Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Your reply is exactly the preachy response that causes people to be defiant and resentful.

> Yes, people do all sorts of nasty and cruel things because they think it's kinda amusing. That doesn't justify the behavior.

Blowing a bit of soot up in the air isn't in itself cruel. It is just a bit naughty. Now doing it in someone's face like I've seen in videos deliberately is not very nice and can be dangerous. I think it should go without saying that I don't condone anti-social and dangerous behaviour.

> The act of riding a bicycle in and of itself is not "preachy". That happens. "six bicyclists training for a road race were run over by a 16-year-old who was rolling coal", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal .

Who said anything about riding a bicycle is preachy? BTW, I am a cyclist that spent 3 months out of work because of a hit and run accident that left me with a permanent weakness in my right shoulder as a result. The reason I don't spend a lot of time with other cyclists, is because everything started to become a political issue against drivers, a lot of my fellow cyclists are preachy. I heard people saying that owning a pet was akin to slavery and other such nonsense. As someone that enjoys both driving and cycling, it left a bad taste in my mouth.

BTW, In the story he caused a collision while rolling coal. The issue was dangerous driving. Not blowing some soot up into the air itself.

> Rolling coal nearly always implies deliberate intent, not coincidental timing.

In my case it was, it was because I was stuck in the wrong gear. My vehicle is currently in a garage being repaired for that very issue now (clutch is worn). It was funny in the sense of "OMG that is embarassing".



Define "preachy". Are you sure you aren't the one preaching the fun of burning coal and annoying people under the banner of "can't you take a joke"?

> Who said anything about riding a bicycle is preachy?

People burn coal while passing cyclists. Why? You yourself say that not all cyclists are preachy.

> In my case it was

Your accidental and short release of dark exhaust caused by driving an old vehicle does not fit the definition of burning coal. City busses where I lived in the 1980s emitted a lot of exhaust. That was simply bad emissions control, not rolling coal.


> Define "preachy". Are you sure you aren't the one preaching the fun of burning coal and annoying people under the banner of "can't you take a joke"?

What are you on about? I prefaced my post quite clearly. This is nonsense.

> People burn coal while passing cyclists. Why? You yourself say that not all cyclists are preachy.

Because there is a perception that cyclists are like this. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. If a group of people don't police the most extreme members you are defined by those members.

BTW mountain bikers/bmx don't generally have the same poor perception IME as many other cyclists because generally the attitude is generally different.

> Your accidental and short release of dark exhaust caused by driving an old vehicle does not fit the definition of burning coal. City busses where I lived in the 1980s emitted a lot of exhaust. That was simply bad emissions control, not rolling coal.

Other than it not being deliberate it was "rolling coal". To get the black soot you need to just have poor combustion of a diesel.

This was what was happening because I had to push the throttle to the limit so the engine didn't stall. For all intents and purposes it is exactly the same thing as there was incomplete combustion of diesel and therefore lots of black smoke coming from my exhaust.


> Because there is a perception that cyclists are like this. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter.

I reiterate my earlier comment about it being childish. "You look like someone I should hate, so I am going to fuck with you in particular."

Oh the irony in these same people being quite fond of claiming it's everyone else that's the emotional snowflake.

> Other than it not being deliberate it was "rolling coal". To get the black soot you need to just have poor combustion of a diesel.

No. Rolling coal requires injecting vastly more fuel and making the mixture far richer than even the worst possible factory tune.


> I reiterate my earlier comment about it being childish. "You look like someone I should hate, so I am going to fuck with you in particular."

I agree. However if the most vocal members of the group come off preachy, self entitled etc. at best people are going to be ambivalent towards you and at worst straight off hostile.

> Oh the irony in these same people being quite fond of claiming it's everyone else that's the emotional snowflake.

It is often pot and kettle. I am not in the US and don't care about stupid culture war bs. I see both as equally ridiculous.

> No. Rolling coal requires injecting vastly more fuel and making the mixture far richer than even the worst possible factory tune.

This is exactly what happened. Someone has messed with the fuel pump (before I owned it) and/or the throttle cable isn't adjusted properly.

So all intents and purposes the effect was the same. That is why the vehicle is in the garage. I don't like having a vehicle that isn't running properly.


Earlier you wrote it was "because I was in totally the wrong gear going up a steep hill".

Now it's "Someone has messed with the fuel pump (before I owned it) and/or the throttle cable isn't adjusted properly."

Here's NJ's law:

> No person shall retrofit any diesel-powered vehicle with any device, smoke stack (i.e., hood stack or bed stack), or other equipment which enhances the vehicle's capacity to emit soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions, or shall purposely release significant quantities of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions into the air and onto roadways and other vehicles while operating the vehicle, colloquially referred to as "coal rolling."

Did you purposely release significant quantities of soot? According to your own words, that was not your intent.

Therefore under NJ law you were not rolling coal, even though the visible effect is the same. The law is based on your intent and purpose.


> you are defined by those members

Hence, all drivers are defined by those who roll coal on cyclists and pedestrians for the lulz. Got it.


Yes, In some people minds that is the case. Do you think that is a big own on me? I agree, those guys shouldn't be doing that because they look like idiots.

However at the same time I understand the attitude. The fact that I understand an attitude doesn't mean I condone it.


Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. If motorists don't police the most extreme members then motorists are defined by those members.

You don't condone it but you think calling it nasty behavior is preachy. Sounds like you are so afraid of being vocal and preachy that the most you can do is say “tisk, tisk” - hardly effective policing.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: