Originally posted by John E


I have had the privilege of meeting Lauren and discussing "lawful vehicular cycling" on her periodic visits to San Diego. I concur with her observations, attitude, and recommendations. She considers herself a "Professional Bicycle Commuter" in the sense that she not only meets most of her transportation needs through cycling, as many of us do, but that she is out there actively pushing for motorist and bicyclist education and mutual respect.

Yup, I have met her as well late November in eastern USA, she lives near the Blue Ridge Parkway. She's a very sincere and nice person and the way the message is written is exactly as she is: polite but firm!
I think that when you talk about subjects like these with a public that has the foggiest idea about the rights of cyclists, it doesn't help to become abusive with ignorant drivers or policemen.. it would be an idea to print the info and carry it with you for the next time you're confronted with people who actually stop you when you're cycling on the road.. this is mostly true for police men.. I've had one official stop me in Naples, Florida for riding slightly to the right of the center of a 2x3-lane road (deserted even!). He even threatened to throw me in jail when I would keep protesting his actions.. apparently people in the USA have a higher esteem for law enforcement than the Europeans and certainly the Dutch!

PS... a somewhat similar situation arose on a busy & narrow Mexican road where a police man was concerned about my safety. I explained him why I hogged the center of the lane. He was quite understanding and we even shook hands when I bade him goodbye.

Mexicans are generally such polite people!!!!

Originally posted by fietser_ivana
...I've had one official stop me in Naples, Florida for riding slightly to the right of the center of a 2x3-lane road (deserted even!). He even threatened to throw me in jail when I would keep protesting his actions..
It's strange how law enforcement will pay too much attention to a cyclist, but totally ignore deadly behavior of motorists.

:mad:

Originally posted by Pete Clark

It's strange how law enforcement will pay too much attention to a cyclist, but totally ignore deadly behavior of motorists.


I'm not so sure "strange" is quite the word I'd use to describe a fear of accountability.

Now, let's talk about traffic law again. I was told by a gent who manufactures bikes and was attending the Tokyo bike show a few years ago that in Japan, the larger entity in any collision is always automatically at fault--it quite reasonably puts the legal burden on the party capable of doing the most harm. Why can't we be this humane and sensible in the English-speaking world?
A system of automatic fault this way would keep cyclists more curteous towards pedestrians, motorists toward cyclists, etc.

Feldman, I agree with the basic premise of assigning greater accountability to motorists who drive dangerously. But fault must be determined by cause, not vehicle size, in my opinion. This places the burden where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of irresponsible drivers.

But cyclists are more a danger to themselves than to motorists, so liability might be greater for larger vehicles whose drivers are at fault in an accident.

Pete, this is true. However, I believe that unless their are extenuating(sp?) circumstances, the one in control of the bigger vehicle has a duty of care to avoid harming the one using the smaller vehicle. Quite simply, it's called protecting the small.

Bike paths come in many flavours, some excellent and others awful.

In the first category, I would rank the Dutch national system (which is the equivalent of motorways for cyclists, incredibly safe, with clear signage, intercity and innercity paths that keep you away from CO2 and enable you to meet and ride along with fellow cyclists). Austrian bikepaths and the Danish network approach that level of excellence. These have my inconditional support over roads.

A second category are bike paths shared (often with a clear separation) with pedestrians, pets and roller skaters. They are generally well built. But they cramp your style as you can't keep a steady pace. They are EXTREMELY dangerous... the pedestrian that suddenly crosses the line to the bike way... the dog pulling on its leash doing the same thing...and so on. ALL my accidents on a bike, including a shoulder fracture, happened on such bikeways, trying to avoid slower beings or reacting to the unannounced and sudden decisions of others.

A third category is the sidewalk type, bumpy, off and on path that suddenly ends. These are often built or rather put together by municipal authorities alongside perfectly paved streets, primarily I suppose as a means of getting bikes out of the way of motorists... I used to use them, but now I avoid them like the plague.

