"Jake N. D'Fatman" <jake@fatman.net> wrote in message
news:dd57i0$j3i@dispatch.concentric.net...

Their website states orders received before 4pm go out the same day. When
I found out today my order still hadn't shipped, I wanted to cancel.
Their website clearly gave the impression an order can be cancelled if
caught before sent out.

Their customer service refused to cancel because my credit card had
already been charged. I told her they're not supposed to do that (Fair
Credit Billing Act) but she said that's what they've been doing for years.

Basically, CSR disavowed the same day shipping before 4pm and the
existence of a cancellation policy. Nevermind what their website says.

BTW, I called my credit card company and they told me my account has NOT
been charged.

I should have checked their ranking in Epinion before ordering...this kind
of incompetence/dishonesty seems to be par for the course.


For what it's worth I've been buying stuff from Supergo for about 6 years
and have never had a problem. Of course I'm not a nit picker like some
people we could mention.

Tom Kunich wrote:

For what it's worth I've been buying stuff from Supergo for about 6 years
and have never had a problem. Of course I'm not a nit picker like some
people we could mention.

The thing is, their web site states one thing and their customer service
says another. Call it whining or not picking, but if they say same day
shipment for orders before 4pm, I feel that's exactly what should happen.
If I'm not happy they didn't, I should be able to cancel my order and not
be given a bunch of bogus excuses why I couldn't.

My negative experience with them does not negate positive ones you've had
in the past.

Bill Sornson wrote:
Jake N. D'Fatman (real name?) wrote:


Their website states orders received before 4pm go out the same day.


Actually, it says: "Shipping Times Express orders (2nd Day and Next
Day) received by us before 4:00pm EST are shipped the same business day.
If you received our order confirmation email Monday - Friday, before
4:00pm Eastern Time, your order will be shipped the same day we received
it. Please note that a very small number of orders require extra
processing time for various reasons."

So that begs the question: DID YOU PAY FOR EXPEDITED SHIPPING?


When I found out today my order still hadn't shipped, I wanted to
cancel. Their website clearly gave the impression an order can be
cancelled if caught before sent out.

Their customer service refused to cancel because my credit card had
already been charged. I told her they're not supposed to do that
(Fair Credit Billing Act) but she said that's what they've been doing
for years.
Basically, CSR disavowed the same day shipping before 4pm and the
existence of a cancellation policy. Nevermind what their website
says.
BTW, I called my credit card company and they told me my account has
NOT been charged.

I should have checked their ranking in Epinion before ordering...this
kind of incompetence/dishonesty seems to be par for the course.


Wah.

I (and many others) have ordered from Supergo often over the years; never
had a problem. (BTW, they'll take anything back if you're dissatisfied,
so stop whining.)

Bill "search hard enough for a problem and you'll find one" S.
http://www.supergo.com/help/after_order_help.cfm

======

If you wish to retract or revise a web order that has been processed, get
on the phone with our Customer Service department as quickly as possible
(please have your Web Order Number in hand) and let us know. Please know
that web orders are typically processed immediately so it is VERY likely
your order has already been processed. Do not use email to contact us
about cancellations.

You can reach us in the USA and Canada Toll-Free at: 800-326-BIKE
(800-326-2453).

Since Supergo's goal is to ship all orders received before 4 PM (Eastern
Standard Time) that same day, your order may already have been shipped.

In article <%600f.20449$Xl2.10834@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, Billy Crabs
took the hamburger, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh Wow"...


"Noodles Jefferson" <silverbells@tacoshells.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1daa44edd0b18111989805@news.alt.net...

In article <dhoi28$phq$2@pookiehead.databasix.com>, Russell B took the
hamburger, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh Wow"...


I'm liking
biking.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

(The "thank you" bit wasn't part of the poem. Neither is this.)


I was moved.

I know, What your bowels might say after you take a shit?


Don't make fun of this beautiful poem. I mean, how could you just sit
there and not be on the edge of your seat after "I'm liking" Liking
what? Scuba Diving? Polo? Billiards? SCRABBLE? WHAT MAN WHAT? Then he
hits you with biking like Bam! and you're just like oooooooooh.

Beautiful. Words can't fucking describe it.


I've got one,
try to figure this one out.

I was squeezed and made a farting noise.


Hack.

