Re: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary?
my point was intended to question the notions floating in this thread about right/wrong, intentional/accidental that seem grounded in a sort of strange sort of positivism grown from tired traffic laws based in patently false traffic engineering theory. i don't own a car, and i think most don't need to, but i am not "car-bagging" with that comment. it's easy enough to demonstrably show the ethics behind mode choice, and easy enough to ignore or justify action beyond the demands of science. at the end of the day, i think: go drive a bike for awhile, it'll help. erik On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 18:55 -0800, newenglandbike wrote: > > "motorists are always putting everyone else in harms way, diminishing > > quality of life, contributing to health problems and increased > > mortality, making everyone subsidize their actions through state and > > federal taxes, necessitating wars in foreign countries for oil field > > security, impelling oil-spill catastrophes in the seas, encouraging > > rampant urban-sprawl development policies, contributing heavily to > > localized air pollution, decreasing agricultural yields, reducing > > atmospheric visibility, aggravating global climate instability, > > creating noise pollution, and leaving behind 7 billion pounds of > > unrecycled scrap annually, without consideration at all for their > > actions." > > Enough already. This list is not supposed to be about car-hating. > There are other places for those sentiments. Take it over there, > please. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- oakland, ca bikenoir.blogspot.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary?
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 18:55 -0800, newenglandbike wrote: > "motorists are always putting everyone else in harms way, diminishing > quality of life, contributing to health problems and increased > mortality, making everyone subsidize their actions through state and > federal taxes, necessitating wars in foreign countries for oil field > security, impelling oil-spill catastrophes in the seas, encouraging > rampant urban-sprawl development policies, contributing heavily to > localized air pollution, decreasing agricultural yields, reducing > atmospheric visibility, aggravating global climate instability, > creating noise pollution, and leaving behind 7 billion pounds of > unrecycled scrap annually, without consideration at all for their > actions." Enough already. This list is not supposed to be about car-hating. There are other places for those sentiments. Take it over there, please. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary?
>"nope, wrong. yes you follow the law, but if you run into a car without its lights on from behind you're still partly liable. you have eyes, powerful >headlights, and an obligation to drive at a reasonable speed for conditions such that you can brake for anything in the road adequately. To many variables.. what open city street with street lights.. agreed... dark state 2 lane hwy at night nope.. the guy in the car driving disabled down the hiway without lilghts should be cited with criminal neglect and endagerment of the public. Pull the vehical off the side and out of the way. >never an excuse to hit a cyclist or pedestrian, period. Except when the pedestrian is jay walking - jumps off a bridge in front of you etc... and a cyclist is NOT a pedestrian.. it is another motorist. Another motorist who does not deserve more protection than any other motorist or any less. Given the right circumstances it will happen to any driver.. and if you are a cyclist .. a farm tractor .. or a skunk.. you're going to get hit. Like the pedestrian jumping off the bridge, if you are traversing a windy hilly 45mph two lane road at night with no lights.. expect to get hit... the jury will treat the accident as though you jumped off the bridge.. In the end regardless of how legal it could be, is or should be.. being right isn't all that ... from the grave. No one else should be punished for you bad decisions either. Good luck getting that 20 mph world wide speed limit that will make that no excuse plausible. Just saying.. Kelly -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary?
Erik wrote: never an excuse to hit a cyclist or pedestrian, period. Hogwash! If a motorist does not have sufficient time and distance to avoid a collision, then there is a very legitimate excuse for colliding with a cyclist. I don't know where Erik rides, but in my city -- a very pro-cyclist city -- cyclists are always putting themselves in harms way, and without consideration at all for their actions. I see it on a daily basis while commuting to and from downtown on my bike. Bike messenger are the worst. Erik's notion of "capricious cyclist" --the "they-have-to-look-out-for-me, I-don't-have-to-look-out-for-them" just sounds exceedingly self-centered as well as fundamentally foolish. Of course I believe cyclists have every right to use the roadway, but they also must be reasonable and responsible when doing so. It also never hurts to be thoughtful and considerate. For the most part (in my opinion), cyclists are not. Ray -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary?