Another category are city networks designed with cyclists and their organization to facilitate civilized commuting. Those are good...

So here we are... life is not black and white!

Louis Tousignant

Originally posted by Louis T
Bike paths come in many flavours, some excellent and others awful.

In the first category, I would rank the Dutch national system (which is the equivalent of motorways for cyclists, incredibly safe, with clear signage, intercity and innercity paths that keep you away from CO2 and enable you to meet and ride along with fellow cyclists).
Louis Tousignant

Louis, you gotta be joking! Have you cycled in our country with the intention to get from city A to city B with distances of let's say 100K apart?
It's next to impossible to NOT get lost and NOT be frustrated..
Signage is very poor and the quality of the surface is poor as well.. there has been a lot of improvement for a lot of bike paths in my province in the past few years as bike paths where I've been complaining about for over 10 years were resurfaced when I was cycling in your wonderful province/state Nova Scotia.. but give me Nova Scotia any day over 1 day in the Netherlands!

People in your state are friendly and this is even more true for Newfoundlanders, generally the kindest drivers I've encountered anywhere! :love:

Inside cities the sewage department has ordered that constructions of bike paths cannot be made of tarmac, and quite a lot of out-of-town-paths are made of cobble-stones.. do you call that an improvement?
A road I always take has a bike path for about 2 K at the left side of a tarmac road.. it's completely made of tiles and too narrow for 2-way bike-traffic..it's fenced off with concrete boulders.. wonderful!!! NOT :mad:

Ok, it's better perhaps than cycling with lots of traffic, and I am grateful sometimes for them.. nobody thinks it's fun to ride alongside with roaring traffic which doesn't respect cyclists.. but don't EVER think that these paths are made with the comfort of cyclists in mind.. they are made for the convenience of car drivers.. who hate waiting for cyclists!!!!

Ivana, who is torn between a wish to emigrate to a more cycle-friendly country and a love for the dutch way of life which can be quite nice as well...

Ivana,

You ask if travelled long distances in your country and I did, in 1998. From Leer(Germany) to Groningen - Leeuwarden - Den Oever - Amsterdam - Utrecht - Eindhoven and Maastricht, although I took a short cut through Belgium along the canal to get the last location.

I agree with you that signage can be confusing and that the quality of the surface is by no means optimal everywhere. I did Amsterdam - Genderen one of those days with 2 Dutch cyclists who guided me all the way and I am very grateful for their "navigation" services as I would have taken much more time and probably got lost.

I also agree that riding in Newfoundland or in my home province of Nova Scotia can be great, but there is hardly any population for large areas...ergo few cars. Europeans have lots of history and architecture and we have lots of countryside. Bearing in mind the population density situation, your network is excellent, all things being equal.

I have not seen anything like it on this side of the Ocean. But I am also a firm believer that there's nothing better than a quiet country road that you own.

Cheers,

Louis

Time for a little disgusting humor, 'Murrican style. This guy that I know was living in Seattle, about 20 years ago. He is mostly an offroad cyclist now but then was an active road and track racer, really liked long road rides on his fixed gear rig in the winter and spring. He lived near the Burke-Gilman bike trail which runs diagonally southwest to northeast from an area near downtown Seattle to the north tip of Lake Washington, this is in the direction of Redmond, Bellvue, etc. In the early 1980's, the BG was inundated with roller skaters very suddenly including roller-discoing dancers who would stop forward motion to try out new steps and circles without any warning at all. This was really disconcerting to cyclists, especially to a medical student trying to get back from a ride and hit the books or clean his house.
"Andy," as I'll call him, is a country boy and used to like a little chew once in awhile, especially towards the end of a long ride. You know, a little boost for the last 10k of 100. One roller-discoer almost knocked him off his Rodriguez track bike into some shrubbery one day when he had just put a good chew in, and of course the natural response was to JUICE the skater! Behavior of skater modified right there and then!

