Bikepacker67
Check this out, if you want to learn how NOT to ride:
http://www.digave.com/videos/b-web.mpg
It's big, so if you're on dialup, don't bother.
http://www.digave.com/videos/b-web.mpg
It's big, so if you're on dialup, don't bother.
Stupidity on Two Wheels
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Metieval
Damn!!!!
I guess we now know why cars hate cyclist.
I guess we now know why cars hate cyclist.
bikiola
whatever. it takes all types. the fact is, biking like that is sometimes a very poignant political statement against automobile culture. why must we continue to ignore all that's wrong with cars simply because it's against some sort of arbitrary "rules"?
Chris L
Damn!!!!
I guess we now know why cars hate cyclist.
Cars are inanimate objects, incapable of liking or hating anything.
If you were referring to drivers, my answer is:
"I already knew that, and it has nothing to do with the video.
I guess we now know why cars hate cyclist.
Cars are inanimate objects, incapable of liking or hating anything.
If you were referring to drivers, my answer is:
"I already knew that, and it has nothing to do with the video.
Bikepacker67
a very poignant political statement
Are you nuts?
How many people did they put at risk (and I'm not talking about their own moronic hides)
Are you nuts?
How many people did they put at risk (and I'm not talking about their own moronic hides)
Cyclaholic
They've got some ballz and legs, I'll give them that. Unfortunately their notiriety will come with a headline at the top of the obituary column.
While I don't necesarily agree that they're an example of how we should ride in traffic, I can see why a percentage of cyclists will treat traffic laws with the same level of contempt that we cyclists often experience when on the receiving end of motorists, like you so often read about right here in these forums.
Sort of reminded me of a CM ride, just a lot faster.
While I don't necesarily agree that they're an example of how we should ride in traffic, I can see why a percentage of cyclists will treat traffic laws with the same level of contempt that we cyclists often experience when on the receiving end of motorists, like you so often read about right here in these forums.
Sort of reminded me of a CM ride, just a lot faster.
BostonFixed
Here are more of lucas' videos:
http://digave.com/videos/
http://digave.com/videos/
CdCf
Yay, Judas Priest! :D
gpljr75
whatever. it takes all types. the fact is, biking like that is sometimes a very poignant political statement against automobile culture. why must we continue to ignore all that's wrong with cars simply because it's against some sort of arbitrary "rules"?
Please stop and think about what you are saying!
"Biking like that is sometimes a very poignant political statement against automobile culture."
Really? Poignant means strongly persuasive and to the point. But whom are you trying to persuade and how effective are you being? Are you trying to pursuade yourself? Well, then congratulations, but you didn't need persuading in the first place! Motorists? C'mon! How many motorists who nearly hit one of those retards came away saying, "Man, I guess I should really rethink some of my assumptions about the world!" B.S. They came away saying, "Dammit, I wish they would outlaw those stupid things. I could have killed that idiot." Pedestrians? I'm sure a lot of the ones who were almost hit by one of those retards came away saying, "Thank goodness someone has enough courage to send such a clear message about the merits of bicycling vis-a-vis the problems of automobile culture. Having my well-being (possibly even my life) put at risk was a small price to pay to get such a poignant message across." Yeah, right.
I've known anarchist types, and they typically fall one of two categories:
(1) People in search of a thrill, who care nothing of the wellfare of others (ironically, the medical definition of a psychopath is strikingly similar), and who will mindlessly trumpet political slogans as a means of justifying their thrill-seeking. "You gotta fight for your right to party!" gets masked by "Auto culture is destroying the world!" Self-righteous, hypocritical, and utterly ineffective at creating change are these types.
(2) People who can sense that something is wrong with the world but are too lazy actually to come up with a compelling, cohesive, fair alternative AND do the hard leg work that it takes to convince others and work for change. These types, too, are utterly ineffective.
If you want to continue to be ineffective, and actually work against your own aim, then continue making such "poignant" statements. If you're just seeking a thrill, then come on, be honest and drop the self-righteous sloganeering you think is justifying your behavior. Oh yeah, and quit it, too.
Next you said "why must we continue to ignore all that's wrong with cars simply because it's against some sort of arbitrary "rules"?
In case you didn't have a logic course in high school or college, this is the freshman-level fallacy known as creating a false dichotomy. That is, you've set up two options and wrongly suggested these are our only two options. Either we ignore all that is wrong with auto culture or we act like this. Well guess what, there are other options, but, I admit, finding and implementing them goes back to the hard work thing I mentioned above. And doing hard work isn't fun always, is it. Nobody gets a cool video to post on their Web site by presenting a compelling presentation at a town hall meeting or by doing a petition drive, do they.
Good grief.
Please stop and think about what you are saying!
"Biking like that is sometimes a very poignant political statement against automobile culture."
Really? Poignant means strongly persuasive and to the point. But whom are you trying to persuade and how effective are you being? Are you trying to pursuade yourself? Well, then congratulations, but you didn't need persuading in the first place! Motorists? C'mon! How many motorists who nearly hit one of those retards came away saying, "Man, I guess I should really rethink some of my assumptions about the world!" B.S. They came away saying, "Dammit, I wish they would outlaw those stupid things. I could have killed that idiot." Pedestrians? I'm sure a lot of the ones who were almost hit by one of those retards came away saying, "Thank goodness someone has enough courage to send such a clear message about the merits of bicycling vis-a-vis the problems of automobile culture. Having my well-being (possibly even my life) put at risk was a small price to pay to get such a poignant message across." Yeah, right.
I've known anarchist types, and they typically fall one of two categories:
(1) People in search of a thrill, who care nothing of the wellfare of others (ironically, the medical definition of a psychopath is strikingly similar), and who will mindlessly trumpet political slogans as a means of justifying their thrill-seeking. "You gotta fight for your right to party!" gets masked by "Auto culture is destroying the world!" Self-righteous, hypocritical, and utterly ineffective at creating change are these types.
(2) People who can sense that something is wrong with the world but are too lazy actually to come up with a compelling, cohesive, fair alternative AND do the hard leg work that it takes to convince others and work for change. These types, too, are utterly ineffective.
If you want to continue to be ineffective, and actually work against your own aim, then continue making such "poignant" statements. If you're just seeking a thrill, then come on, be honest and drop the self-righteous sloganeering you think is justifying your behavior. Oh yeah, and quit it, too.
Next you said "why must we continue to ignore all that's wrong with cars simply because it's against some sort of arbitrary "rules"?
In case you didn't have a logic course in high school or college, this is the freshman-level fallacy known as creating a false dichotomy. That is, you've set up two options and wrongly suggested these are our only two options. Either we ignore all that is wrong with auto culture or we act like this. Well guess what, there are other options, but, I admit, finding and implementing them goes back to the hard work thing I mentioned above. And doing hard work isn't fun always, is it. Nobody gets a cool video to post on their Web site by presenting a compelling presentation at a town hall meeting or by doing a petition drive, do they.
