[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

I don't think that is true as a rule. I am sure that there are occasions when road users have got into fights, including occasions when bike riders may have swung bike locks at cars, but this is far from the norm. I know that you love to find examples of the extreme and the bizarre and then try to generalize from them, but that doesn't really lend you any credibility.

All I did was read the wiki page on Critical Mass. There's a fair few incidents surrounding their activities. Go read it.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

Are you smoking crack, pot or on shrooms?

I'm simply looking at the information in front of me. You might like to try it sometime.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

Are you smoking crack, pot or on shrooms?

Yeah, no choice at all! In fact, he should probably have shot him.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

The ability to find vanishingly small outliers and use them to make general statements is key to internet arguments.

My friend, you just said a mouthful.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

All I did was read the wiki page on Critical Mass. There's a fair few incidents surrounding their activities. Go read it.

It looks like three incidents are documented. As I said, you propensity to want to generalize from outliers does not lend strength to your argument. Yes, there are rare occasions where road users act badly. Yes, some of these occasions involve bicyclists. No, you cannot generalize from those two statements.

[TheWOAT]

I gotta say, that cop had nice form on that tackle. Bicyclist got jacked up !!!

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

It looks like three incidents are documented. As I said, you propensity to want to generalize from outliers does not lend strength to your argument. Yes, there are rare occasions where road users act badly. Yes, some of these occasions involve bicyclists. No, you cannot generalize from those two statements.

Well, let's put it this way: All Critical Massers run red lights in order to keep their "critical mass" going. As far as I'm concerned, that's valid reason for drop-kicking any of them off their jalopies.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Well, let's put it this way: All Critical Massers run red lights in order to keep their "critical mass" going.

That is a plainly false statement.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

That is a plainly false statement.

Is it an overgeneralization, or is it attributing an observation to something other than its real reason?

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Is it an overgeneralization, or is it attributing an observation to something other than its real reason?

I am sure that some critical mass riders have run red lights, and that some critical mass rides 'cork' intersections to allow the mass to pass - police sometimes do this for them. It is plainly untrue that all critical mass riders, or all critical mass rides do this. Whether or not they do it to 'keep the mass going' or for other reasons is largely a matter for speculation - they claim to do it for safety.

[Uncle Doof]

OK, let's put it this way then zombie. The user "zombie punk" on the forum "MacNN" supports Critical Mass. As far as I'm concerned, that's valid reason for drop-kicking any of them off their jalopies.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Nobody is saying that cyclists should be singled out. They should be treated equally. Test, licence, insurance, plates.

So you're saying you want to impose additional taxes on yourself and your neighbors to support the greatly increased administrative burden to implement and enforce such a system? How very leftist and anti-freedom.

Cyclists could pay fees to support some of the burden, but I doubt it would make economic sense (fees would have to be so high as to create a large barrier to entry in cycling - no one would have a bicycle - you may wish for that result but I don't). Even if it did, who's going to enforce? Where would that support come from? Police ignore motorists now - what attention would be paid to cyclists? You'd need more police (or at the very least, a force of 'bicycle cops') - who's going to pay for that? Who's going to pay for tracking compliance with testing, licensing, insurance, etc? Where I live, those are government functions for motorists, supported by taxes.

It's done for motorists because, as others have pointed out, the risks are much higher and it's worth the cost. Take insurance. What would liability insurance for a cyclist cost? The premium would be negligible because the risk of killing or injuring another on a bicycle is negligible (of course it's not zero ). It would cost more to track compliance with getting insurance than the cost of insurance itself.

[zombie punk]

It looks like you're at the end of the line on logic, but just to be clear, what is not to 'support' about the right of people to exercise their rights to use the road? That is not to say that I support running red lights or getting into fights, but it's unclear to me what you are really getting at.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So you're saying you want to impose additional taxes on yourself and your neighbors to support the greatly increased administrative burden to implement and enforce such a system? How very leftist and anti-freedom.

Cyclists could pay fees to support some of the burden, but I doubt it would make economic sense (fees would have to be so high as to create a large barrier to entry in cycling - no one would have a bicycle - you may wish for that result but I don't). Even if it did, who's going to enforce? Where would that support come from? Police ignore motorists now - what attention would be paid to cyclists? You'd need more police (or at the very least, a force of 'bicycle cops') - who's going to pay for that? Who's going to pay for tracking compliance with testing, licensing, insurance, etc? Where I live, those are government functions for motorists, supported by taxes.