How totally gross. But I wish I could do that! Especially to the annoying roller bladers who decide tht THEY have to do balletic movements in the middle of the path! They are one of the main reasons I get off the path and onto the road whenever possible.

Just found this gem.. :cool:

----------40 reasons to avoid cycle tracks----------------

1. Because it requires substantial artistic abilities to ride over the cars parked on the cycle track.
2. Because the cycle track suddenly stops one hundred meters further, without possibility to ride on.
3. Because you found no place where the curb was lowered to cross safely.
4. Because it is not a cycle track, but a building site.
5. Because you don't like your private parts beaten with every bump caused by the impact in holes and by tree roots and therefore prefer the smooth, maintained asphalt of the road.
6. Because too many pedestrians walk on the cycle track.
7. Because the police recommended it.
8. Because the cycle track is not suitable for 30 km/h, but the road.
9. Because the trailer is too wide for the 70 cm narrow cycle track
10. Because the bike with trailer is too long for the curve a few hundred meters further.
11. Which cycle track?
12. Because you can't reach the push button for the traffic light at the next crossing.
13. Because there is still sand from last winter on the cycle track - exactly in the next curve.
14. Because the pillars on the cycle track are impossible to see in the darkness.
15. Because the bright light of the advertisement at the bus stop, which one must bypass, dazzles so strongly that one would have to drive blind.
16. Because one does not carry a broom to clean up the broken bottles left on the cycle track last weekend.
17. Because someone sweeped the pieces of broken glass of the car accident last week from the road to the cycle track.
18. Because I do not want to cycle on the wrong side of the road.
19. Because I want to turn left one hundred meters further.
20. Because I *don't* want to turn right one hundred meters further.
21. Because the cycle track is closed and someone only forgot to set up the correct signs.
22. Because the cycle track is closed, because someone forgot to remove the signs.
23. Because it is uncomfortable.
24. Because it is too slow.
25. Because it is dangerous.
26. My auto is for inspection, Mr. Policeman, and I do not know about these strange traffic rules on these cycle tracks out here.
27. I don't want to commit suicide.
28. Because to use the cycle track one has to cross the road - however the piece of cycle track is shorter than the road wide!
29. Because to use the cycle track one has to cross the road - but where?
30. Because at the end of the cycle track one has to cross the road again - but where?
31. Because helmets do not protect you from the iron pillars at height of your private parts.
32. Because the bike track is so narrow that the distance to the pedestrians would be at minus 10 centimeters.
33. I drive here on the road, because the induction loops on the cycle track don't work either.
34. Because overhauling on the cycle track is much too dangerous.
35. I'm environmentalist and don't want to damage the roots, which popped up at the cycle track!
36. When I passed by last year there was still a building site of the telephone or water company. How could I know that they finish so fast?
37. I forgot my tire repair kit.
38. Because it's so difficult to overtake the motorbikes on the cycle track.
39. On the cycle track? Only with gun or escort.
40. What? A bike track? I thought it was a parking lot.

I have only one complaint about bike paths: They are misnamed. They should be called pedestrian/skater paths because they immediately take them over as soon as one is built.
The only time I've found them safe for bikers is after dark; and only if you have a very bright light.

Originally posted by fietser_ivana
Just found this gem.. :cool:

----------40 reasons to avoid cycle tracks----------------


The scary part is that all 40 of them are accurate.

Today, I took, "the high road."

My cycling has evovled from timid navigation of backstreets and neighborhoods (usually taking 50% longer, climbing every possible hill, winding through a maze of curves and stopping as frequently as possible,) to hitting the "high road--" the smoothest, most level and straightest distance between two points.

Several things come to mind:

1) The "avoidance roads" (roads parallel to main roads but less travelled, seemingly more "bike friendly,") are often cramped, VERY rough and badly maintained, and slower, with more hills and stops (why are these often signed, "Bike Route?")