Good grief.
bikiola
sorry, perhaps i didn't elaborate to the point you needed, gpl. the argument you present reminds me of those who argue against "colorful" protests, critical mass, and the like. simple, that street performance and discomfort do not bring about change, but only enrage the majority. i reject this point of view, and i believe history shows a lot of times where outrageous acts beget tremendous change -- ACT-UP in the 80s with Reagan, *some* of the 60s protests; the RNC protest in New York, and even perhaps we can group Cindy Sheehan in this... we musn't always work "within" the system to affect change; clearly we need this, but we can also utilize human creativity to really point of the fallacies of the conditions we live in.
i'm not defending the stupidity of riding the wrong way through traffic... but i would like to point out that us calling that "stupidity" is itself a reflection of our automobile bias. why don't we call cagers stupid for spending money on being in devices that cause global warming and ashtma; that cost large of sums of money to maintain and operate; and that are the LEADING cause of death in the US after smoking? why don't we just look at a driver and say "what an idiot"? because we are living within the dictated paradigm of automobile culture. and i say, whatever rocks that world, whatever causes attention and interest and intrigue is welcome by me.
i'm not defending the stupidity of riding the wrong way through traffic... but i would like to point out that us calling that "stupidity" is itself a reflection of our automobile bias. why don't we call cagers stupid for spending money on being in devices that cause global warming and ashtma; that cost large of sums of money to maintain and operate; and that are the LEADING cause of death in the US after smoking? why don't we just look at a driver and say "what an idiot"? because we are living within the dictated paradigm of automobile culture. and i say, whatever rocks that world, whatever causes attention and interest and intrigue is welcome by me.
Bikepacker67
Well written AND spot on!
Good job GPL!
Good job GPL!
gpljr75
sorry, perhaps i didn't elaborate to the point you needed, gpl. the argument you present reminds me of those who argue against "colorful" protests, critical mass, and the like. simple, that street performance and discomfort do not bring about change, but only enrage the majority. i reject this point of view, and i believe history shows a lot of times where outrageous acts beget tremendous change -- ACT-UP in the 80s with Reagan, *some* of the 60s protests; the RNC protest in New York, and even perhaps we can group Cindy Sheehan in this... we musn't always work "within" the system to affect change; clearly we need this, but we can also utilize human creativity to really point of the fallacies of the conditions we live in.
No, I do not necessarily oppose "colorful" protest. I don't even oppose a principled creation of discomfort in order to point out a problem. I do oppose stupidity (in myself and in others), in as much as I am able to identify it. So don't take the lazy way out and let yourself be governed by yet another error of logic--namely, by arguing that because some disruptive behavior can be morally justified and effective, therefore any and all is morally justified and just as likely to be effective. If you can't tell the difference between say, the civil rights movement or what this Sheehan lady is doing, and what these bikers are doing--both in terms of the moral justification and the likely effect it will engender--it's sad.
i'm not defending the stupidity of riding the wrong way through traffic... but i would like to point out that us calling that "stupidity" is itself a reflection of our automobile bias.
No, it's not. It is a reflection of our being governed by law. The law grants cyclists to use the street lawfully. The law says whatever vehicles that traverse this route shall go this direction and not that one. It's stupid to violate that law.
why don't we call cagers stupid for spending money on being in devices that cause global warming and ashtma; that cost large of sums of money to maintain and operate; and that are the LEADING cause of death in the US after smoking? why don't we just look at a driver and say "what an idiot"?
Who's stopping you? You can say that all you want. You have freedom of speech. You can get creative and colorful in the process. You don't, however, have freedom to recklessly endager individuals, which is what these anarchist bicycle idiots are doing. I personally think a lot of motorists are idiots. It's just unfortunate that I now have think that about a certain sector of cyclists, too.
because we are living within the dictated paradigm of automobile culture. and i say, whatever rocks that world, whatever causes attention and interest and intrigue is welcome by me.
Let me ask you this: Certain hybrid automobiles, though not the utopian dream you're probably after, would go a long way toward reducing some of the very problems you've just listed. In all honesty, would you approve of hybrid automobile drivers ganging up and racing through the city this way? It would certainly cause attention. Wouldn't it rock "that" world a bit?
No, I do not necessarily oppose "colorful" protest. I don't even oppose a principled creation of discomfort in order to point out a problem. I do oppose stupidity (in myself and in others), in as much as I am able to identify it. So don't take the lazy way out and let yourself be governed by yet another error of logic--namely, by arguing that because some disruptive behavior can be morally justified and effective, therefore any and all is morally justified and just as likely to be effective. If you can't tell the difference between say, the civil rights movement or what this Sheehan lady is doing, and what these bikers are doing--both in terms of the moral justification and the likely effect it will engender--it's sad.
i'm not defending the stupidity of riding the wrong way through traffic... but i would like to point out that us calling that "stupidity" is itself a reflection of our automobile bias.
No, it's not. It is a reflection of our being governed by law. The law grants cyclists to use the street lawfully. The law says whatever vehicles that traverse this route shall go this direction and not that one. It's stupid to violate that law.
why don't we call cagers stupid for spending money on being in devices that cause global warming and ashtma; that cost large of sums of money to maintain and operate; and that are the LEADING cause of death in the US after smoking? why don't we just look at a driver and say "what an idiot"?
Who's stopping you? You can say that all you want. You have freedom of speech. You can get creative and colorful in the process. You don't, however, have freedom to recklessly endager individuals, which is what these anarchist bicycle idiots are doing. I personally think a lot of motorists are idiots. It's just unfortunate that I now have think that about a certain sector of cyclists, too.
because we are living within the dictated paradigm of automobile culture. and i say, whatever rocks that world, whatever causes attention and interest and intrigue is welcome by me.
Let me ask you this: Certain hybrid automobiles, though not the utopian dream you're probably after, would go a long way toward reducing some of the very problems you've just listed. In all honesty, would you approve of hybrid automobile drivers ganging up and racing through the city this way? It would certainly cause attention. Wouldn't it rock "that" world a bit?
jtaylor
While I agree that the kind of riding glorified in this video (and others on the same Web site) is generally unintelligent and dangerous, I don't think it's appropriate to identify it as a political statement or rage against such activities as anarchist and illogical. In the same way that we would not want irate city drivers to identify all bikers (especially bike tourers) with the kinds of rash activites displayed by these cyclists (and, incidentally, in the same way that bikers would be irresponsible to associate all motorists with drunk drivers or road-ragers or those who go out of their way to intimidate or even bump bike riders), I would argue that it is similarly incorrect for bikers like those posting to this site to identify themselves with these city riders and thereby perceive some manner of threat to biking at large.
A few morons careening through city streets and sidewalks have no effect on us. So why bother to get up in arms over their behavior? Think about the purpose of biking: ultimately, it's to have fun, isn't it? Some, like commuters (of which I am one) do it also for the purpose of saving gas money or exercise, but would you bike even for those good reasons if it didn't also provide you with a significant measure of entertainment? I certainly wouldn't.
Well, these city riders are having fun, too. True, their idea of fun is different from mine, but so is that of bungee-jumpers. True, their idea of fun puts themselves at risk of bodily harm (and I would have to respectfully disagree with GPL that this kind of biking puts innocent bystanders or pedestrians at risk, though that might be open to discussion), but isn't that their own problem? Are they breaking the rules of the road? Certainly, at times. I showed a segment of one of the videos on the site to a friend whose sympathies lie along the lines of Bikepacker's and GPL's, and he responded with great indignity to the bikers' running a red light. My own (unspoken) response was, "Come on, you've never run a red light on your bike? What about a stop sign at a bike path/street intersection?" Breaking the cars' rules is not such a great crime, in my opinion.
I don't think these guys are making a political anti-car statement, and I certainly don't think they're making a conscious effort to make life more difficult for cyclists everywhere. Honestly, would that really even be possible? They're just having an adrenaline-boosting good time. I wouldn't do it, but if they want to, why should I jump all over them for doing it? I don't want anyone jumping all over me for what they might view as the irresponsibility of loading up my bike with enough gear to last me through a week and heading out on my own into the hills.
If you look around that Web site, you'll see that many of the videos are taken from well-established street races that have been going on for years. Is it an example of "how not to ride"? Perhaps. But is it a political demonstration or an example of blatant and borderline criminal irresponsibility, and does it reflect so poorly on bikers in general that we all should fear for the long-term continued legal existence of our mutual hobby? I don't think so.
A few morons careening through city streets and sidewalks have no effect on us. So why bother to get up in arms over their behavior? Think about the purpose of biking: ultimately, it's to have fun, isn't it? Some, like commuters (of which I am one) do it also for the purpose of saving gas money or exercise, but would you bike even for those good reasons if it didn't also provide you with a significant measure of entertainment? I certainly wouldn't.
Well, these city riders are having fun, too. True, their idea of fun is different from mine, but so is that of bungee-jumpers. True, their idea of fun puts themselves at risk of bodily harm (and I would have to respectfully disagree with GPL that this kind of biking puts innocent bystanders or pedestrians at risk, though that might be open to discussion), but isn't that their own problem? Are they breaking the rules of the road? Certainly, at times. I showed a segment of one of the videos on the site to a friend whose sympathies lie along the lines of Bikepacker's and GPL's, and he responded with great indignity to the bikers' running a red light. My own (unspoken) response was, "Come on, you've never run a red light on your bike? What about a stop sign at a bike path/street intersection?" Breaking the cars' rules is not such a great crime, in my opinion.
I don't think these guys are making a political anti-car statement, and I certainly don't think they're making a conscious effort to make life more difficult for cyclists everywhere. Honestly, would that really even be possible? They're just having an adrenaline-boosting good time. I wouldn't do it, but if they want to, why should I jump all over them for doing it? I don't want anyone jumping all over me for what they might view as the irresponsibility of loading up my bike with enough gear to last me through a week and heading out on my own into the hills.
If you look around that Web site, you'll see that many of the videos are taken from well-established street races that have been going on for years. Is it an example of "how not to ride"? Perhaps. But is it a political demonstration or an example of blatant and borderline criminal irresponsibility, and does it reflect so poorly on bikers in general that we all should fear for the long-term continued legal existence of our mutual hobby? I don't think so.
Bikepacker67
They're just having an adrenaline-boosting good time.
Ya, and when they cause a motorist to swerve to avoid them, and that motorist then crashes into another car, it's hunkey-dory with you, eh?
These fools are putting OTHERS at risk. If they want an adrenaline boost, why don't go play chicken with a train.
Ya, and when they cause a motorist to swerve to avoid them, and that motorist then crashes into another car, it's hunkey-dory with you, eh?
These fools are putting OTHERS at risk. If they want an adrenaline boost, why don't go play chicken with a train.
Erick L
I'm not sure why this was posted in the touring forum. Maybe if they had panniers or pulled a BOB...
gnz
Ok, here goes another lengty reply...
These guys should come and ride in Mexico City where they will find cars on the street behaving in the same erratic ways as they do in their video. If they survive, maybe they will come to appreciate having ORDER and RESPECT TO THE LAW on their streets. You people in developed countries have even bike lanes, we are sooo far from having something like that, we barely have actual LANES in some streets...
Once just out of curiosity I rode with the critical massers in Vancouver Canada, they say are protesting, but protesting what really?, cyclists on the streets over there already have order, they are respected, they have lanes, they have clean well maintained streets, they have the needed considerations within the law... yet while protesting they were ignoring red lights and arbitrarily blocking streets getting drivers and even policemen pissed off along the way.
Now, I do feel that necessity of fighting off the car centric culture that dominates the developed world, but ignoring the order we have come to achieve in some places is simply not the way to do it. My strategy is to use my bike all the time to go to all sorts of places, by seeing this, some people around me have come to realize their stupid dependency on cars and motorized transportation, they see me being fit, independent and different and that is appealing to some. I also do fight for my right to have space on the road while riding and that pisses off some drivers often, but hey, I'm confident is them who are wrong not me.
Just my 2c.
These guys should come and ride in Mexico City where they will find cars on the street behaving in the same erratic ways as they do in their video. If they survive, maybe they will come to appreciate having ORDER and RESPECT TO THE LAW on their streets. You people in developed countries have even bike lanes, we are sooo far from having something like that, we barely have actual LANES in some streets...
Once just out of curiosity I rode with the critical massers in Vancouver Canada, they say are protesting, but protesting what really?, cyclists on the streets over there already have order, they are respected, they have lanes, they have clean well maintained streets, they have the needed considerations within the law... yet while protesting they were ignoring red lights and arbitrarily blocking streets getting drivers and even policemen pissed off along the way.
Now, I do feel that necessity of fighting off the car centric culture that dominates the developed world, but ignoring the order we have come to achieve in some places is simply not the way to do it. My strategy is to use my bike all the time to go to all sorts of places, by seeing this, some people around me have come to realize their stupid dependency on cars and motorized transportation, they see me being fit, independent and different and that is appealing to some. I also do fight for my right to have space on the road while riding and that pisses off some drivers often, but hey, I'm confident is them who are wrong not me.
