- May 24, 2011
- 43
- 0
- 0
andy1234 said:I think the word "interesting" needs to be removed from the title of this thread.
+1
No news - not interesting
andy1234 said:I think the word "interesting" needs to be removed from the title of this thread.
I don't have to read any threads, but it certainly makes understanding and commenting on their content a challenge, if I don't.Susan Westemeyer said:You know, you don't *have* to read the thread.......
Susan
Susan Westemeyer said:You know, you don't *have* to read the thread.......
Susan
Cimacoppi49 said:Bicycles belong on roads, not multi-use bike paths--the ghetto of cycling.
andy1234 said:I don't have to read any threads, but it certainly makes understanding and commenting on their content a challenge, if I don't.
shawnrohrbach said:A bit off topic, but agreed. three feet INSIDE the white line, not out. Thems the laws. Also, the states that have adopted the idea of putting 1-2 pages of information about bikes and other slow moving vehicles in their driver training books have seen significant reductions in car-bike accidents. Shoving bikes to the side paths helps school kids get back and forth safely but does nothing for the safety of serious cyclists.
Susan Westemeyer said:Then let me put it more bluntly. If you don't have anything constructive to add, don't say anything.
It doesn't further the thread when people come in and whine that it is not interesting.
Susan
It might be a good idea to self-medicate when using bike paths. The roller bladers and skateboarders will seem much less annoying.MarkvW said:In my state cyclists have a right to ride both on the roads and on the bike paths. I take advantage of both. I am also fortunate to have access to some fairly long-distance bike paths that are not crowded.
I'll take my fair share of the lane when I need to, but I won't be religious about it. I try to remember that I'm sharing the road with drunks, psychopaths, and people who like to talk on their cell phones and eat sandwiches at the same time.
andy1234 said:Be as blunt as you like.
If filtering out the constructive from the whining on this thread is your goal, you are going to be busy.
andy1234 said:Be as blunt as you like.
If filtering out the constructive from the whining on this thread is your goal, you are going to be busy.
9000ft said:There's anything constructive in this thread? I've never thought of it as anything more than dumb entertainment, kind of like a supermarket tabloid. Supermarket tabloids have their place in the entertainment world. There's nothing wrong with tabloids, gossip columns, etc, as long as you know and appreciate it for what it is
Velodude said:So why do you post which evidences you stoop to read this thread?
9000ft said:Because tabloids can be fun and entertaining; I mean, what could be better in a dumb entertainment sort of way than Bat Boy? Not too mention that I find it endlessly fascinating how so many of you guys take it (or at least post about it) so seriously and personally. On and on and on and on about one (ex) bike racer! His Mom, his relationships, his business, his property, his personality, what hand he wipes his a$$ with, what color socks he wears. All from people who I'll guess have never actually met, let alone know the guy. It's very entertaining.![]()
thehog said:Will Kik beat Anna tomorrow?
Polish said:Here is an interesting link of the 1993 Tour de France Proloque:
Why is it interesting?
1) Lance is racing against so many old guys long retired, but Lance still beat Alberto Contador 17yrs later in the 2010 Proloque. What a career!
2) Phil Anderson tips Lance as a potential stage winner if the course tilts upwards. Yes, recognized as a climber from early on!
3) Carbon TT Bike with electronic shifting. Ok, not Lance related sorry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJFoFR7bD6s
.
.
.
Benotti69 said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15635190
wonder if any well known american cyclists accounts will be involved![]()