It's done for motorists because, as others have pointed out, the risks are much higher and it's worth the cost. Take insurance. What would liability insurance for a cyclist cost? The premium would be negligible because the risk of killing or injuring another on a bicycle is negligible (of course it's not zero ). It would cost more to track compliance with getting insurance than the cost of insurance itself.

In addition, the net benefit to society of someone getting out of a car and onto a bike is huge. It's free to ride a bike because if you make it more difficult to ride them, and that results in more people driving, the costs to society (in road maintenance, public health issues, slaughter etc) are huge. The damage bikes do and the hazard the pose is minute. People choosing to bike rather than drive is a boon for the transportation infrastructure. Get over whatever petty issues you have with this - yes, bikers should obey the law, as should drivers. Most of both groups do.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So you're saying you want to impose additional taxes on yourself and your neighbors to support the greatly increased administrative burden to implement and enforce such a system? How very leftist and anti-freedom.

Cyclists could pay fees to support some of the burden, but I doubt it would make economic sense (fees would have to be so high as to create a large barrier to entry in cycling - no one would have a bicycle - you may wish for that result but I don't). Even if it did, who's going to enforce? Where would that support come from? Police ignore motorists now - what attention would be paid to cyclists? You'd need more police (or at the very least, a force of 'bicycle cops') - who's going to pay for that? Who's going to pay for tracking compliance with testing, licensing, insurance, etc? Where I live, those are government functions for motorists, supported by taxes.

It's done for motorists because, as others have pointed out, the risks are much higher and it's worth the cost. Take insurance. What would liability insurance for a cyclist cost? The premium would be negligible because the risk of killing or injuring another on a bicycle is negligible (of course it's not zero ). It would cost more to track compliance with getting insurance than the cost of insurance itself.

I actually like what you're saying here. Basically that it's all too much effort so let's not bother. I wish they'd apply the same kind of thinking to taxes.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

It looks like you're at the end of the line on logic getting bored with my pedantry

Yes, that's correct.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

I actually like what you're saying here. Basically that it's all too much effort so let's not bother. I wish they'd apply the same kind of thinking to taxes.

Yeah - I'd just add it's all too much effort for what we'd gain. As I said, I don't think that's the case for motorists, or for that matter some other things that taxes support. But you're right - for any new tax or program, there's a cost/benefit involved.

[zombie punk]

It's not that it is too much effort, it's that it would be counter-productive. It would be like having an extra tax for people who don't smoke.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Yes, that's correct.

I'm sorry that being held to account when you make statements that are obviously factually incorrect bores you - knowledge and understanding is something that you have to work at - if you find educating yourself about an issue boring, that explains your posts.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

It would be like having an extra tax for people who don't smoke.

Another great idea. I'm up for it no problem. After all, non-smokers aren't really paying their way, are they?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

A pedestrian also has a responsibility not to run through red lights. Different rules apply to different classes of vehicle / locomotion because of the different hazards each pose to the other. The idea that bikes and golf carts and pedestrians should need the same licensing as SUVs is laughable.

I never fully agreed with Doof. Bikes carry much less responsibilities than cars. They do carry more responsibilities than pedestrian. And although Doof was able to find a single bike related fatality, I still maintain my position that bikes don't kill.

Hardly anyone's going around on modded multi-thousand dollar bikes going over 20mph. Most are putt-putting along and have plenty of time to brake for pedestrians or do very minimal injuries.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Another great idea. I'm up for it no problem. After all, non-smokers aren't really paying their way, are they?

I'll take that as a humble apology and retraction of the nonsense you were posting earlier. You're welcome!

[lexapro]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

I'm simply looking at the information in front of me. You might like to try it sometime.

So you smoking both crack and pot AND eating shrooms while posting? No wonder you're so far from any sort of reality.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

I'm sorry that being held to account when you make statements that are obviously factually incorrect bores you - knowledge and understanding is something that you have to work at - if you find educating yourself about an issue boring, that explains your posts.

Well let's put it another way then: Everyone taking part in a Critical mass demonstration is probably a complete **** (*). As far as I'm concerned, that's valid reason for drop-kicking any of them off their jalopies.

(* I actually typed the stars out there. Pick a four letter word. Just for fun.)

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

So you smoking both crack and pot AND eating shrooms while posting? No wonder you're so far from any sort of reality.

Dude, have you ever thought about applying for a spot on SNL or something? 'Coz you're really original and hilarious, you know. You should go for it sometime, give up the day job and everything.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Well let's put it another way then: Everyone taking part in a Critical mass demonstration is probably a complete **** (*). As far as I'm concerned, that's valid reason for drop-kicking any of them off their jalopies.

(* I actually typed the stars out there. Pick a four letter word. Just for fun.)