Just my 2c.
gpljr75
While I agree that the kind of riding glorified in this video (and others on the same Web site) is generally unintelligent and dangerous, I don't think it's appropriate to identify it as a political statement or rage against such activities as anarchist and illogical. In the same way that we would not want irate city drivers to identify all bikers (especially bike tourers) with the kinds of rash activites displayed by these cyclists (and, incidentally, in the same way that bikers would be irresponsible to associate all motorists with drunk drivers or road-ragers or those who go out of their way to intimidate or even bump bike riders), I would argue that it is similarly incorrect for bikers like those posting to this site to identify themselves with these city riders and thereby perceive some manner of threat to biking at large.
A few morons careening through city streets and sidewalks have no effect on us. So why bother to get up in arms over their behavior? Think about the purpose of biking: ultimately, it's to have fun, isn't it? Some, like commuters (of which I am one) do it also for the purpose of saving gas money or exercise, but would you bike even for those good reasons if it didn't also provide you with a significant measure of entertainment? I certainly wouldn't.
Well, these city riders are having fun, too. True, their idea of fun is different from mine, but so is that of bungee-jumpers. True, their idea of fun puts themselves at risk of bodily harm (and I would have to respectfully disagree with GPL that this kind of biking puts innocent bystanders or pedestrians at risk, though that might be open to discussion), but isn't that their own problem? Are they breaking the rules of the road? Certainly, at times. I showed a segment of one of the videos on the site to a friend whose sympathies lie along the lines of Bikepacker's and GPL's, and he responded with great indignity to the bikers' running a red light. My own (unspoken) response was, "Come on, you've never run a red light on your bike? What about a stop sign at a bike path/street intersection?" Breaking the cars' rules is not such a great crime, in my opinion.
I don't think these guys are making a political anti-car statement, and I certainly don't think they're making a conscious effort to make life more difficult for cyclists everywhere. Honestly, would that really even be possible? They're just having an adrenaline-boosting good time. I wouldn't do it, but if they want to, why should I jump all over them for doing it? I don't want anyone jumping all over me for what they might view as the irresponsibility of loading up my bike with enough gear to last me through a week and heading out on my own into the hills.
If you look around that Web site, you'll see that many of the videos are taken from well-established street races that have been going on for years. Is it an example of "how not to ride"? Perhaps. But is it a political demonstration or an example of blatant and borderline criminal irresponsibility, and does it reflect so poorly on bikers in general that we all should fear for the long-term continued legal existence of our mutual hobby? I don't think so.
JTaylor,
The fact that I know you personally, and know you to have significantly better judgment in other areas of life, makes reading your post here all the more grievous to me.
The people praising these videos tend to have preachy slogans in their signatures and personal profiles. I'm responding to those who seem to think this is behavior is well and good, AND in line with the goals implied by those slogans. If the bikers who made these videos have no political motivation for doing so (it is extremely unlikely that that is the case) then okay, they're doing it to get a thrill. But that's just as bad if not worse because they ARE ENDANGERING PEOPLE BESIDES THEMSELVES. You know they are. In one of those videos, they're consuming large amounts of alcohol at check points. Biking anywhere near traffic or pedestrians in this manner while intoxicated is endangering people. Face it.
Imagine either of the two following scenarios: (1) Gun owners fed up with anti-gun laws in the major metropolitan areas decide to make a political statement by shooting stop signs in heavily populated areas. No pedestrian or motorist is ever hit. After all, these guys are skilled marksmen, and besides the whole point is to show that guns don't kill people; people who aim them at other people (as opposed to stop signs) do. (2) Gun owners find that they really don't have as much fun shooting in proper shooting ranges or hunting in the country. They discover it would be much more fun to shoot with the slight chance of hitting and injuring someone, or being shot themselves by the cops. So they go down town and shoot at signs. Every once in a while they drink a 40oz of beer and shoot some more. Occasionally they hit a vehicle, but they run away without getting caught.
Either scenario is bad.
You claim it's their own hides that are on the line, so why should we care. That's just patently false, as I've already argued. If you still think it is up for discussion, you should stand in the street and let someone ram you going that fast on the bike, then let us know if you still think its ambiguous whether anyone else's butt is on the line when people ride like this through the streets. In one of the videos, a biker flees a motorist after hitting, and presumably damaging, a vehicle. Who paid that bill? Furthermore, think for just a second beyond physical damage. Think of the legal hell that motorists will end up in when they injure or kill one of these idiots. What about when a driver hits the brakes or swerves to avoid one of these idiots and an accident between that vehicle and another ensues as a result. All because some selfish jerks or political jerks (whichever you think they are) were recklessly breaking the law.
Have those of us who object to this behavior ever run a red light? Sure. But if you can't tell the difference between slowing at an intersection and proceeding only when it there is clearly no vehicle about to enter the intersection, and what these guys do when they charge through them even when cars are plainly traversing them, then I really don't know what to tell you.
You don't want anyone jumping all over you for touring? Fine, but you're dealing in apples and oranges again. Have you noticed that FELLOW BIKERS are outraged at this behavior, whereas fellow bikers do not object to touring? It ought at least to cause you to stop and think a bit over whether your comparison is valid.
A few morons careening through city streets and sidewalks have no effect on us. So why bother to get up in arms over their behavior? Think about the purpose of biking: ultimately, it's to have fun, isn't it? Some, like commuters (of which I am one) do it also for the purpose of saving gas money or exercise, but would you bike even for those good reasons if it didn't also provide you with a significant measure of entertainment? I certainly wouldn't.
Well, these city riders are having fun, too. True, their idea of fun is different from mine, but so is that of bungee-jumpers. True, their idea of fun puts themselves at risk of bodily harm (and I would have to respectfully disagree with GPL that this kind of biking puts innocent bystanders or pedestrians at risk, though that might be open to discussion), but isn't that their own problem? Are they breaking the rules of the road? Certainly, at times. I showed a segment of one of the videos on the site to a friend whose sympathies lie along the lines of Bikepacker's and GPL's, and he responded with great indignity to the bikers' running a red light. My own (unspoken) response was, "Come on, you've never run a red light on your bike? What about a stop sign at a bike path/street intersection?" Breaking the cars' rules is not such a great crime, in my opinion.
I don't think these guys are making a political anti-car statement, and I certainly don't think they're making a conscious effort to make life more difficult for cyclists everywhere. Honestly, would that really even be possible? They're just having an adrenaline-boosting good time. I wouldn't do it, but if they want to, why should I jump all over them for doing it? I don't want anyone jumping all over me for what they might view as the irresponsibility of loading up my bike with enough gear to last me through a week and heading out on my own into the hills.
