Speech codes are no fun when they’re used to stifle thought. But they can be fun when you’re in on the lingo’s meaning and others aren’t – especially when those others are the increasingly authoritarian tech companies, who use algorithms and other such to identify what they characterize (but never actually define) as “hateful” or “dangerous” speech. And then use that Star Chamber categorization to stifle not merely speech but also people’s ability to earn a living via their speech.
Per Dr. Strangelove, I haf a plan.
Actually, I have some neologisms – new words that convey important meanings which it’s important to talk openly about and which we can use to do just that without drawing the ire of the authoritarian tech companies – whose algorithms do not grok our inside baseball.
EPautos regulars are already fluent – but for the sake of those who do not yet grok, here is the lexicon that you can use to mention the unmentionable things without having to worry about being un-personed by the digital oligarchy:
This refers to an authoritarian personality, someone who instinctively seeks to forcibly control others – but who doesn’t want to admit this openly and uses a variety of euphemisms such as the “public good” and “we” need to justify his personal desire to exercise control over other people.
The Clover is also usually two other things: A poltroon and cognitively dissonant. He is personally not violent – hence his need to euphemize the violence he advocates (e.g., “Let’s have a conversation about how much each of us should contribute in taxes.”) and to have the violence performed by proxies. Most Clovers lack the stones to personally threaten others to coerce their “contributions” – or to compel them to associate with people they’d rather avoid, or force them to buy insurance against harms they haven’t caused, or “help” them buy an electric car, etc. But they will support politicians who promise to do all of those things.
In addition to being immoral, a Clover is also a moral coward – afraid to speak openly of his lusts and far too fearful to satisfy them using his own two fists.
Finally, the Clover is a cognitively dissonant fellow. He either does not grok – or does not want to grok – that the violence he wants to be visited on others can on the same principle be visited upon him – which he has the effrontery to resent and oppose!
Thus the absurd objection of the “conservative” to impositions on what he considers to be his right to posses a gun (which he does have a right to possess) while at the same denying the right of the homeowner to not be forced to pay taxes in perpetuity on his home to fund “the schools” which he does not use or support.
Or “law enforcement” and “defense” – and other “services” he isn’t interested in but which the “conservative” very much is – and insists you pay for.
The liberal is just as cognitively dissonant,of course. She will virulently defend the absolute right of a woman to control what she regards as her body (even when there is another body within) while simultaneously insisting that other people’s bodies – and minds – be controlled at almost every turn.
The liberal does not object to civil slavery – but takes issue with chattel slavery. Not noticing that in both cases, the body and mind of the victim is yoked and chained for the benefit – and sadistic enjoyment – of a master.
The Clover is a pathological personality afflicted by a kind of moral bipolar disorder. It’s a pathology because when the Clover is presented with a principle that calls out the hypocrisy of his particular position, he almost invariably becomes belligerent and evasive rather than thoughtful and reflective. See almost any debate between “conservatives” and “liberals” for a study of this phenomenon – which is a function of widespread government schooling, the object of which is to render the victim incapable of principled thought.
An armed government worker.
Nothing more – and a lot less.
The term conveys the facts of the matter: They are armed and they work for the government – not for us – a haltingly absurd notion. Those who work for us serve at our pleasure, according to our rules – and are under our control. AGWs serve the government and we have as much control over them as a leashed poodle has over the person holding the leash.
It also conveys the dreary banality of these bureaucrats with badges and guns who can’t be troubled to think about right vs. wrong but are “just doing their jobs.” Like their antecedents in the dock at Nuremburg, which no one seems to remember.
It is an intellectual antidote to the embarrassing cult of genuflection and near-worship for those who impose the authority of the government which arose – which was orchestrated – after the events of September the 11th, 2001.
It is also a means of intelligently expressing contempt – earned and deserved – for the people who willingly take money to oppress their fellow men – which they do the moment they take a single penny from any unwilling person, even before they oppress anyone via their enforcement of patently unjust but statutory laws.
But they are “just doing their jobs.” And “the law is the law.” Even when it isn’t.
AGWs are notorious for making up laws – and enforcing them. And for not knowing what the actual law is – and ignoring it.
And for being held to a far more lenient – or nonexistent – standard when they are caught making it up/ignoring it/violating it.
Related: Hut! Hut! Hut! This is what an AGW does to assert his authority. It often takes the form of a beatdown or some lesser form of submission training.
Here’s an example of both terms used in a sentence: AGWs arrived and Hut! Hut! Hutted! the victim, who failed to show proper respect for their Authority.
It individualizes our oppressors, who are of course plural. When people speak of “the government,” the inadvertently grant it a legitimacy it isn’t entitled to by establishing the false premise that it something more than busybodies and control freak who hold office, have titles – and the guns (and armed government workers) to impose their busbodyism and control freakery on everyone else.
“The government” is not a Great Wizard, an uber-creature that rules because we are to it as the cow is to the cowboy. Though the people who constitute “the government” consider themselves very much the cowboys to our cow.
In fact, they are as ordinary as the rest of us – and often, more so.
Related: fatwa –
This is an edict issued by “the government,” often by a regulatory apparat such as the EPA whose personnel were never elected by anyone, vitiating even the morally dubious idea that rights can be bought and sold at the ballot box.
One of the defining attributes of a culture collapsing is the inversion of meaning; the use of words to manipulate rather than communicate. No better example of this can be adduced than the near-constant ululation of saaaaaaaaaaaaaafety when what is meant and intended is control.
Observe that whatever the specifics of the ululation – the advocacy of air bags in all new cars, for instance – the bottom line is always coercion and compulsion. We are never asked but always told.
If necessary force will be applied to keep you saaaaaaaaaaaafe – as oxymoronic a notion as it’s possible to imagine. Note that even when the specific thing ululated for our supposed saaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety is demonstrably not safe – for example, millions of known defective air bags in circulation – the owners of the affected vehicles are denied even temporary permission to disable the defective air bags until they can be replaced.
There are many such examples.
By mocking the term we call out its inner meaning and intended object – the exercise of power over us by those who relish controlling us.
Derision is a powerful remedy to tyranny.
It denies it the superior wisdom it pretends to, a nonsensical as well as tyrannical notion given that those seeking to control us aren’t a superior race, possessed of superior intelligence but just men and women like the rest of us.
But unlike the rest us in that they have deluded themselves into believing they are of superior intelligence and wisdom and so control us by right – by telling us they are keeping us saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafe.
Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.
The AGW part reminded me of the harrowing tale from Truthstream Media, when they were returning to the USA from Canada (Canada, can you believe?) and entered into a “Constitution Free Zone” in upper Michigan. Ab-so-lute-ly chilling.
Good article; thank you.
If a zone can be free from the laws which give them their supposed legitimacy/authority, then it should also be free from their laws.
Sounds like a good place to hunt wild pig!
Damn, Eric, you didn’t have to go and type up a whole article just to answer my question from a few days ago, heh heh. But thanks for the clarification nonetheless.
Back in the usenet days on r.a.d we had created quite a number of them.
MFFY = Me first, fuck you. General inconsideration.
Sloth = a motorist slow to the point of creating danger or annoyance.
slotherator = someone who accelerates very slowly until something or a red signal prevents it. They have no problem doing 10, 20mph or more over the speed limit, it just may take them miles to get that speed.
invisible bus = the object an unaware motorist has to take evasive action for or demands other motorists make way because he failed to plan for the obvious. What was funny is that long after we started using that, for one of the early emergency braking systems the automaker aired a TV commercial where it saves someone from hitting a bus.
There were also references to the “speed kills” trolls, roughly equal to “clover”
Those are the ones I remember off hand.
I sometimes wonder what happened to our Clover – the one who bequeathed the archetype unto us!
For those of us who haven’t been around forever, please elucidate. I still have no idea why you chose to call such a person a “clover,” as opposed to a “tablespoon” or possibly a “candybar,” none of which have any obvious connection to sheeple-ism.
I’ve always used “reggin” (read it backwards) to evade autocensors.
I try not to use euphemisms which are not widely recognized though, because they do effectively stifle ones message almost as badly as censorship, since the average person who is not privvy to the lingo will have no clue as to what we are talking about, and thus not be enlightened/not recognize fellow compatriots when he sees them.
America is now at the Samizdat stage. For those not hip, Samizdat refers to the underground press in the old Soviet Union. The government had almost total control over public discourse; today, it’s private corporations. Which is worse because it has the sheen of “free market” and “private property” – which provides the basis for doltish intellectuals to defend it. Only government can censor, they exclaim!
But when private companies can suppress speech generally – it amounts to the same thing.
Hey Eric…. Good interview with David Knight except it wasn’t long enough….
What you call Clovers today we called Nimrods (the slang version) in my young heyday. Nimrods do the same as a Clover but more than that they recognize each other and group up to block the road to us potential law breakers. I’ve seen them cruise down the interstate two and three lanes side by side doing 54mph. Caused unnecessary road rage but that was what they were trying for. Much road rage is caused by Nimrods aka Clovers.
We used to call them “Road Hogs” back in the day. There’s a great little episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents on the subject:
One of my favorite episodes! Of course, such things could never be aired today; too “dangerous” – because it might cause people to think.
Many of those old TV shows barely aired then for the same reason. The Twilight Zone was basically an exercise in thinking television with every message disguised in a plot where the censors would let it through.
Dang it. I got logged out. anyway old TV worked thinking around censorship. Today it just isn’t done.
Good grief, when are you going to let this rest? None of the cyclists here have ever defended asshole moves by cyclists. But, you now that because all of us have repeated it ad-nauseam. The only person on this site with a history of defending the “right” to be a reckless asshole on the road is you. Which I promise to never bring up again if you’ll get over your weird obsession with cyclists.
“None of the cyclists here have ever defended asshole moves by cyclists. But, you now that because all of us have repeated it ad-nauseam.”
I’m not sure about that. I come up with the most annoying, selfish, inane, frankly suicidal places-to-walk-or-ride that I can think of, and all I ever get out of any of you is “BUT I HAVE A RIGHT!” or “THE ROAD’S NOT A RACETRACK!” Brent wouldn’t even denounce the idea of riding on the Nurburgring, which is like, the ultimate suicide-by-someone-else jerk move.
“The only person on this site with a history of defending the “right” to be a reckless asshole on the road is you.”
When did I ever advocate crossing the center line? I don’t even do that where I can see ahead. But when I have to fear the shoulder (and at least a quarter of my lane) more than I do the entire oncoming lane, this has officially become a load of manure. Hugging the center of the lane (or the center line) on a winding road gets VERY old, VERY quickly.
“Which I promise to never bring up again if you’ll get over your weird obsession with cyclists.”
Every day it becomes less weird and more justified. Thanks to people like that. I wasn’t too tilted when I thought it was possible to escape the nonmotorized plague by waiting up until no one else was awake, but last night was confirmation that there is no time or place they will not devour (and then try to make you feel like the bad guy for ever wanting to get free of them).
You object to the mere possibility that a cyclist might be on the road, anywhere at any time. You state:
“What I have a problem with is slowing down for people who AREN’T there… You are slowing me down every moment I’m out driving, even if I haven’t seen a bicyclist or hitchhiker in days….I wouldn’t dream of riding a bicycle on the roadway even knowing I can – and this includes the urban surface streets”
Here’s your description of what roads we, “non-motorized” folks, should voluntarily ban ourselves from.
“For deciding on my own use of roads, I would not consider any road suitable for non-motorized use unless a racer could come through any corner or over any crest at limit-of-adhesion speeds, with two tires over the shoulder line and the other two right up against it, not knowing I’m there, and never be in any danger of harming me.”
This would limit “us” to nothing. This, despite your observation that you have never “advocated crossing the center line”, vindicates my claim that you defend driving like a reckless asshole.
In addition, you have ludicrously claimed that the fact that a cyclist might be on the road limits you to 30% to 40% of the driving that you otherwise would have done.
“I’m being serious. Why even bother when you are obligated by your own preferred subculture to never do anything more intense than loafing down the center of your lane at 3/10ths, maybe 4 in the daylight?”
Have you done the math on this? I’m going to assume that you don’t routinely drive under the speed limit because of the “non-motorized plague” that haunts you. So, imagine a road with a 40MPH limit, you’re claiming that, absent cyclists, you’d be cruising along at 100MPH to 130MPH? And that assumes that you adhere to the speed limit, which I find doubtful.
To your credit, you were candid about your preferred driving style when you responded to my query: “Please explain why your desire to drive recklessly supersedes my desire to ride on a public road.”
This is your response:
“Honestly, I think part of it is knowing it’s not justifiable. I know that my preferred style of driving is illegal and dangerous, and so basically depends on the good graces or simple absence of other people.”
BTW, I and a friend of mine rode a portion of the Santa Fe Century with a 91 year old man today. Its important to him to keep doing this, but he’s afraid to do it alone anymore. I don’t feel even a little guilty helping him with this.
“This would limit ‘us’ to nothing. This, despite your observation that you have never ‘advocated crossing the center line’, vindicates my claim that you defend driving like a reckless asshole.”
I admit I’ve said some pretty extreme stuff. However, two things:
I was mainly speaking for myself there. That’s more than I’d expect of others, however I do hold myself to that standard.
You, on the other hand, seem to believe that there is no standard AT ALL when it comes to bicycles. If a given road is publicly funded, then non-drivers can just waltz in and take over with no regard for courtesy or common sense, and anyone who has a problem with it is automatically the selfish one. In theory you have a right, but in practice actually doing that is the peak of passive-aggressive idiocy. Honestly, it reminds me of… was it Nunzio’s strawman about 400 MPH rocket cars? As I pointed out then, 400 MPH rocket cars don’t exist at the consumer level yet, but if they ever do, you can be sure of one thing which is that there will still be a few people here and there dawdling down the side of the road while insisting that everyone else is the real problem, and that many of them will continue to call themselves car enthusiasts at the same time.
At the end of it all, however, I really would not be sad to see the concept of adult bicycling die out entirely. For transportation, they are within a hair’s breadth of being the worst of all possible worlds. If you were actively trying to come up with a “vehicle” which was both completely outclassed for any serious use and immeasurably annoying to encounter under any and all circumstances, you could not do much better than a bicycle. Well, except maybe a unicycle, but even most hardcore road riders aren’t going to stoop that low. Even walking is less obnoxious, somehow.
“Have you done the math on this? I’m going to assume that you don’t routinely drive under the speed limit because of the ‘non-motorized plague’ that haunts you. So, imagine a road with a 40MPH limit, you’re claiming that, absent cyclists, you’d be cruising along at 100MPH to 130MPH? And that assumes that you adhere to the speed limit, which I find doubtful.”
It’s not about the outright maximum speed, it’s about having no freaking lateral space to work with. Accelerating madly on the straights and then tiptoeing around corners isn’t much better than hugging the center line all the time. But now, if you go too close to the center line, you’re going to spook any oncoming cars, and if you go too close to the shoulder, you risk injuring some suicidal troll who thinks his near-invisibility should be everyone else’s problem to worry about. The frick am I supposed to do in that situation?
As for the speed, it’s been a long time since I’ve tried to go anywhere near that fast. For a road with a 40 PSL, 45-55 is probably a good starting point – but it also depends heavily on the time of day. Most roads can’t quite support that level of speed anyway.
The road where I saw this guy had a 45 PSL, however speeds over 55 are common and I’ve seen people going well over 70 at night. And that, right there, is the problem. Non-drivers coming along and inserting themselves into the equation when it’s late at night and it doesn’t look like there’s anyone else around to be a “reckless ***hole” to. It’s literally 2AM, there’s maybe 10 other people still awake in a radius of as many miles, and so I should be fine to put my foot down, but I still have to worry about which shadow you’re going to materialize out of this time.
Other drivers are easy to spot and work around in that circumstance. Non-drivers, between the speeds they move at and the utter lack of effort most of them put into making themselves visible, can appear out of nowhere in the same situation – thus, a significant chunk of my lane is gone right out of the gate. Frankly, I resent being boxed in from both sides like that. Don’t demand that I hold the center of my lane like it was a rail and then tell me I’m being unreasonable when I object.
“To your credit, you were candid about your preferred driving style when you responded to my query: ‘Please explain why your desire to drive recklessly supersedes my desire to ride on a public road.’
This is your response:”
I’ve spent a long time since still trying to explain it, and I could write at length about how an exclusive diet of track racing ruins both car culture and car design, but for now suffice it to say that it should be easy to understand the difference between being able to go out and swerve around some cones maybe four times a year with a class label (eww) slapped on my car, and being able to go out for a drive and actually enjoy it. Instead, how about we turn this around. Please explain how your desire to annoy everyone with a bicycle supersedes my desire to derive any enjoyment at all from my travels.
But in the end, there is still something to what I said before, and it relates to that question. Most bicyclists, when they destroy driving, aren’t doing so out of any need to do so. They’re doing it just because they can, just because “they have a right”, or maybe just for the exercise. In the end, my desire isn’t the one that puts the joy of driving permanently out of reach for anyone not rich enough to own their own road while making everyday, A-to-B movement bletcherous as well. And that is why I absolutely refuse to ride one of those things, ever again, for any reason.
“You, on the other hand, seem to believe that there is no standard AT ALL when it comes to bicycles.”
Please, find anything I’ve written that supports your claim. I have made my standard very clear. Namely, everyone on the road has a responsibility to be aware of, and considerate to, others on the road. This doesn’t mean you have to drive slowly, observe the speed limit, etc… It means you can’t be an inconsiderate, self-obsessed, clueless asshole, as a driver or a cyclist.
“At the end of it all, however, I really would not be sad to see the concept of adult bicycling die out entirely. For transportation, they are within a hair’s breadth of being the worst of all possible worlds.”
Thankfully, your ignorant ideas about cycling are not yet binding on me. I ride for many reasons, none of which are any of your business. As for transportation, when I lived in Chicago, my bike was usually the “best of all possible worlds”. I could do most trips in less time than in my car, and I’d feel good too. Also, I was one less car on the road, taking up one less parking spot, making it easier on YOU!
“Most bicyclists, when they destroy driving, aren’t doing so out of any need to do so.”
First, bicyclists don’t destroy driving, despite your delusional belief that they do. Other drivers do so much more than cyclists. Your obsession with cyclists has perhaps destroyed your pleasure in driving, but that’s your fault, not mine.
Second, “need” is the siren song of every authoritarian shit-head who ever walked this earth. Your counterpart in the anti-car movement makes the same claims about your “needs”. That asshole is every bit as wrong as you are.
“Please, find anything I’ve written that supports your claim.”
Like maybe every time people on this site have claimed that literally every road is appropriate for nonmotorized use at every time of day, and if it’s not that’s only because drivers go too fast or use too much road. I’m not sure about you specifically.
This isn’t about a ban, by the way. I’ve long since disavowed any support for a ban. This does not mean, however, that I have warmed up to bicycles at all. You say bicycles are a form of freedom, I say freedom is what happens when there aren’t any around.
“I have made my standard very clear. Namely, everyone on the road has a responsibility to be aware of, and considerate to, others on the road. This doesn’t mean you have to drive slowly, observe the speed limit, etc… It means you can’t be an inconsiderate, self-obsessed, clueless asshole, as a driver or a cyclist. ”
The problem being, bicycles, due to their vulnerability, slow speed, and lack of visibility, demand SIGNIFICANTLY more consideration than other drivers – to the point where they require consideration even when there are in fact no non-drivers within a radius of many miles. You say I’m inconsiderate, self-obsessed, and clueless for not wanting to do this. I think bicyclists in general are inconsiderate, self-obsessed, and clueless for demanding it – not just of me, but of everyone else on the road – and even more so when they do things like ride on narrow roads at night. When you do something like that, you’re putting everyone else on the road in the position of having to babysit you 24/7/365 whether you’re actually there or not, and I for one won’t be guilty of it.
“Thankfully, your ignorant ideas about cycling are not yet binding on me. I ride for many reasons, none of which are any of your business. As for transportation, when I lived in Chicago, my bike was usually the ‘best of all possible worlds’. I could do most trips in less time than in my car, and I’d feel good too. Also, I was one less car on the road, taking up one less parking spot, making it easier on YOU!”
When it comes to cities, I really don’t care as long as you don’t blow signals, go the wrong way, or ride on the freeway. Cities by their very nature are so annoying that there are very few ways to make them worse. All they’re really good for is keeping the kind of person who would willingly live there in one place so they don’t clog up the countryside (at least until they come out to ride bikes and build ski resorts all over the best roads).
“First, bicyclists don’t destroy driving, despite your delusional belief that they do. Other drivers do so much more than cyclists. Your obsession with cyclists has perhaps destroyed your pleasure in driving, but that’s your fault, not mine.”
Being required to treat driving like a giant, poorly marked, moving game of The Floor is Lava because of people like the one I saw last night is what has destroyed my pleasure in driving.
“Second, “need” is the siren song of every authoritarian shit-head who ever walked this earth. Your counterpart in the anti-car movement makes the same claims about your ‘needs’. That asshole is every bit as wrong as you are.”
That’s why I didn’t say anything about a ban… however I do believe that road riding becomes orders of magnitude more inconsiderate when you have a functional automobile at your disposal. I can understand if you can’t afford a car, but if you can and do afford one, and still ride anyway, that’s just another level altogether, especially if you claim to be a car enthusiast.
I noticed you couldn’t find anything I’ve written to support your claim. I also didn’t mention a ban because I know you changed your mind on this; you just think we should ban ourselves because us being on the road, at all, anywhere (except maybe in “annoying cities”), is just a selfish intrusion on your desires. Which, of course, supersede “our” desires, rights, etc…
“You say I’m inconsiderate, self-obsessed, and clueless for not wanting to do this.”
Actually, I didn’t. I said that EVERYONE has an obligation not to be such a person, myself included.
“I do believe that road riding becomes orders of magnitude more inconsiderate when you have a functional automobile at your disposal.”
Well, that’s nice, but I don’t care. Every time I ride my bike to run an errand, instead of driving, I make it easier on other drivers. I cannot recall a single time that I have legitimately inconvenienced or endangered a driver. There are some who are annoyed at my mere presence, but their annoyance is neither legitimate nor my fault.
“I noticed you couldn’t find anything I’ve written to support your claim.”
That’s because I was mostly calling out Brent here, you just happened to be the one who responded instead. I also notice you’re only responding to about half of every post.
“you just think we should ban ourselves because us being on the road, at all, anywhere (except maybe in ‘annoying cities’),”
I guess I figured this was just common sense. If you want to put yourself at risk I can’t and wouldn’t stop you (I mean, after all, I’m the one banging the “track racing is garbage” drum here) but when you do it that way you’re transferring responsibility for your risk onto everyone else on the road. That’s why I’ve been calling it “passive-aggressive moral bullying”. I don’t want to hit you even if you are doing something catastrophically stupid, but frankly I feel like my (and everyone else’s) desire to not be a murderous hate-demon is being taken advantage of – by fellow car enthusiasts.
“Actually, I didn’t. I said that EVERYONE has an obligation not to be such a person, myself included.”
This is exactly what I’ve been getting at the whole time. It’s just, as far as I’m concerned, sometimes courtesy starts before you even leave home, when you’re selecting your vehicle.
“Well, that’s nice, but I don’t care. Every time I ride my bike to run an errand, instead of driving, I make it easier on other drivers. I cannot recall a single time that I have legitimately inconvenienced or endangered a driver. There are some who are annoyed at my mere presence, but their annoyance is neither legitimate nor my fault.”
Are you talking about cities again? ‘Cause I’m not and never have been. That’s actually the one place a bicycle could sort of work.
You consider my mere presence on the road to be inconsiderate, which I fundamentally reject, so there’s nothing to be gained by further discussion on that.
“I also notice you’re only responding to about half of every post.”
This entire conversation is tiresome and repetitive, from you and from me. Most of your “points” are not points. They’re just rationalizations for the way you wish to drive, and deserve little comment. By your own admission, your preferred driving style is dangerous and requires the absence of other people. Sorry, I’m not sympathetic to that. I especially reject the ludicrous notion that it is primarily cyclists who interfere with your preferred driving style. Despite your assertions that cyclists are “nearly invisible” (pure rubbish, I have never failed to see a cyclist in the daytime and most, use lights at night), it is other drivers who pose a far greater hindrance.
In a rare moment of self-knowledge, you admit that anyone on the road impairs your style, then write copious amounts demonizing a particular group of people.
“Are you talking about cities again? ‘Cause I’m not and never have been. That’s actually the one place a bicycle could sort of work.”
No, I’m talking about ever, in any place I’ve ridden. But, people like you don’t count as your annoyance is not predicated on reality.
Finally, you keep bringing this up, we don’t. You continue to take gratuitous jabs at cyclists. If I had more self discipline, I would just ignore you (at least when you obsessively post about how awful we are). Ironically, when your not consumed with your cyclist obsession, you often have interesting and thoughtful things to say.
Chuck you have repeatedly stated that you want to drive in a manner most of us would only do on a closed course, a race track, or racing environment. That bicyclists merely existing prevents you from doing so.
Oh no. I would drive MUCH harder on a racetrack.
scared of the trees or something?
More a difference in mentality. When you’re on the street, there’s no real reward for “winning” except maybe some temporary bragging rights. You want to improve your skills, and if there’s someone leading or following you then you want to give them a good challenge, but (if you’re smart) you’re not going to do things like chop the center or push your car way past its limits just to get a win or a record that doesn’t mean much. In the end, you’re just ripping around for the heck of it. It’s about the drive more than anything.
When you go to the track, it’s not about the drive anymore. If it was, racetracks would look a great deal different than they currently do. Now, it’s about the win. You have one reason for being there, and that’s to be #1 or die trying. Once that flag falls, you owe it to yourself and to your competitors to push yourself as hard as you possibly can in pursuit of victory.
tl;dr on the street, it’s friendly competition or a personal quest for improvement. On the track, it’s an all out fight for the win.
This extends to car preparation as well. I might be planning an engine swap and ridiculously expensive coilovers for my eventual project, but it’s still going to have a full interior (maybe even get the seats redone in leather, budget dependent) and no downforce whatsoever. On the track, if you want to compete, then you have to worship downforce (if the class rules allow it, of course) and toss every last ounce of unnecessary weight (that the class rules allow, of course).
But I’m not looking for a race car, I’m looking for something I can drive to work in the morning and then embarrass brand new hyper hatches with later the same night.
That, by the way, is why I fight so hard to give street racing a place. Being a fierce competitor is one thing, but once trailers and purpose-built cars get involved, then that’s no longer real racing as far as I’m concerned.
Everyone else must conform to your definitions of what’s real and how the public way should be used.
Yeah. I expected as much.
Unrelated but hey Brent, Nunzio, would you be willing to defend someone riding a bike without lights at literally 2:03AM local time on a winding, spottily-lit road with narrow lanes and basically no shoulder?
Because that’s who I just saw.
And to think, I used to enjoy driving. But what’s the point in trying anymore…
In a anarchistic world? Sure….let him get squished if he has no concern for his own safety or the safety of others; but in this authoritarian world, if you hit him, it could mean trouble for you. I’m not so much concerned with the safety of someone who’d ride like that, as I am for the safety of pedestrians and motorists and animals, et al, who casn’t see him coming.
No serious or sane cyclist would do that; my hunch is that the idjit was probably someone whose license got suspended/revoked for DUI or something- and is now just exhibiting his irresponsible behavior on a bicycle. Glad that he’s not driving a motorized vehicle! I guess once in a while, the system actually does work….
See, now maybe you’re starting to understand why I go on these rants. The fact is, I’d rather not hit someone even if they are being blatantly stupid like that… but in this day and age, that means I could be 150 miles from the nearest outpost of civilization, in the quietest part of the night, and would still have to drive as if Bikey McNoLights is hiding around every corner and over every crest even though the odds of that happening are actually pretty low. Now add the people who are trying to hitchhike in the middle of the night for who knows what reason, and the more “responsible” recreational riders who still ride on narrow roads, and then the people who genuinely can’t afford cars on top of that (probably not their fault half the time), and you end up with a situation where:
1. Every somewhat curvy road that’s within 30 miles of civilization and not already full of houses has already been “claimed” by non-drivers before I even start looking for a road, as have a lot of roads that don’t meet those conditions
2. There is not time of day, week, or year that is safe
3. Apparently I should be perfectly OK with this
This is why I’m so hard on people who ride when they could drive in general and “car-guy bicyclists” in specific. I’d expect this kind of thing from the enviro-fascists, but then ruining everyone’s fun is their stock in trade anyway. But to see fellow car enthusiasts defending and perpetuating this state of affairs just plain hurts. Once, probably before I was even born, we conquered the mountain roads because they were there to be conquered. Now we bike on the mountain roads because they’re there to be biked on, and scream “SELFISH FASCIST!” any anyone who thinks the old way was better.
1. “Every somewhat curvy road that’s within 30 miles of civilization and not already full of houses has already been “claimed” by non-drivers before I even start looking for a road, as have a lot of roads that don’t meet those conditions.”
Uh, no. “We” don’t “claim” roads, the only person who seems to believe he has a right to “claim” a road is you.
2. “There is not time of day, week, or year that is safe”.
Well, when you think it’s OK to drive like this: “…a racer could come through any corner or over any crest at limit-of-adhesion speeds, with two tires over the shoulder line and the other two right up against it…”, you’re right. Reality sucks, and this has nothing to do with cyclists.
3. “Apparently I should be perfectly OK with this”.
Well yes, because what you want (to drive like a reckless asshole that endangers ANYONE else on the road, not just cyclists) is absurd.
So, in Chuck World, it’s not the “racer” described above that is selfish and inconsiderate, it’s the poor sap legally using the road who happens to be in the way of said lunatic.
You claim that “we” are selfish and apply no standards to our use of the roads. This is false. “We” have criticized those cyclists who are truly assholes. “We” ride in a way that should not be a problem for any competent driver. The fact that morons sometimes fail to pass us when there is plenty of room, delaying those behind him, is on them, not us.
You object to a phantom, the mere possibility that a cyclist might be on the road. You accept nothing other than our complete, voluntary banishment from the roads, You believe that we engage in “suicidally inconsiderate idiocy” that “ruins everyone’s fun”. Well, you’re wrong, your reckless desires do not supersede my rights, nor my considerate use of the public roadway.
“Uh, no. ‘We’ don’t ‘claim’ roads, the only person who seems to believe he has a right to ‘claim’ a road is you.”
Oh yeah, that’s the other reason I’m hard on car guy bicyclists. They might say they like cars, they might have a fast car, but as soon as someone speaks against bicycles, then suddenly driving becomes an emotionless movement from point A to point B and so, as long as it’s technically possible to drive from place to place (indifferently, without joy, going no further right than the center of the lane) on a given road, then they’re not really asking for anything at all!
So technically, no, non-drivers don’t claim roads. They just claim undefined, ever-shifting chunks of the road which may or may not (probably may) be large enough to completely destroy its value to car culture.
“Well, when you think it’s OK to drive like this: ‘…a racer could come through any corner or over any crest at limit-of-adhesion speeds, with two tires over the shoulder line and the other two right up against it…’, you’re right. Reality sucks, and this has nothing to do with cyclists.”
There are a lot of roads where I wouldn’t drive like that, however there are roads where it should be possible to push the limits after a certain time of night – I’ll just say 11PM for the sake of having a number. There are very few roads, however, where I would seek to prevent someone else from doing that. Even in the depths of a residential subdivision, when I’m out walking my dog, I try to avoid making people slow down for me, and that includes the kids ripping around on dirt bikes and a souped-up lawnmower.
“Well yes, because what you want (to drive like a reckless asshole that endangers ANYONE else on the road, not just cyclists) is absurd.
So, in Chuck World, it’s not the “racer” described above that is selfish and inconsiderate, it’s the poor sap legally using the road who happens to be in the way of said lunatic.”
If there’s no one else around to be a reckless ***hole to, am I still a reckless ***hole? With non-drivers in the equation, you never know if there’s actually no one around to be a reckless ***hole to until you’ve made it home without seeing any.
Also, I’d call it inconsiderate whether there’s a “racer” there or not. Sometimes normal drivers do use the passes at night, to do what I’m not sure, but they do, and as far as I’m concerned, they shouldn’t have to worry about bicycles either given how narrow some of those roads can be.
FURTHERMORE, I’ve never actually run full-tilt on a public road. The fastest run I ever did never even made the tires squeal. The problem is, even the pathetic level of driving I once reached, using maybe 50% of the car’s capabilities if that, is not possible with non-drivers maybe or maybe not hiding behind any given obstacle. Not necessarily because it’s no longer possible to maintain those speeds (though it may be in some instances), but because taking ridiculous goofy lines on every other corner gets so infuriating so quickly that it barely even counts as fun.
I thought at one point that there might still be a place where it was possible to go a great deal faster, and as far as I’m concerned there frickin’ well should be (not just for me but for all drivers), but with the greens on one side and the bicycle cheering section on the other, there may never be another such place. That thought really doesn’t fill me with much joy.
I find it rather amusing, however, that so many people here, back when I first showed up, were down with the idea of outright barricading roads once they run empty, even though that would result in ALL non-racers being involuntarily kept from using the public way for the duration.
“You claim that ‘we’ are selfish and apply no standards to our use of the roads. This is false.”
Considering that Brent couldn’t even admit the Nurburgring was a dumb place to ride…
“You object to a phantom, the mere possibility that a cyclist might be on the road.”
Phantom is a good description, actually. Almost never actually there, but in practice always actually there… and unlike with other cars, which really are a constant, there’s no way of knowing how much space any given one is going to want.
“You accept nothing other than our complete, voluntary banishment from the roads, You believe that we engage in ‘suicidally inconsiderate idiocy’ that ‘ruins everyone’s fun’.”
Just like you expect me to “voluntarily” drive like a grandma so you can ride wherever you want whenever you want.
“Well, you’re wrong, your reckless desires do not supersede my rights, nor my considerate use of the public roadway.”
And I still don’t see any form of bicycling as considerate.
“Just like you expect me to “voluntarily” drive like a grandma so you can ride wherever you want whenever you want.”
This is idiotic, nobody is making you drive like a Grandma and I don’t believe that you do. BTW, I have never argued that I can ride wherever and whenever I want, this is another fantasy in your head. Of course I do ride on roads that you think I shouldn’t, because that would be any road at all.
Your “argument” is not against driving like a Granny, it is for driving in a way that is, by your own admission, unsafe if ANYONE else is on the road. Your many thousands of words blathering on about car culture, divided loyalties and the “suicidal idiocy” of cyclists, doesn’t change this simple fact.
I have many customers who are cyclists and car enthusiasts. None of them would recognize themselves in this description: “They might say they like cars, they might have a fast car, but as soon as someone speaks against bicycles, then suddenly driving becomes an emotionless movement from point A to point B…” In fact, they’d think you’re kind of loony. They manage to drive fast and experience joy, even with the looming specter of, gasp, a cyclist.
I’m sorry that you’ve created this phantom in your mind that robs you of the joy of driving, I hope you get over it some day.
Wow. You found an idiot bicycle rider. How long would it take me to find an idiot motorist? Not long. I’ll probably encounter another on my way home. Idiot motorists abound.
The term used in ancient internet times for someone without the good sense of knowing how to use a bicycle properly was POB. Person on Bicycle.
Link Nunz pointed out, you likely encountered a DUI revocation case heading home from a bar.
I’ve biked late a night. My bicycle has a high powered headlamp, a backup headlamp, and three tail lamps. All on top of a full set of reflectors. I’ve had comments on my lighting from mere complements to ‘I thought it was motorcycle/car’. Of course motorists still use the excuse they didn’t see me. Bullshit.
This. This right here, is what grinds my gears. “Yeah, some bicyclists are idiots, but what about…”
You think I don’t notice all the annoying drivers? You think they don’t tick me off? I do, and they do. But there’s one important difference: I only have to avoid them when they’re actually there. Every time I have to shy away from the apex of a right-hander, or pull up short at the exit of a left-hander, out of deference to someone who isn’t even there, it pushes me a little farther over the edge.
That’s why I’ve called you a fake car enthusiast before. It’s not because you don’t want to drive hard. It’s because you defend and by choice partake of an activity that prevents anyone else from doing so.
As for the lights, good on you. I wish more people did that. As it is now, though, I have to assume that the default state of a non-driver is suicidally inconsiderate idiocy. Mostly because everything I’ve read, and everything I’ve seen during my own driving, tells me that it kind of is. I’ve mentioned some of the more delicious specimens here before (hint: Stroller Lady) but I will be glad to post them all again if you like.
Chuck, I get what you’re saying about the fake enthusiasts. These guys who love to argue about their rights to the roads probably don’t even own cars. They don’t really have anything to add to car discussions. I don’t even check in here that often anymore, and when I do it’s to see if those few fakes are gone yet.
Fuck’em and feed ’em fish heads.
Dayum, Ed! Ya got me. I don’t own a car. (I do own two trucks….)
Sorry, but this misses the point entirely. The ones who don’t own cars are the ones I can sort of understand. It’s the ones who do own cars, but would rather bike anyway, that drive me nuts.
So if you own a lumbering pickup truck you’re not a real car enthusiast? Especially if chose not to use your sports car that day?
Yeah, I’m fake because I don’t intentionally drive at the limits of tire adhesion on the public way.
There are numerous places where even here in Illinois where a car or even a truck could be just out of view requiring one to drive as if one might be there.
It seems you are just placing all the ills of you not being able to use the public way as your personal time trial course on bicyclists when your real complaint is that it is the public way and how dare the public use it!
“Yeah, I’m fake because I don’t intentionally drive at the limits of tire adhesion on the public way.”
That’s exactly the opposite of what I just said. You don’t have to drive fast, just don’t require others to drive slow. Also don’t ride in a way that requires me to hug the center of my lane like it was a rail, and then say I’m the unreasonable one when I object to this. I mean, remember when I brought up bikes on the Nurburgring? The least appropriate place I could think of to ride a bike, and you wouldn’t even speak against that other than to say you didn’t think it was worth the toll.
“There are numerous places where even here in Illinois where a car or even a truck could be just out of view requiring one to drive as if one might be there. ”
There are three times so far when I’ve had a same-direction car surprise me, and in at least two and a half of those cases it was because the driver did something stupid. The first was someone going 45 on the freeway. The second was drunk or strung out on who knows what. The third pulled over to check something on a road with no shoulder, despite the presence of a big, empty parking lot maybe 300 feet further on.
But you’re starting to get at my problem with non-drivers. There are some pretty obnoxious drivers out there, but a non-driver clocks much higher on the potential-to-jump-out-from-behind-a-[fill in the blank]-right-in-front-of-you meter. Think of a man shouting and waving a gun around versus a field of unexploded ordnance. The crazy man with the gun is highly dangerous, of course, but he’s making his presence extremely obvious and (hopefully) will eventually be dealt with so that the area he menaced can be used again. The UXO just turns huge swaths of land into permanent no-go zones because some people were fighting there decades ago.
All I’m asking is, don’t be a living jumpscare. Good on you for using those lights, that’s way better than most people do, but with the speed a bicycle moves at, you could probably surprise a limit watcher too.
Basically, what it comes down to is this. On one hand, if you’re a car enthusiast, then you should want to make life easier for other car enthusiasts, and as far as I can tell, biking on narrow roads does exactly the opposite. On the other, even if you were to convince me that all driving outside of a racetrack environment was and ought to be an emotionless transit activity, non-drivers would still be a nuisance to said emotionless transit activity.
“It seems you are just placing all the ills of you not being able to use the public way as your personal time trial course on bicyclists when your real complaint is that it is the public way and how dare the public use it!”
I just think about this the opposite way that you do. I don’t want to demand respect from those who are moving faster than me. I want to give them as much respect as possible. If someone faster is coming up behind me, even if they’re pushing much harder than I would in a given set of conditions, even if they’re deep into the triple digits, the last thing I want to do is get in their way or make them slow down for me. If I’m getting tailgated, I speed up or move over. If I have to pull over, then I look for a ramp, side street, or parking lot rather than just pulling over on the main road and making everyone hang wide around me. If I have to “not drive” somewhere then my first order of business is to get as far away from the road as I possibly can so that people can concentrate on driving without having to watch out for me. It just plain would never occur to me to take a bicycle onto a road with even a 35 PSL and then start demanding space and respect from everyone else.
It’s not the opposite. You have decided I am ‘fake’ because I don’t drive like you do. And being someone who is selectively enforced on I often have to ‘drive slow’, at the PSL.
Oh poor baby, you have to not hit other traffic. Why don’t you go sit on a stick? One of the first things about proper bicycling is holding a line. If I can hold my line you can hold yours.
“There are three times so far when I’ve had a same-direction car surprise me”
Then your rant against bicyclists is even more nonsensical. I have never had a bicyclist ‘surprise’ me by driving in a manner where motor vehicles won’t. The only time I fail to notice a bicyclist well in advance is when the view is blocked by an SUV, truck or other large enough vehicle. Of course I’ve already adjusted because of the vehicle I could see.
Any person “surprised” by a bicyclist shouldn’t be operating a motor vehicle on the public way.
“then you should want to make life easier for other car enthusiasts”
Oh another purity test of the sacrifice? Our purity measured by how much we sacrifice for the cause. Sorry no, I’ll argue for proper road engineering but I am not giving up things I enjoy because some dumbass on the internet has decided he’s the judge of a real automobile enthusiast and he disapproves of it.
“all driving outside of a racetrack environment was and ought to be an emotionless transit activity”
Who wrote anything of the sort? Not me. It’s not my fault you need to drive at the limit of tire adhesion to enjoy motoring. You need a racetrack, not a public roadway.
A bicyclist takes up a tiny bit of space on the road. If that’s too much for you, if you’re so damn concerned it will cost you 0.05 seconds by not hitting the apex of curve just right that’s your problem. It’s you treating the public roadway as an Olympic event.
“to get as far away from the road as I possibly can ”
Maybe you shouldn’t have opinions on what you clearly do not do. That’s the worst possible way to ride. I used to do that. Long long ago. I would nearly get hit every ride and it was very difficult to plot a course from A to B.
Why? because motorists notice traffic and are not looking for something moving as fast as bicycle way off to the side. Every driveway and intersection becomes a hazard.
I grow sick of your nonsense. It is simply that you hate bicyclists and you’ll keep on with your ever morphing arguments to justify it. I cannot rationally argue against the irrational.
You think bicyclists are a pain in the ass on roads? Try driving the back roads in Amish Country on a Sunday afternoon. You basically end up driving in the left lane to get past all the buggies. It makes getting anywhere difficult, but I respect those dudes, because they’re the most libertarian people in my state. They grow their own food, build their own homes, run their own businesses, build and run their own schools, and don’t have the great evil Panopticon spying on their every electronic move because they don’t use electricity. If the rest of the world went to hell, those guys would still be fine because they don’t need the rest of the world.
Fortunately we here in Alaska don’t have to deal with that. There is a little bit of “horse culture” still going on, but those who partake of it seem to have a pretty good sense of when and where they can go for rides without being a massive nuisance.
Exactly, Cantank! The Amish have it right. They’ve avoided most of the control, and most of the perils of modern life.
It’s getting a little too ”
hot” here for them now, since the police-state has been ramped-up in recent years. A lot of them are moving to the hills of Belize. I’m definitely planning on checking that place out- if nothing else, it’ll be a good jumping off point/base for exploring for a more permanent place- and who knows…if it can work for the Amish, maybe it’ll be good enough for the likes of us too.
I’ve been wondering how long it will be before the metastasizing police state reaches out to crush the Amish. Can’t have independent people lacking the proper indoctrination going their own way.