| | Re: Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle!
In article <pndke0pt0k5nsqruimp4r4as1veo690he9@4ax.com>,
E.R. <red_starinfrench@email.kom> writes:
> And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
> none other than Tom Keats:
>
>>Now, I'm just a poor guy,
> [...]
>>And since I live in Vancouver BC,
>
> 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 ;-)
>>With my current low financial status, I readily submit that
>>cyclists like me are most definitely /not/ willing to take
>>chances such as bolting into a busy intersection, or any
>>other infraction that might result in an expensive fine.
>>Or worse, medical expenses incurred by being clobbered by
>>a car. I've already spent top-dollar, ensuring that my
>>bike and myself are perfectly legal.
>
> 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 ride as per:
http://bikesense.bc.ca
>>On the streets, drivers find me considerate, and they
>>appreciate my consideration (even though I just don't want
>>them to clobber me.) I often take to the side-streets.
>>Those can be dangerous, because they're narrow. Anyhow,
>>I've observed how drivers on narrow side-streets are willing
>>to dive into gaps between parked cars, to let oncoming cars
>>go by.
>
> Better than a head-on collision or an impasse...
My 'goal' other than getting to where I'm going (and enjoying
doing it) is to keep the traffic flow flowing smoothly. Like
other reasonable street users, sometimes I give and sometimes
I take. Whichever is called-for to keep the flow of which I
am a part of, going.
>>I do the same thing as the drivers, and often get an
>>appreciative smile & wave from them as they roll by. That
>>feels really good to me. But it can be a dangerous practice
>>for a cyclist because if improperly done, it could entail
>>disappearing from view (between parked cars), and then suddenly
>>popping-out into the traffic stream again.
>
> So you pop your head over your shoulder to check for traffic...
Exactly. Just like the drivers do.
>>When I'm on the big arterial streets, I might get yelled-at,
>>honked-at, spat-at, have burning cigarette butts or McDonald's
>>grunge tossed at me, or all manner of abuse directed at me --
>
> You would only deserve that if you were riding on the sidewalk.
> Funny how the asswipes often get more consideration than the good
> people, eh?
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. I get the same thing
from Weekend Warrior cyclists, but I can generally show them what's
what on the first upgrade, if I feel like it. Drivers can show /me/
what's what, because they've got all the acceleration. But 20 feet
or less from a stop line is a bad place to cut-off a slow-looking
cyclist.
>>Tell ya what, though -- if I had to deal with the expense of
>>licensing and registration, I might as well sell my bike for
>>food, go on the dole, and live on your tax money.
>
> I don't pay income taxes, but let's not get into that... ;}
I've gotta see about getting a bunch of GST back, myself.
>>Inflicting mandatory licensing & registration on cyclists
>>wouuld be, besides an expensive and reduntant inflation of
>>governmental bureaucracy, an unconscionable expropriation
>>of /your/ right to freedom of movement.
>
> No more so than the same formalities for motor vehicles, imo,
> especially here in B.C. where you practically *need* a car (kudos
> to you for managing to get by without one!).
A single person like myself in Vancouver, working in the Lower
Mainland, doesn't need a car, except maybe to impress women with.
Up in the interior it can be a different situation. My brother
has a ranch/farm up by Cache Creek, and I've seen how he depends
on the ability to haul veal calves, pigs, chickens etc around.
He & his wife also have a more fuel-efficient little Toyota to
do lighter-weight runs with.
>>Everyone has the right to ride a bicycle,
>
> This right should be curtailed to a privilege, imo,
That would be retrograde and unconscionable.
> subject to the
> same principles behind driving being a privilege, including the
> moral and ethical obligation on the part of the state to provide
> *better than adequate* mass transit over its territory (read
> integrated railroads).
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. If some people choose to go to market
in a less safe manner (i.e: driving), /then/ they should have to
monetarily compensate.
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. Cyclists assume nowhere the
same risks as drivers.
>>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).
> 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. Water off a duck's back.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|