Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! - Page 85 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

07-05-2004, 10:29 PM

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.
:}

>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!

>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...

>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...

>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?

>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... ;}

>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!).

>Everyone has the right to ride a bicycle,

This right should be curtailed to a privilege, imo, 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).

>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.
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.

>Some of us have to. Especially with
>the current high (and getting higher) gasoline prices.

They're not that high. Try the (European) Soviet Union.

--
E.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail reply
'91 mx6gt, white, 5sp MT, V1, CB

07-06-2004, 12:39 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
E.R. <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

>>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

07-06-2004, 12:39 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
E.R. <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

>>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

07-06-2004, 12:39 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
E.R. <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

>>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

07-06-2004, 12:39 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
E.R. <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

>>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

07-06-2004, 12:39 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
E.R. <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

>>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

07-09-2004, 01:33 AM

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.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

07-09-2004, 01:33 AM

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.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

07-09-2004, 01:33 AM

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.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

07-09-2004, 01:33 AM

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.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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