Im liking.. sarcasm : )

Their website states orders received before 4pm go out the same day. When
I found out today my order still hadn't shipped, I wanted to cancel.
Their website clearly gave the impression an order can be cancelled if
caught before sent out.

Their customer service refused to cancel because my credit card had
already been charged. I told her they're not supposed to do that (Fair
Credit Billing Act) but she said that's what they've been doing for years.

Basically, CSR disavowed the same day shipping before 4pm and the
existence of a cancellation policy. Nevermind what their website says.

BTW, I called my credit card company and they told me my account has NOT
been charged.

I should have checked their ranking in Epinion before ordering...this kind
of incompetence/dishonesty seems to be par for the course.

Hey fellow ARBRists -

Jeff asked:

I'm not stepping on Wayne's toes here am I[?]

NO, NO, NO - absolutely not! Anyone is welcome to vent
a little pent-up frustration on this intentionally and
properly labeled off-topic thread. The TROLL's fair game,
and it's OPEN SEASON - no hunting license required.
Sigh... now if only there was some way we could set up a
bounty. Then maybe we could discourage him from posting
crap like these timeless jewels:

This thread is as dead as a door nail [sic].

BEEP-BEEP-BEEP! COMPOUND WORD ALERT!

All top posters are idiots! Anyone who does [not] give any
attributions is also an idiot!

Oh... but what about a person who doesn't "give any
attributions", whatever that might mean? Perhaps I'm,
as the TROLL accuses:

... dummy dumb. I mean dumber than dumb. Like dumb,
dumb, dumb.

I believe the point was made - probably not exactly the
one he intended, but I think most readers will get it.

Others on the group can make up their own mind about
me [the TROLL]...

I'm fairly certain almost all the regular readers here
at ARBR have been there, done that.

But is Wayne... telling us that this is as goods [sic]
he gets. [sic - ?]

No, I would have said whatever it was the TROLL intended
to say without screwing it up so badly that most readers
are left wondering what the BLEEP he meant.

Hells Bells [sic]...

Good grief! How can even a TROLL continue to miss that
it's: Hell's Bells - with an apostrophe; Heavens to
Betsy - without an apostrophe. How can he repeatedly get
it just exactly ass backwards? At the very least he could
quit overusing expressions he can't even spell. To borrow
a phrase: dumb, dumb, dumb!

The [TROLL] himself does not always know when he is
joking and when he is being serious .

That's what happens when the real writer of this kind of
blather not only refers to himself in the third person
but also continually confuses his 'person' with his
'persona'. BTW, "joking" is TROLL-speak for 'trying to be
inane' and "being serious" translates as 'being blatantly
rude and offensive'

However, there is always a profound component to
everything he says...

Shouldn't that read "profane comment in"?

Give me Wal-Mart... Hell, if I were a kid I would get my
bike at Wal-Mart and I would be perfectly happy with it.

Well of course - I think their bicycle department is set
up to precisely match the nondiscriminating palate of a
bargain basement shopper like the TROLL. Who needs
durable components, recumbents, decent tires and stuff
like that? Their adult trikes in particular should appeal
to the TROLL; hey, who wants to ride faster than 8 MPH
anyway?

I believe Wayne... has a bike shop (selling recumbent
trikes named LoGo) somewhere in these United States.

I have a purposefully small, low-volume TRIKE shop which
sells other brands of high-end sports touring adult
recumbent trikes in addition to being the US importer
for the Australian-built LoGos. As I write this, we're
moving into a new shop in Ventura (California). I'll post
a link as soon as we're settled in and I've updated the
website(s).

Would you want to buy a bike from [Wayne] or, God
forbid, go for a bike ride with him?

My goodness! Is that a sleazy stab at intimidating me
through my business? Actually I was thinking about maybe
putting a note on a testimonials page about the fact
that this TROLL doesn't like me. I certainly don't think
we would lose any sales, and hey, it might even tempt a
customer or two to buy from us...

FWIW, especially for SoCal readers, we sell very few
recumbent bikes, usually only when there's a special
reason or customer request. I recommend Bent Up Cycles
in the San Fernando Valley to most folks looking for a
two-wheeler. Last year more than 100 recumbent riders
rode with our local group; my wife and I didn't miss many
of those rides, and we'll be there twice a month this
year as well. If anyone wants more info about this very
informal (but very fun) bunch, a good place to start is:

http://www.logo-us.com/vcrr/vcride.htm

[Wayne] used to post his website address as part of his
signature, but he has stopped doing that. He is no doubt
ashamed of himself the way he has been carrying on.

