4 ms·

I have no idea what you're trying to say there. It reads like non-sequitur to me. Are you saying you've biked on that intersection in Akiba and didn't find it

I have no idea what you're trying to say there. It reads like non-sequitur to me. Are you saying you've biked on that intersection in Akiba and didn't find it difficult? Are you saying you were in that place in Nara and were still enable your "tilt right" protocol? How would you deal with the intersections in my links? Edit on your edit: > To me, your argument sums up to "I want to go 120km in the residential". Holy shit, how did you even get that. I bike on average between 15 and 21 kmh. I'm saying that on some intersections the situational complexity can be so high that simply going on is actually tempting.

Nadya 11y ago
"Tilt opposite of traffic" protocol. Yes, it has held true regardless of which country or where I biked, regardless of complexity of the intersection or how crowded the area was with other cyclists and pedestrians. Your immediate side needs to be vacant and you need to have a general awareness of your surroundings (which is irrelevant to your speed, you should have a general awareness of your surrounding whether you are going 5km or 20km). You brought up pedestrians and "more complex intersections than canyon roads". I brought up examples of streets I've cycled on that weren't a canyon road and were packed with pedestrians. You mentioned that (1) I had never learned how to bike and (2) That town/city intersections greatly differ from canyon roads. I demonstrated (1) to be false and asserted that I continue to bike to this day. My mental model of what it is like to stop is still fresh, not 10 years outdated. My argument is that (2) is false, the only difference between the two is the acceptable safe speed of travel; hence the speed limit reference. Braking (and the "difficulty of doing so" being even a "slight problem") is bullshit. That's my assertion after nearly two decades of biking. It's a slight inconvenience that the cyclist should respect laws that are in place to prevent them from being hit by a car or prevent them plowing into a pedestrian/other cyclist. But because of laziness or entitlement they choose to ignore these laws and don't brake where and when they should. There is a reason why cyclists are perceived as "entitled pricks". It's because, as a whole, they generally act like entitled pricks and then try to explain away why they act so entitled. I've approached intersections where a pedestrian can walk in front of me from behind a bush. I exercise caution and slow my speed as I approach; such that in the event a pedestrians walks in front of me at the last moment I can brake in time to avoid hitting them. I've had to bike on a single-width bi-directional street where I have to avoid cars turning in blind T-intersections and avoid getting in the way of other pedestrians and cyclists. Intersections where my only knowledge of upcoming potential hazards comes from an intersection mirror [0] 15 meters ahead. None of these scenarios change the difficult of coming to a safe and complete stop when exercising one's best judgement to maintain a reasonable and safe speed. If one isn't going "120 in the 40" there is no reason why they cannot come to a safe and complete stop. [0] http://www.thejapanfaq.com/mirror.jpg http://www.thejapanfaq.com/mirror.jpg
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  Two things: > You mentioned Don't assert that. I asked questions to figure out your depth of knowledge because it was unclear. Secondly, you're incredibly full of yourself and entirely lacking both empathy and the ability to perceive subtlety. You're incapable of grasping the simple notion that what happens in your perfect world does not work the same in everyone else's brain. Yes, there is no excuse for running a red light. On the other hand: No, telling them "you shouldn't bike at all" instead of making an earnest good-faith effort to find out WHY they do it, is bound to be incredibly fruitless. In summary, i hate people who run red lights, in any vehicle. I have never done it myself, even though i can understand why people do it, at least in my town. On the other hand, i hate you too, because all you do is think in binary terms, instead of even being able to perceive degrees. Lastly, you also argue in a highly inconsistent manner. First you claimed an intersection stop is always just "hit the break, lean on curb"; then you proceed to show me a picture of an intersection that has no curb.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >I'm wondering whether you ever learned how to ride a bike. That's not a question, it's a statement. It's also phrased the same way as "I'm wondering whether you ever went to primary school." - as an insult. >First you claimed an intersection stop is always just "hit the break, lean on curb"; then you proceed to show me a picture of an intersection that has no curb. >"Tilt opposite of traffic" protocol. >Tilt the bike towards the curb (right-hand side in the U.S.A) and place your right foot down to create a tripod. >For proper safety, practice tipping in the opposite direction of car traffic. Losing balance or misjudging your tip results with you falling onto a curb rather than in front of a car. The 'curb' would be where a sidewalk/curb would usually be (ie. away from traffic). Again, the idea is that if you lose balance you don't fall in front of traffic. I use "curb" here to mean "direction opposite of traffic flow", because cars aren't typically driving on sidewalks/side of the road. My first response was the most precise - it's annoying I've had to repeat myself so many times (as the action has never changed, just looser terminology) >Secondly, you're incredibly full of yourself and entirely lacking both empathy and the ability to perceive subtlety. Two decades of biking and I've never met anyone but children who have trouble coming to a stop at an intersection without losing balance. You'll have to excuse me for assuming an experienced cyclist would be at least a little more experience than a child. I'll consider it a rarity that I haven't met an adult who was just learning how to ride a bike, but I wouldn't judge someone who is learning as I would an experienced cyclist. >No, telling them "you shouldn't bike at all" instead of making an earnest good-faith effort to find out WHY they do it, is bound to be incredibly fruitless. I'm saying people who pose a threat to themselves and others (ie. those with an innate lack of balance) shouldn't bike. I don't think that's an unreasonable suggestion, the same way people who have severe vision impairment shouldn't be driving vehicles and are denied their driver's license. It's for public safety. If someone is struggling with basic skills like maintaining balance or coming to a safe stop, they should practice more in private areas or empty parking lots where they don't pose a threat to other people's safety. Which brings me back to bikers typically being entitled pricks. If you're a klutz and can't ride a bike safely - you're an entitled prick if you think you should be biking in public where you're a hazard waiting to happen for other people. This has absolutely fuck-all to do with why people run red lights. My entire argument is against your silly defense of such actions as "the mental and physical effort it takes to come to a stop".

Nadya 11y ago

"Tilt opposite of traffic" protocol. Yes, it has held true regardless of which country or where I biked, regardless of complexity of the intersection or how crowded the area was with other cyclists and pedestrians. Your immediate side needs to be vacant and you need to have a general awareness of your surroundings (which is irrelevant to your speed, you should have a general awareness of your surrounding whether you are going 5km or 20km). You brought up pedestrians and "more complex intersections than canyon roads". I brought up examples of streets I've cycled on that weren't a canyon road and were packed with pedestrians. You mentioned that (1) I had never learned how to bike and (2) That town/city intersections greatly differ from canyon roads. I demonstrated (1) to be false and asserted that I continue to bike to this day. My mental model of what it is like to stop is still fresh, not 10 years outdated. My argument is that (2) is false, the only difference between the two is the acceptable safe speed of travel; hence the speed limit reference. Braking (and the "difficulty of doing so" being even a "slight problem") is bullshit. That's my assertion after nearly two decades of biking. It's a slight inconvenience that the cyclist should respect laws that are in place to prevent them from being hit by a car or prevent them plowing into a pedestrian/other cyclist. But because of laziness or entitlement they choose to ignore these laws and don't brake where and when they should. There is a reason why cyclists are perceived as "entitled pricks". It's because, as a whole, they generally act like entitled pricks and then try to explain away why they act so entitled. I've approached intersections where a pedestrian can walk in front of me from behind a bush. I exercise caution and slow my speed as I approach; such that in the event a pedestrians walks in front of me at the last moment I can brake in time to avoid hitting them. I've had to bike on a single-width bi-directional street where I have to avoid cars turning in blind T-intersections and avoid getting in the way of other pedestrians and cyclists. Intersections where my only knowledge of upcoming potential hazards comes from an intersection mirror [0] 15 meters ahead. None of these scenarios change the difficult of coming to a safe and complete stop when exercising one's best judgement to maintain a reasonable and safe speed. If one isn't going "120 in the 40" there is no reason why they cannot come to a safe and complete stop. [0] http://www.thejapanfaq.com/mirror.jpg http://www.thejapanfaq.com/mirror.jpg

Mithaldu 11y ago
Two things: > You mentioned Don't assert that. I asked questions to figure out your depth of knowledge because it was unclear. Secondly, you're incredibly full of yourself and entirely lacking both empathy and the ability to perceive subtlety. You're incapable of grasping the simple notion that what happens in your perfect world does not work the same in everyone else's brain. Yes, there is no excuse for running a red light. On the other hand: No, telling them "you shouldn't bike at all" instead of making an earnest good-faith effort to find out WHY they do it, is bound to be incredibly fruitless. In summary, i hate people who run red lights, in any vehicle. I have never done it myself, even though i can understand why people do it, at least in my town. On the other hand, i hate you too, because all you do is think in binary terms, instead of even being able to perceive degrees. Lastly, you also argue in a highly inconsistent manner. First you claimed an intersection stop is always just "hit the break, lean on curb"; then you proceed to show me a picture of an intersection that has no curb.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >I'm wondering whether you ever learned how to ride a bike. That's not a question, it's a statement. It's also phrased the same way as "I'm wondering whether you ever went to primary school." - as an insult. >First you claimed an intersection stop is always just "hit the break, lean on curb"; then you proceed to show me a picture of an intersection that has no curb. >"Tilt opposite of traffic" protocol. >Tilt the bike towards the curb (right-hand side in the U.S.A) and place your right foot down to create a tripod. >For proper safety, practice tipping in the opposite direction of car traffic. Losing balance or misjudging your tip results with you falling onto a curb rather than in front of a car. The 'curb' would be where a sidewalk/curb would usually be (ie. away from traffic). Again, the idea is that if you lose balance you don't fall in front of traffic. I use "curb" here to mean "direction opposite of traffic flow", because cars aren't typically driving on sidewalks/side of the road. My first response was the most precise - it's annoying I've had to repeat myself so many times (as the action has never changed, just looser terminology) >Secondly, you're incredibly full of yourself and entirely lacking both empathy and the ability to perceive subtlety. Two decades of biking and I've never met anyone but children who have trouble coming to a stop at an intersection without losing balance. You'll have to excuse me for assuming an experienced cyclist would be at least a little more experience than a child. I'll consider it a rarity that I haven't met an adult who was just learning how to ride a bike, but I wouldn't judge someone who is learning as I would an experienced cyclist. >No, telling them "you shouldn't bike at all" instead of making an earnest good-faith effort to find out WHY they do it, is bound to be incredibly fruitless. I'm saying people who pose a threat to themselves and others (ie. those with an innate lack of balance) shouldn't bike. I don't think that's an unreasonable suggestion, the same way people who have severe vision impairment shouldn't be driving vehicles and are denied their driver's license. It's for public safety. If someone is struggling with basic skills like maintaining balance or coming to a safe stop, they should practice more in private areas or empty parking lots where they don't pose a threat to other people's safety. Which brings me back to bikers typically being entitled pricks. If you're a klutz and can't ride a bike safely - you're an entitled prick if you think you should be biking in public where you're a hazard waiting to happen for other people. This has absolutely fuck-all to do with why people run red lights. My entire argument is against your silly defense of such actions as "the mental and physical effort it takes to come to a stop".