If you look around that Web site, you'll see that many of the videos are taken from well-established street races that have been going on for years. Is it an example of "how not to ride"? Perhaps. But is it a political demonstration or an example of blatant and borderline criminal irresponsibility, and does it reflect so poorly on bikers in general that we all should fear for the long-term continued legal existence of our mutual hobby? I don't think so.
JTaylor,
The fact that I know you personally, and know you to have significantly better judgment in other areas of life, makes reading your post here all the more grievous to me.
The people praising these videos tend to have preachy slogans in their signatures and personal profiles. I'm responding to those who seem to think this is behavior is well and good, AND in line with the goals implied by those slogans. If the bikers who made these videos have no political motivation for doing so (it is extremely unlikely that that is the case) then okay, they're doing it to get a thrill. But that's just as bad if not worse because they ARE ENDANGERING PEOPLE BESIDES THEMSELVES. You know they are. In one of those videos, they're consuming large amounts of alcohol at check points. Biking anywhere near traffic or pedestrians in this manner while intoxicated is endangering people. Face it.
Imagine either of the two following scenarios: (1) Gun owners fed up with anti-gun laws in the major metropolitan areas decide to make a political statement by shooting stop signs in heavily populated areas. No pedestrian or motorist is ever hit. After all, these guys are skilled marksmen, and besides the whole point is to show that guns don't kill people; people who aim them at other people (as opposed to stop signs) do. (2) Gun owners find that they really don't have as much fun shooting in proper shooting ranges or hunting in the country. They discover it would be much more fun to shoot with the slight chance of hitting and injuring someone, or being shot themselves by the cops. So they go down town and shoot at signs. Every once in a while they drink a 40oz of beer and shoot some more. Occasionally they hit a vehicle, but they run away without getting caught.
Either scenario is bad.
You claim it's their own hides that are on the line, so why should we care. That's just patently false, as I've already argued. If you still think it is up for discussion, you should stand in the street and let someone ram you going that fast on the bike, then let us know if you still think its ambiguous whether anyone else's butt is on the line when people ride like this through the streets. In one of the videos, a biker flees a motorist after hitting, and presumably damaging, a vehicle. Who paid that bill? Furthermore, think for just a second beyond physical damage. Think of the legal hell that motorists will end up in when they injure or kill one of these idiots. What about when a driver hits the brakes or swerves to avoid one of these idiots and an accident between that vehicle and another ensues as a result. All because some selfish jerks or political jerks (whichever you think they are) were recklessly breaking the law.
Have those of us who object to this behavior ever run a red light? Sure. But if you can't tell the difference between slowing at an intersection and proceeding only when it there is clearly no vehicle about to enter the intersection, and what these guys do when they charge through them even when cars are plainly traversing them, then I really don't know what to tell you.
You don't want anyone jumping all over you for touring? Fine, but you're dealing in apples and oranges again. Have you noticed that FELLOW BIKERS are outraged at this behavior, whereas fellow bikers do not object to touring? It ought at least to cause you to stop and think a bit over whether your comparison is valid.
lala
Does this have anything to do with 'Touring? I don't think so. If anything it goes to Advocacy/Safety. I new meaning for Couch Surfing!
Kyle90
That was awesome when he smacked into the car and didn't care. I'd do the same thing, most likely. Were they chugging 40oz's at the pit stops?
barenakedbiker
Awesome Video!
Brian
I see dumb people.
jtaylor
The fact that I know you personally, and know you to have significantly better judgment in other areas of life, makes reading your post here all the more grievous to me.Far be it from me to cause you grief, especially through something as innocuous as a forum posting. On the other hand, I would be interested to know just what aspect of my judgment you are questioning in this case. You seem to feel far more strongly about this issue than I do, so I'll leave off with a few final comments.
Regarding judgment: the bulk of the comments in your most recent post seem to be directed toward the issue of whether these bikers are putting people other than themselves at risk, either physically or legally. For the sake of goodwill, I will stipulate that hurtling through crowded walkways on a bike could cause injury to someone other than the biker. My question: does this explain the vitriolic nature of your reaction to the video?
The people praising these videos tend to have preachy slogans in their signatures and personal profiles. I'm responding to those who seem to think this is behavior is well and good, AND in line with the goals implied by those slogans.As you know, I am not among this group.
If the bikers who made these videos have no political motivation for doing so (it is extremely unlikely that that is the case) then okay, they're doing it to get a thrill.Sorry, this does not follow. At least, not the way you're presenting your argument (lack of, actually). How can you say it's "extremely unlikely"? There's no basis for such a statement.
You don't want anyone jumping all over you for touring? Fine, but you're dealing in apples and oranges again.Interesting that you accuse me of dealing in apples and oranges when I at least am comparing one biking activity to another. You, on the other hand, are comparing one biking activity with an activity related to firearms and, evidently, severe mental disability (on the part of those partaking in said hypothetical activity, not yours :)). With respect, I'd have to say that it is your comparison that is apples and oranges. Mine is more like . . . apples and crab apples.
Have you noticed that FELLOW BIKERS are outraged at this behavior, whereas fellow bikers do not object to touring?Yes, I've noticed, and this goes to the heart of my point. Why the outrage? Annoyance, I can understand. Disagreement too. But outrage? Why? How is this personally hurting you or someone you care about to the point where it warrants outrage? What exactly is it that you are so angry about? Is it the potential harm caused to someone? Is it the audacity the guy had to attach a video camera to his helmet?
I think this post has probably gone on long enough (and thank you, Mr. Moderator, for moving it to the Advocacy & Safety forum, where it belongs). I said I'd stick to a few final comments, and I will. If you care to respond, I'll happily give you the last word.
Cheers!
Regarding judgment: the bulk of the comments in your most recent post seem to be directed toward the issue of whether these bikers are putting people other than themselves at risk, either physically or legally. For the sake of goodwill, I will stipulate that hurtling through crowded walkways on a bike could cause injury to someone other than the biker. My question: does this explain the vitriolic nature of your reaction to the video?
The people praising these videos tend to have preachy slogans in their signatures and personal profiles. I'm responding to those who seem to think this is behavior is well and good, AND in line with the goals implied by those slogans.As you know, I am not among this group.
If the bikers who made these videos have no political motivation for doing so (it is extremely unlikely that that is the case) then okay, they're doing it to get a thrill.Sorry, this does not follow. At least, not the way you're presenting your argument (lack of, actually). How can you say it's "extremely unlikely"? There's no basis for such a statement.
You don't want anyone jumping all over you for touring? Fine, but you're dealing in apples and oranges again.Interesting that you accuse me of dealing in apples and oranges when I at least am comparing one biking activity to another. You, on the other hand, are comparing one biking activity with an activity related to firearms and, evidently, severe mental disability (on the part of those partaking in said hypothetical activity, not yours :)). With respect, I'd have to say that it is your comparison that is apples and oranges. Mine is more like . . . apples and crab apples.
