Archive for the ‘Comedy’ Category

Cycling Safety Classes Are Tripods

May 28, 2013

When I was young, one of my favorite cartoons of all time was _The White Mountains_. It appeared in “Boy’s Life Magazine”, the official magazine of Boy Scouts. It was a cartoon version a wonderful trilogy written by John Christopher, a British author who specialized in young adult post-apocolyptic fiction. Great guy!

It chronicled the tales of young boys who lived in a post-apocolyptic society which was controlled by “the masters” which were known only as giant tripods which could suck people inside with tentacles.

The children’s parents worshiped the masters and did whatever they said, believing that the masters were benevolent.

The children had their doubts, but they were eager to get “capped” which is where they had a metal mesh surgically implanted in their heads.


Complete Cartoon.

What does that have to with classes and vehicular cycling?

I feel that my friends are likewise being brainwashed by these classes. In fact, once sensible fellow cyclists somehow are totally transformed by their classes in a sinister and freakish way.

It’s just like the teenage boy who says, “that’s nonsense” when we talk about infrastructure.

This is why I fear classes so much.

Please resist getting sucked up into a tripod and getting them to do some surgery on your head.

Run to the White Mountains where the weather’s cool, and the cycle tracks are ample.


Repost: Brilliant Allies in the VC Nonsense Fest

May 13, 2013

I love this blog and I wanted to comment for a long time:

“Exactly. Bicycles are not cars and should not abide by the same rules because the same rules do not work for two things that function differently. Gotta change the stupid vehicle code that forces people to become “vehicular cyclists”.”

I thought, yes, my prayers are answered. Finally, finally, I don’t have to hear stupid shit like: “Forester had good ideas for his time” or the insipid: “I see things both way” or “I want infrastructure, but we need to ride vehicularly now!”


As my friend said, “I rode for two years, and I followed every traffic law to the letter. Now I do what _feels_ safe and I have not had an accident in five years.”


Then the silly enemy piped in: “Vehicular cycling works once you fully understand and utilize it.”

“I hate those dumb commentors who just talk about their personal experiences. I didn’t even say anything to provoke some personal response from some random probably old guy.

but, yeah, seems i did with the term “vehicular cycling”. gyahhd these stupid old men still exist (ie. john forester and his cohorts).”

YES!! Fills me with joy!

Here’s the best point at last: “If you fully understood vehicular cycling, you would know that it exists to prevent bicycle infrastructure from being built.”


Tell it like it is.

Finally, I feel like I’ve been release from my echo chamber!

Savage Cycling: A New Group To Hate

May 10, 2013

This morning, I was thinking a lot about hate for cyclists and that there’s no group that I belong to which can get hatred.

Thus, I have created a group of my own to be despised by all: savage cyclist!

Savage cyclists are not to be confused with hipsters. Savages think of their bicycles not as a fashion accessory but as their very life itself.

All the men have beards and are sweaty. All the women can fix every aspect of their bicycle.

We aren’t vegan and don’t ride because “it’s good for the environment”, but we’ll toss that out there if it will tweak someone who doesn’t like us.

We don’t follow traffic laws. We don’t harass other cyclists for their behavior and we don’t see ourselves as representatives. We just ride. We’re on bikes, which equals dork in Hollywood. If we really cared what motorists thought of us, we’d just get cars.

Savage cyclists are practical.

We wear whatever the fuck we want. This being said, we usually aren’t too pretty. We don’t really care what you think about our appearance. Hell, I ride around with a garbage bag bungied to my bike, do you think I care?

Savage cyclists are often fast and always proud.

We aren’t vegan: we have no dietary restrictions and have been known to kill our food with our bare hands. We eat bare handed, too.

What did you expect? We’re savages.

Savage cyclists are very close to being homeless and sometimes we are, but unlike homeless, we don’t cycle because we have to. We don’t hate cars and we don’t see our bikes are replacements.

We don’t hate anyone. We don’t judge anyone.

We’d rather ride then sit around, but when we do open our mouths, it’s probably something you never heard before and thus is considered “offensive” by both the softer cyclists and softie motorists.

When we ride, we ride Ninja Style. We are happy riding everywhere; it doesn’t matter if it’s a high speed road or cycle track, if there are peddles, we’ll turn them.