:mad:

2) The "neighborhood streets," while quiet, might as well be a sightseeing trip. Who wants to spend an extra 30 minutes on a detour when your trip already takes an hour?

:confused:

3) The "high road" is not only fast, it's often smooth, wide, minimum stops and gradual inclines, and much more pleasant than I thought it might be.

:)

4) Did I mention it was "fast?"

:D

5) I just love keeping a constant cadence in a "straight" line, not having to stop (often.)

6) Motorists are easier to deal with when they clip on past.

7) Stop me, please!

:eek:

You know you're not going to be able to go back now, Pete? Once you realise that the dangers of these roads are mostly overstated, they become the preferred route every time. If only city councilors, traffic engineers, police officers and the general yob in the car would realise this.

I've gotten to the point that I find my ride to work boring if there isn't sufficient traffic to do at least a little lane-splitting. Side roads, quiet streets and, horror of horrors, bike paths would bore me to tears.

Originally posted by Allister
You know you're not going to be able to go back now, Pete? Once you realise that the dangers of these roads are mostly overstated, they become the preferred route every time. If only city councilors, traffic engineers, police officers and the general yob in the car would realise this.

I've gotten to the point that I find my ride to work boring if there isn't sufficient traffic to do at least a little lane-splitting. Side roads, quiet streets and, horror of horrors, bike paths would bore me to tears.
So, now you can finally understand why it's so ultimately frustrating to be forced by a mandatory bike path law to ride on those bike paths.. even when they are often better than many US paths, they still suck! I'm ultimately a utilitarian cyclist who doesn't cycle for the fun of cycling, but to get at my destination, FAST!
When I got bitten by the bike bug I used to cycle everywhere, but have stopped doing this as soon as I realized how unfair life can be for a utilitarian cyclist.. getting lost as a result of bad signposting, getting stuck behind slow cyclists who don't move over, having to bear badly surfaced bike paths while there is a smooth road next to you.. being forced to take a left turn in pedestrian style.. and so on, and so on..
It was so bad that I've seriously considered to emigrate.. now I just decided to no longer ride complicated routes and take the train instead plus use my bike folder to do the last part..,.

After all, there are some advantages to living in the NLs. but I won't rule out that I might move to France one day..

In some places, our bike paths intersect with roads, but the cars don't have a stop signal- we do! WE have to wait for THEM! Some interesections do have stop signals, but there are a few which don't and they are hazardous. We have to wait for the cars to pass, and in some cases, it's a long wait- or you risk your life trying to cross in time. Heaven forbid they put up a signal for the CARS! In one case, the cars came over a slight hill, so you didn't see them until they were practically on top of you! However, that particular crossing has been redesigned.

On one part of the bike path, it's so clogged on weekends with bladers, pedestrians and other idiots, that we get onto the road that runs parallel to the path. The good thing is that it runs mostly through an industrial area and it's practically deserted on weekends and holidays.

Originally posted by wabbit
In some places, our bike paths intersect with roads, but the cars don't have a stop signal- we do! WE have to wait for THEM! Some interesections do have stop signals, but there are a few which don't and they are hazardous. We have to wait for the cars to pass, and in some cases, it's a long wait- or you risk your life trying to cross in time. Heaven forbid they put up a signal for the CARS! In one case, the cars came over a slight hill, so you didn't see them until they were practically on top of you! However, that particular crossing has been redesigned.

We don't have that many pedestrians, but we do have an increasing amt of skaters.. On Sundays nice bike paths are also clogged with SLOW cyclists.