Well you're plain out of anything except unsubstantiated hate, but let's go along with this for a minute. You've singled out a group of road users based on your belief that the law needs to be changed to be less favorable to them, and you believe that this entitles you or others to commit assault or worse? Great. I suppose you feel that they have reciprocal rights towards you when you are on the road?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Dude, have you ever thought about applying for a spot on SNL or something? 'Coz you're really original and hilarious, you know. You should go for it sometime, give up the day job and everything.

Hey, just because you're obviously very skilled at absurdist humor* doesn't mean you can't throw others a bone once in a while.

* at least, I hope that's what's going on in this thread. If you're actually serious, then

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Well you're plain of anything

Huh?

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

except unsubstantiated hate, but let's go along with this for a minute. You've singled out a group of road users based on your belief that the law needs to be changed to be less favorable to them, and you believe that this entitles you or others to commit assault or worse?

Damn, you're a boring man. Do you not see any fun at all in one of those cops whipping out a Remington and kneecapping a few of those riders? I mean, it'd be good training for them 'coz they'd pedal faster, right?

[zombie punk]

I don't see any fun in internet trolling. You're humiliating yourself.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Hey, just because you're obviously very skilled at absurdist humor* doesn't mean you can't throw others a bone once in a while.

Wait. Was there some hot female here that I missed or something?

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

I don't see any fun in internet trolling. You're humiliating yourself.

You're the newbie troll around here mate.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

You're the newbie troll around here mate.

Well it's a groundless insult, for sure, and yes, I'm a noob, but you are the one trolling.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Well it's a groundless insult, for sure, and yes, I'm a noob, but you are the one trolling.

I ain't trolling. I'm bickering.
And that's what page 3 of any thread in the MacNN lounge is there for.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

I ain't trolling. I'm bickering.
And that's what page 3 of any thread in the MacNN lounge is there for.

You're trolling. But now I'm getting close to feeding, so I'll stop. Go troll elsewhere.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Go troll elsewhere.

Sorry n00b, but you're making me .

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

I ain't trolling. I'm bickering.
And that's what page 3 of any thread in the MacNN lounge is there for.

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

You're trolling. But now I'm getting close to feeding, so I'll stop. Go troll elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Sorry n00b, but you're making me .

Page three is NOT for bickering. It's for arguing. This ain't arguing. It's simple contradiction. And remember what Monty Python said about contradiction... In other words, this isn't getting us anywhere.

The "Critical Mass" folks give a lot of people different impressions, and I can see both of your points. But neither point makes it OK for a police officer to basically assault someone. Stopping a bicyclist isn't that hard, it doesn't have to be done in a way that injures the cyclist. But I agree that the cyclist should have been stopped, especially if he was systematically violating traffic regulations. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, if cyclists don't follow the rules, they put EVERYONE at risk. I ain't putting up with someone running into my car while I zig-zag around some idiot on two wheels who doesn't want to do anything anyone can predict.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Sorry

You can leave it right there. I accepted your apology a while back.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Stopping anyone isn't that hard, it doesn't have to be done in a way that injures them. But I agree that the road user should have been stopped, especially if he was systematically violating traffic regulations. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, if road users don't follow the rules, they put EVERYONE at risk. I ain't putting up with someone running into my vehicle while I zig-zag around some idiot who doesn't want to do anything anyone can predict.

Fixed that for you.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Fixed that for you.

I agree with your assertion there too. Living in San Antonio, it's more surprising when someone follows the rules than when they don't. Mainly because it's way more uncommon. But that doesn't invalidate what I said about cyclists—and that counts powered and pedaled cyclists, too. EVERYONE who uses the road MUST follow the rules as a matter of course, or nobody knows what anyone else is doing and chaos ensues. Which is what happens most of the time around here.

[zombie punk]

I agree - everyone should follow the rules. Nobody should be treated as a second class road user, or fear assault from others simply for exercising their rights to use the road.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

I agree - everyone should follow the rules. Nobody should be treated as a second class road user, or fear assault from others simply for exercising their rights to use the road.

You see my signature picture? Fortunately, while on the ride, we had police controlling traffic. TRAINING for the ride was another matter. I see both sides of the issue to the extent that I see drivers being asses and riders being asses, but far fewer riders (that I see, anyway) are asses around here. And in my experience around here, the larger the motor vehicle, the more likely its operator is to be an ass.

Since we're all issued one of those at birth, I think we could ALL use a lot fewer of them wandering around causing damage and chaos. Don't you agree?

[zombie punk]

I think we're on the same page.

[Rumor]

Update: The officer was indited, though it does not say what the charges are.