so whats the deal with cross walks and the red ahdn and green walking man. why do they get the green walking man when vehicle traffic has a green to proceed. if they cross while its a red hand then what if i hit them? am i guilty?

I like how cyclists seem to randomly choose what they want to be while riding. They switch from being a vehicle (going 15 mph in the middle of a 35 mph lane during rush hour) to a pedestrian (blowing off traffic lights whenever they want to go) whenever they fucking want to. I'm surprised more of these pricks aren't run over each week.

Amen to that. Its pretty rough going on the WOD - especially when there is a clearly marked STOP sign posted facing the WOD for the bicyclists, and they insist on blowing the stop...

Welcome to Fairfax, bitches!!!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2009 12:30PM by WashingTone-Locian.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Welcome to Fairfax, bitches!!!
>
>

LOL. PWN3D!!11!1!

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

I bet the installation of a spiked front bumper on your car would change those uppity bikers' tune.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I bet the installation of a spiked front bumper on
> your car would change those uppity bikers' tune.




Ever seen Death Race 2000?
.
Attachments:

No, but it's on my list of "Things To Do Before I Die."

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, but it's on my list of "Things To Do Before I
> Die."


You haven't? It is a cult classic. It works on two levels, being campy and brilliant at the same time. You really should rent it (those damn French!)

The best part of the movie:

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The best part of the movie:
>
>
>


Isn't this part of the Obama health care plan?

lets not forget this one
Attachments:

Charlie Schmidt's "cool cat" Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lets not forget this one



Wasn't that picture taken in Mexico? I think I read something about a drunk American running over a bunch of Mexican cyclists....must suck to be holed up in a Mexican jail.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The best part of the movie:
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Isn't this part of the Obama health care plan?


Funny, it must be the death panel that Palin predicts (which would be awesome if it was anything like Death Race.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2009 03:45PM by eesh.

The main reason there are stop signs on trails when they cross intersections is to slow down the bicycle traffic enough to give the car drivers enough safe time to yield to them. The Virginia Code says that drivers shall yield to bicycle riders and pedestrians in crosswalks and at most intersections, unless there is some traffic control device or law enforcement person directing traffic otherwise.

At lights, in other words, the bicycle rider/pedestrian has to follow the standard light signals, but the bicycle rider and pedestrian has right of way at all crosswalks (regardless of traffic speed) and at intersections without signals (if the speed is less than 35 mph).

Fairfax County drivers are clearly so good at obeying this law that it almost doesn’t show up in the Fairfax Underground Arrest database. There were only 61 instances of charges of “FAIL YIELD TO PEDESTRIAN” in 2008, compared with 91 examples of “JAYWALKING” and 5610 examples of “FAIL OBEY STOP/YLD-SGN.”


Anyway, here is the Virginia Code:

§ 46.2-904. Use of roller skates and skateboards on sidewalks and shared-use paths;
operation of bicycles, electric power-assisted bicycles, and electric personal assistive
mobility devices on sidewalks and crosswalks and shared-use paths; local ordinances.

A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, or an electric powerassisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

§ 46.2-924. Drivers to stop for pedestrians; installation of certain signs; penalty.

A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

1. At any clearly marked crosswalk, whether at mid-block or at the end of any block;
2. At any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block;
3. At any intersection when the driver is approaching on a highway or street where the legal maximum speed does not exceed 35 miles per hour.

B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A of this section, at intersections or crosswalks where the movement of traffic is being regulated by law-enforcement officers or traffic control devices, the driver shall yield according to the direction of the law-enforcement officer or device.

No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

The drivers of vehicles entering, crossing, or turning at intersections shall change their course, slow down, or stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously.

Pedestrians crossing highways at intersections shall at all times have the right-of-way over vehicles making turns into the highways being crossed by the pedestrians.

Whats the deal with those usless "yield to pedestrians in crosswalk 100-500 dollar fine" signs. has anyone ever been charged with that? From what I understand; bikes on roadways must obey the rules that all other cars follow. But I have noticed them jumping on the sidewalk and using xwalks to avaid stop lights. You have got to be a lil crazy to ride your bIke in the street in Fairfax assuming that all drvers are looking out for you. Watch your back and use the trails when they are available!
When it comes to peds crossing in crosswalks, they must obey the pedheads where avalable. But regardless; if a pedestrian is in a crosswalk they have the right of way. Even if you have a green light, if u hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk, you will be in trouble.
Question; does a cyclist become a pedestrian then hit by a car and flies through the he air??

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like how cyclists seem to randomly choose what
> they want to be while riding. They switch from
> being a vehicle (going 15 mph in the middle of a
> 35 mph lane during rush hour) to a pedestrian
> (blowing off traffic lights whenever they want to
> go) whenever they fucking want to. I'm surprised
> more of these pricks aren't run over each week.


I just witnessed the same thing last week on the Ffx. Co. Pkwy. Some cyclist was riding in the right lane during Rush Hour, despite there being a completely empty and well maintained path on the other side of the roadway, and when the light turned red, he paused, and then proceeded to completely blow through it.

I finally had it tonight when some cyclist was riding like a queer, in the middle of a two lane street through a town, and he kept swaying from side to side while moving at about 5 mph. I rolled up next to him and smacked him in the back of the head. Go figure, he screamed like a Nancy, as expected.

I see asshole bicyclists riding in the roadway RIGHT NEXT TO A LANE OR A PATH WITH A FUCKING PICTURE OF A BICYCLE AND RIDER all the damn time. On Macarthur between cabin john and the DC line, on Lee Highway in arlington, along Park road and Beach drive, etc.

I always lay on the horn as I pass, ever so closely, to these pricks. Usually I yell "Use the fucking bike path you fucking moron!" too.

I guess being impotent from riding a bicycle for too long turns these dickheads into complete morons.

The fuckers run red lights, don't signal their turns, and do all sorts of other stupid shit, and they are the first to complain about anything and lobby for signs saying "share the road". Well, then, fucking share the road, assholes. I don't run you over, so don't purposely block the road and make me late for a meeting.

i honked and swerved at a biker once he got all pissed off. finally he caught up to me when i was stopped at a light. he started talking shit, i said fuck you get the fuck out of the road! he punched my car and then i introduced him to my good ol friends Smith and Wesson. i guess he wasnt really the chit chat type cause he left in a hurry.

bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i honked and swerved at a biker once he got all
> pissed off. finally he caught up to me when i was
> stopped at a light. he started talking shit, i
> said fuck you get the fuck out of the road! he
> punched my car and then i introduced him to my
> good ol friends Smith and Wesson. i guess he wasnt
> really the chit chat type cause he left in a
> hurry.


I know throwing objects at a moving car is a felony. I wonder if punching one counts. Just take your foot off the brakes for a second while he winds up to throw and you might be able to get the guy a reservation at the county lockup for a weekend or two.

Then the loser has to deal with impotence AND a felony conviction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2009 12:47AM by Thurston Moore.

To the whiners,

Cyclists by law are allowed to ride on all roads except for those limited access highways where non-motorized vehicles are prohibited, ex: I-495, etc. It doesn't matter if there is some shared-use bike/walking path adjacent, cyclists have the right to use the road instead. We who obey traffic signals find the roads safer as the road conditions are better: relatively level, free of debris, free of unpredictable moving pets, children, less risk of automobiles suddenly pulling out of driveways or encroaching into crosswalks at intersections (this one is a frequent and major hazard).

So what if you have to slow down for 30 yards once or twice a day for a cyclist while in the car; you have to do that for other cars under different circumstances, too. Get over yourselves.

Save your breath, my experience is that the self-righteous fat fucks that whine and bitch about cyclists will never come around to understand our point of view. When you spend all of your time behind the wheel, or on the couch, you just can't appreciate how difficult it is out there. They should understand though that their attitude towards cyclists is what causes a lot of what they perceive as bad behavior by cyclists. When you've tried to signal and merge over, and drivers just keep ignoring you and whizzing by, eventually you realize you you're going to have to show some attitude.

By the way, PackLeader, you better be careful about who you slap upside the head. You got a Nancy that time, if you ever do that to me I will be the living shit out of you.


Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To the whiners,
>
> Cyclists by law are allowed to ride on all roads
> except for those limited access highways where
> non-motorized vehicles are prohibited, ex: I-495,
> etc. It doesn't matter if there is some shared-use
> bike/walking path adjacent, cyclists have the
> right to use the road instead. We who obey traffic
> signals find the roads safer as the road
> conditions are better: relatively level, free of
> debris, free of unpredictable moving pets,
> children, less risk of automobiles suddenly
> pulling out of driveways or encroaching into
> crosswalks at intersections (this one is a
> frequent and major hazard).
>
> So what if you have to slow down for 30 yards once
> or twice a day for a cyclist while in the car; you
> have to do that for other cars under different
> circumstances, too. Get over yourselves.

PackMan is lying; the cyclist probably told him to get out of the car and settle it, but PackMan kept driving on like a coward.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To the whiners,
>
> Cyclists by law are allowed to ride on all roads
> except for those limited access highways where
> non-motorized vehicles are prohibited, ex: I-495,
> etc. It doesn't matter if there is some shared-use
> bike/walking path adjacent, cyclists have the
> right to use the road instead. We who obey traffic
> signals find the roads safer as the road
> conditions are better: relatively level, free of
> debris, free of unpredictable moving pets,
> children, less risk of automobiles suddenly
> pulling out of driveways or encroaching into
> crosswalks at intersections (this one is a
> frequent and major hazard).
>
> So what if you have to slow down for 30 yards once
> or twice a day for a cyclist while in the car; you
> have to do that for other cars under different
> circumstances, too. Get over yourselves.

Then follow the fucking law. Stop at a fucking red light. Use hand signals to indicate a turn. And when you are going 15 in a 35 and you have a row of traffic behind you, get to the right so others may pass.

I stop at red lights and use hand signals, which drivers appear to take as a signal to hurry up so that they don't end up waiting 3 seconds while I merge over. And I stay over as far as possible, but that doesn't stop drivers from honking or practically clipping me as they pass. This morning, as I was waiting to make a right turn on red, a driver came right up and turned in front of me, ignoring the fact that I had gotten there first and had the right of way. Why can't you just admit that it has nothing to do with whether cyclists obey the law and everything to do with your self-importance.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> Then follow the fucking law. Stop at a fucking red
> light. Use hand signals to indicate a turn. And
> when you are going 15 in a 35 and you have a row
> of traffic behind you, get to the right so others
> may pass.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We who obey traffic signals...
>
> Then follow the fucking law. Stop at a fucking red
> light. Use hand signals to indicate a turn. And
> when you are going 15 in a 35 and you have a row
> of traffic behind you, get to the right so others
> may pass.

Learn to read.

Right, because you CAN bike along at a crisp 10 mph in the middle of the road and back up traffic for a mile, you totally should, because it's your right and you're not at all a bike-riding douchebag.

I have no problem sharing the road with bikers, but they're all so goddamn smug about it. "I'm getting exercise and helping the environment, so I have the priority."

I see this shit all the time, too. Big, open, vacant sidewalk by the road, but they'll ride right down the center lane like there's not tons of steel flying by them. And then they'll fall because they suck, almost causing an accident.

Fuck cyclists. Get off the roads, pussies.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I have no problem sharing the road with bikers,
> but they're all so goddamn smug about it. "I'm
> getting exercise and helping the environment, so I
> have the priority."
>
>

And getting massive amounts of debris and shit in their lungs while doing it. Next to smoking, air pollution is one of the biggest causes of lung cancer. These assholes are out there sucking in massive amounts of brake dust and car emissions and thinking, "I'm so fucking healthy." Wait 20 years.

<3 to honk, yell, and flick bikers off...

skinny spandex wearing fagguts need to stick to the sidewalk

bike h8r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> skinny spandex wearing fagguts need to stick to
> the sidewalk


The fat ones should stay on the road?

Silly troll, I'm bored at work so I'll feed you.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I have no problem sharing the road with bikers,
> but they're all so goddamn smug about it. "I'm
> getting exercise and helping the environment, so I
> have the priority."

Have you asked ALL cyclists why we are cycling? How do you know we are all smug? Yes, we get exercise and help the environment - we don't always have the right of way, though.

> I see this shit all the time, too. Big, open,
> vacant sidewalk by the road, but they'll ride
> right down the center lane like there's not tons
> of steel flying by them.

You exaggerate here, too. I ride anywhere from 20-45 mph depending on the grade, so sidewalks are definitely not an option for me. Roads are much safer. I'll say that the overwhelming majority of motorists are courteous to me and give me adequete berth. I just stay to the right, unless making a left turn.

> And then they'll fall because they suck, almost causing an accident.

That's YOU on a bicycle; learn to ride.

> Fuck cyclists. Get off the roads, pussies.

I challenge you to stop and get out of your vehicle in front of a cyclist and tell him, "Fuck cyclists. Get off the roads, pussies." I promise you a sound spanking.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Silly troll, I'm bored at work so I'll feed you.
>
>

Troll? I'll have you know that Mr Mephisto is a scholar and a gentleman!

I'm sure it will be a spanking, but not the type most people are think about...

Air Pollution Linked to Deaths From Lung Cancer
Risk for Other Diseases Is Increased As Well
Article date: 2002/03/06

Air pollution – mainly from vehicles, industry, and power plants – raises the chances of lung cancer and heart disease in people exposed to it long term, according to a report in the March 6 Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 287, No. 9: 1132-1141).

"There's an excess risk of both lung cancer and cardiopulmonary disease associated with increased exposure to fine particles [in air pollution]," said study co-author C. Arden Pope III, PhD, at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

The risk comes when gases from auto exhaust and smokestacks combine with oxygen in the air to form very small particles that are breathed in, said Pope.

Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer, said Pope.

But breathing very polluted air long-term can raise the risk of lung cancer as much as breathing second-hand smoke, he added.

All that and a janitor too?


WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> Troll? I'll have you know that Mr Mephisto is a
> scholar and a gentleman!

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Silly troll, I'm bored at work so I'll feed you.
>
> >
> >
>
> Troll? I'll have you know that Mr Mephisto is a
> scholar and a gentleman!


Maybe Gravis can use his IP tracking tool....

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure it will be a spanking, but not the type
> most people are think about...
Attachments:

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right, because you CAN bike along at a crisp 10
> mph in the middle of the road and back up traffic
> for a mile, you totally should, because it's your
> right and you're not at all a bike-riding
> douchebag.
>
> I have no problem sharing the road with bikers,
> but they're all so goddamn smug about it. "I'm
> getting exercise and helping the environment, so I
> have the priority."
>
> I see this shit all the time, too. Big, open,
> vacant sidewalk by the road, but they'll ride
> right down the center lane like there's not tons
> of steel flying by them. And then they'll fall
> because they suck, almost causing an accident.
>
> Fuck cyclists. Get off the roads, pussies.



I carry a broom with me to jam in their wheel spokes as they sail past me sometimes in the middle of the f'ing road

BetterIdea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Right, because you CAN bike along at a crisp 10
> > mph in the middle of the road and back up
> traffic
> > for a mile, you totally should, because it's
> your
> > right and you're not at all a bike-riding
> > douchebag.
> >
> > I have no problem sharing the road with bikers,
> > but they're all so goddamn smug about it. "I'm
> > getting exercise and helping the environment, so
> I
> > have the priority."
> >
> > I see this shit all the time, too. Big, open,
> > vacant sidewalk by the road, but they'll ride
> > right down the center lane like there's not
> tons
> > of steel flying by them. And then they'll fall
> > because they suck, almost causing an accident.
> >
> > Fuck cyclists. Get off the roads, pussies.
>
>
>
> I carry a broom with me to jam in their wheel
> spokes as they sail past me sometimes in the
> middle of the f'ing road


are you a witch or a maid

How silly of me. I thought "Share The Road" meant BOTH parties had to share, in mutual respect and consideration. I'll try not to disturb these future Lance Armstrongs from their training regiment and faggoty spandex.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll try not to disturb these
> future Lance Armstrongs from their training
> regiment and faggoty spandex.



.
Attachments:

Cyclist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I stop at red lights and use hand signals, which
> drivers appear to take as a signal to hurry up so
> that they don't end up waiting 3 seconds while I
> merge over. And I stay over as far as possible,
> but that doesn't stop drivers from honking or
> practically clipping me as they pass. This
> morning, as I was waiting to make a right turn on
> red, a driver came right up and turned in front of
> me, ignoring the fact that I had gotten there
> first and had the right of way. Why can't you
> just admit that it has nothing to do with whether
> cyclists obey the law and everything to do with
> your self-importance.
>

Don't forget that the drivers that are pissing you off are also pissing off all the other drivers. Those are inattentive pricks either on their cell phones or ruminating about their boss bitching them out about how worthless and stupid they are. Or eating, or just being anything but a person driving a car, at the moment.

If you are a bicyclist who is respectful of the road rules, like you say, then I would never fuck with you on the road, I would be willing to wait behind you on a two-lane road if there wasn't sufficient space for me to pass, and I would know what your hand signals mean.

I see bike riders who abuse their "rights" all the time, and I see bike riders who respect the rules of the road. I give space to the respectful bike riders, but get very angry with the asswads who just don't seem to care, or even sometimes appear to be hostile towards drivers.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How silly of me. I thought "Share The Road" meant
> BOTH parties had to share, in mutual respect and
> consideration. I'll try not to disturb these
> future Lance Armstrongs from their training
> regiment and faggoty spandex.


Have mercy on these folks. They are sacrificing their hard ons and libidos to save the environment and be healthy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/health/nutrition/04bike.html

In a bluntly worded editorial with the articles, Dr. Steven Schrader, a reproductive health expert who studies cycling at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, said he believed that it was no longer a question of "whether or not bicycle riding on a saddle causes erectile dysfunction."

Cyclist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Save your breath, my experience is that the
> self-righteous fat fucks that whine and bitch
> about cyclists will never come around to
> understand our point of view. When you spend all
> of your time behind the wheel, or on the couch,
> you just can't appreciate how difficult it is out
> there. They should understand though that their
> attitude towards cyclists is what causes a lot of
> what they perceive as bad behavior by cyclists.
> When you've tried to signal and merge over, and
> drivers just keep ignoring you and whizzing by,
> eventually you realize you you're going to have to
> show some attitude.
>
> By the way, PackLeader, you better be careful
> about who you slap upside the head. You got a
> Nancy that time, if you ever do that to me I will
> be the living shit out of you.
>
>
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To the whiners,
> >
> > Cyclists by law are allowed to ride on all
> roads
> > except for those limited access highways where
> > non-motorized vehicles are prohibited, ex:
> I-495,
> > etc. It doesn't matter if there is some
> shared-use
> > bike/walking path adjacent, cyclists have the
> > right to use the road instead. We who obey
> traffic
> > signals find the roads safer as the road
> > conditions are better: relatively level, free
> of
> > debris, free of unpredictable moving pets,
> > children, less risk of automobiles suddenly
> > pulling out of driveways or encroaching into
> > crosswalks at intersections (this one is a
> > frequent and major hazard).
> >
> > So what if you have to slow down for 30 yards
> once
> > or twice a day for a cyclist while in the car;
> you
> > have to do that for other cars under different
> > circumstances, too. Get over yourselves.


Lol, sure you will. I'll smack you too, then beat you down with your own helmet.

WTOP reports that a four-mile stretch of Lawyers Road in Reston will soon be equipped with bike lanes, a result of changing the four-lane scheme to a three-lane (middle being for turns) scheme. Good deal!

Someone made a point about bikers endangering themselves by greatly increased exposure to air pollution. While logic seems to support that idea with biker’s increased respiration in close proximity to car exhausts, below are some links to a few relevant but surprising studies. One is a study of commuters in Australia that shows that of all the modes of commuting transportation, commuting by train seems to expose individuals to the lowest levels of dangerous pollution, followed by bicycles and walking, with cars being the worst. The summary:

“The highest pollutant levels for all four BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene) pollutants were found for car commuters. Train commuters recorded the lowest pollutant levels for all four BTEX pollutants and NO2, and these levels were significantly lower than that for car commuters. Commuting by bus recorded the highest levels for NO2. Walking and cycling commuters had significantly lower levels of exposure to benzene compared with car commuters and significantly lower levels of NO2 than bus commuters.”

http://www.bfa.asn.au/cms/uploads/resources/hpja_air_pollution_exposure.pdf

A 1998 European study likewise found that pedestrians on sidewalks were the best off, bicycle riders were similar to or better off than vehicle occupants because they were typically in the slightly better curbside air, bus and truck cabins proved less polluted because of their air intake differences, and occupants of cars had highest exposure to pollution because they travelled essentially in a tunnel of pollution and “fresh air” input was anything but fresh.

http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp04.2.pdf

So the upshot is biking or walking on nice paths is best for your respiration, but even slight separation from cars’ travel lanes appears to be better for your pollutant intake than riding in a car in traffic. If you look at the cost-benefit of bicycling from an exercise perspective, though, one British survey estimated that approximately 20 life-years are gained from the health benefits of road bicycling for every life-year lost through injury. (British Medical Association; Mayhew Hillman, David Morgan (1992). Cycling: Towards Health and Safety.)

neville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone made a point about bikers endangering
> themselves by greatly increased exposure to air
> pollution. While logic seems to support that idea
> with biker’s increased respiration in close
> proximity to car exhausts, below are some links to
> a few relevant but surprising studies. One is a
> study of commuters in Australia that shows that of
> all the modes of commuting transportation,
> commuting by train seems to expose individuals to
> the lowest levels of dangerous pollution, followed
> by bicycles and walking, with cars being the
> worst. The summary:
>
> “The highest pollutant levels for all four BTEX
> (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene)
> pollutants were found for car commuters. Train
> commuters recorded the lowest pollutant levels for
> all four BTEX pollutants and NO2, and these levels
> were significantly lower than that for car
> commuters. Commuting by bus recorded the highest
> levels for NO2. Walking and cycling commuters had
> significantly lower levels of exposure to benzene
> compared with car commuters and significantly
> lower levels of NO2 than bus commuters.”
>
> http://www.bfa.asn.au/cms/uploads/resources/hpja_a
> ir_pollution_exposure.pdf
>
> A 1998 European study likewise found that
> pedestrians on sidewalks were the best off,
> bicycle riders were similar to or better off than
> vehicle occupants because they were typically in
> the slightly better curbside air, bus and truck
> cabins proved less polluted because of their air
> intake differences, and occupants of cars had
> highest exposure to pollution because they
> travelled essentially in a tunnel of pollution and
> “fresh air” input was anything but fresh.
>
> http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp04.2.pdf
>
> So the upshot is biking or walking on nice paths
> is best for your respiration, but even slight
> separation from cars’ travel lanes appears to be
> better for your pollutant intake than riding in a
> car in traffic. If you look at the cost-benefit
> of bicycling from an exercise perspective, though,
> one British survey estimated that approximately 20
> life-years are gained from the health benefits of
> road bicycling for every life-year lost through
> injury. (British Medical Association; Mayhew
> Hillman, David Morgan (1992). Cycling: Towards
> Health and Safety.)


tl;dr

-__- Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> neville Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Someone made a point about bikers endangering
> > themselves by greatly increased exposure to air
> > pollution. While logic seems to support that
> idea
> > with biker’s increased respiration in close
> > proximity to car exhausts, below are some links
> to
> > a few relevant but surprising studies. One is
> a
> > study of commuters in Australia that shows that
> of
> > all the modes of commuting transportation,
> > commuting by train seems to expose individuals
> to
> > the lowest levels of dangerous pollution,
> followed
> > by bicycles and walking, with cars being the
> > worst. The summary:
> >
> > “The highest pollutant levels for all four BTEX
> > (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene)
> > pollutants were found for car commuters. Train
> > commuters recorded the lowest pollutant levels
> for
> > all four BTEX pollutants and NO2, and these
> levels
> > were significantly lower than that for car
> > commuters. Commuting by bus recorded the
> highest
> > levels for NO2. Walking and cycling commuters
> had
> > significantly lower levels of exposure to
> benzene
> > compared with car commuters and significantly
> > lower levels of NO2 than bus commuters.”
> >
> >
> http://www.bfa.asn.au/cms/uploads/resources/hpja_a
>
> > ir_pollution_exposure.pdf
> >
> > A 1998 European study likewise found that
> > pedestrians on sidewalks were the best off,
> > bicycle riders were similar to or better off
> than
> > vehicle occupants because they were typically
> in
> > the slightly better curbside air, bus and truck
> > cabins proved less polluted because of their
> air
> > intake differences, and occupants of cars had
> > highest exposure to pollution because they
> > travelled essentially in a tunnel of pollution
> and
> > “fresh air” input was anything but fresh.
> >
> > http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp04.2.pdf
> >
> > So the upshot is biking or walking on nice
> paths
> > is best for your respiration, but even slight
> > separation from cars’ travel lanes appears to
> be
> > better for your pollutant intake than riding in
> a
> > car in traffic. If you look at the
> cost-benefit
> > of bicycling from an exercise perspective,
> though,
> > one British survey estimated that approximately
> 20
> > life-years are gained from the health benefits
> of
> > road bicycling for every life-year lost through
> > injury. (British Medical Association; Mayhew
> > Hillman, David Morgan (1992). Cycling: Towards
> > Health and Safety.)
>
>
> tl;dr

+1

I don't need to read all of that shit to know that cyclists still need to get the fuck out of the road.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

How does having something like this shoved up your ass for hours as you go over bumps and hills while wearing Spandex not make you fucking gay.....

Your package fits into the hole...

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't need to read all of that shit to know that
> cyclists still need to get the fuck out of the
> road.

I just fed you yesterday, back for more already? No problem, have some more:

More bike lanes coming soon on Lawyers Road means more cyclists on the road - you lose.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I don't need to read all of that shit to know
> that
> > cyclists still need to get the fuck out of the
> > road.
>
> I just fed you yesterday, back for more already?
> No problem, have some more:
>
> More bike lanes coming soon on Lawyers Road means
> more cyclists on the road - you lose.

Oh wow, it's a good thing I don't drive over Lawyers Road.

And I don't see how "I lose." At the end of the day, I'm still not the asshole who's going to be found by the paramedics wearing some faggoty spandex biking outfit.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MrMephisto Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > I don't need to read all of that shit to know
> > that
> > > cyclists still need to get the fuck out of
> the
> > > road.
> >
> > I just fed you yesterday, back for more
> already?
> > No problem, have some more:
> >
> > More bike lanes coming soon on Lawyers Road
> means
> > more cyclists on the road - you lose.
>
> Oh wow, it's a good thing I don't drive over
> Lawyers Road.
>
> And I don't see how "I lose." At the end of the
> day, I'm still not the asshole who's going to be
> found by the paramedics wearing some faggoty
> spandex biking outfit.


Talking about "Paramedics", it's kind of ironic that just yesterday I heard a loud crash, and people shouting everywhere. I walked outside and saw a cyclist layed out from having run into the side of a car. Apparently the guy in the car was making a U-Turn, and either he didn't see the cyclists, or they failed to stop, but regardless the guy was layed out.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I don't need to read all of that shit to know
> that
> > cyclists still need to get the fuck out of the
> > road.
>
> I just fed you yesterday, back for more already?
> No problem, have some more:
>
> More bike lanes coming soon on Lawyers Road means
> more cyclists on the road - you lose.

This means more maimed cyclists. Are sorts of trucks drive at 50 or more on Lawyers. You want to be biking next to some high drunk mexican driving a truck at 50 mph? You need to be weeded out.

Would you be so kind as to take the chip off of your shoulder long enough to answer a stupid yet obvious question: what good are on-road bike lanes that go only a couple of miles from nowhere in particular to nowhere in particular?

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I don't need to read all of that shit to know
> that
> > cyclists still need to get the fuck out of the
> > road.
>
> I just fed you yesterday, back for more already?
> No problem, have some more:
>
> More bike lanes coming soon on Lawyers Road means
> more cyclists on the road - you lose.

The only way I would support cyclists on the road if they were the cyclists in queens music video for bicycle race.

If I am going to choose someone to brawl with... The last person I am going to mess with is a well conditioned athlete capable of riding 100 miles per clip.

A Troll Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would you be so kind as to take the chip off of
> your shoulder long enough to answer a stupid yet
> obvious question: what good are on-road bike
> lanes that go only a couple of miles from nowhere
> in particular to nowhere in particular?

No chip here, just correctly attributing the characterization 'troll' to a fellow poster who relies on obscenity-laced diatribes.

To answer your question, first we must agree on some basic assumptions. For example, can you specify "from nowhere in particular to nowhere in particular"? For now, I can only say that bike lanes would serve the following purposes:

1. Delineate shared use of the road to both motorists and cyclists
2. Provide a "boundary" for cyclists to honor, and likewise for motorists
3. Encourage more people to ride bicycles for either general or commuting purposes

I'm sure that there are other purposes, too. If you wish to focus on the Lawyers Road adjustment, then the other thread might be a more appropriate place to discuss.

I enjoy bike riding, away from traffic.

What I can't figure out is the leotards some bicyclists wear.

I have no problem riding in a pair of cargo shorts and a Budweiser T-Shirt.

What's up with the funny clothes?

Question Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I enjoy bike riding, away from traffic.
>
> What I can't figure out is the leotards some
> bicyclists wear.
>
> I have no problem riding in a pair of cargo shorts
> and a Budweiser T-Shirt.
>
> What's up with the funny clothes?

Lance Armstrong wannabes?

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> To answer your question, first we must agree on
> some basic assumptions. For example, can you
> specify "from nowhere in particular to nowhere in
> particular"? For now, I can only say that bike
> lanes would serve the following purposes:
>
> 1. Delineate shared use of the road to both
> motorists and cyclists
> 2. Provide a "boundary" for cyclists to honor, and
> likewise for motorists

But it seems there are a lot of cyclists who refuse to use the bike lane and instead insist on riding right in the middle of the road.

> 3. Encourage more people to ride bicycles for
> either general or commuting purposes
>

I don't believe it will actually encourage more cyclists. It might make it easier for current cyclists, however.

> I'm sure that there are other purposes, too. If
> you wish to focus on the Lawyers Road adjustment,
> then the other thread might be a more appropriate
> place to discuss.

I would assume that it would somehow connect in to the W&OD bike trail.

Question Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I enjoy bike riding, away from traffic.
>
> What I can't figure out is the leotards some
> bicyclists wear.
>
> I have no problem riding in a pair of cargo shorts
> and a Budweiser T-Shirt.
>
> What's up with the funny clothes?


They want all their cyclist buddies to know they are serious bike riders. Those guys won't go out on a date with just anyone.

Question Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I enjoy bike riding, away from traffic.
>
> What I can't figure out is the leotards some
> bicyclists wear.
>
> I have no problem riding in a pair of cargo shorts
> and a Budweiser T-Shirt.
>
> What's up with the funny clothes?

The muscles experience continual road vibration, and over time, cause them to fatigue more quickly. It's tiring for them to be continually shaking. The tights provide muscle support and reduce the road vibration, causing them to fatigue less. Less fatigue, more speed, endurance, strength, you get the picture.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But it seems there are a lot of cyclists who
> refuse to use the bike lane and instead insist on
> riding right in the middle of the road.

Currently there are no bike lanes on Lawyers Rd., so some ignorant (inpudent?) cyclists will wind up in the middle of the road. Virginia law requires us to use the right side of the road unless making a left turn.

> I don't believe it will actually encourage more
> cyclists. It might make it easier for current
> cyclists, however.

A debatable point, I cannot disprove your assertion.

> I would assume that it would somehow connect in to
> the W&OD bike trail.

Currently not in any obvious manner.

Most people, shortly after their teen years, start to care less about "what's cool" and more about what actually works well. It's the same reason that calling someone "a fag" doesn't have much impact past the point of adolescence.

Question Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I enjoy bike riding, away from traffic.
>
> What I can't figure out is the leotards some
> bicyclists wear.
>
> I have no problem riding in a pair of cargo shorts
> and a Budweiser T-Shirt.
>
> What's up with the funny clothes?

I, being a "cyclist", think that those spandex suits are worn by bikers who WANT to look cool. Some are in a club while others want to look like the guys on TV.

Cyclist,
Can you explain HOW the spandex is superior to athletic shorts and a T-shirt? Or are you only capable of back-handed insults?

Furthermore, if you just care about what "works well", why not just ride topless? That has to be more comfortable than spandex.

Cyclist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most people, shortly after their teen years, start
> to care less about "what's cool" and more about
> what actually works well. It's the same reason
> that calling someone "a fag" doesn't have much
> impact past the point of adolescence.
>
> Question Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I enjoy bike riding, away from traffic.
> >
> > What I can't figure out is the leotards some
> > bicyclists wear.
> >
> > I have no problem riding in a pair of cargo
> shorts
> > and a Budweiser T-Shirt.
> >
> > What's up with the funny clothes?

Nice justifications for the faggy spandex suits.

Mr. Tuttle is right. Those stupid suits are only worn by people who want to make absolutely sure everyone knows just how much they like cycling. I find it hard to believe that anyone not cycling on a professional level would notice a difference in their performance due to "road vibrations."

It's the equivalent of a ricer putting a "Type R" sticker, a spoiler, and some stripes on his Honda; it doesn't actually do anything, but try convincing him of that.

Actually, though, I'm glad cyclists choose to adorn themselves in gaudy bodysuits; I can identify people I have zero interest in talking to from a mile away.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

You may want to wait until they get a little closer than a mile before you completely dismiss them, Sr. Mephisto.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Actually, though, I'm glad cyclists choose to
> adorn themselves in gaudy bodysuits; I can
> identify people I have zero interest in talking to
> from a mile away.
Attachments:

Whatever. Even those girls look like douchebags unless they're the official HP Team in the Tour de France.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

I would love to see MrMephisto's massive cock bulge in tight spandex.

Please. It's mostly about aerodynamics, preventing chafing, and the fact that loose clothing is much more likely to get caught in something. It's the difference between attempting to do something well, and being worried about what people think of you.


MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice justifications for the faggy spandex suits.
>
> Mr. Tuttle is right. Those stupid suits are only
> worn by people who want to make absolutely sure
> everyone knows just how much they like cycling. I
> find it hard to believe that anyone not cycling on
> a professional level would notice a difference in
> their performance due to "road vibrations."
>
> It's the equivalent of a ricer putting a "Type R"
> sticker, a spoiler, and some stripes on his Honda;
> it doesn't actually do anything, but try
> convincing him of that.
>
> Actually, though, I'm glad cyclists choose to
> adorn themselves in gaudy bodysuits; I can
> identify people I have zero interest in talking to
> from a mile away.

Cyclist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please. It's mostly about aerodynamics,
> preventing chafing, and the fact that loose
> clothing is much more likely to get caught in
> something. It's the difference between attempting
> to do something well, and being worried about what
> people think of you.
>
>

Because when you're using the roads to "train" for whatever "competition" you dream of being in someday, you can't be hindered by clothing that isn't aerodynamic, and you can't be bothered to put some baby powder on your little buddies, and you can't wear shorts or roll up your right pant leg to avoid it getting caught in the chain?

Doing something well? So, if you go swimming, you spend $6,000 on the latest competition level swimsuit?

Harry Tuttle's right. The people that do that are just trying to look like what they saw on TV. That's why all the sports equipment companies spend millions getting athletes to wear and use their stuff. Because there are people who will attempt to mimick them and will spend thousands upon thousands of dollars just to enjoy a bike ride.