I rarely include my website with off-topic posts, since
there's no real reason to do so. Am I ashamed of the way
I've been carrying on? No. I like BROL's recumbent forum,
but when it was down earlier this year, I think it should
have been fairly obvious to most folks why it's important
that we try to maintain a useful alternative, especially
with an open format, like this newsgroup. Ed Dolan, or
whoever writes the crap that's posted here in his name
and as 'nget' (a very mixed-up 'gent'?), is an unpleasant
and oppressive obstacle to the general acceptance and
usefulness of this group.

My first postings directed to this TROLL were a playfully
poetic but sincere attempt to persuade him to tone it
down a bit so that he would stop alienating potential
ARBR participants.

others before me, that 'Ed' is either psychotic, or maybe
just too stupid or selfish to care about anything except
the perverse indulgence of his foul temper and (justly)
starved ego to make any compromise for the good of the
group. Oh, he'll BS and lie about it, of course, but two
posts later he'll be right back telling us that we're all
a bunch of idiots, morons, imbeciles, cowards and worse.

So why have I been wasting my time these last two weeks
plonking [US meaning, not UK] the numb skull of this
contrary old reprobate? Well... honestly, mostly because
after tolerating so many months of his bad behavior, it
just felt really, really good to smack him back a little,
you know?

Anyway, was that Ed's reply to my open question:

During his many 'final farewells' (another bit of
private TROLL humor?), has any real human poster at
ARBR ever asked the TROLL to stay or welcomed his
return? Nope...

Or this? - the pity ploy:

I just turned 70... I am miserable here [in Minnesota]
in the winter. I simply can't take cold...

Deja vu - one moment the TROLL is a sneering egomaniac
demeaning everyone he encounters, or posting a sleazy
half-threat to my business; the next he's a pitiful old
soul all alone in the cold, pleading for comfort and
love. I'd suggest that if the TROLL could truly "be nice"
as opposed to (rarely) 'acting nice', he'd get a lot more
sympathy from ARBR readers. As it is, I suspect that he'd
still be a largely miserable cretin, even here in coastal
Southern California. Warm winter weather's a good thing,
but it ain't everything.

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147739213.321566.60920@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[newsgroups restored]

Obviously, netiquette is not your forte.

"Allow"? Since you don't own the public lands, it's not your place to
allow or disallow.

There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians only.

Actually, the history has been that only those things *existed*. In
the last 30 years, types and kinds of uses have expanded somewhat.

Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to
get used to them.

Mountain bikes are late comers. They mostly constitute a nuisance to the
original trail users.

Merely your opinion.

Get your own g.d. trails.

Luckily, we can use multi-use trails without destroying more land for
segregated trails. You're advocating additional human encroachment
into wild spaces? Hmmm, doesn't sound very respectful of nature...

"Your"? See my previous comment.

"Sacred"? I don't recognize your right to call a public resource
"sacred", so I guess you'll just have to swallow the disappointment of
having to share.

If you are just into fun and games on your g.d. bike, the get thee to a
recreation area designed for that kind of nonsense.

Strawman. Try again.

The wilderness is not
for the likes of you.

Of course it is. You'll just have to get used to sharing it.

I have never yet seen a high altitude trail that I thought was
suitable
for
mountain bikes.

Not been in Colorado or Utah much, then? Any trail that's suitable for
walking is suitable for mountain bikes.

Now I know why Vandeman calls all mountain bikers LIARS!

An unsupported hypothesis by both of you.

The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes
were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field
scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit.

And they weren't at very high altitudes.

The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in
CO and UT.

So much for your blanket statement, eh?

I have seen such trails at lower elevations. But I continue
to believe that some kind of road is best suited for a bike.

Luckily, your beliefs only bind you, and nobody else.

Vandeman and I are working hard to get your and your ilk banned from
wilderness areas.

Except you won't be able to. So do your Sisyphus impression all you
want. The plain fact is that MORE areas are being opened to MTBers, so
your Holy Crusade is coming up exactly opposite of your intent.

You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker
slob.