Until 2001 our system was unique in Europe. During the Second World War, the German occupators installed a law that said that slow traffic had to yield to fast traffic.. thus pedestrians to cyclists and cyclists to mopeds and cars.. this was only changed in 2001 to be in accordance with European laws.
Guess what.. perhaps one third of the crossings that weren't clear have been re-painted.. yup with stop/yield signs..
The law also said that traffic going left/right had to yield to straight-on traffic. Guess what.. they deviated the bike paths in such a way that we would cross the traffic from the adjacent road in a perpendicular way.. OK for diminishing collisions, but again, according to the old rule, this would make cyclists, while going straight on, yield to turning traffic.. crazy isn't it.. especially these crossing have been repainted.
My mos favourite hilly ride in the vicinity , the so-called Zevenheuvelenweg / Seven Hills Road has a row of hills (a rarity in my area) making them into a roller-coaster rid. It didn't have a bike path until a few years ago when it was re-constructed with a bike path and a very dangerous deviation at the bottom of a hill.. :irritated
The fun was out of it immediately.. as when I took the road, I was immediately harassed by car drivers pointing at the path and even cutting me off..
Actually just now the same happened.. I was coming back from the gym and always have to go down the Grebbeberg and always take the lane as the bike lane is too narrow and the pavement also not in good condition. It is forbidden to pass and despite the fairly busy traffic was passed in a dangerous way by 2 cars... THE SHEER STUPIDITY!!!

We've got a cycle track from a couple of hundred yards from our house for the mile to my 5 year olds school. He can ride it, only crossing two roads, and get to school quicker than I could drive him in the car. He hardly ever hits the big kids from the high school going in the opposite direction now!

Our estate has several bike tracks and we can safely cycle to school, church, my husbands work and a small or large supermarket. Gimme more...

Here's to Suffolk Coastal District Council!:beer:

Originally posted by wabbit
Some interesections do have stop signals, but there are a few which don't and they are hazardous.
First, let me say to Gerty that I am glad she and her small ones have a place they feel safe cycling. Children that young need safe places to cycle.

But regarding Wabbit's post (and Ivana's,) the constant references to intersections is the key.

It is an established fact that, whether for cars, bikes or pedestrians, intersections are the most dangerous of all places, where most accidents and fatalities occur. Why? Because that's where vehicles cross paths.

In the effort to "separate" cyclists from motor traffic, cyclists are not actually separated at all. Instead, they are removed from the safest traffic position (moving with traffic in the same direction) and forced into the most unsafe traffic position: crossing traffic repeatedly and unnecessarily, often on the wrong side of the street and with poor visibility. In addition, cyclists' attention is distracted by walking people, animals, recreational activities and even bus patrons.

Imagine a soccer field. Two teams are playing hard, sometimes colliding and fouling one another, but playing by the rules in a managable fashion with referees to keep it safe and fair. What if a baseball game was attempted at the same time, on the same field? The confusion would probably cause injuries.

The same is true for transportation. To play two different games according to two different sets of rules is inviting disaster. The safest place for cyclists is on the road as vehicles, following the same rules as cars.

Amen Pete. Once again, you've hit the nail right on the head.

Absolutely! When they pass a law forbidding anyone but cyclists from the path, I'll gladly use the path. But the truth is that drivers who follow the rules of the road are far less of a risk to me than are the countless roller bladers, oblivious pedestrians, skateboarders, stroller-pushers and dog walkers who swarm the paths. It's just safer fore veryone involved, frankly. There are, I should mention, several paths which don't have that kind of congestion and I have no trouble using them.

And another dangerous area- suburban streets. In some places, I've seen kids just run right out onto the streets without even looking! Once, on a rather busy road known as Lakeshore- a well-traveled road with both cyclist and motor traffic in a large suburban area. Kids on those stupid scooters and skateboards rolling right out of their driveways without even looking! I just yell out "WATCH IT!" I can't wait for some stupid parent to curse me out for yelling at their kid. Maybe teach your kid to look both ways before running out into the street! What if I was driving a car? They seem to think that if you're on a bike, no matter how fast you maybe going, it's much easier to avoid an accident by swerving at the last minute or stopping abruptly. Yeah right!

My experience with bike paths had been more or less always bad until recently. I now live near a bike path that I enjoy a lot. It's a reclaimed rail bed, it travels through farm country with few intersections.

