So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

MisterCairo said:

Victimized again today by that bane of my driving life, the "blocked lane on a major road because cars are back up entering the drive-thru of a flippin Tim Hortons donut shop".

Click to expand...

Although we have the drive thru' in the UK it's never really caught on. We do, however, have something similar. Railway stations on the far outskirts of major conurbations have large car parks so that commuters can park and ride. Just don't get caught on a road with such a station any time in the morning peak period.

LizzieMaine said:

The cellphone plague is at its worst in American supermarkets. People will think nothing of blocking entire aisles by parking their carriages crosswise and then standing in front of or behind them, yapping into their squawkboxes about inconsequential nonsense that could easily wait until they were someplace other than blocking my access to the cat food display. I have on many occasions turned around, walked all the way around the next aisle and then up the desired aisle from the other direction to get at what I need, only to find that they've shifted their position so they're now blocking it from a different angle. "They'll Do It Every Time."

Click to expand...

Now, I found the perfect supermarket-jacket!

http://us.asos.com/religion/religio...row=4&gridcolumn=2&setPrefSite=true&r=1&mk=na

Ok, mexican fire-stew (kidney-beans) gives you additional burps.

Trenchfriend said:

In Germany, that's the main reason today, why peaceful people more and more avoid to visit gastronomy or other places, because we hate this mobilphoning "freakshow".
Luckily, it's seemingly no problem in our supermarkets, here. It's generally peaceful there. Much more peaceful than on other places!

Click to expand...

The supermarkets I know have people talking on their cells everywhere. I have no idea which restaurants you go to, but no one is using their cell there. And if someone does it's a very short conversation - it's a place to eat not to use the cell phone. You tend to speak for all Germans and Germany as a whole and I'm irritated most of the time.

Maybe someone can answer this, why do a lot of Harley riders sit at the intersection revving their dragpipe equipped motorcycle? Do they not know how to tune them to ideal properly? Don't they know, we riders have enough people that hate us? I have four Harley's right now, and a bunch in the past, and I never had to sit their revving the engine to keep them running!

Stearmen said:

Maybe someone can answer this, why do a lot of Harley riders sit at the intersection revving their dragpipe equipped motorcycle? Do they not know how to tune them to ideal properly? Don't they know, we riders have enough people that hate us? I have four Harley's right now, and a bunch in the past, and I never had to sit their revving the engine to keep them running!

Click to expand...

I suppose the short answer is "because they like how it sounds." Now, answering WHY they like how it sounds might take a while longer.

I like Harleys, I really do. But I don't have one and probably never will because 1.) they are motorcycles, and one's chances of suffering a serious injury on ANY motorcycle are just too high, and, 2.) Harleys have come to be signifiers of the sorts of things I don't care to be identified with.

I rode motorcycles for decades. I maintain the motorcycle endorsement on my driver's license.

I have had and still have friends who own Harleys. One such friend shuffled off to Harley Heaven just last month. So I am mindful not to paint with such a broad brush, as my own experience tells me that among those millions of Harley riders are millions of distinct personalities.

Still, too many H-D riders are, at best, silly posers who affect a macho persona, and at worst ignorant, violent racists.

Many years ago -- more than 30 of them -- I befriended a couple of guys who were members of a motorcycle club that had some affiliation with one of the more notorious international clubs. On the surface, these were just regular youngish working class guys who enjoyed the company of likeminded others. As I was sorely disappointed to learn, as I got to better know these guys and their associates, racism was almost central to their identity, as individuals and as a club.

Stearmen said:

Maybe someone can answer this, why do a lot of Harley riders sit at the intersection revving their dragpipe equipped motorcycle? Do they not know how to tune them to ideal properly? Don't they know, we riders have enough people that hate us? I have four Harley's right now, and a bunch in the past, and I never had to sit their revving the engine to keep them running!

Click to expand...

Most of the Harley owners/riders I've known like the noise they make for a specific reason--it gets attention. Not in a "Look at me, I'm a big bad biker," way, but in a more practical, "I'm riding a motorcycle here, so pay attention and don't drive your car into me," way. Riders know better than anyone how idiotic some car drivers can be and how that places them at risk every time they ride, so anything that gets those idiotic drivers to pay attention to them and be more careful is a good thing.

Zombie_61 said:

Most of the Harley owners/riders I've known like the noise they make for a specific reason--it gets attention. Not in a "Look at me, I'm a big bad biker," way, but in a more practical, "I'm riding a motorcycle here, so pay attention and don't drive your car into me," way. Riders know better than anyone how idiotic some car drivers can be and how that places them at risk every time they ride, so anything that gets those idiotic drivers to pay attention to them and be more careful is a good thing.

Click to expand...

We've all seen the "loud pipes save lives" bumper stickers (the rider may die deaf, but wotthehell), but this still doesn't address Stearman's question about why some riders of bikes with the loudest pipes rev their engines while stopped at traffic lights.

I don't know that I buy the lifesaving properties of loud pipes argument anyway. I've put in lotsa miles on motorcycles, so I know what it is to be vulnerable. Car drivers are unconsciously on the lookout for cars (and larger vehicles), and not bikes and pedestrians. Bikers and walkers and wheelchair users, etc., aren't invisible so much as they're outside too many car drivers' consciousness.

I've heard some concern among the blind for the potential hazards posed to them by electrically powered cars. It doesn't take much imagination to understand why.

But the "loud pipes" argument is infinitely more plausible than the one that suggests that helmets are a safety hazard because they diminish the rider's ability to hear other traffic. Yes, I've actually heard people make this claim.

My cousin's oldest offspring, a fellow in his mid 40s, died from injuries he sustained while riding his Harley one Sunday morning in the spring of last year. He was in one of those states that allow helmet-less motorcycling. And he wasn't wearing a helmet. They kept him respirating for a couple-three days until it became apparent to all concerned that his brain was toast. His transplantable organs got divvied up and the remainder of him got sent to the undertaker. A helmet would very likely have saved his life.

tonyb said:

We've all seen the "loud pipes save lives" bumper stickers (the rider may die deaf, but wotthehell), but this still doesn't address Stearman's question about why some riders of bikes with the loudest pipes rev their engines while stopped at traffic lights.

I don't know that I buy the lifesaving properties of loud pipes argument anyway. I've put in lotsa miles on motorcycles, so I know what it is to be vulnerable. Car drivers are unconsciously on the lookout for cars (and larger vehicles), and not bikes and pedestrians. Bikers and walkers and wheelchair users, etc., aren't invisible so much as they're outside too many car drivers' consciousness...

Click to expand...

I'm just going on what I've heard from a number of riders. I've never ridden myself (except for short trips around a parking lot or two) so I'll bow to your experience.

tonyb said:

But the "loud pipes" argument is infinitely more plausible than the one that suggests that helmets are a safety hazard because they diminish the rider's ability to hear other traffic. Yes, I've actually heard people make this claim.

My cousin's oldest offspring, a fellow in his mid 40s, died from injuries he sustained while riding his Harley one Sunday morning in the spring of last year. He was in one of those states that allow helmet-less motorcycling. And he wasn't wearing a helmet. They kept him respirating for a couple-three days until it became apparent to all concerned that his brain was toast. His transplantable organs got divvied up and the remainder of him got sent to the undertaker. A helmet would very likely have saved his life.

Click to expand...

First, I'm sorry for your loss. I've also heard the "helmets are a safety hazard" argument, but it was usually in reference to the "full faceplate" helmets that were popular in the 1980s. I've heard the arguments that they were heavy, hot, and fatigue-inducing on long rides, but rarely heard much (if anything) about diminishing traffic noise. I guess the riders I've known were more concerned about comfort than practicality.

There may be something to the "loud pipes" argument, but I'll remain skeptical until I see empirical evidence.

I'll confess to riding sans helmet during a brief period when my then home state did not require them by law. Of course it's more fun that way, especially during hot, sunny weather.

Here in Colorado helmets are not required for riders age 18 and older. And a goodly portion of riders don't wear helmets. During the most recent year for which I could find data (2015), nearly two-thirds of motorcyclists killed in traffic incidents in this state were not helmeted. What I found even more telling, and counter-intuitive, is that in 70 percent of those fatal incidents, the motorcyclists were at fault, and that in 40 percent the motorcycle was the only vehicle involved. So, put that 40 percent aside and it appears that in most fatal motorcycle collisions with cars the car drivers are at fault. Still, the data clearly show that motorcyclists have mostly themselves to blame.

The takeaway from this and numerous other studies is what all motorcyclists should remain ever mindful of: you are far, far likelier to die as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision if you use a motorcycle rather than a car. This is not to say that you are likely to be killed or seriously injured because you get around on a motorcycle, but only that you are much more vulnerable.

Thus the term "Donorcycle".

ChrisB said:

Thus the term "Donorcycle".

Click to expand...

That's what they call 'em in the ER.

So, having lost a cousin-in-law at age 30 in a motorcycle accident i want to make it clear i am not generalizing here.