I've been a skier all of my life. But I just put on warm layers and my boots and skis. I don't attempt to model the latest gear used in Olympic winter sports. We laugh at the newbie skiers who have all the latest sports gear clothing on at the slopes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2009 11:20PM by Thurston Moore.

Silly troll, you must really like being my beyotch. Here, have some more meat:

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice justifications for the faggy spandex suits.

Thank you

> Mr. Tuttle is right. Those stupid suits are only
> worn by people who want to make absolutely sure
> everyone knows just how much they like cycling. I
> find it hard to believe that anyone not cycling on
> a professional level would notice a difference in
> their performance due to "road vibrations."

You've no experience yourself, how would you know?

> It's the equivalent of a ricer putting a "Type R"
> sticker, a spoiler, and some stripes on his Honda;
> it doesn't actually do anything, but try
> convincing him of that.

Poor analogy, aerodynamics on a Honda does not relate to absorption of road vibrations over several hours riding a bike. I'll give you another try if you're still hungry for more.

> Actually, though, I'm glad cyclists choose to
> adorn themselves in gaudy bodysuits; I can
> identify people I have zero interest in talking to
> from a mile away.

I'm guessing you lay in waste indoors most of the time, poor thing.

Bon appetit!

Again, it doesn't actually do anything, but you'll never be convinced of that because you don't want to live in a world where people don't know you're a cyclist.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

So let me get this straight. You think I should ride around in sweat drenched clothes, with my balls coated in a talcum/sweat paste, and my pants tucked into my socks just so that the couch potatoes on FFU won't think I look "faggy"?

Thurston Moore Wrote:
> Because when you're using the roads to "train" for
> whatever "competition" you dream of being in
> someday, you can't be hindered by clothing that
> isn't aerodynamic, and you can't be bothered to
> put some baby powder on your little buddies, and
> you can't wear shorts or roll up your right pant
> leg to avoid it getting caught in the chain?
>

You seem to be a little confused. People know we're cyclists because they see us riding--we don't wear cycling clothes when not on the bike. And if those clothes "didn't actually do anything", then why wouldn't professional cyclists just wear shorts and t-shirts too? I think the root of the problem may lie in a misunderstanding about the kind of riding were doing. Yes, jeans and t-shirts would be fine for taking your beater a 1/2 mile down to the 7-11 to buy another pack of smokes because the restricted license you got after your last DUI doesn't allow you to drive except to and from work. Riding 60 or 70 miles or more is a different story. Don't believe me? Try it.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, it doesn't actually do anything, but you'll
> never be convinced of that because you don't want
> to live in a world where people don't know you're
> a cyclist.

I want to see Mephisto's bulge in spandex. Maybe we can get sweaty together on some secluded bike trail.

Please note this is a different person posting as 'Cyclist', not the person who has been posting in this thread so far.

Cyclist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I want to see Mephisto's bulge in spandex. Maybe
> we can get sweaty together on some secluded bike
> trail.

Thank you for going where Cyclist could not go. I'll buy the road vibrations explanation. But why would that luxury be necessary while training? Swimmers train with hairy bodies and sometimes even drag suits then shave it all off for a competition. Why train under optimum conditions?

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Poor analogy, aerodynamics on a Honda does not
> relate to absorption of road vibrations over
> several hours riding a bike. I'll give you another
> try if you're still hungry for more.
>

Read the thread more carfully, Tuttle. I gave several explanations for wearing clothing specifically designed for cycling. These clothes wick away moisture, have built in chamois to prevent chafing, are tight-fitting to reduce drag, provide support to muscles, are not at risk of getting caught in chains or other moving parts, and are light. Why train in optimal conditions? It's basically about comfort. Riding several hours over distances of scores of miles is exhausting. Doing it while chafed, soaked in sweat, and battling more wind than necessary just doesn't making any sense. I ran my first marathon in cotton shorts and a t-shirt. As I gained more experience I learned how to train and race smarter in clothing that made sense for the activity. You wouldn't climb Mount Everest in a sweater, and you wouldn't hike the Grand Canyon in a parka. I dare you to take my challenge and wear jeans and a t-shirt on a 70 mile ride.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for going where Cyclist could not go.

I'm content with my athletic shorts and T-shirt (If you read the thread more carefully you will notice I made no mention of jeans). If my shirt gets too soaked, I take it off. My shorts never get caught in anything. Since I don't compete, I see no need to buy performance enhancing clothing.

How long does it take you to complete a 70 mile ride?

Cyclist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dare
> you to take my challenge and wear jeans and a
> t-shirt on a 70 mile ride.

I don't care what cyclist wear, just use the fucking hand signels and quit going between cars when we are stopped at a red light.

---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo

Personally, I don't care what anyone else wears. I see people wearing baggy shorts, cotton clothing, jeans, no shirts, whatever. I know they could be more comfortable but it isn't any of my business. Notice though that I never said anything about performance. The vast majority of amateur cyclists do not compete. People do it for a variety of reasons--weight loss, fitness, commuting, sense of achievement, but very few actually race. Unlike running, most cycling events are not timed and while some people may have personal time goals that they are trying to achieve, most are just trying to complete the distance. The clothing is about comfort, not performance.

How long it would take to ride 70 miles depends on the terrain, wind conditions, whether you are riding alone or in a group, and the type of ride--whether it is an endurance training ride or at an event where you are rested and fresh. I could do it in anywhere between 3 and 4+ hours.


Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm content with my athletic shorts and T-shirt
> (If you read the thread more carefully you will
> notice I made no mention of jeans). If my shirt
> gets too soaked, I take it off. My shorts never
> get caught in anything. Since I don't compete, I
> see no need to buy performance enhancing
> clothing.
>
> How long does it take you to complete a 70 mile
> ride?
>
> Cyclist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I dare
> > you to take my challenge and wear jeans and a
> > t-shirt on a 70 mile ride.

Cyclist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I don't care what anyone else wears.
> I see people wearing baggy shorts, cotton
> clothing, jeans, no shirts, whatever. I know they
> could be more comfortable but it isn't any of my
> business. Notice though that I never said
> anything about performance. The vast majority of
> amateur cyclists do not compete. People do it for
> a variety of reasons--weight loss, fitness,
> commuting, sense of achievement, but very few
> actually race. Unlike running, most cycling
> events are not timed and while some people may
> have personal time goals that they are trying to
> achieve, most are just trying to complete the
> distance. The clothing is about comfort, not
> performance.
>
> How long it would take to ride 70 miles depends on
> the terrain, wind conditions, whether you are
> riding alone or in a group, and the type of
> ride--whether it is an endurance training ride or
> at an event where you are rested and fresh. I
> could do it in anywhere between 3 and 4+ hours.
>
>
> Harry Tuttle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm content with my athletic shorts and T-shirt
> > (If you read the thread more carefully you will
> > notice I made no mention of jeans). If my shirt
> > gets too soaked, I take it off. My shorts never
> > get caught in anything. Since I don't compete,
> I
> > see no need to buy performance enhancing
> > clothing.
> >
> > How long does it take you to complete a 70 mile
> > ride?
> >
> > Cyclist Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I dare
> > > you to take my challenge and wear jeans and a
> > > t-shirt on a 70 mile ride.


