I’m just curious how much of a detour you expect cyclists to make in order to avoid a “dangerous” stretch of road.
Well, that all depends on the circumstances, doesn’t it?
Do you have a point? If you do, then make it. If you’re just here to tussle, I’m not interested.
Yeah, you’re not paying attention to statments that don’t involve anyone “flying” anywhere. Like this:
and, as he said a few posts later, it only takes one.
Lute, you’re making very little sense. I have addressed that point ad nauseum. I really don’t have time for your nonsense. Sorry.
I’ll take your lack of an answer as acknowledgement that the accusation-disguised-as-question regarding “flying around blind corners and just hoping nothing’s in the way on the other side” was pulled out of your ass.
By the way, you also ignored the part of cat’s first post in this thread where she said the speed limit drops from 50 to 35.
I think you’re extremely confused about who’s said what. I’ve not said a word about different or safer routes.
Because while I may not have quite the extreme opinion about some cyclists that catsix has, in this case we seem to be talking about very similar situations, and have arrived at very similar conclusions.
I think I’ve made my own arguments, though. If you disagree, the thread is an open book. If you feel you’re being gamed, you can roll tape, find out where, and show everybody how we’re playing you.
OK, I don’t believe the cyclists are “self-entitled assholes,” but plain old morons who are candidates for a Darwin. I’m glad you agree.
Nope. You’re definitely the confused one. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re obviously just as much of an asshole as catsix.
Here’s what I’m saying. And…I’ll…type…slowly…so…you…can…follow.
IF there is a safer alternate route, I would agree that bicyclists would be wise to choose it. If there is not, and a bicyclists needs to use a particular road to get where he’s going, then he must do so.
And pay attention to this part: A BICYCLIST WHO LEGALLY AND PROPERLY USES A ROAD BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY ROUTE AVAILABLE, IS NOT AN “ASSHOLE”.
The asshole is the driver who mistakenly believes a bicycle does not belong on the road.
Well when you jump in on someone else’s argument with a strawman position, I will call you on it.
Nope. I don’t agree. And what’s more, I think you and your lover catsix are greatly exaggerating the danger of having bicycles and cars on the same road.
Whatever you say, sweetie. :rolleyes:
Apparently, Catsix would be that person.
I went back and looked for an example of you gaming me, Firefly, and here it is:
Here you make the claim that there are roads where “you” (which I can only presume is meant to be an indefinite “you”) don’t have much room to slow down. You state this as though it is a fact, with no indication that you consider someone who doesn’t have time to slow down is failing to drive correctly.
Here I respond:
I respond in kind in the second person, questioning your assertion that a driver wouldn’t have time to slow down for obstacles.
Now let’s look at your next reponse:
Now, you suddenly switch from defending the driver’s point of view to claiming that drivers are fools and acting as though you have argued from the bicyclist’s point of view all along. And what’s worse, you act indignant about it.
That’s what I mean by “gaming” people, and it’s bullshit.
That’s all sweet and nice, but that’s a complete non-sequitur in our discussion. Until your last post addressed to me, when you brought it up completely out of the blue, I had not said a word about safer alternate routes, and you had said nothing about them in response to me.
I’d kept half an eye on that part of the larger discussion, but decided a few pages back that I didn’t want to jump in.
If you want to pretend that’s what we’re debating about, then fine. You win. How nice. Where do you want your prize money shipped to?
That something is legal does not, by definition, mean that the person doing it is not an asshole. You can be doing something that is legal and still be an asshole.
Kindly show me where in that quote I said I was either unable to see 136 feet in front of me, or where I said I was driving at excessive speed.
There are a lot of reasons that someone might not stop in time, and as RTFirefly has pointed out already, it only takes once.
So if almost every single time, I can stop in time, and other drivers can stop in time, what’s going to happen to the guy on the bike who went around the curve and then suddenly dropped to, if he’s in excellent shape, maybe five miles an hour? Most of the time, nothing. But as RT said, it only takes once.
And I see that lowbrass is still arguing that these people on bikes ‘need to get where they’re going’ despite the fact that where I live, bicycles as transportation are extremely rare and that those who are out riding their bikes for recreation and exercise (which is all I’ve ever seen in living here nearly 30 years) can and most often do ride more safely somewhere else.
Given that catsix and I, in our encounters on this board, have rarely agreed about anything, and have usually disagreed rather vociferously, I find this quite amusing.
Yeah really.
I think in all the years I’ve been here, this might actually be the first time we’ve agreed on an issue.
Weren’t you arguing the whole time that it’s dangerous to bike there because some people can’t stop in time? If that was in reference to other drivers and not yourself, why are’t you complaining about those drivers instead of the cyclists? After all, it’s the reckless drivers who are breaking the law and creating the danger, not the cyclists.
First of all, how do you know they are recreational riders? I wear fancy helmet and cycling attire and ride a $3000 bike to get to work.
Second, if it is “recreational riding,” it doesn’t mean they have less of a right to be on the road. Just like people who are driving to a vacation destination, who have just as much right to use the road as everyone else.
Third, “recreational” doesn’t mean all roads are equally practical. This road in question leads from one small town to another, you said. It’s very possible that someone lives in one and combining a visit to the other town with exercise. Or perhaps the cyclist is in the middle of a cycling tour, and his/her plan for the day is to get from one town to the other (and beyond)?
Not bad for a first time.
Was it as good for you as it was for me? 
I think it’s working out well so far.
For the record, I don’t hate bike riders. I have a bike. I ride it. I just think there’s some places where even though it’s legal to ride, it’s a bad idea.
What if someone said to a young woman: “You shouldn’t wear makeup and nice dresses in this town. Very few people here do. I can resist the temptation to rape you, but it just takes one horny guy.” Would you say that’s a reasonable advice? Or would you say it’s misguided attempt to blame the victim?
Please find any quote from me where I explicitly said that you ever mentioned alternate routes.
You can’t just ignore issues that you don’t want to be pinned down on. A bicycle is a vehicle that is legally entitled to use public roads, AS MUCH SO as cars. As near as I can figure what your argument is supposed to be, you seem to be saying that bicycles shouldn’t use certain roads. I ONLY agree with you to the extent that the bicyclist is able to get where he wants to go. Sitting at home and not being able to get where he wants to go is not a viable alternative.
I disagree with the argument that you shouldn’t do a thing if that thing is necessary. Driving a car is dangerous, yet you don’t seem to be arguing against driving cars. Crossing the street as a pedestrian is dangerous, yet I haven’t heard you argue against crossing the street.
My opinion as to whether one should ride a bike on a particular road is entirely dependent on the availability of a safer alternative. I’m sure you would consider it quite convenient if you could disallow me from saying so, but as they say - you’re not the boss of me.