT equal? I am all for bike lanes. I am all for better (paved, even) bike trails. What I am NOT for is the continued, willful ignorance of the simple fact that a bike is not a car, and never will be.

stevebaby
07-31-2009, 10:12 AM
Oh, come on Steve...re-read my post..."...most are just people" I am simply acknowledging the exceptions...or are you saying there are NO exceptions?

BTW, I know some of the exceptions PERSONALLY and they are jerks...they make a nuisance of themselves in the belief that they are superior for having done it. I don’t just drive past these guys on the roads…I sit with them at meals and used to play USVBA volley ball with themBy insisting on their legal rights they make "nuisances" of themselves?
"Legal rights" are a real nuisance for the tyrants, aren't they?

Phillip Allen
07-31-2009, 10:27 AM
You are usually so bright, Keith. Don't get confused here. The law does not say they 'belong' in heavy commuter traffic. The law says they have rights and responsibilities equal to automobiles.

There is no law in the Universe that can ever make a 45 MPH, 4500 pound, metal-clad behemoth, and a 200 pound, 25 MPH pipsqueak made of flesh into equals.

The fully-laden 3/4 ton pick-up truck will crush the juice out of a cyclist as easily as the heel of my boot crushes a cockroach, and the cyclist will leave a very similar greasy spot when all is said and done.

The fact is that if I blow out a tire I may lose a little control and ding someone's fender. Unless they happen to be on a bicycle, in which case I may well have to carry the burden of their untimely death for the rest of my days. This is only one example of the incontrovertible FACT that a bicycle and a car are NOT equals, and you can pile up laws until you croak from exhaustion, and it will not change that fact.

That is the problem.

So...If you're tired of talking about the problem, perhaps it would be more productive to talk about solutions. :)

My good Girl has been a frequent Critical Mass rider, and she understands that I am not a road-raging imbecile. She understands that I do NOT treat bicyclists as equals in traffic. She 'gets it' that I am hyper-sensitive to the fragile creature blazing down the street willy-nilly. She knows that if a bicyclist could choose the auto-driver in the lane behind him, I would be an excellent choice. She knows that I am willing, on an instant's notice, to take a header into oncoming traffic to keep his dumb ass alive. She agrees with me that the regulation of bicycle traffic is woefully inadequate. Here in Austin, which touts itself as being bike-friendly, the whole 'bike route' thing is a joke. An ugly, dark, fatal joke. The City has laid out all these 'bike routes', but they are simply the thoroughfares that the autos use. They are narrow and they are fast. Bikes can't flow with traffic. Every so often, somebody dies. How many bicyclists have to die or get mangled before those who regulate our roadways come to understand that bikes and cars are NOT equal? I am all for bike lanes. I am all for better (paved, even) bike trails. What I am NOT for is the continued, willful ignorance of the simple fact that a bike is not a car, and never will be.


I've been thinking about riding horses again...they're bigger than bicycles too. How would horse traffic hold up in this thread?

stevebaby
07-31-2009, 11:31 AM
I've been thinking about riding horses again...they're bigger than bicycles too. How would horse traffic hold up in this thread?Equestrians in Sydney have pretty much the same rights and responsibilities as cyclists.Despite the fact that they undoubtedly make a nuisance of themselves to car drivers in the belief that they are superior to others and they are jerks, they also have a legal right to use the road. And so they should.
Car drivers in Sydney have the same rights and responsibilities as semi-trailer drivers. Despite the fact that they undoubtedly make a nuisance of themselves to semi-trailer drivers with their suicidal forays into traffic in the belief that they are superior to others, and they are jerks (I know several), they also have a legal right to use the road. And so it should be.

stevebaby
07-31-2009, 11:45 AM
If anyone's interested, I can provide a link to a thread on a cycling forum where the plenty of American gun owners have argued the merits of carrying guns when they ride bicycles.
In the interests of their own self-defence against car drivers who harass them and deny their right to travel on public roads, regardless of the inconvenience they might cause to motorists.
Second Amendment defenders one and all...any of you guys want to debate them?
*sniggers*

Phillip Allen
07-31-2009, 12:02 PM
steve, how have you got it in your head that I am anti cyclist?

oznabrag
07-31-2009, 12:35 PM
By insisting on their legal rights they make "nuisances" of themselves?
"Legal rights" are a real nuisance for the tyrants, aren't they?