E-Bikes Are Not Bicycles V: Gloves Come Off

April 26, 2013

Previously, on Cycling Unbound, I was acccused this for my original anti-e-bike post: “It manages to cram in almost every anti ebike sentiment I have ever heard to the point of being just plain funny. Can anyone else smell the stench of inadequacy from the poster?”

Not by a long, long shot! 🙂

But I will rise to the challenge now that the guantlet has been thrown down.

I can show you how e-bikes are the ugly duckling of transportation. No matter what the advantages of e-bikes there’s something else that does it better.

Yes, I know it seems unfair to compare every vehicle to e-bikes. Too bad. It’s unfair to lie to people about a shitty form of transportation. It’s unfair to claim to sell these things to “increase mobility in those who are unable to ride a bicycle” then have the bike paths illegally over run by 20 something assholes who can ride a regular bike but choose not to because they have been decieved by unethical advertising. It’s unfair that e-bikes tell people that they will be healthy then they wind up sitting on their ass and getting fat anyway.

Also, e-bike riders think that they are superior to all modes in all ways so they beg me to make this kind of comparison. I oblige.

1. E-bikes are slower than everything else on the road including bicycles:

“…a reasonably fit rider can ride at 50 km/h (30 mph) on flat ground for short periods.” Similarly, a scooter does 30 MPH. Does that make e-bike riders feel “inadequate and jealous”?

E-bikes are throttled, by law, at 20 MPH and are thus slower.

2. Greenwashing. Bicycles shift pollution from the street to “dirty coal” power plants while cyclists generally get their energy from food which they grow themselves using compost from their toilets.

3. No crash protection unlike a car which has air bags and crumple zones.

4. Can’t read while riding an e-bike unlike what I do on buses and on my bicycle on bike paths.

5. No protection from rain.

6. Too fast for bike lanes and they are banned from bike paths.

7. Lack of excercise. Just as bad for you as sitting in a car, but wastes more time on your commute as they are vastly slower than cars thus you waste even more time in transit. Hello obesity.

8. No sex appeal. Cyclists look dorky on our bikes but our bodies are to die for. Motorcyclists are sexy. And you can fuck inside of all but the smallest and messiest of automobiles.

9. Promote bad values.

a. Impatience and hurry sickness. Not all the references on how much faster their commutes are compared with regular bicycles. Note a typical e-bike rider is slow on a regular bike because they are out of shape while average daily cyclists soon adjust to their commute and become stronger and faster every day they ride.

b. Laziness.

c. Dishonesty and cruelty. E-bike riders like to pretend they have a normal bicycle then they laugh at us while they zoom up a hill. I like to mock people in lycra, too, but I don’t go around lying to them. Also, the seldom used peddles are there to pretend that their under-powered e-scooter is a bicycle.

Summary: When it comes to downsides, e-bikes have all the same downsides of bicycles. When it comes to upsides, bicycles have more upsides than e-bikes. Most of the virtues of e-bikes are shared by higher powered motorized vehicles which share little to none of the downsides to e-bikes.

Get a smart car if you don’t want smog (next to you, the power plants still make it to power smart car). If you want to go fast get real motorcycle. If you want to pretend you are riding a bicycle and saving the planet while really riding a dorkier and lower powered motorcycle then get an e-bike.

E-Bikes Are Not Bicycles: IV (In Hawaii)

April 25, 2013

Sometimes, I love Hawaii.

I think that this law should go national.


An electric bicycle in Hawaii is considered an illegal motorized vehicle. However, an electric “Moped” that complies with federal motor vehicle safety standards and which meets the definition of a moped under the statute is legal. All electric bicycles are illegal motorized vehicles.

“Bicycle” [53] means every vehicle “propelled solely by human power” upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any vehicle generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels except a toy bicycle. [53]

“Moped” means a device upon which a person may ride which has two or three wheels in contact with the ground, a motor having a maximum power output capability measured at the motor output shaft, in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineers standards, of two horsepower (one thousand four hundred ninety -two watts) or less and, if it is a combustion engine, a maximum piston or rotor displacement of 3.05 cubic inches (fifty cubic centimeters) and which will propel the moped, unassisted, on a level surface at a maximum speed no greater than thirty miles per hour; and a direct or automatic power drive system which requires no clutch or gear shift operation by the moped driver after the drive system is engaged with the power unit.