Hiding behind the safety of your keyboard makes it very easy to say
that. Chalk up another courageous usenetter!

Since you obviously have no idea what it takes to ride a bike on
trails, I'll let your laughable statement pass.

The road can be
very rough, but is should be a road and not a trail.

Isn't a trail a very small road?

No!

Of course it is. It passes traffic, either human or animal, and it
goes from place to place.

Sounds like a road to me.


A road will require some construction.

Trails don't spring up from nothing. They have to be cut, and usually,
animals do the "construction", using their hooves to flatten and
defoliate a path. No different han using a shovel - just slower.

Most trails ... are easily
destroyed by bikes.

Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about
LOGIC?

Jeep roads, sometimes
called 4-wheel drive roads, would seem to be ideal for mountain bikes
as
well as all gravel roads of course.

Actually, the best mountain bike trails are shared-use trails -
hiking/biking (no horses/mules). And the less hikers, the better.
Hikers tend to walk side-by-side and widen the trail unnecessarily,
walk around wet spots to make the wet spots wider, and leave trash and
dog feces (yeah, they bring their dogs, and don't clean up after them.)

Anyone who brings a dog on one of my sacred footpaths is a slob equally
as
evil as a mountain biker.

Again with the "sacred" and "your". Unless you personally own the land
the trail sits on, the trails are, at best, "ours." And sacred? I
don't recognize your religion as valid or real. Get over it.

Why doesn't the Devil take such miscreants immediately to Hell where they
belong!

I think you are mixing your religions.

Now, if you'd like to buy some land, and designate it as "no bikes",
then that is your perogative. On public lands where biking on trails
is allowed, you'd best keep your snobbish attitude to yourself. But,
guessing from your posts, you'd only dare voice your opinion behind the
safety of your keyboard.

The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of
conflicts
among users.

Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you
personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth
grade. What's your excuse?

Mountain bikes need their own trails, preferably in already
developed recreation areas.

Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting
even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down
while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal.

Why waste wilderness on slobs like Ed Pirrero.

Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my
computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND
good-looking.

"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147972449.752228.54360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:

"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147739213.321566.60920@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[newsgroups restored]



It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since
totally different mental attitudes are involved. Mountain bikers are into
fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and God.

thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style.

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147972449.752228.54360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147739213.321566.60920@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[newsgroups restored]

Obviously, netiquette is not your forte.

You were impolite, so I was impolite back.

Impolite by trimming the huge x-post? That's a very strange definition
of "impolite".

So strange, in fact, that I think you are just being a weasel.

Surely that is fair.

Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right (even assuming that eliminating
the massive x-post is impolite.)

That and your idiotic full-quoting. You're the last person who should
be making politeness determinations.

There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians
only.

Actually, the history has been that only those things *existed*. In
the last 30 years, types and kinds of uses have expanded somewhat.

That is unfortunately true, but I go back to when those trails were first
built - over a hundred years ago in many instances.

"Built"? You're kidding, right? Many of the trails, and even roadways
we use, started as *game trails*. They weren't built, they were
co-opted by human hikers.

Unless those original
trails have been upgraded, they are not suited for bikes.

How strange, then, that I can ride on game trails all day long. How is
that possible?

In fact, I can ride on trails *too narrow* for comfortable walking. So
your unique definition of "trails suitable for biking" or "walking" is
questionable, at best.

Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to
get used to them.

It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since
totally different mental attitudes are involved.

This is a strawman argument. And one made with absolutely no real
knowledge. You have no idea what "attitude" MTBers bring with them on
the trail.

Mountain bikers are into
fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and
God.

Neither of those characterizations is even close to being true for the
majority of the persons in the groups you mention.

You should really check the hypocrisy meter before you call other
people "liars".

Luckily, we can use multi-use trails without destroying more land for
segregated trails. You're advocating additional human encroachment
into wild spaces? Hmmm, doesn't sound very respectful of nature...

I am advocating that bike trails be built only in already developed
recreational areas. This can include much of the National Forest and BLM
lands.

And that's where the hugely vast majority of those trails are. The
multi-use ones, that is.

I trust the National Parks and State Parks to severely restrict
mountain biking.

The National Parks already are very restricted, and I'm not sure
there's much of a problem with this, from any quarter. But don't
imagine that somehow this will keep them pristine - if you've ever
hiked in Arches NP, you'll see that foot traffic only has made trails
over 10 feet wide in places - and that's a huge swath in terms of a
fragile ecosystem.