Have you noticed that FELLOW BIKERS are outraged at this behavior, whereas fellow bikers do not object to touring?Yes, I've noticed, and this goes to the heart of my point. Why the outrage? Annoyance, I can understand. Disagreement too. But outrage? Why? How is this personally hurting you or someone you care about to the point where it warrants outrage? What exactly is it that you are so angry about? Is it the potential harm caused to someone? Is it the audacity the guy had to attach a video camera to his helmet?
I think this post has probably gone on long enough (and thank you, Mr. Moderator, for moving it to the Advocacy & Safety forum, where it belongs). I said I'd stick to a few final comments, and I will. If you care to respond, I'll happily give you the last word.
Cheers!
randya
Awesome Video!
:beer:
That was fun!
:beer:
That was fun!
roadfix
These guys are insane.........but awesome video, I'll give 'em that.
mirona
Yes, I've noticed, and this goes to the heart of my point. Why the outrage? Annoyance, I can understand. Disagreement too. But outrage? Why? How is this personally hurting you or someone you care about to the point where it warrants outrage? What exactly is it that you are so angry about? Is it the potential harm caused to someone? Is it the audacity the guy had to attach a video camera to his helmet?
I don't have much to say in this post and definitely won't be able to say it as well as the two of you. With that said, it seems that your question is, "How does it affect you?" Through the actions of these cyclists, other people (vehicle operators, pedestrians) may judge ALL cyclists to be like them. If you see FedEx trucks regularly running people off the road, you might think that FedEx has a problem with safe-driving practices. I can see the same type of judgements towards cyclists. The difference is the bike isn't very protective.
What if the people making these judgements decide that the next cyclist they see deserves to receive their wrath? That next cyclist could be you.
I don't have much to say in this post and definitely won't be able to say it as well as the two of you. With that said, it seems that your question is, "How does it affect you?" Through the actions of these cyclists, other people (vehicle operators, pedestrians) may judge ALL cyclists to be like them. If you see FedEx trucks regularly running people off the road, you might think that FedEx has a problem with safe-driving practices. I can see the same type of judgements towards cyclists. The difference is the bike isn't very protective.
What if the people making these judgements decide that the next cyclist they see deserves to receive their wrath? That next cyclist could be you.
Treespeed
You are all missing the point of these riders. I would bet that all of them are messengers. Yes, they almost hit a lot of people and almost cause accidents, but that is just your perception. Probably none of you have ridden in this manner and don't understand that to make a living as a messenger it is expected that you ride this way and it's certainly a lot safer than the chickens&!$ manner that most of you would ride through gridlock urban traffic. If they don't ride this way someone else will and take their job. Most messengers get paid by the job, the faster they ride, the more money they make. And cops and businessman don't have them busted because they want the stuff they are delivering for them now. If businesses didn't want crazy messengers flying through their city they would stop using them, but they know that no car or scooter is getting through that gridlock.
All of you posters calling these riders dumb or stupid know that these messengers could ride circles around you even after a couple of 40oz pit stops. It's not a political statement, they are showing off, more like a Warren Miller Video than an NRA rally (what a tenuous analogy that was.)
Despite all of the near misses, that is what they are near misses and almost getting hit. In 7 years of messengering I hit two peds, one jaywalking mid street at a full run who didn't look, and I bet he's still glad I hit him instead of the bus that was behind me. And a woman who flung her arm into traffic while hailing a cab.
If you can't appreciate the skills that this kind of riding requires and the desire to ride like they do then just go back to your safe little bike lanes and shut up.
All of you posters calling these riders dumb or stupid know that these messengers could ride circles around you even after a couple of 40oz pit stops. It's not a political statement, they are showing off, more like a Warren Miller Video than an NRA rally (what a tenuous analogy that was.)
Despite all of the near misses, that is what they are near misses and almost getting hit. In 7 years of messengering I hit two peds, one jaywalking mid street at a full run who didn't look, and I bet he's still glad I hit him instead of the bus that was behind me. And a woman who flung her arm into traffic while hailing a cab.
If you can't appreciate the skills that this kind of riding requires and the desire to ride like they do then just go back to your safe little bike lanes and shut up.
mirona
Well, at least I have seen the type of respondent that hails from either side of the fence. Looks like I'm a big chicken$%@ sissy because I don't run into pedestrians.
Treespeed
Well, at least I have seen the type of respondent that hails from either side of the fence. Looks like I'm a big chicken$%@ sissy because I don't run into pedestrians.
Well, if you say so, but I didn't see anyone hit any peds.
But obviously the rest of you have a lock on what defines safe riding.
Well, if you say so, but I didn't see anyone hit any peds.
But obviously the rest of you have a lock on what defines safe riding.
mirona
In 7 years of messengering I hit two peds, one jaywalking mid street at a full run who didn't look, and I bet he's still glad I hit him instead of the bus that was behind me. And a woman who flung her arm into traffic while hailing a cab.
You're right. It's not in the video. It's in your post.
You're right. It's not in the video. It's in your post.
Hawkear
Do we really need ANOTHER thread on these films?
I mean, really. Do a search!
I mean, really. Do a search!
gpljr75
You are all missing the point of these riders. I would bet that all of them are messengers. Yes, they almost hit a lot of people and almost cause accidents, but that is just your perception. Probably none of you have ridden in this manner and don't understand that to make a living as a messenger it is expected that you ride this way and it's certainly a lot safer than the chickens&!$ manner that most of you would ride through gridlock urban traffic. If they don't ride this way someone else will and take their job. Most messengers get paid by the job, the faster they ride, the more money they make. And cops and businessman don't have them busted because they want the stuff they are delivering for them now. If businesses didn't want crazy messengers flying through their city they would stop using them, but they know that no car or scooter is getting through that gridlock.
All of you posters calling these riders dumb or stupid know that these messengers could ride circles around you even after a couple of 40oz pit stops. It's not a political statement, they are showing off, more like a Warren Miller Video than an NRA rally (what a tenuous analogy that was.)
Despite all of the near misses, that is what they are near misses and almost getting hit. In 7 years of messengering I hit two peds, one jaywalking mid street at a full run who didn't look, and I bet he's still glad I hit him instead of the bus that was behind me. And a woman who flung her arm into traffic while hailing a cab.
If you can't appreciate the skills that this kind of riding requires and the desire to ride like they do then just go back to your safe little bike lanes and shut up.
Impeccable reasoning, Treespeed. Riding like that is "certainly a lot safer" than obeying traffic rules, and say, not running red lights when cars and pedestrians are midway through them, or going the wrong way down a one-way street at break-neck speeds, having just consumed a 40oz. How could a sissy like me have been so dumb as to miss that.