Under the statute, mopeds must be registered and undergo an annual safety inspection. To be registered under Hawaii law a moped must bear a certification label from the manufacturer stating that it complies with federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). A moped must also possess the following equipment approved by the D.O.T. under Chapter 91: approved braking, fuel, and exhaust system components; approved steering system and handlebars; wheel rims; fenders; a guard or protective covering for drive belts, chains and rotating components; seat or saddle; lamps and reflectors; equipment controls; speedometer; retracting support stand; horn; and identification markings.

E-Bikes Are Not Bicycles III: Rebuttal

April 24, 2013

Since people have made a bunch of untrue assumptions about me they seem to deeply care about my person life which is amusing since I’d like to not get too personal and keep the discussion about what name we should call these new things.

1. I wear normal clothes while riding my bicycle.

2. I am inadequate.

3. I don’t own a car.

4. I don’t think that there’s anything morally superior about riding a bicycle, e-scooter or normal style. I don’t have morals.

5. I enjoy cycling, but I don’t race at all. My goal is to be the slowest and happiest cyclist on the road.

6. I have had pleasant, in person encounters with e-scooter riders just as I have pleasant feelings for and friendships with those who drive in Hummers, worship the devil, and I have even befriend a kind country music fan. My personal feelings are beside the point.

7. I don’t think that e-bikes should be illegal or banned, but they should

be classified as motorized scooters because they are. Sure they have pedals, but I can put pedals on my bed, that does not make it a proper bicycle. E-bikes have their place. Hummers have their place. Blah, blah. I’m not judging anyone, but expressing a personal opinion on what the law should be based on common sense, problem solving, and basic English grammar skills. If something has a motor in it, it’s motorized. Simple as that.

Why, based on my opinion of a single name change, are people so vicious? I know this is the nature of the internet, but when it’s connected to e-bikes, it makes all e-bike riders look bad when I feel that they are not. Please prove me right; that e-bike riders are classy people and not cyber bullies.

E-Bikes Are Not Bicycles II: Questions

April 22, 2013

I’ve been getting a lot of nonsense regarding this topic. Thus, ifyou want to comment on this post of the prior one on e-bikes erm scooters, please answer a question.


1. My top question remains, why is the name “bicycle” so sacred that has to be connected to a motorized device? You can call my writing notebook many things: a notebook, a moleskin, a hipster laptop, or a cock, and I don’t get angry. Why are e-bike riders so absurdly touchy when it comes to a single name?


2. If an e-bike is a bike, what if I connect a combustion engine to my bicycle. Is it still a bicycle? Why? Why is it not a motorcycle?


3. If you answered “top speed” for #2 then what if my car breaks to the point where I can only do 20 MPH in it. Is my car now a bicycle? If not, why?


4. If the car from #3 is not a bicycle, if I add peddles, is it now a bicycle? If not, why not?


5. Why stop e-bikes at 20 MPH when they can go much faster? So we can pretend that they are bicycles?


6. If e-bikes are so awesome, what is your feeling, as an e-bike rider, towards non-e-bike riders? I mean aside from all the name calling that I got from another forum. I am hoping that someone with more character will answer to give me some insight.


7. Back to speed limitations. If you answered that a bicycle is “limited to 20 MPH” then does a bicycle become not a bicycle when you got 21 MPH on a normal bicycle? If not, why not?


8. If I ride a motorcycle, am I welcome in e-bike rides? If not, why not? Sure I can go a little bit faster with less effort, but is that not the same difference between an e-bike and normal bicycle?


9. On the forums why was it wrongly assumed that I was an athlete when I am not? Are you saying that it’s stupid to ride a normal bicycle for commuting? Or was there another reason that “lycra” was tossed around a lot when I don’t wear it?


10. I realize that riding an e-scooter has many benefits. However, so does regular cycling. Aside from the excercise which makes me happy, I like the relative quiet of dedicated bicycle paths. Does your right to ride on a motorized vehicle trump my right to peace and calm for a little while? If this is true can’t we apply this same logic and say that we should both allow regular motor vehicles on bicycle paths?


11. Can I ride my smart car in bike lanes, shoulders, and dedicated bicycle paths? What if I attach peddles and promise to only ride 20 MPH or less?


CABO Fight!!

April 12, 2013

I know I’m going to hell for this! 🙂

Below is a series of emails on the CABO mailing list.

But first here’s a photo of some of the better known vehicular cyclists:


They recently had a conference but didn’t invite me! I would have gone as an “online journalist”. Haha.!topic/caboforum/i-ByCW0xur4
Paul Wendt
Apr 5

Can all those parties who are arguing PLEASE be respectful of each other?

There have been some excellent comments posted here by John Forester, Dan
Gutierrez, and numerous others.

I really don’t care about who’s right on what I consider hair-splitting.

I would appreciate it if people could be respectful of each other when
discussing these issues on this list.

All of the above have contributed greatly…and it would be nice if we
could all respect each other.

Paul Wendt
John Forester
Apr 6
This is not hair-splitting; the discussion concerns the characteristics
of leadership, good and bad, which is of great importance to the welfare
of CABO. It is also of great importance to the welfare of the new
organization being created under the slogan of I Am Traffic. Less than
two months ago, in the email discussions of that group, Gutierrez was
involved in a very similar exchange concerning the meaning of the words
that he had written, which resulted in his public expressions of anger
such as we have read in the CABO list. When I suggested to him that we
conduct a private examination of the grammar of his sentence, to show
that the meaning transmitted to other readers was not what he had
intended (giving him the benefit of the doubt about motive), he
haughtily and publicly, refused.

In this discussion, I informed Gutierrez that “It has been commonly
argued in many places for many years that these exceptions were enacted
for the benefit of cyclists.” His immediate reply was: “What does this
have to do with me?” I was obviously making no claim that he was
responsible for making that argument. But he should have known that his
unqualified statement that these exceptions were written by [bicycle]
advocates provides ammunition for those making that argument. Any leader
of an organization with a controversial agenda (as both CABO and I Am
Traffic are) needs to understand the social milieu in which that
organization has to operate, and to compose his statements so that they
both reflect his views and prevent misleading interpretations by others.
Gutierez’s forceful defense of his statement: “Au contraire, the words I
originally wrote were factually correct.  Advocates did add the words,”
again shows that he fails to understand the difference between specific
accuracy and the social context in which those words operate.

I repeat: this is not hairsplitting. It is discussing the
characteristics required for good leadership of an organization that has
to operate in a context that makes it controversial. In that respect,
Gutierrez’s words and actions give him a failing grade.
– show quoted text –

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481    fore…
Dan Gutierrez, LCI #962, CABO D7 Director
Apr 6
I simply don’t care what you think.  That you imagine yourself as an arbiter
or judge of leadership and social skills is fascinating from a purely
psychological standpoint, given your long history of alienation and
polarization within the bicycling advocacy community and your single handed
poisoning of the term “vehicular cycling”, but none of makes any difference
to me.  That you see my disagreement as anger which justifies personal
attacks from you is simply a tantrum on your part and a rather poor attempt
at character assassination.  I will be adding your email to my delete list,
since you’ve made it clear that you seek to smear, and I’ve had my lifetime
fill of your personal invective.  This is the last time I will respond to
you on the CABO Forum list.

– Dan –
– show quoted text –

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“CABOforum” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to caboforum+…
To post to this group, send email to cabo…
Visit this group at
For more options, visit
Apr 6
I agree with John.

I have met Dan.  A leader listens and takes notes about ideas.  Some are
great, some are so-so, and some don’t work.  That is being a team member and
a team leader.

Dan listens and then corrects your grammar.  Notes are never taken.

This is not a leader.  This is a dictator.  I, too, give Dan a failing grade
as a leader. – Frank

—–Original Message—–
From: cabo… [mailto:cabo…] On
Behalf Of John Forester
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 8:49 AM
To: cabo…
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] He said/she said, and mudslinging…can’t we all
just get along?

– show quoted text –
– show quoted text –
Apr 6

You accuse John of “personal invective”.  Who is more at that than YOU?!  If
there is a poster child for “invective’, your picture would be there.  You
are the Prince of “Invective” (and I am using your word here and there is no
way you can dispute that you used that word.).  There is no person better at
“invective” than Dan Gutierrez.

Your mind is sharp and your tongue is sharp.  Your ability to be the
leadership of CABO is severely lacking.

When you tell a long standing member of CABO that you “simply don’t care”
about his opinion, you are deferring long standing standards to your own

I “simply don’t care” about you (your words and quoted).  You are CABO
baggage and will cause the end of CABO.

Is that your mission.  If so, you are doing a fine job.