State parks? I know of a few in WA that *encourage* MTBing. Like
Deception Pass State Park. The trails near Cranberry Lake are great.

Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be
thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style.

Yeah, you're a real tough guy. LOL.


The wilderness is not
for the likes of you.

Of course it is. You'll just have to get used to sharing it.

There are plenty of recreational lands for you to ride your bike on.

And in those areas where there are multi-use trails, you'll just have
to get used to MTBers. That and other places where MTBs were
incorrectly classified with motorized vehicles, which is now being
corrected.

That
you would want to invade the sacred wilderness on a bike marks you as a
savage. Try to get some culture, why don't you.

Your opinion is amusing, but luckily completely fanicful.

The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes
were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field
scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit.

And they weren't at very high altitudes.

The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in
CO and UT.

So much for your blanket statement, eh?

Vandeman is right. Mountain bikers are the scum of the earth!

Of course, you don't like being overmastered by a superior intellect.
It's human nature. But name-calling will not change the fact that your
mistaken impression of what constitutes a superior biking trail is at
odds with what is actually a superior biking trail.

Vandeman and I are working hard to get your and your ilk banned from
wilderness areas.

Except you won't be able to. So do your Sisyphus impression all you
want. The plain fact is that MORE areas are being opened to MTBers, so
your Holy Crusade is coming up exactly opposite of your intent.

All wilderness areas and pristine natural areas will be forever closed to
bikers. Vandeman and I will see to that.

No, you won't. Neither one of you has any sort of power to do that.
He doesn't have the intellectual capacity, and you don't understand how
politics works. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, OK by me. I'll
keep riding my bike in ever-expanding legal areas.

You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker
slob.

Hiding behind the safety of your keyboard makes it very easy to say
that. Chalk up another courageous usenetter!

Since you obviously have no idea what it takes to ride a bike on
trails, I'll let your laughable statement pass.

When you are riding your bike, you are into fun and games.

False.

It is nothing but
a g.d. sport to you.

False.

You are not fit to ever place a single foot in my
sacred wilderness.

Actually, I'm quite fit. And since the land doesn't belong to you,
personally, I may visit it in any legal manner I choose. Tough luck
for the internet tough guy. :)

You are a savage - nothing but a despoiler of culture and
all the finer things in life.

I'm sure that this is merely projection on your part.

May you perish for your blasphemy against the
Wilderness.

LOL. Your threat is duly noted.

Most trails ... are easily
destroyed by bikes.

Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about
LOGIC?

Here we see an idiot trying to equate trails with roads.

Well, since I didn't do that, here we have another strawman. When
you're losing an argument, invent one for your opponent!

The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of
conflicts
among users.

Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you
personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth
grade. What's your excuse?

We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and
mental.

There are no physical conflicts, any more than there would be if it
were hikers using the trails in opposite directions. The "mental"
conflicts you claim exist only in your mind, and are thus not only
invalid, but hilarious.

Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting
even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down
while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal.

"We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical
and
mental." - Ed Dolan

"Dolan is an delusional wacko." - Ed Pirrero

Quoting your own opinion doesn't make it valid.

Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my
computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND
good-looking.

You are not worthy of wilderness.

More of your inane opinion. Luckily, I'm not bound by your singular
opinion. In fact, I scoff at it. If you were directly in my presence,
I think we both know that you'd be a bit more circumspect in your
commentary.

Have fun pretending your efforts matter,

E.P.

Ever hear of the Sierra Club? There are hundreds of environmental groups
working to keep bikes where they belong, on the roads. In the end, it
will be scientists like Vandeman that will prevail because politicians
come and go, but the science stays forever.

I want a bolt of lightning to strike you dead when you are on your bike
in the wilderness. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished for.
Surely you realize yourself that you would be better off dead than
trespassing in my sacred wilderness on your confounded bike.