There's a very small portion of drivers who are nuts. They weave in and out of traffic, go way past the speed limits, and I've seen them pass on the curb. You see this with car drivers and motorcyclists, don't get me wrong, but when you are on a bike you have no protection and it causes my heart to drop to my feet. A bump from a car could kill you.

And in the case of my cousin, he likely would have died had he been in a car. A car isn't fool proof when you get hit head on by a drunk in your lane going twice the speed limit after hitting some trees. At least in this case, the drunk driver lived to pay restitution, serve his sentence, and be there for his kids. If my cousin had been driving a car, they'd likely both be dead.

tonyb said:

My cousin's oldest offspring, a fellow in his mid 40s, died from injuries he sustained while riding his Harley one Sunday morning in the spring of last year. He was in one of those states that allow helmet-less motorcycling. And he wasn't wearing a helmet. They kept him respirating for a couple-three days until it became apparent to all concerned that his brain was toast. His transplantable organs got divvied up and the remainder of him got sent to the undertaker. A helmet would very likely have saved his life.

Click to expand...

That's a tragic waste of a young life and it saddens me to hear of it. UK law is specific about the wearing of safety helmets, but that's all. There's no compulsion in the wearing of protective leathers, as a result you will see, on hot sunny days, a biker riding at speed, wearing his helmet and little else save for a pair of shorts, a 'T' shirt and a pair of trainers or even flip-flop sandals.
My retired paramedic missus has had the job of scraping up the remains of those immortals that ride around in such attire. She doesn't say too much, I'm sure that the scenes that she has seen go far beyond verbal description. All the emergency services have had to witness the appalling aftermath of the irresponsible, they not only have to deal with the carnage emotionally, they, more often than not, have to deal with the grief stricken relatives. It's not an easy job.

This conversation has me researching just how much more dangerous motorcycling is vs. car travel.

The statistics per distance travelled (typically measured in deaths per hundred million miles travelled) are downright shocking. The studies I've looked into over the past hour or so indicate that motorcycle fatalities per distance travelled vary between 27 to 35 times higher than that for car travel -- not 27 to 35 percent higher, but 27 to 35 times higher, so 2700 to 3500 percent higher.

It remains true, thank the god of your choice, that most motorcyclists will never suffer a serious injury on account of their two-wheeled travels. And the stats indicate that riders over the age of 40 are about half as likely to die on their bikes as are their younger brethren. So it appears that improved judgment more than makes up for diminishing senses and motor skills.

Stay alive, friends.

Who really needs modern fast sport-motorcycles? A question, I was always asking, generally.

I am still a fan of the old-fashion bikes, like BMW R25 or so.

Like BMW R25

^^^^^^

Among the artifacts left behind by a friend who succumbed to complications of AIDS back in 1995 is an early-'60s BMW R60. Last I knew, that bike was in the possession of a mutual friend of mine and our departed friend. It was in need of extensive engine work, which its new owner seemed in no hurry to undertake.

I've often considered making an offer to buy that bike, but when I see the prices those things are fetching these days, well, I figure I don't want it that badly.

Stearmen said:

Maybe someone can answer this, why do a lot of Harley riders sit at the intersection revving their dragpipe equipped motorcycle? Do they not know how to tune them to ideal properly? Don't they know, we riders have enough people that hate us? I have four Harley's right now, and a bunch in the past, and I never had to sit their revving the engine to keep them running!

Click to expand...

I'd say there are a lot of ressons, but from what I've observed, it's mostly an image thing. Now it may well be different here in the UK because there isn't the 'Buy American' culture of the US, for obvious reasons, but Harley have very much and for many years now pushed themsevles in the UK as a lifestyle brand. When folks buy into a Harley, they're buying into the image of a big, powerful motorcycle, and a lot of them like to be noticed by other people. A generalisation, certainly, but it holds true for a certain chunk of the Harley market here - middle-aged businessmen who want to buy into a lifestyle hobby. I've seen it on other bikes too, of course - mostly scrambler types ridden by young men who desperately want to be noticed.

tonyb said:

But the "loud pipes" argument is infinitely more plausible than the one that suggests that helmets are a safety hazard because they diminish the rider's ability to hear other traffic. Yes, I've actually heard people make this claim.

Click to expand...

Oh, you have to love the arguments people come up with for not doing something they don't want to. Back in 1983 when the UK finally made it a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt in a car (in the front, at least - rear seatbelt didn't become obligatory til much later), there was a loud vocal minority which used to shriek that they were better drivers without the seatbelt, because wearing the belt made them angry. Moronic.

My cousin's oldest offspring, a fellow in his mid 40s, died from injuries he sustained while riding his Harley one Sunday morning in the spring of last year. He was in one of those states that allow helmet-less motorcycling. And he wasn't wearing a helmet. They kept him respirating for a couple-three days until it became apparent to all concerned that his brain was toast. His transplantable organs got divvied up and the remainder of him got sent to the undertaker. A helmet would very likely have saved his life.

Click to expand...

It's always sad to hear of cases like this. We all take a risk any tiem we go out on the road in any vehicle, but it is desperately sad when it's something we know might have been prevented by something as simple as a helmet. The desperate 'what ifs'.... When the UK made helmets compulsory in 1973, 80% estimated of motorcyclists already wore one. The antis argued that the others should be free to choose, but the law was passed largely on the basis not only of protecting people against their own choices, but also cost to the health system of those taking such risks, as they also tended to be the more reckless types who too thers risks as well, so more likely to be in the sort of accident where a helmet might help. What always surprises me is that they waited so long - by the seventies, the British motorcycle boom was starting to diminish, many companies going out of business, fewer bikers on the road as cars became more affordable... That, and the safety risks had been well known to government since WW2. The Doctor who treated Lawrence of Arabia (who died following a motorcycle crash, in which he was not wearing a helmet; death was caused by head injuries) did a lot of reasearch into it in the thirties, and as a result in WW2 all the Brits assigned to motorcycle duty were required to wear a helmet.

Zombie_61 said:

First, I'm sorry for your loss. I've also heard the "helmets are a safety hazard" argument, but it was usually in reference to the "full faceplate" helmets that were popular in the 1980s. I've heard the arguments that they were heavy, hot, and fatigue-inducing on long rides, but rarely heard much (if anything) about diminishing traffic noise. I guess the riders I've known were more concerned about comfort than practicality.

Click to expand...

I've heard how much more popular open-face helmets are in the US. They sell well here too, though more to people on low-capacity scooters, who ride in and around town. Most motorcyclists in the UK wear fullface helmets nowadays. I'm always surprised the law doesn't push for that, as statistically the most common bit of a helmet to get hit in an acident is the chin bar - which is, of course, absent on an open face lid.

GHT said:

That's a tragic waste of a young life and it saddens me to hear of it. UK law is specific about the wearing of safety helmets, but that's all. There's no compulsion in the wearing of protective leathers, as a result you will see, on hot sunny days, a biker riding at speed, wearing his helmet and little else save for a pair of shorts, a 'T' shirt and a pair of trainers or even flip-flop sandals.
My retired paramedic missus has had the job of scraping up the remains of those immortals that ride around in such attire. She doesn't say too much, I'm sure that the scenes that she has seen go far beyond verbal description. All the emergency services have had to witness the appalling aftermath of the irresponsible, they not only have to deal with the carnage emotionally, they, more often than not, have to deal with the grief stricken relatives. It's not an easy job.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a messy business. I suppose the difficulty lies in the subjectivity of clothing, assuming we're not going to mandate a motorcycle uniform as such.

tonyb said:

It remains true, thank the god of your choice, that most motorcyclists will never suffer a serious injury on account of their two-wheeled travels. And the stats indicate that riders over the age of 40 are about half as likely to die on their bikes as are their younger brethren. So it appears that improved judgment more than makes up for diminishing senses and motor skills.

Stay alive, friends.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I think one of the bonuses of there being something of a revival of two-wheel traffic in UK cities now (for various reasons, not least how much cheaper it is) is that there's more visibility again of bikes - more drviers thinking to look out for them again. But yes, undoubtedly you do have to remember you're that bit more exposed than in a car.

Trenchfriend said:

Who really needs modern fast sport-motorcycles? A question, I was always asking, generally.

I am still a fan of the old-fashion bikes, like BMW R25 or so.

Like BMW R25

Click to expand...

Ha, I wanted to get a sidecar once I have my test, but Herself was dead against it!

sheeplady said:

There's a very small portion of drivers who are nuts. They weave in and out of traffic, go way past the speed limits, and I've seen them pass on the curb. You see this with car drivers and motorcyclists, don't get me wrong, but when you are on a bike you have no protection and it causes my heart to drop to my feet. A bump from a car could kill you.

Click to expand...

In spite of signs posted that
it's illegal to drive-n-text, there's
a large portion of drivers doing it
which is nuts in my neck of the
woods.
But there are also cyclists who
are just as crazy.
They usually wear tight cycling uniforms and alien-looking helmets.
I guess this gives them the right
to ignore traffic signals.
I try to ride my old Schwinn bike,
but it's very dangerous.