| | Re: Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle!
And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
none other than Tom Keats:
>> Ouch, I feel your pain. Those two don't mix well at the best of
>> times. I'm making 25 racks of high society this year or I'm out.
>>:}
>
>In my low-brow way, 'racks' to me connotes either warehouse shelving,
>or breasts of the female persuasion. It's good to meet a fellow
>gigolo ;-)
Héhé, I never really thought of it that way, and it actually makes
for an interesting pun.
On a slightly more serious note, though,
prostitution/gigoloism/that vein is not really my thing in the
least. A rack of high society, of course, means $10 000, but then
you knew that. :} So 25 racks = $250 000. Realistically, I doubt
I'll make anywhere near that - probably barely enough to make ends
meet in practice - but it's a goal I set, recently raised from
$150k after my recent impulse trip up north. Playing poker can be
profitable, but even that has its limits unless you're world class
material...
>> Wow! A considerate cyclist who obeys the traffic laws and doesn't
>> cycle on the sidewalks/Xwalks like some asswipes I see? A first!
>
>Nah, there's plenty like me. We just don't get noticed when
>we're doing it right.
I notice you guys, but saddest to say, I more often notice the bad
guys who think that the sidewalks and other pedestrian domains are
their personal private high speed cycle paths. Heavy ticketing of
those ashwipes would be a pleasant change, but the police would
claim they "don't have the time". Yeah right, they sure have the
time to waste catching evil speeding pensioners in old brown
manure trucks (yes, I really did witness this on the #7, poor
fellow was stopped on the westbound shoulder just east of
Boundary!).
>My 'goal' other than getting to where I'm going (and enjoying
>doing it) is to keep the traffic flow flowing smoothly.
Kudos to you. Now if only everyone thought the same way...
>> So you pop your head over your shoulder to check for traffic...
>
>Exactly. Just like the drivers do.
Actually I rarely look OVER my shoulder (except maybe in driving
tests to please the examiner  . My mirrors are adjusted so as to
minimize the blind spot (at least I believe so), and when an
approaching vehicle on my near side vanishes from my door mirror,
I can see that object without normally turning my head more than
90° to the right.
>I guess a lot of drivers get frustrated because my ride is set
>up for practicality and therefore /appears/ slower than it is.
>Especially with the milk crate on the back.
So *you're* the dude I got stuck behind those æons ago (last
summer, was it?) on what I think was west 3rd! Man you were slow,
and I was creeping behind you courteously and safely at <<20 kph
until I found a safe chance to pass. No, just yanking yer crank,
it most likely wasn't you at all, but ya never know eh?
>A single person like myself in Vancouver, working in the Lower
>Mainland, doesn't need a car,
Wow, someone who holds a diametrically opposed viewpoint to mine,
how fascinating. Well technically it is true that you don't really
need a motor vehicle to SURVIVE, yeeeeees, but...
>except maybe to impress women with.
Good luck with that one! But even with my hypothetical 25 racks of
high society, I don't think I'd want to "impress" them that way
anyway, since I want them to like *me*, not my *money* (if and
when I ever have any, that is). Dream on, Ricardo...
>Up in the interior it can be a different situation.
"Up in the interior" is exactly where I've just been recently.
Wouldn't be too practical to get there without a car. You can fly,
but then what? Canada has no integrated ground transportation to
speak of, an unforgivable situation for a rich country.
>My brother
>has a ranch/farm up by Cache Creek,
Drove right through that place last week and all! Beautiful
scenery... perhaps no match for farther north, but still very nice
(and kinda parched too).
>>>Everyone has the right to ride a bicycle,
>>
>> This right should be curtailed to a privilege, imo,
>
>That would be retrograde and unconscionable.
It would at least ensure that cyclists are held to the same
standards as other mobile road users, which I think is reasonable,
especially considering the average cyclist in this city is *far*
less considerate and competent than the typical motorist.
>I figure The State should primarly provide for people to be able
> to get around under their own power (and in a safe & timely manner),
>so more people can get to markets and put their money into circulation,
>thereby keeping the Economy vivaceous. After all, that's the gov't's
>main interest in transportation.
Public transportation exists for social as well as financial
economic benefits; these social benefits often cannot be
quantified numerically! Try explaining THAT one to any Canajun
legislator/minister though... ;}
>If some people choose to go to market
>in a less safe manner (i.e: driving), /then/ they should have to
>monetarily compensate.
Well, yeah, I kind of agree, but driving should by definition by
UNNECESSARY for most/all of us.
www.cfl.lu
www.sbb.ch
www.sncf.fr
www.sj.se
www.bahn.de
These are but a few examples of [part of] what is needed here to
remove the total dependency on cars. (No responsibility taken for
wrong urls, they're pretty much guesses on my part!)
>To put it in inhumanly blunt terms, every person who gets killed
>by traffic represents a significant loss of input (and significant
>increase of outgo) to the Economy. And every person who sticks the
>key in the ignition, risks doing that.
Right, life itself is dangerous and carries a 100% risk of death.
You're not advocating banning cars, right?
>Cyclists assume nowhere the same risks as drivers.
Statistically that may be so, but I know I'd rather be protected
in the event of a collision. Now don't get me wrong, I'm kinda
playing devil's advocate here, 'cause I'm pro-biking too, and
actually think well implemented citywide cycle paths can work.
Brent P. from Chicago IL USA isn't with me on this one, and I
greatly respect his point of view, even understand it, but I still
believe that a well implemented system of bike lanes/paths/control
signalization, when COMBINED with assumption of responsibility and
compliance with the laws on the part of all road users, can be
hugely beneficial. I've seen it working beautifully (so long as
you don't jaywalk on the bike paths that is!) in both the
Netherlands and Denmark.
>>>whether or not they actually want to. Some of us want to.
>>
>> I love cycling, but this isn't the most conducive city to it.
>
>Not quite, but it might be the second-most (after Victoria, BC).
Victoria is much better for bikers, for sure, though I've never
ridden there. Ottawa looks okayish too, from a superficial glance.
Kamloops isn't bad either, except for the sprawliness/distance
perlava, but that applies here in Van as well, or in fact in any
Canajun city for that matter.
>> Nonetheless, if one avoids the major high-speed arterials (50 kph
>> speed limit is essentially meaningless on these, used only for
>> revenue collection) and heavy traffic, it can still be quite a
>> pleasant endeavour, even in this very large and rapidly growing
>> metropolis.
>
>I doubt it's much more of an endeavour than driving. Except
>when you get abuse for doing it.
Which it sounds as if you don't deserve... but I know what some
motorists can be like during rush hour; getting stuck in heavy
traffic can really make those tempers flare.
>Water off a duck's back.
If everyone were like you there'd be much less of an issue
vis-à-vis (pedestrian-)cyclist-motorist space conflicts.
--
E.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail reply
'91 mx6gt, white, 5sp MT, V1, CB
|