Ed Pirrero is into nothing but making threats. I counted at least 2 of
them in his above message. He confirmed everything Vandeman has ever
said about mountain bikers. They are selfish and inconsiderate and are
fundamentally dishonest. And in the last analysis, when all else fails,
they make threats to do you bodily harm. They are scum and that is how I
will treat them.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and you can't make a
civilized human being out of a mountain biker. Thus spake Zarathustra!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
news:CPadne4I7NfI3z_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
[...]
Curtiss and Foster are made for one another. Neither one of them can
understand a crystal clear explanation. How the Hell can Vandeman stand
such freaking idiots. Vandeman has said that all mountain bikers are
idiots - and that they surely are. They are also scoundrels based on the
evidence above.

Such as our explanation for responding to Vandy's lies and misinformation
considering access, trails, conservation and off-road cycling? Apparently,
it is you who can not grasp the "explanation". My (and others') posts to
Vandy are in direct response to his attacks on an activity that we enjoy
and his posts also attempt to close all communication beyond his narrow
views on the topic. We only want to keep that communication open for real
information and cooperation to grow the movement to protect areas, rather
than have them paved over.

Edward Dolan wrote:


We cyclists need bike trails where you can go reasonably fast if there
are
not too many others also using the trail. You NEVER want to go faster
than
about 20 mph on a bike. I can average about 14 mph over a couple of
hours,
but 10 mph is far more comfortable.


Ahh, got tired of getting your rhetorical ass kicked on
alt.mountain-bike, and decided to get it kicked elsewhere, huh?

LOL.

Your average speed is laughable. When I bike-commuted, I would get to
25mph with great regularity, and be able to sustain it for quite some
time. Of course, when you figure in stoplights and traffic, average
speed goes way down. But 10mph? That's what my kids ride at.

Hey, after you're done trolling the driving group (and no, Tom Sherman
isn't here, either), you could imagine your supposed greatness
elsewhere.

Never more than 20. You're even more of an idiot than I thought you
were before.

In article <12dbanc49itcb49@news.supernews.com>, Jeff Grippe wrote:
Biggest vehicle wins... that's your choice, I refuse to be bullied off
the road.

And that is your choice. You should make it with your eyes open, however.

I've ridden as a scared stay-away-from-cars type rider. I'm not going
back to that.

You can divide fear into rational and irrational. It is prudent to have
fear
of something that really is a danger to you. It doesn't mean that you
need
to curtail the activity because of the fear but you should recognize the
danger. To pretend that you have a riding style that protects you from
cars
doesn't make sense. I was hit by using exactly the technique that you
describe.

Did I say it protects? Nope. Don't put words into my mouth. I stated it
was _safer_. Not only from my personal experience but from the
statistical evidence as well. Crash type manual for bicyclists, or
something close to that is the title.

By all means you should continue to cycle if that is what you want to do.
I
think that every cyclist out there is a good, no make that great thing. I
also don't think that you should be quivering in your boots while you
ride.
As you pointed out, that would also lead to unsafe behavior. On the other
hand you shouldn't pretend that there aren't real risks of serious
injury.

Bicycling isn't dangerous when measured against other behaviors that are
considered normal and safe. (ken kifer's bike pages... I forget the url
and might have the spelling wrong.)

Regarding Tucson, the bike lanes are along side the automobile lanes.
They
are full size lanes with a small buffer between the car lanes. The thing
that makes them special is that they are everywhere including some of the
highways. Most places that you go will have a lane for you to ride in.
There
are traffic signals for the bike lanes. There are frequent road signs
which
make it clear to the drivers that they should expect to be sharing the
road
with cyclists.

Added traffic signals to try and clear up the intersection complexity....
well they are obviously serious about it.

The thing is, the same kind of incident where a driver just jams the
right pedal to the floor and runs into the back of bicyclist can still
occur, it's just a painted line. Here in the chicago area such a lane
would have 'me first fuck you' type drivers using it as a passing lane.
It's just a line of paint at the end of the day.

This is in contrast to White Plains where they simply stuck up signs that
say "Bike Route" on them without making any (or very little)
accommodation
for the cyclists. There is one set of roads that have "Bike route" signs
that are the entrance to three large malls and a heavily trafficked
interstate. Go figure.

I would prefer simply a wide curb lane. Just narrow enough that two cars
cannot use it side by side.

Brent, you should try to learn something from Jeff's experience. I know I
have, but I was always super cautious about mixing with motor vehicles
anyway. However, it may be that you are too stupid to learn anything from
the experience of others. In that event, you will have to learn it the hard
way all on your own - with broken bones and worse.