Semi-trucks and taxi-cabs could probably make more money if they drove their routes faster. Would you want that?
I have a feeling you've represented yourself, and plenty of people who ride like this, quite well. so thanks, at least, for that. Yes, I bet you could bike better than me while drunk on alcohol. You could probably drive a car better than me while drunk on alcohol, too. Please don't do either, though. I'll just take it on faith. No need to prove it, okay.
P.S. Impeccable means without flaw.
All of you posters calling these riders dumb or stupid know that these messengers could ride circles around you even after a couple of 40oz pit stops. It's not a political statement, they are showing off, more like a Warren Miller Video than an NRA rally (what a tenuous analogy that was.)
Despite all of the near misses, that is what they are near misses and almost getting hit. In 7 years of messengering I hit two peds, one jaywalking mid street at a full run who didn't look, and I bet he's still glad I hit him instead of the bus that was behind me. And a woman who flung her arm into traffic while hailing a cab.
If you can't appreciate the skills that this kind of riding requires and the desire to ride like they do then just go back to your safe little bike lanes and shut up.
Impeccable reasoning, Treespeed. Riding like that is "certainly a lot safer" than obeying traffic rules, and say, not running red lights when cars and pedestrians are midway through them, or going the wrong way down a one-way street at break-neck speeds, having just consumed a 40oz. How could a sissy like me have been so dumb as to miss that.
Semi-trucks and taxi-cabs could probably make more money if they drove their routes faster. Would you want that?
I have a feeling you've represented yourself, and plenty of people who ride like this, quite well. so thanks, at least, for that. Yes, I bet you could bike better than me while drunk on alcohol. You could probably drive a car better than me while drunk on alcohol, too. Please don't do either, though. I'll just take it on faith. No need to prove it, okay.
P.S. Impeccable means without flaw.
randya
I don't have much to say in this post and definitely won't be able to say it as well as the two of you. With that said, it seems that your question is, "How does it affect you?" Through the actions of these cyclists, other people (vehicle operators, pedestrians) may judge ALL cyclists to be like them. If you see FedEx trucks regularly running people off the road, you might think that FedEx has a problem with safe-driving practices. I can see the same type of judgements towards cyclists. The difference is the bike isn't very protective.
What if the people making these judgements decide that the next cyclist they see deserves to receive their wrath? That next cyclist could be you.
I think you should worry about the impression you make on your bike and let them worry about the impression they make. Projecting from one or several cyclists' behavior to all cyclists behavior is ultimately as pointless as trying to do the same for motorists.
I view these videos are sort of a documentary snapshot of one curious and perhaps dangerous (but only to those who choose to participate) version of bicycle racing that is meant primarily as entertainment, no sense getting your panties all bunched up trying to spin it as either good or bad for bicycle advocacy, because IMO, it's neither.
What's not good for bicycling advocacy is all the backstabbing going on between each and every one of y'all that thinks you know the only correct way to ride a bicycle in traffic; so instead of being a loosely organized and powerful force for change with many different viewpoints and styles represented, we choose instead to descend into stupid infighting over who is the most correct, which ultimately gets us exactly nowhere.
What if the people making these judgements decide that the next cyclist they see deserves to receive their wrath? That next cyclist could be you.
I think you should worry about the impression you make on your bike and let them worry about the impression they make. Projecting from one or several cyclists' behavior to all cyclists behavior is ultimately as pointless as trying to do the same for motorists.
I view these videos are sort of a documentary snapshot of one curious and perhaps dangerous (but only to those who choose to participate) version of bicycle racing that is meant primarily as entertainment, no sense getting your panties all bunched up trying to spin it as either good or bad for bicycle advocacy, because IMO, it's neither.
What's not good for bicycling advocacy is all the backstabbing going on between each and every one of y'all that thinks you know the only correct way to ride a bicycle in traffic; so instead of being a loosely organized and powerful force for change with many different viewpoints and styles represented, we choose instead to descend into stupid infighting over who is the most correct, which ultimately gets us exactly nowhere.
Placid Casual
Just out of curiosity, where exactly did any of you get the idea that these were anarchists making a political statement?
JohnBrooking
What it comes right down is that there are all kinds of people in the world, among the cycling community as well as the larger world. We know better than to judge all cyclists by this behavior, and we hope that most motorists know better too. It's easy to blame riders like this when we get nervous that some motorists don't know the difference, rather than blaming the motorist for judging all of us by these cyclists' behavior.
Treespeed
Impeccable reasoning, Treespeed. Riding like that is "certainly a lot safer" than obeying traffic rules, and say, not running red lights when cars and pedestrians are midway through them, or going the wrong way down a one-way street at break-neck speeds, having just consumed a 40oz. How could a sissy like me have been so dumb as to miss that.
Semi-trucks and taxi-cabs could probably make more money if they drove their routes faster. Would you want that?
I have a feeling you've represented yourself, and plenty of people who ride like this, quite well. so thanks, at least, for that. Yes, I bet you could bike better than me while drunk on alcohol. You could probably drive a car better than me while drunk on alcohol, too. Please don't do either, though. I'll just take it on faith. No need to prove it, okay.
P.S. Impeccable means without flaw.
P.S. False analogy, means flawed logic.
Considering that thousands of people are killed by cars each year and closer to zero are killed by cyclists I think your analogy comparing messengers to wrong way trucks is pretty weak.
Thanks for the condescension obviously a dumb old messenger could never understand satire or the meaning of impeccable. I've obviously shamed the noble cycling community and I will now don my orange safety reflective vest and hug the far right curb as I slink back home.
Semi-trucks and taxi-cabs could probably make more money if they drove their routes faster. Would you want that?
I have a feeling you've represented yourself, and plenty of people who ride like this, quite well. so thanks, at least, for that. Yes, I bet you could bike better than me while drunk on alcohol. You could probably drive a car better than me while drunk on alcohol, too. Please don't do either, though. I'll just take it on faith. No need to prove it, okay.
P.S. Impeccable means without flaw.
P.S. False analogy, means flawed logic.
Considering that thousands of people are killed by cars each year and closer to zero are killed by cyclists I think your analogy comparing messengers to wrong way trucks is pretty weak.
Thanks for the condescension obviously a dumb old messenger could never understand satire or the meaning of impeccable. I've obviously shamed the noble cycling community and I will now don my orange safety reflective vest and hug the far right curb as I slink back home.
cruentus
My friends and I used to do exactly this type of thing when we were teens. I grew out of it, and so will most of the kids in the video -- of course, some will never grow out of it because they'll end up dead.
mirona
I think you should worry about the impression you make on your bike and let them worry about the impression they make. Projecting from one or several cyclists' behavior to all cyclists behavior is ultimately as pointless as trying to do the same for motorists.
Do you honestly believe that there are people that don't make blanket judgements based on the actions of a few?