No one uses it. I can ride on it in decent weather on a weekend afternoon and not see a single soul on the thing. Not just no dogs, no pedestrians, no roller bladers, and no kids with soccer balls. No _cyclists_. Miles in each direction of underused cycle paths.

This kind of path is fine with me. In the past, I found it too hectic to deal with the crowds on the paths near my previous homes. I much preferred the smaller risk of death from cars on the roadways.

I have to say that it's hard to understand why my sparsely populated rural county ought to pay to maintain this path. The roads around here might as well be bike paths for all the motor traffic on them.

Still, even with miles of lazy roads through cornfields that you could pitch a tent on, people here in town are amazed to hear that I stray off of the bike path onto the roads. "Wow, you must be brave!"

So, the path is likely to stay. Where would people ride without it, after all?

Friday night, I fancied adding a mile or two to my cycle home so cycled down to the coast to find the newly open cycle path that links Faversham to Graveney. It's part of The Sustrans National Route One, and does avoid a monotonous semi-busy road. The surface of compressed sand topped with fine gravel is a little soft still, but not bad and it follows the creek bank for quite a way in a fairly pleasant way.

It's probably not a lot of use for cycling in of a morning, but for adding a bit of variety on the way home it'll be useful, and its existence helped me persuade my wife to join me for a ride into Whitstable on Saturday.

Richard

Now I’m fed up with the sandy speedbumps called bikepaths that windle through the suburbs of Stockholm. This is the second time (out of two) I get lost and finally decide to bike on the road. I gave the bikepath a chance!

I would like to contribute to this thread with a photo that illustrates my frustration. No comment, except from: Would you like to come to this green light in 30-40 km/h?

PS: More rage and photos at http://karlsplanet.com/bike/path.html.

I want more bike paths. The more the merrier.

My wife loves to ride but is not yet completely comfortable with cycling in traffic. The speed at which she can ride at this point is considerably slower than is comfortable for me, but I ride cover for her because I'd feel a cad for dropping her. We know that gradually her confidence and pace will improve, but for strictly pleasure riding we'll often use the Springwater Corridor (http://www.oregonlive.com/outdoors/oregonian/index.ssf?/outdoors/biking/bike07.frame -- the main address is http://www.oregonlive.com/outdoors/cycling/ should anyone like to read of other trails in our area). This trail affords her relative safety and the ability to procede at her own pace while I zip back and forth without her feeling abandoned. The trail is used by cyclists and pedestrians, and no motor vehicles are allowed.

I like bike lanes too, but in Portland the planning of them seems scattershot. Wide roads with bike lanes, narrow roads without, and often the bike lane simply disappears across an intersection. Oregon law allows for motor vehicles to use bike lanes as right-turn lanes, so in many situations they don't provide quite the inviolate security one might assume. Still, if you're struck in a bike lane there's no argument as to fault; at least the cyclist will be vindicated, even if posthumously. :rolleyes:

-Rob

I loved the bike lanes in Portland when I lived there. I rarely used them, it was just the statement they made. They were good when one had to cross the river etc. on a busy road. There was a back road east of downtown that had speed bumps to slow down cars and it was a designated biking road. That's the way I went. That was a great biking town. Maybe it was just because I was close in, but traffic was reasonable if you stayed of of the main roads. I went everywhere.

Where I live now the bike lanes were actually removed when they repaved. So much for being a liberal enclave. But there is a nice bike path running along the river with very few drives crossing it. When they are that isolated I love them.

I don't know if paths and lanes are a sign of pro-bike progressive poilicies, or a way to remove bikes from roads. I suppose its all about intentions.

Originally posted by Oxymoron
I loved the bike lanes in Portland when I lived there. I rarely used them, it was just the statement they made. They were good when one had to cross the river etc. on a busy road. There was a back road east of downtown that had speed bumps to slow down cars and it was a designated biking road. That's the way I went. That was a great biking town. Maybe it was just because I was close in, but traffic was reasonable if you stayed of of the main roads. I went everywhere.


Y'know, I might be a little unfair in my comments about the bike lanes here in Portland. After all, I haven't traveled every road in town via bike...yet.


Where I live now the bike lanes were actually removed when they repaved. So much for being a liberal enclave. But there is a nice bike path running along the river with very few drives crossing it. When they are that isolated I love them.


That sucks! I'll wager, what with the vocal cycling community here, that City Hall wouldn't get very far with that. At least I hope not!


I don't know if paths and lanes are a sign of pro-bike progressive poilicies, or a way to remove bikes from roads. I suppose its all about intentions.


'Ere dat!

-Rob

Oops. That prior quoted response to Oxymoron is aaalll screwed up. Apologies to any confusion caused there...:confused: :crash:

-Rob

I was involved in planning a number of the Portland bike routes in the late 70's and early 80's. There has been a huge amount of population and car-use growth in some of the lane-striped areas.
Also, the criteria for striping some streets came down to two things--lack of hills to intimidate non-cyclists (why do they ever worry about how the bike lane will look to non-riders, the very existence of a white paintstripe will attract bike riders?) and lack of complaints from drivers about "taking our lane away!" The concerns of actual bicycle riders were never really taken that seriously, maybe at least in part because even without one block of bike lane Portland would still be a rather good place to ride.

Originally posted by Feldman
...The concerns of actual bicycle riders were never really taken that seriously, maybe at least in part because even without one block of bike lane Portland would still be a rather good place to ride.

Oh I agree! Much of my route to work is sans bike lanes but I have had no trouble at all. I've commuted to work via bike several times now and haven't experienced one irate horn-blast or close-call. Motorists here seem atuned to the presence of bicycles, and since I strive to adhere to traffic laws I give them no surprises. :)

-Rob

Originally posted by RobCat2002
Motorists here seem atuned to the presence of bicycles, and since I strive to adhere to traffic laws I give them no surprises. :)


I guess it depends where you live. Around here, you will get more abuse from motorists for following the road rules (stopping at marked pedestrian crossings seems to p!ss them off the most). Although strangely, wearing sunglasses seems to diminish the abuse one gets.

:confused:

Originally posted by Chris L


I guess it depends where you live. Around here, you will get more abuse from motorists for following the road rules (stopping at marked pedestrian crossings seems to p!ss them off the most). Although strangely, wearing sunglasses seems to diminish the abuse one gets.

:confused:

Interesting. Do you perhaps exude that 'Terminator' presence? :p

-Rob

Originally posted by RobCat2002


Interesting. Do you perhaps exude that 'Terminator' presence? :p


Would you argue with this guy in 'Terminator' garb?

http://www.stoptheworld.20m.com/sjcover.gif

I find when biking, if I wear sunglasses and NOTHING else, people give me quite a wide berth...
Bike lanes become a moot point when you're not wearing pants.

Originally posted by Chris L


Would you argue with this guy in 'Terminator' garb?

http://www.stoptheworld.20m.com/sjcover.gif


Um...I dunno, all I see is a red 'X'. Yer still a mystery man! :p

-Rob

http://www.stoptheworld.20m.com/sjcover.gif

Originally posted by Chris L
http://www.stoptheworld.20m.com/sjcover.gif

Okay...guess I'll refer to you as 'X-Man'. Or perhaps 'Frustration Man'. :crash:

-Rob :D

This one? :)

Originally posted by Joe Gardner
This one? :)

Ah! I remember this visage from the old forum! Thank you Joe.

Quite fearsome, Chris. Any trouble finding a helmet that fits? Or are you one of the armorless? :p

-Rob

Originally posted by RobCat2002

Quite fearsome, Chris. Any trouble finding a helmet that fits? Or are you one of the armorless


It has been suggested that it takes a bit to get something through my skull. Incidentally, where did my image go? Surely both jets sites couldn't have gone down?

:eek: