Should you "aim"...screw it, has turned into the cyclist and cager thread

[Raza]

Do you see that thing over the back tire that kinda looks like a rack? Well, it's a rack... and wouldn't you know, it even comes with a rubber strap to... oh, I don't know, strap down your groceries, perhaps?

Oh, and here I was thinking it held the stupid thing together. 

How many horsepower does it have?  Crash test ratings?  Airbags?  Does it have a V8? 

[Rupert]

1 pp, ouch, in your case, you, and only if you like it.

[JWC]

Why, when I started this thread, would I think it would be a discussion of accident prevention and crumple zones?

Bicycles, and I'm sure this is going to ruffle feathers, has come a long way since since the 1960's.  There has been a tremendous improvement in design, weight, and components, making cycling easier for the novice, but still providing enough exercise to off-set some or all of the rider's poor eating habits.  I believe that dedicated lanes, not just narrow bike lanes but wider, car width lanes, should be provided in urban areas, as well as some suburban areas that lie very close to major industrial areas.   Such lanes could also be covered for weather protection.   You could ban all personal vehicles during the work week. This would cut down on congestion and pollution in metro areas.

The health benefits and the savings in fuel costs for the riders, would be significant.  The less fuel used translates to more gas for pleasure driving.   For years when I lived in the San Francisco area, I didn't own a car...just a Shogun ten speed.  I commuted to work on the train and sometimes by bus.

The riders that Raza is complaining about tend to be casual riders that have no idea what their responsibilities are on the highway, nor what their rights are on the highway.  Of course, the reason I have to ride defensively, is because many car drivers fail to realize what a cyclist's rights are also.  Just like driving, safe cycling begins with education, an education that should begin in elementary school.  Cycling safety education would be more beneficial to the safety of children than helmets.

[r0tor]

a car weighs 100x more then a bicycle... it automatically wins at any intersection.  Cyclists should realize that.

[Rupert]

Cyclists are higher than most car hoods, which is where they end up if the two collide.

Also, guess what? Cyclists do realize that. It's pretty goddamn obvious.

Of course, you hit a bike, guess who wins in court.

[JWC]

a car weighs 100x more then a bicycle... it automatically wins at any intersection.  Cyclists should realize that.

Auto drivers need to realize this also. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

Why, when I started this thread, would I think it would be a discussion of accident prevention and crumple zones?

Bicycles, and I'm sure this is going to ruffle feathers, has come a long way since since the 1960's.  There has been a tremendous improvement in design, weight, and components, making cycling easier for the novice, but still providing enough exercise to off-set some or all of the rider's poor eating habits.  I believe that dedicated lanes, not just narrow bike lanes but wider, car width lanes, should be provided in urban areas, as well as some suburban areas that lie very close to major industrial areas.   Such lanes could also be covered for weather protection.   You could ban all personal vehicles during the work week. This would cut down on congestion and pollution in metro areas.

The health benefits and the savings in fuel costs for the riders, would be significant.  The less fuel used translates to more gas for pleasure driving.   For years when I lived in the San Francisco area, I didn't own a car...just a Shogun ten speed.  I commuted to work on the train and sometimes by bus.

The riders that Raza is complaining about tend to be casual riders that have no idea what their responsibilities are on the highway, nor what their rights are on the highway.  Of course, the reason I have to ride defensively, is because many car drivers fail to realize what a cyclist's rights are also.  Just like driving, safe cycling begins with education, an education that should begin in elementary school.  Cycling safety education would be more beneficial to the safety of children than helmets.

There are cities (don't recall which ones, but I don't think it was in the US) that have experimented with closing off downtown streets to cars, and opening them up to pedestrians, bicyclists, and all the other things that can happen in streets with no cars. I think it's a great thing, and it greatly increases the mobility and safety of the people, and really just calms everything down. I think they desperately need to do this in all large cities in the U.S. - it makes absolutely no sense for people to be driving cars in the downtown areas of cities. And quite frankly, I love cars too much to see them spend their lives sitting in gridlocked traffic.

[Cookie Monster]

Why, when I started this thread, would I think it would be a discussion of accident prevention and crumple zones?

Bicycles, and I'm sure this is going to ruffle feathers, has come a long way since since the 1960's.  There has been a tremendous improvement in design, weight, and components, making cycling easier for the novice, but still providing enough exercise to off-set some or all of the rider's poor eating habits.  I believe that dedicated lanes, not just narrow bike lanes but wider, car width lanes, should be provided in urban areas, as well as some suburban areas that lie very close to major industrial areas.   Such lanes could also be covered for weather protection.   You could ban all personal vehicles during the work week. This would cut down on congestion and pollution in metro areas.

The health benefits and the savings in fuel costs for the riders, would be significant.  The less fuel used translates to more gas for pleasure driving.   For years when I lived in the San Francisco area, I didn't own a car...just a Shogun ten speed.  I commuted to work on the train and sometimes by bus.

The riders that Raza is complaining about tend to be casual riders that have no idea what their responsibilities are on the highway, nor what their rights are on the highway.  Of course, the reason I have to ride defensively, is because many car drivers fail to realize what a cyclist's rights are also.  Just like driving, safe cycling begins with education, an education that should begin in elementary school.  Cycling safety education would be more beneficial to the safety of children than helmets.

You know, I love cars and would hate to see them banned, but I can't say that I disagree with you at all.

I would love to live in a place where everyone biked. Road bike for the summer, mountain bike during the winter, and everyone's out and having fun.

I suppose there'd still have to be taxi cabs and buses for the disabled and tourists though.

[Eye of the Tiger]

You know, I love cars and would hate to see them banned, but I can't say that I disagree with you at all.

I would love to live in a place where everyone biked. Road bike for the summer, mountain bike during the winter, and everyone's out and having fun.

I suppose there'd still have to be taxi cabs and buses for the disabled and tourists though.

Disabled can get their government-paid electric wheelchairs. Tourists will have to make do with rickshaws.

[Cookie Monster]

Disabled can get their government-paid electric wheelchairs. Tourists will have to make do with rickshaws.

Two stroke rickshaws?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Two stroke rickshaws?

tuk tuks?

no motorized vehicles in the downtown area

[Cookie Monster]

tuk tuks?

no motorized vehicles in the downtown area

What if the elderly people want to go downtown?

[Eye of the Tiger]

What if the elderly people want to go downtown?

DRIVE THE BUICK/TAKE A CAB/BUS TO THE EDGE OF DOWNTOWN WHERE YOU WILL FIND A RICKSHAW/LECTRIC WHEELCHAIR RENTAL STATION.

[Rupert]

There are cities (don't recall which ones, but I don't think it was in the US) that have experimented with closing off downtown streets to cars, and opening them up to pedestrians, bicyclists, and all the other things that can happen in streets with no cars. I think it's a great thing, and it greatly increases the mobility and safety of the people, and really just calms everything down. I think they desperately need to do this in all large cities in the U.S. - it makes absolutely no sense for people to be driving cars in the downtown areas of cities. And quite frankly, I love cars too much to see them spend their lives sitting in gridlocked traffic.

[Rupert]

You know, I love cars and would hate to see them banned, but I can't say that I disagree with you at all.

I would love to live in a place where everyone biked. Road bike for the summer, mountain bike during the winter, and everyone's out and having fun.

I suppose there'd still have to be taxi cabs and buses for the disabled and tourists though.

Amsterdam.  

They use their own sort of bike, though. They're comfy, sturdy, durable, can carry a lot of beer, and are basically weatherproof with full fenders, and enlcosed chain, three speed, and drum brakes.

[Cookie Monster]

Amsterdam.  

They use their own sort of bike, though. They're comfy, sturdy, durable, can carry a lot of beer, and are basically weatherproof with full fenders, and enlcosed chain, three speed, and drum brakes.

I think they have those in India, except single speed.

But yeah, in a dusty place, fully enclosed chain is the best, although IMO they look like crap.

[Rupert]

Dutch bikes are the shit, and I wish mine worked and was here. They're very high quality, to boot.

[omicron]

I point to a late '80s interview with Mercedes-Benz safety development director Ingo Kallina:

''It is possible,'' he says, as a disguised American car rushes across the silver screen, ''to build a vehicle like this, which performs magnificently in a full-frontal barrier-test...''. He pauses as the car crumples obscenely, like an aluminium can. The front seat occupants are crushed in a grotesque blanket of folding sheet metal as the cabin folds like a concertina.

He continues: ''This car,'' he says, ''meets all the government requirements for column intrusion and dummy loads, but in real life, in the accident you just saw, [in] what we call a partial overlap situation, the occupants would have been killed...''

What's more, says Kallina, the full-frontal barrier test is too easily manipulated. Over a cup of coffee he'll guardedly admit he knows of Japanese cars which initially failed the barrier treatment but passed soon after, with no structural alterations.

''It's easy. You alter the seat and seatbelt relationships so the crash dummy 'submarines' out of the seat. By doing that it avoids fatal head loads and so passes the test. The fact that the rest of the body is totally destroyed is incidental - a case of the car passing the test but regrettably, non-one inside having any chance of survival.''

___

In instances likes that, with cars that have been designed solely for full-frontal impacts and nothing else, it seems logical that if a crash were inevitable it would be best to aim as straight as possible at the point of impact. Of course, if one is far enough away to steer into the crash prior to impact, is one not also far enough away to steer out of it?

[Rupert]

One would think that one would be far enough away that one could avoid the crash that one was about to endure. One would think that, indeed.

[omicron]

One would think that one would be far enough away that one could avoid the crash that one was about to endure. One would think that, indeed.

One's lavish compliment is duly noted.

[Rupert]

Which one? The first?

[Raza]

Why, when I started this thread, would I think it would be a discussion of accident prevention and crumple zones?

Bicycles, and I'm sure this is going to ruffle feathers, has come a long way since since the 1960's.  There has been a tremendous improvement in design, weight, and components, making cycling easier for the novice, but still providing enough exercise to off-set some or all of the rider's poor eating habits.  I believe that dedicated lanes, not just narrow bike lanes but wider, car width lanes, should be provided in urban areas, as well as some suburban areas that lie very close to major industrial areas.   Such lanes could also be covered for weather protection.   You could ban all personal vehicles during the work week. This would cut down on congestion and pollution in metro areas.

The health benefits and the savings in fuel costs for the riders, would be significant.  The less fuel used translates to more gas for pleasure driving.   For years when I lived in the San Francisco area, I didn't own a car...just a Shogun ten speed.  I commuted to work on the train and sometimes by bus.

The riders that Raza is complaining about tend to be casual riders that have no idea what their responsibilities are on the highway, nor what their rights are on the highway.  Of course, the reason I have to ride defensively, is because many car drivers fail to realize what a cyclist's rights are also.  Just like driving, safe cycling begins with education, an education that should begin in elementary school.  Cycling safety education would be more beneficial to the safety of children than helmets.

Yes, we could also make cars that run on the crushed hopes and dreams of kids in the ghetto, but that wouldn't happen either.

I thought you weren't a liberal anymore, yet seconds later you think we should make cars illegal, cover the roads and make everyone ride bicycles around like cars weren't ever invented.  What's next?  Do you want to bring back the typewriter?  The gramophone?  The telegraph? 

Cars are progress.  Bicycles are regress.  The same people that get up in arms because trans fat was outlawed think that cars should be banned because they make Americans fat?  Americans can make better choices when it comes to food.  If bicycles made so much sense for everyone, then everyone would eventually move to bicycles as means of transport.  Until then, the superior product (that is CARS, the things that can comfortably transport more than one person and cargo in all sorts of weather) will win out in consumer choice. 

And what's the point of bike lanes anyway?  The fuckers don't even bother with them when they're provided, they just ride in the proper lane of traffic and expect every car that wants to go by to slow down and then change the fucking world so they can get around them.  Cyclists act like it's their road, and it's not. 

It's not just casual cyclists either.  Many "serious" cyclists (anyone over the age of 12 who thinks a body condom looks good and a dildo on titanium frame and wheels is comfortable) here have admitted to running redlights and stop signs because of numerous reasons.  "Bicycles have better visibility."  Okay.  So why shouldn't motorcyclists be allowed to use the roads as they please without regard for the law?  My personal favorite, however is "bicycles are faster than cars."  It's worth a good laugh. 

Then cyclists have the gall to complain that cars don't pay them mind.  They want to be legitimized as proper vehicles, regarded as motor vehicles, and then they want the right to pick and choose which laws they obey?  Cyclists do put motorists at risk, and then if something does go wrong, the motorist is blamed almost without question.  I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of cyclist related accidents are due to cyclist misbehavior. 

It's the serious cyclists that are the worst offenders, my friend.  When driving down a mountain, I came across a group of cyclists who felt it was their right to take up the entire lane moving to the bottom of the mountain.  Every corner was a blind one, and there was no legal way to pass for miles.  I had to get around them by making an illegal pass when my lead car radioed to me that the road ahead was clear.  And you can be sure that I was not polite as I blasted by those inconsiderate bastards.  They cycled and cycled, body condoms and $1000 bicycles in tow, looking back and me and ignoring the fact that they were holding motorists up.  No, I was not in any hurry.  But people live on that mountain.  People have to go to work, or to pick up their children from school, or what not, and these cyclists have the audacity to interfere with people living proper lives and trying to get things done. 

Cyclists are a damn menace on the road and they should not be allowed to interfere with proper traffic.  I'm a reasonable man.  I think there should be bicycle lanes and incentives for people to ride bikes when cars make less sense.  But I also believe there should be a licensing process for people who wish to use bicycles on public roads, and severe consequences when cyclists break the rules.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Yes, we could also make cars that run on the crushed hopes and dreams of kids in the ghetto, but that wouldn't happen either.

I thought you weren't a liberal anymore, yet seconds later you think we should make cars illegal, cover the roads and make everyone ride bicycles around like cars weren't ever invented.  What's next?  Do you want to bring back the typewriter?  The gramophone?  The telegraph? 

Cars are progress.  Bicycles are regress.  The same people that get up in arms because trans fat was outlawed think that cars should be banned because they make Americans fat?  Americans can make better choices when it comes to food.  If bicycles made so much sense for everyone, then everyone would eventually move to bicycles as means of transport.  Until then, the superior product (that is CARS, the things that can comfortably transport more than one person and cargo in all sorts of weather) will win out in consumer choice. 

And what's the point of bike lanes anyway?  The fuckers don't even bother with them when they're provided, they just ride in the proper lane of traffic and expect every car that wants to go by to slow down and then change the fucking world so they can get around them.  Cyclists act like it's their road, and it's not. 

It's not just casual cyclists either.  Many "serious" cyclists (anyone over the age of 12 who thinks a body condom looks good and a dildo on titanium frame and wheels is comfortable) here have admitted to running redlights and stop signs because of numerous reasons.  "Bicycles have better visibility."  Okay.  So why shouldn't motorcyclists be allowed to use the roads as they please without regard for the law?  My personal favorite, however is "bicycles are faster than cars."  It's worth a good laugh. 

Then cyclists have the gall to complain that cars don't pay them mind.  They want to be legitimized as proper vehicles, regarded as motor vehicles, and then they want the right to pick and choose which laws they obey?  Cyclists do put motorists at risk, and then if something does go wrong, the motorist is blamed almost without question.  I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of cyclist related accidents are due to cyclist misbehavior. 

It's the serious cyclists that are the worst offenders, my friend.  When driving down a mountain, I came across a group of cyclists who felt it was their right to take up the entire lane moving to the bottom of the mountain.  Every corner was a blind one, and there was no legal way to pass for miles.  I had to get around them by making an illegal pass when my lead car radioed to me that the road ahead was clear.  And you can be sure that I was not polite as I blasted by those inconsiderate bastards.  They cycled and cycled, body condoms and $1000 bicycles in tow, looking back and me and ignoring the fact that they were holding motorists up.  No, I was not in any hurry.  But people live on that mountain.  People have to go to work, or to pick up their children from school, or what not, and these cyclists have the audacity to interfere with people living proper lives and trying to get things done. 

Cyclists are a damn menace on the road and they should not be allowed to interfere with proper traffic.  I'm a reasonable man.  I think there should be bicycle lanes and incentives for people to ride bikes when cars make less sense.  But I also believe there should be a licensing process for people who wish to use bicycles on public roads, and severe consequences when cyclists break the rules.

I also hate cyclists on narrow two-lane highways with so many hills and turns that you can never pass them, nor do they move over, even when crawling up hills. I have almost killed several of them. I don't think they should have any business riding on roads like that unless they are actually suicidal. That's where cars belong. Bikes belong in cities, or if not in cities, then on dirt trails.

[Raza]

I also hate cyclists on narrow two-lane highways with so many hills and turns that you can never pass them, nor do they move over, even when crawling up hills. I have almost killed several of them. I don't think they should have any business riding on roads like that unless they are actually suicidal. That's where cars belong. Bikes belong in cities, or if not in cities, then on dirt trails.

Like I said, my friend who was able to get around them before they blocked off the road, had to use his radio to tell me it was clear when he realized I couldn't see a damn thing because of the dozen Lycra encased assholes pootling in front of me.  It's downhill biking anyway, that's not even hard.  The didn't need to dress up like a spaceman for that. 

I think bike lanes in cities are a great idea.  I think incentives for people in cities to buy and use bicycles for transportation is a great idea as well.  Hell, if they wanted to pass a bill handing out checks to people who get their bicycle license and use their bicycle for transportation in cities (say, after you pass your bicycle test the government gives you a $250 or so check that can only be used on a bicycle), I'd even support that. 

[Soup DeVille]

What is not outdated about cycling? 