I am jumping to “I am Traffic” and I hope you will not do this.

I like them.  We really do not need a bully in this, which is what you are.

Have a nice life and good luck to what you think you are adding to
bicycling, although you are sadly misdirected in your efforts.

You are a piece of Work (I substituted Work for what I was thinking that
starts with “S”.)

I am done with CABO.  You put the lid on it for me.

I have other and more positive Forums to be part of.

I am for the positive part of cycling and forwarding it to the Cities that I
deal with. – Frank

—–Original Message—–
From: cabo… [mailto:cabo…] On
– show quoted text –
Donald Shupp
Apr 6

You’re absolutely right, although I feel that John was perfectly in the clear for defending himself. He showed great restraint in not calling Dan an ass, as much as he may have felt like it. That guy can block all of us from his discussion if he chooses, because when the debate gets too warm for him to handle, that’s exactly what happens.

Donald Shupp
– show quoted text –
Pete van Nuys
8:33 AM (6 hours ago)
This is embarrassing.

—–Original Message—–
From: cabo… [mailto:cabo…] On
Behalf Of Dan Gutierrez
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 9:57 AM
To: fore…; cabo…
• show quoted text –

How to pay less tax UK

March 21, 2013

This is the UK edition of Cycling Unbound. Long story, but I am watching a lot of UK TV, etc.

If you have stories like this one:

“These 10 legal loopholes could reduce your yearly tax bill by thousands of pounds.”

Yes! Save on tax money.

Sounds good right? Isn’t saving on taxes a good thing? Would you EVER criticize someone for using legal loop holes to save money?

I think not.

That’s why, again and again, cyclists, by running with the narrative created by motorists, shoot ourselves in the face.

Here’s the deal. Whenever someone talks about how my life is good, I don’t disagree. That would be foolish. People love to see people who are different suffer. Many people laugh at cyclists getting hurt because they feel like we are doing something dangerous and deserve it.

When the clip-on is on the other foot, I don’t fight it.

That is, when people whine that we don’t pay road tax, I agree.

It’s the eleventh way to save on taxes.


What can be wrong with that?

So please, stop things like this:

“Road tax doesn’t exist. It’s car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation.”


No, try this on for size:

“No, I don’t pay the road tax, baby, you pay that for me. I’m not any more a free rider than the anyone else who saves money on taxes.

What, you don’t take _any_ deductions on taxes, but, instead, insist on paying the full amount? If you are so generous with your money, you don’t mind footing the bill for me, do you?”

See, dominate these assholes. Don’t try to placate with facts and suck up to their paradigm. Saving money on taxes is good. Cycling saves money on taxes therefore cycling is good.


‘Irresponsible’ cyclists should pay road tax, say quarter of drivers’

So if you save any money on taxes at all, don’t whine that I save even more money.

Stop trying to placate motorists with facts and start shoving your costs savings in their faces. 🙂

RageQuit Cycling

February 12, 2013

Often, I have heard in certain circles that we are either not ready to debate a certain topic, such as helmets, or we are being too “harsh”, for example what Copenhagenize calls “the bull in the China shop”, the motor vehicle.

I’m, personally, really to argue all of it. As LTRs know, I like to argue as much as I like gossip.

Lately, I have finally had a word to describe what has happened to me in many debates. These debates occur when people whine that CM runs stop signs, that cycling is dangerous, that helmets save lives, that I should get the fuck off the road, or that I should ride in the middle of fast paced traffic as cyclists fare best when treated a drivers of vehicles.

I stand my ground, argue back and annihilate the other side’s arguments very, very quickly.

Mostly the responses I have been getting is summed up with the term “RageQuit”.

“RageQuit in one word is Internet slang commonly used to describe the act of suddenly quitting a game or chatroom after either an argument, extreme frustration, or loss of the game.”

I really love it when people RageQuit. I have heard that when someone declares victory in an online debate it means that they have lost, but I don’t think that this is so after everyone else has RageQuit.

Overall, I am very glad to have found a term to sum up my understanding of online (and real life) discussions.

I do think that it shows a real lack of character to give up so easily especially when I feel that I am open to slowly change my mind given the proper data.

I don’t know if the past was different, but it seems that in this modern world, people think that their opinion is better than objective data which is collected by government agencies, scientists, and citizen data repositories such as what is found in the excellent BikingLa.