Lawyer. :rolleyes:

Just because I have a right to do something doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

The fact that bicyclists have these rights without any restrictions whatsoever is only further evidence of legislative imbecility.

The fact that our various municipalities allow the situation to continue is simply more evidence that they are imbeciles as well.

As Keith rightly pointed out upthread, bicycles are not allowed on the freeway because, in that venue, they are a menace to themselves and others. The same restriction should be in place to prohibit bicycles from using any road where the speed limit is greater than about 35 MPH unless it has a bike lane.

If this means we need to build more bike lanes (and we do) then let's get up and build the bike lanes.

The fact that a bicyclist has nearly infinitely less ability to do harm to an car than to be harmed by a car needs to be addressed. The fact that a bicyclist has nearly infinitely less ability to accelerate or to maintain a velocity consistent with the flow of automotive traffic needs to be addressed. They need to be compelled to stay out of fast, heavy traffic. Period.

By the way, I find it considerably less than politic of you to blast the Second Amendment for months, or even years, on end, and then to assert concealed carry as an appropriate response to car-driving idiots, and yes, there are plenty of cyclists out there who see themselves as crusaders against the dark forces of automobiles. Cyclists who get a big charge out of causing some car-person to crash so that 'maybe they'll learn their lesson'. The assumption that because cyclists are smaller and more fragile they must be good and worthy is just simply false. It is the same manipulative logic practiced by little brothers everywhere to mess with their big brothers and then holler "MOM! Waaaaaaaaaaa!!!!"

LeeG
07-31-2009, 01:22 PM
this thread needs a Monty Python clip about bicycles,,I'll work on that.

Captain Blight
07-31-2009, 02:42 PM
Oznabrag, I was about to tell you to GFY, but I reconsidered.
I want to ask, what is it about cyclists in traffic that leads you to think we are all morons? And what the tapdancing green f*ck are you on about with this "don't belong" BS? I pay my taxes just like you do. If I choose to ride a bike to work instead of driving a car, what skin off your ass is that? Geez, man, learn to share. It's not your lane and your lane exclusively. If you get too frustrated driving a car, may I suggest getting out on a bike? It's good for the soul. You should try it.

I also note that you are clamoring to have the government step in in order to marginalize a fairly sizable subset of the adult population (8-10% of the commuters in the Twin Cities on any given day in the warm months are cyclists). Is this your stance governance in general, or is this... oh, wait, I know. This is For My Own Good, right? Okay, then, I'll just toe the line and meekly submit.

Or, maybe, we should pass laws against inattentive driving and driving too fast for conditions. Oh, no, wait, we already have those. Hmmm...


What you are suggesting is exactly the same as suggesting that vessels be restricted by tonnage. They already are, one way, in that heavy vessels can't go in skinny water. But would you seriously suggest that the ocean shipping lanes be placed off-limits to sailors because supertankers need to use those ocean lanes, and they're in a hurry? Seriously, would you?

LeeG
07-31-2009, 02:48 PM
here you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01xasUtlvw

LeeG
07-31-2009, 02:54 PM
Cap'n. just enough restraint but not too much. Some folks are just cranky and they probably drive cranky. It's hard to ride cranky.

Captain Blight
07-31-2009, 03:01 PM
Just read Garbanzo's reply to Keith, and realized he may never have driven in a city where an actual effort has been made to accommodate cyclists. Around the various urban cyclist forums, Austin has a pretty steady reputation as an okay city to ride in but not a great one. Appparently the bike lanes there are narrow, and tend to folow main arteries. How much simpler to just move a block or two over.

One thing the City of Minneapolis is considering is to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. That would be a big help for most of us, though I imagine injuries will go up as a result. Oh, and Keith: You can't *directly* run a red on a bike in Minnesota. You can, however, come to a full stop and then pedal across in the crosswalk, and get back on the road after you're across. Perfectly legal.

oznabrag
07-31-2009, 04:41 PM
Just read Garbanzo's

Who's Garbanzo?

oznabrag
07-31-2009, 04:42 PM
Oznabrag, I was about to tell you to GFY, but I reconsidered.
I want to ask, what is it about cyclists in traffic that leads you to think we are all morons? And what the tapdancing green f*ck are you on ?

Probably the same green you're on. :D