The same things that aren't outdated about a single shot bolt action rifle.

It works.

[JWC]

For all intents and purposes, some routes, such as hill rides--curved rural routes--etc, should be closed to cycling two Sundays per month...meaning they would be closed to cagers the other two Sundays.

State law, whether you like it or not, determines that bicycles (or in the case of PA--"pedacycles"),are vehicles just like cars, trucks, and motorcycles.  It is up to both cagers and cyclists to respect each other's  rights on the roads.   On the bike forums I visit, a cyclist just got a $250.00 ticket in Florida for running a stop sign.   This happens more than you may realize.  Seeing someone on a bike disregard road laws and decide that cyclists, as a group, fail to obey laws.  The guys you meet "taking" up to roads are riding according to the law...unless they are three abreast...most states do not allow that. 

Bike lanes, have proven to be as unsafe as as riding on sidewalks.  Reason being, car drivers tend to disregard riders in bike lanes and right hook them.  Why ride the middle of the lane?  Because, it discourages idiot car drivers from trying to squeeze 2 tons of metal between a rider and a car coming in the opposing lane.  When I ride, I ride the middle of the lane, when a car approaches from the rear, I move right as he passes, making sure that the required three feet of clearance is maintained. If another car is approaching from the opposite direction, I will not move to prevent the car behind me from trying something stupid.  Hell, you might say I'm doing the car driver a favor, because state law requires that the car driver maintain that amount of space and by action insures they do not get ticketed.

I"m all for cycling education, as I stated previously.  Casual riders are the ones dying in large numbers.  They ride against traffic, fail to obey the rules of the road,  and ride sidewalks and hit cars pulling out of driveways.  Unfortunately, the casual rider, the weekender, sees him/her self as a pedestrian instead of a vehicle and will ride a bike as if they are walking their dog.

BTW, the guy who got ticketed (see above) didn't have ID on him.  He had to provide name, address and fingerprints.

[JWC]

One would think that one would be far enough away that one could avoid the crash that one was about to endure. One would think that, indeed.

My cousin was killed when she turned her car trying to avoid the accident that was about to happen.  It isn't just being able to avoid the crash, but being prepared and making that split decision of whether to hold your lane--hitting the other vehicle full front, or turning away--exposing the weakest part of the vehicle to the collision.

[S204STi]

I'd rather put my full frontal crush zone to work than my B-pillars, personally.  That said, it's instinctive to try to avoid the hit in the first place.

[Cookie Monster]

For all intents and purposes, some routes, such as hill rides--curved rural routes--etc, should be closed to cycling two Sundays per month...meaning they would be closed to cagers the other two Sundays.

State law, whether you like it or not, determines that bicycles (or in the case of PA--"pedacycles"),are vehicles just like cars, trucks, and motorcycles.  It is up to both cagers and cyclists to respect each other's  rights on the roads.   On the bike forums I visit, a cyclist just got a $250.00 ticket in Florida for running a stop sign.   This happens more than you may realize.  Seeing someone on a bike disregard road laws and decide that cyclists, as a group, fail to obey laws.  The guys you meet "taking" up to roads are riding according to the law...unless they are three abreast...most states do not allow that. 

Bike lanes, have proven to be as unsafe as as riding on sidewalks.  Reason being, car drivers tend to disregard riders in bike lanes and right hook them.  Why ride the middle of the lane?  Because, it discourages idiot car drivers from trying to squeeze 2 tons of metal between a rider and a car coming in the opposing lane.  When I ride, I ride the middle of the lane, when a car approaches from the rear, I move right as he passes, making sure that the required three feet of clearance is maintained. If another car is approaching from the opposite direction, I will not move to prevent the car behind me from trying something stupid.  Hell, you might say I'm doing the car driver a favor, because state law requires that the car driver maintain that amount of space and by action insures they do not get ticketed.

I"m all for cycling education, as I stated previously.  Casual riders are the ones dying in large numbers.  They ride against traffic, fail to obey the rules of the road,  and ride sidewalks and hit cars pulling out of driveways.  Unfortunately, the casual rider, the weekender, sees him/her self as a pedestrian instead of a vehicle and will ride a bike as if they are walking their dog.

BTW, the guy who got ticketed (see above) didn't have ID on him.  He had to provide name, address and fingerprints.

Cops around here just don't give a shit.

I ride sidewalks/use crosswalks when making left turns at signaled intersections because I'm not comfortable with standing in the middle of a 4-6 lane road.

[Rupert]

Pansy.