When a man in a truck swerves and says, "F'n cyclists! Get off the road!" do you think that he is JUST referring to you?
Do you honestly believe that there are people that don't make blanket judgements based on the actions of a few?
When a man in a truck swerves and says, "F'n cyclists! Get off the road!" do you think that he is JUST referring to you?
Dchiefransom
sorry, perhaps i didn't elaborate to the point you needed, gpl. the argument you present reminds me of those who argue against "colorful" protests, critical mass, and the like. simple, that street performance and discomfort do not bring about change, but only enrage the majority. i reject this point of view, and i believe history shows a lot of times where outrageous acts beget tremendous change -- ACT-UP in the 80s with Reagan, *some* of the 60s protests; the RNC protest in New York, and even perhaps we can group Cindy Sheehan in this... we musn't always work "within" the system to affect change; clearly we need this, but we can also utilize human creativity to really point of the fallacies of the conditions we live in.
i'm not defending the stupidity of riding the wrong way through traffic... but i would like to point out that us calling that "stupidity" is itself a reflection of our automobile bias. why don't we call cagers stupid for spending money on being in devices that cause global warming and ashtma; that cost large of sums of money to maintain and operate; and that are the LEADING cause of death in the US after smoking? why don't we just look at a driver and say "what an idiot"? because we are living within the dictated paradigm of automobile culture. and i say, whatever rocks that world, whatever causes attention and interest and intrigue is welcome by me.
Heck, why don't we just shoot a few of them, maybe that will make our point even better?
If you're so concerned about the air we breathe, why don't you get off that computer and get rid of it? Generating electricity also puts fossil fuel pollution into the air.
i'm not defending the stupidity of riding the wrong way through traffic... but i would like to point out that us calling that "stupidity" is itself a reflection of our automobile bias. why don't we call cagers stupid for spending money on being in devices that cause global warming and ashtma; that cost large of sums of money to maintain and operate; and that are the LEADING cause of death in the US after smoking? why don't we just look at a driver and say "what an idiot"? because we are living within the dictated paradigm of automobile culture. and i say, whatever rocks that world, whatever causes attention and interest and intrigue is welcome by me.
Heck, why don't we just shoot a few of them, maybe that will make our point even better?
If you're so concerned about the air we breathe, why don't you get off that computer and get rid of it? Generating electricity also puts fossil fuel pollution into the air.
Santaria
I'd love to see a video of sensitive messangers, clad in 4k watts of lighting power on 3-speed internal hubbed bicycles wearing three-peace tweed suits with bright orange reflective vests. Maybe top it off with another 400 or so watts of lighting on their helmets all riding single file, drafting off each other at speeds no more than 15 MPH delivering their packages. Somehow I have a vision of a Pink Floyd-esque (p.s. that means in the manner of Pink Floyd's previous videos) video.
Bottom line, nobody is saying they're in the right. I, personally, do not ride like that because where I am, in urban sprawl, I'd get killed. Instead I beg for the scraps of space that is afforded to me on the road, pleading - yelling and screaming like the rest of us do for just 1% of the respect I feel I deserve. On the other hand, these guys obviously are doing something right in their communities (sorta) in that this is where the standard is set for their occupation.
There is no side to take on this ultimately, if someone road like I did in NYC, they would be killed quickly, and if I road like they do here, the same result would happen.
Now, back to your corners boys! No need to get all froggy about it.
p.s. froggy means jumpy.
Bottom line, nobody is saying they're in the right. I, personally, do not ride like that because where I am, in urban sprawl, I'd get killed. Instead I beg for the scraps of space that is afforded to me on the road, pleading - yelling and screaming like the rest of us do for just 1% of the respect I feel I deserve. On the other hand, these guys obviously are doing something right in their communities (sorta) in that this is where the standard is set for their occupation.
There is no side to take on this ultimately, if someone road like I did in NYC, they would be killed quickly, and if I road like they do here, the same result would happen.
Now, back to your corners boys! No need to get all froggy about it.
p.s. froggy means jumpy.
randya
Do you honestly believe that there are people that don't make blanket judgements based on the actions of a few?
When a man in a truck swerves and says, "F'n cyclists! Get off the road!" do you think that he is JUST referring to you?
All the 'politically correct' cycling in the world isn't going to change these people's minds. Not now, not ever.
When a man in a truck swerves and says, "F'n cyclists! Get off the road!" do you think that he is JUST referring to you?
All the 'politically correct' cycling in the world isn't going to change these people's minds. Not now, not ever.
mirona
All the 'politically correct' cycling in the world isn't going to change these people's minds. Not now, not ever.
Well, when I'm out riding, I do everything in my power to not 'convert' someone to a hater.
Well, when I'm out riding, I do everything in my power to not 'convert' someone to a hater.
skookum
I hope that guy gets run over
CycleMagic
ok...so i had time to read what must be bikeforum's longest post-reply on a topic..ever, while the video loaded. i time to read it all...quite articulate, all of you. very impressive back and forth. nice volley of point, counter-point.
but i have to say after watching the video...WOW! I'm thinking 3-D IMAX...wouldn't that be cool with that semi approaching? could be a rush to watch. don't condone what those crazy guys are doing, but it was a cool video. yea, stupid stunt, but pretty exciting to see. don't try this at home, kids!
but i have to say after watching the video...WOW! I'm thinking 3-D IMAX...wouldn't that be cool with that semi approaching? could be a rush to watch. don't condone what those crazy guys are doing, but it was a cool video. yea, stupid stunt, but pretty exciting to see. don't try this at home, kids!
cosmo starr
I hope that guy gets run over
i hope you get run over
i hope you get run over
Treespeed
i hope you get run over
Second that.
Second that.
chroot
I dunno about you fellas, but the NYC video was much cooler than the Baltimore video. Except that the Baltimore dude wears the same gloves I do. Dope.
- Warren
- Warren
mirona
"I hope you get run over."
"I hope YOU get run over."
"Yea, me too!"
This is some nice Point, Counter-Point, eh? :rolleyes:
Not mocking you, CycleMagic, just the hilarious return to elementary school.
"I hope YOU get run over."
"Yea, me too!"
This is some nice Point, Counter-Point, eh? :rolleyes:
Not mocking you, CycleMagic, just the hilarious return to elementary school.
roadfix
For a short while I thought we had folks from the BMX forum posting here... :D
hester
i wouldn't mind to be able to ride like that. i probably wouldn't make a habit of it, but that was BOSS.
Delix
i dont know which is lamer, this thread or the 'lance rides with w' thread. I think the video is sick.
P.S sick means "cool" these days. I couldnt resist. :)
P.S sick means "cool" these days. I couldnt resist. :)
Previous - Top - Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007 BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.