It most certainly does depend upon the terrain. I've ridden for 20+ miles before, and it took the good part of a day, and a portion of the next. Then again, it was all off-road Mountain Biking. I didn't have any fancy gear either, just a Helmet, a pack, and a small (Yet Nice) Bike Computer.

Since when is it legal to ride a bike on a concrete sidewalk? I hate the bikers having to share the road too, but it's the law in most cases so as long as they do their part I try to do mine. I don't see them as at fault per say.

But some of the smugness from the bike riders here.. I mean, listen, I want to know why people use the road when bike path is right there, without using the excuse "because the law says I can". The laws says you can use the bike path, too, and isn't it safer and more sensible to use the path? Yet once a week or more I see people biking in heavy traffic on roads with bike paths. Those assholes need to just die.

I think we've covered this, but I'll summarize again. First of all, bike paths are certainly not ubiquitous. Along the Fairfax County Parkway, for example, the path is there part of the way, then disappears during other parts. Moving from the road to the path and back again is time consuming and a pain. Also, the transitions where the paths cross roads is jarring and comfortable, and the paths frequently have cracks and bumps that are painful when you ride over them at high speeds. Then there is the issue of other users of the paths---runners, roller bladers, etc. that make safety an issue. A couple of weeks ago I was riding on the W&OD trail when a runner decided to turn around without looking first. I hit the brakes but couldn't avoid hitting him. Fortunately, I was just coming through an intersection so wasn't riding fast enough to do anybody an real damage. You have to think in terms of volume. Riding a few miles on a Sunday afternoon is one thing--the paths are ideal for that. I ride 50 miles round trip every day while commuting to work. Things that don't seem like a big deal on the casual weekend excursion add up.


RESton Peace Wrote:
> here.. I mean, listen, I want to know why people
> use the road when bike path is right there,
> without using the excuse "because the law says I
> can". The laws says you can use the bike path,
> too, and isn't it safer and more sensible to use
> the path? Yet once a week or more I see people
> biking in heavy traffic on roads with bike paths.
> Those assholes need to just die.

Tell me Cyclist, are you one of those I see ordering coffee in Starbucks while drenched in sweat from riding all day on the W & OD?

I didn't realize that Cyclist also ran marathons, or I would not have pushed the issue.

There is no reasoning with these people. They're the ones that have bumper stickers about running on the back of their SUV (which also has a bike rack), have motivational calendars about Lance Armstrong winning a bicycle race with only one testicle ("What's YOUR excuse?"), and have "running" listed as one of their top 3 interests in any social networking site they may be a part of.

What they will never, ever understand is that they're being taken like the suckers they are by companies that don't give a FUCK about fitness, but really like money. Why do you think Lance Armstrong and Michael Phelps and Tiger Woods and all these other athletes get such lucrative endorsement deals? Because Nike knows they could make a hot pink cycling suit called the "Faggot," have Lance Armstrong wear it in his next race (for ten million dollars, of course), and legions of superficial copycat assholes will line up around the block to pay $1,000 for it, if they think it will help their performance (just like LANCE ARMSTRONG!!!).

It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools, gentlemen. Maybe if you spent more time cycling and less time preening, the road vibrations wouldn't bother you so much.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't realize that Cyclist also ran marathons,
> or I would not have pushed the issue.
>
> There is no reasoning with these people. They're
> the ones that have bumper stickers about running
> on the back of their SUV (which also has a bike
> rack), have motivational calendars about Lance
> Armstrong winning a bicycle race with only one
> testicle ("What's YOUR excuse?"), and have
> "running" listed as one of their top 3 interests
> in any social networking site they may be a part
> of.
>
> What they will never, ever understand is that
> they're being taken like the suckers they are by
> companies that don't give a FUCK about fitness,
> but really like money. Why do you think Lance
> Armstrong and Michael Phelps and Tiger Woods and
> all these other athletes get such lucrative
> endorsement deals? Because Nike knows they could
> make a hot pink cycling suit called the "Faggot,"
> have Lance Armstrong wear it in his next race (for
> ten million dollars, of course), and legions of
> superficial copycat assholes will line up around
> the block to pay $1,000 for it, if they think it
> will help their performance (just like LANCE
> ARMSTRONG!!!).
>
> It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools,
> gentlemen. Maybe if you spent more time cycling
> and less time preening, the road vibrations
> wouldn't bother you so much.


+1

To add to what you said, they also come up with all kinds of justifcations and rationalizations to support why they are buying the latest logo and new technology to go for a bike ride.

Like I mentioned before, I've skied all my life, but the only "equipment" I buy is a pair of boots that are comfortable and not too expensive, a decent set of bindings and a good pair of skis and the cheapest poles I can find (they're just for planting and pivoting during mogul runs, for christ's sake). I wear warm layers when I ski, but I don't need to spend thousands on aerodynamic racing suits and a helmet with a teardrop shape (I don't even wear a helmet). I don't even buy goggles, I just wear good polarized sunglasses.

I've asked people on ski lifts who were all decked out in the latest gear why they do it, and I get the same answers as cyclist. It's all rationalizing, I can out-ski any of them in a pair of jeans and a winter coat on midrange skis and bindings.

Having the best swimsuit, or an aerodynamic ski bodysuit, or the latest water bottle holder on your bike isn't going to make a difference unless you've already perfected the sport physically -- Michael Phelps is going to notice the difference between a $10 speedo and a $6,000 specially designed suit because he's already maxed out his technique, his endurance, etc. A weekend enthusiast is just spending money for little or no benefit, other than the delusional fantasy of being Michael Phelps or Lance Armstrong.

Some women need to have the latest fashion and hairdo by the hottest designers and hair dressers, to impress others. Rational people seek inner satisfaction.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2009 01:22AM by Thurston Moore.

Um, who besides the two of you mentioned having the latest, greatest of anything? My bike is a dozen years old, as are the cycling shorts and jersey I wear when riding it. They were good quality when I bought them and I've taken care of them. I buy new running shoes every 500 miles or so but otherwise wear the same running clothes I've had for years. Every once in a while I'll buy a new shirt because the old ones start to stink.


Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I didn't realize that Cyclist also ran
> marathons,
> > or I would not have pushed the issue.
> >
> > There is no reasoning with these people.
> They're
> > the ones that have bumper stickers about
> running
> > on the back of their SUV (which also has a bike
> > rack), have motivational calendars about Lance
> > Armstrong winning a bicycle race with only one
> > testicle ("What's YOUR excuse?"), and have
> > "running" listed as one of their top 3
> interests
> > in any social networking site they may be a
> part
> > of.
> >
> > What they will never, ever understand is that
> > they're being taken like the suckers they are
> by
> > companies that don't give a FUCK about fitness,
> > but really like money. Why do you think Lance
> > Armstrong and Michael Phelps and Tiger Woods
> and
> > all these other athletes get such lucrative
> > endorsement deals? Because Nike knows they
> could
> > make a hot pink cycling suit called the
> "Faggot,"
> > have Lance Armstrong wear it in his next race
> (for
> > ten million dollars, of course), and legions of
> > superficial copycat assholes will line up
> around
> > the block to pay $1,000 for it, if they think
> it
> > will help their performance (just like LANCE
> > ARMSTRONG!!!).
> >
> > It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools,
> > gentlemen. Maybe if you spent more time
> cycling
> > and less time preening, the road vibrations
> > wouldn't bother you so much.
>
>
> +1
>
> To add to what you said, they also come up with
> all kinds of justifcations and rationalizations to
> support why they are buying the latest logo and
> new technology to go for a bike ride.
>
> Like I mentioned before, I've skied all my life,
> but the only "equipment" I buy is a pair of boots
> that are comfortable and not too expensive, a
> decent set of bindings and a good pair of skis and
> the cheapest poles I can find (they're just for
> planting and pivoting during mogul runs, for
> christ's sake). I wear warm layers when I ski,
> but I don't need to spend thousands on aerodynamic
> racing suits and a helmet with a teardrop shape (I
> don't even wear a helmet). I don't even buy
> goggles, I just wear good polarized sunglasses.
>
> I've asked people on ski lifts who were all decked
> out in the latest gear why they do it, and I get
> the same answers as cyclist. It's all
> rationalizing, I can out-ski any of them in a pair
> of jeans and a winter coat on midrange skis and
> bindings.
>
> Having the best swimsuit, or an aerodynamic ski
> bodysuit, or the latest water bottle holder on
> your bike isn't going to make a difference unless
> you've already perfected the sport physically --
> Michael Phelps is going to notice the difference
> between a $10 speedo and a $6,000 specially
> designed suit because he's already maxed out his
> technique, his endurance, etc. A weekend
> enthusiast is just spending money for little or no
> benefit, other than the delusional fantasy of
> being Michael Phelps or Lance Armstrong.
>
> Some women need to have the latest fashion and
> hairdo by the hottest designers and hair dressers,
> to impress others. Rational people seek inner
> satisfaction.

One more thing: the two of you must be Sarah Palin fans because you seem to take pride in being ignorant. I've only skied a handful of times in my life so I wouldn't dream of telling an experienced skier what type of equipment is necessary or appropriate. I've been cycling seriously for 15 years and have picked up a bit of experience and knowledge in that time. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about--you don't. I'm not concerned about what a couple of fools think about how I look or how I spend my money, the main reason I'm posting in this thread is to try to address some of the questions about cyclists behavior on the roads, in hope that some of the more reasonable people out there might be a little more considerate.

Cyclist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> blah blah blah blah the main
> reason I'm posting in this thread is to try to
> address some of the questions about cyclists
> behavior on the roads, in hope that some of the
> more reasonable people out there might be a little
> more considerate.

I'll start being more considerate towards cyclists when they stop being self-absorbed pricks with a sense of entitlement.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

As I mentioned, I'm hoping that reasonable people might get a better understanding--it's obvious you aren't going to be one of them.

MrMephisto Wrote:
> I'll start being more considerate towards cyclists
> when they stop being self-absorbed pricks with a
> sense of entitlement.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for going where Cyclist could not go.
> I'll buy the road vibrations explanation. But why
> would that luxury be necessary while training?
> Swimmers train with hairy bodies and sometimes
> even drag suits then shave it all off for a
> competition. Why train under optimum conditions?

When swimmers train with hairy legs and drag suits, the only "negative" effect is aerodynamics and perhaps additional weight, ie, no additional direct impact is occuring to the body. Road vibration is different; it is millions of direct micro-impacts to the body sustained over a long period of time. As mentioned, after several hours of riding you really notice its debilitating effect.

Road vibration also hampers in muscle recovery after the workout, so that someone would not be able to train as effectively the next day. Wearing tights, although nowadays I hear the term "compression shorts" being used, allows me to train better the next day. Now, can I still train in sub-optimal conditions while wearing tights? You bet. All I have to do is add weight to the bike, or wear sweat-absorbing shirts (cotton) to retain otherwise lost body weight and heat.

When I train as a runner, I noticed a big difference in muscle recovery after I switched to wearing tights from wearing shorts. Again, the issue is direct impact. The tights mitigate the effect of direct impact, and so allow the muscles to not only perform more efficiently, but regain in strength and heal more quickly after the workout. They work, seriously. I can wear cotton t-shirts during training for conditioning, and wear the usual tank-top on race day for maximum performance.

As an aside, it is best to wear bright shirts, jackets, etc while riding the roads for maximum visibility. No cyclist in his right mind would wear cammies, for example.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2009 10:20AM by Berdhuis.

Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Road vibration is different; it is millions of direct
> micro-impacts to the body sustained over a long
> period of time. As mentioned, after several hours
> of riding you really notice its debilitating
> effect.

That's why NIKE scientists designed our new high-performance Faggot line of cycling wear. It's genetically engineered to mitigate the micro-impacts associated with ROAD VIBRATION and ensure that the only people you talk to are other cyclists.

NIKE: For when you've run out of excuses, but still have a lot of money.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But some of the smugness from the bike riders
> here.. I mean, listen, I want to know why people
> use the road when bike path is right there,
> without using the excuse "because the law says I
> can". The laws says you can use the bike path,
> too, and isn't it safer and more sensible to use
> the path? Yet once a week or more I see people
> biking in heavy traffic on roads with bike paths.

No, as mentioned previously, roads can be safer than parallel-running bike paths for us cyclists who ride at higher speeds. Most roads are relatively level and free of debris. Unpredictably moving pets and children do not appear on roads. There is less risk of being hit by cars pulling out of driveways, or cars encroaching into crosswalk zones at intersections (a frequent and major hazard).

> Those assholes need to just die.

See 'whistleblower's' thread.

I am honored this thread is still alive
im gona play the piano brb

Here's a perfect example of bicyclists reaping what they sow:
---------------------------

Maple Avenue at East Street, NE 09-7321
August 4 6:06 p.m.
Traffic had stopped on Maple Avenue heading westbound in both lanes. The front
vehicles had left an opening at Park Street so as not to block the intersection.
Another vehicle made a left turn from eastbound Maple Avenue on to northbound Park
Street. After the vehicle had begun turning, a bicyclist was splitting lanes and passing
stopped vehicles on Maple Avenue westbound. The bicycle struck the side of the turning
vehicle.
Fairfax County EMS responded and treated the bicyclist at the scene for minor injuries.
No charges were filed in this case.

Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalisation) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement.

This fallacy has the following argument form:

I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P.
Therefore, all other elements of X have the property P.
The following example demonstrates why this is a logical fallacy:

I've seen a person shoot someone dead.
Therefore, all people are murderers.
This argument is obviously flawed, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example:

I've seen John's brother steal something. John's family must be thieves.


ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a perfect example of bicyclists reaping
> what they sow:
> ---------------------------
>
> Maple Avenue at East Street, NE 09-7321
> August 4 6:06 p.m.
> Traffic had stopped on Maple Avenue heading
> westbound in both lanes. The front
> vehicles had left an opening at Park Street so as
> not to block the intersection.
> Another vehicle made a left turn from eastbound
> Maple Avenue on to northbound Park
> Street. After the vehicle had begun turning, a
> bicyclist was splitting lanes and passing
> stopped vehicles on Maple Avenue westbound. The
> bicycle struck the side of the turning
> vehicle.
> Fairfax County EMS responded and treated the
> bicyclist at the scene for minor injuries.
> No charges were filed in this case.