nope, wrong. yes you follow the law, but if you run into a car without its lights on from behind you're still partly liable. you have eyes, powerful headlights, and an obligation to drive at a reasonable speed for conditions such that you can brake for *anything* in the road adequately. what is more troubling is the degree of legal positivism embodied by your post, whereas i believe traffic laws should cater more readily to the capricious nature of the bicycle (as the dutch say) and the notion that streets are not gutters and arteries for the ready circulation of physical capital. never an excuse to hit a cyclist or pedestrian, period. cheers, erik On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Kelly wrote: > That is complete garbage to suggest a driver be responsible for not hitting > you no matter how dark or unlit up you are. Law should and does in some > places require lights. Just because you get run over by a car doesn't make > you a victim. The person that hits the idiot that ran the stop or didn't > bother to use lights or swerves in front of them have to live with it. > Accidents happen as well. > > There is stupidity on the bike and in the car.. and no matter what you do > .. you can't fix stupid! > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > -- oakland, ca bikenoir.blogspot.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary?
http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/back-off-triangle/31-460 From: newenglandbike To: RBW Owners Bunch Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 12:15:36 PM Subject: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary? Ray, you didn't answer the second part of the question: "What about people who can't afford to keep CatEye in business?" ... And let's not forget wildlife.I assume deer, moose and racoon should be responsible for acquiring and using their own battery- powered hi-viz gear.I guess for pets, the onus is on the cat and dog owners to adorn them in electric-light vests. Lest the blame for their deaths be on them. Just to be clear I think wearing this stuff is smarty-pants to the nines... my beef is with how the blame 'sharing' is apportioned sometimes. On Dec 10, 2:50 pm, Ray Shine wrote: > Yes. > > > > newenglandbike wrote: > > What about pedestrians, should they be all ablaze too? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW > Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group >athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary?
Yes. newenglandbike wrote: What about pedestrians, should they be all ablaze too? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary?
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 11:20 -0800, newenglandbike wrote: > I'm all for riding with lights and reflective gear, and do it myself, > but take umbrage to the blame-the-victim attitude that puts the > responsibility for not getting hit by a car on all on the cyclist. > What about pedestrians, should they be all ablaze too? What about > people who can't afford to keep CatEye in business trying to make > themselves look like a bipedal quasar? Nice rant. Now back in the real world, if you are virtually invisible in the dark you certainly have yourself to blame if someone fails to see you and runs into you. Responsibility is shared, and if you're wearing nighttime camouflage -- dark clothing, no lighting, no reflectors, dark gloves, black balaclava pulled down over the face -- as so many cyclists and pedestrians seem to do, blame yourself if you aren't seen. Drivers are neither demigods nor demons. They're you and me. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
RE: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary?
I have great admiration for all of you who can ride in those kinds of conditions. But, I do feel that safety has to always be an over riding consideration. best, JimP > Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 05:13:26 -0800 > Subject: [RBW] Re: Brave, Foolish, or maybe necessary? > From: joelmatth...@mac.com > To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > > I do not have a car, so am often tempted to ride the bike when and > where conditions are less than optimal. Over the years I have had > enough close calls that when things get really bad I either take mass > transit, a taxi, walk or stay put. > > I want to enjoy cycling, not endure. > > On Dec 10, 7:00 am, MichaelH wrote: > > I live in northern Vt, one ride below the 45th parallel. I'm 6 miles > > down the road to the nearest shops and services. Sunset, this time of > > year is around 4:30 and until the big lakes freeze over, the weather > > tends to be cloudy and snowy. With the moon in its last quarter its > > very dark, very early. > > > > It has snowed slowly and steadily through the week, leaving about 15" > > of snow cover and the road shoulders with an inch or two of packed and > > loose snow. The skies started to clear a bit yesterday and the temps > > dropped , +14 at sundown and -10 by sunrise this morning. > > > > I headed into town at 5:00, in my car and drove down an unlit country > > road, passing a nearly steady stream of commuters headed home up the > > road. Suddenly I saw a very bright bicycle light coming up the road. > > As I passed him (her?) I saw that the tail light was just avg. > > > > My first thought was, wow that takes some guts, but my second thought > > was that's more risk than I would ever want to take on a bicycle, and > > my third thought was I don't mind riding in the dark; I don't mind > > riding in the cold; and I don't mind riding in the wet. But that much > > cold, dark, wet and risk all at the same time is something I wouldn't > > choose to do, unless it was absolutely necessary. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Michael > > on a gloriously beautiful morning > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
