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

[hotrodalex]

I live about 3miles from work. I left a perfectly good subaru in the driveway at lunch and rode my bike back to work.
So there..

(Of course it will be a zillion degrees the rest of the year, too hot...)

If you ride fast enough, the breeze keeps you cool.

[Rupert]

Actually, you are probably right.  Seems Idaho allows a rolling stop for bicycles.

Here is an interesting article on that subject and perceptions of motorists and cyclists.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/04/so_you_think_cyclists_are_the.html

As state lawmakers debate giving Oregon bicyclists the rolling "Idaho" stop, outraged motorists have insisted the plan would legalize the bad behavior of what, in their eyes, are a bunch of reckless anarchists.

Well, according to field research conducted by the city of Portland, there are indeed a lot of scofflaws blowing through stop signs around town.

We're talking about commuters who apparently have a total disregard for safety and the law, coming to a full stop at intersections only 22 percent of the time.

See! It's those dang bicyclists with their neon-colored jackets, self-righteous attitudes and ripped calves, right? Right!? Actually, no. Those were automobile drivers.

A 2002 study by England's Transport Research Laboratory found that when bicyclists violated a traffic law, motorists saw it as symptomatic of reckless attitudes and incompetence among people who choose to bike. However, when they saw another driver breaking the same law, they tended to see it as somehow required by unpredictable circumstances.

Of course, there's also a such thing as "transportation envy," Blazak said.

"Cyclists have a kind of freedom that people in cars don't have," he explained, "including getting around backed-up traffic, going up on the sidewalk, being out in the elements. It breeds a certain amount of resentment and jealousy when you're stuck listening to a mattress commercial in a traffic jam."

Yeah, I said that twice already.

That's a good article. I points out what they call selective perception with regard to method of transport. I think that's a huuuge factor for some people in this thread. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I think most of the cyclists in this thread are more or less immune to that bias. Everyone here (except BenzBoy) is a car enthusiast, obviously, and so we are all tuned to driving well, etc. So those of us who are also cyclists see things from both perspectives. Myself, I honestly haven't commuted by bike in longer than I care to admit, so clearly I am aware of the issues, etc. that face an automobile commuter (because I am one, until I get off my lazy ass).

[JWC]

When I read the article and realized just how many cars make a rolling stop, the whole idea made more sense.

BTW, the Blazak guy who talked about "transportation envy" is also a bike commuter as well as a car commuter, so he has the advantage of seeing it from both sides also.

[AutobahnSHO]

If you ride fast enough, the breeze keeps you cool.

I didn't want to sweat profusely, so I rode at a moderate/hard pace. It was in the low 70s and the back of my t-shirt was still damp when I got back to work.

In the summertime here you can NOT ride halfway hard and not sweat like CRAZY, it's very humid and Uber Hot..

[Tave]

I didn't want to sweat profusely, so I rode at a moderate/hard pace. It was in the low 70s and the back of my t-shirt was still damp when I got back to work.

In the summertime here you can NOT ride halfway hard and not sweat like CRAZY, it's very humid and Uber Hot..

After the A/C died in my 4runner, I had to ride around Phoenix shirtless.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Sweating is actually the main reason I don't bicycle most of the time.

[Tave]

How do you sweat in Maine?!?!?

[Eye of the Tiger]

How do you sweat in Maine?!?!?

I am fat guy. I start sweating during inactivity as soon as the temp goes over 70?F.

[AutobahnSHO]

After the A/C died in my 4runner, I had to ride around Phoenix shirtless.

I had no Subie A/C last summer. It will be well worth the >$1k I spent to get it fixed.

[Raza]

Many, many more. And one of those times, you should try to find something to support it.

You're such a fucking idiot it's astounding.

Apart from the practical aspects, like carrying passengers and cargo, bicycles have no seatbelts, airbags, lights, windshield wipers....

[CALL_911]

You're such a fucking idiot it's astounding.

Apart from the practical aspects, like carrying passengers and cargo, bicycles have no seatbelts, airbags, lights, windshield wipers....

So if I were driving an Excursion and ran you right off the road, that's perfectly fine, because you're driving a small economy car, whereas I'm driving a tank the size of Iowa?

I think we've found the fucking idiot here, and it's not Psilos.

Oh, and I've anticipated Raza's response: "Yeah we've found him, it's you, fuckface."

[Rupert]

You're such a fucking idiot it's astounding.

Apart from the practical aspects, like carrying passengers and cargo, bicycles have no seatbelts, airbags, lights, windshield wipers....

See CALL_911's post.

[AutobahnSHO]

haha
I thought this crap was resolved.
Here's my take on it:

1- bikes aren't cars
2- no one should expect bikes to behave exactly like cars.
3- bikes are still legally allowed to use the roadways that cars do.
4- since bikes can't go as fast as cars can, it will be cars that have to make some concessions to bikes.
5- otherwise bikes should follow the same laws as cars.

[Rupert]

With Raza, shit's never resolved.

I'm pretty stubborn, too.

[Raza]

So if I were driving an Excursion and ran you right off the road, that's perfectly fine, because you're driving a small economy car, whereas I'm driving a tank the size of Iowa?

I think we've found the fucking idiot here, and it's not Psilos.

Oh, and I've anticipated Raza's response: "Yeah we've found him, it's you, fuckface."

You're an idiot. 

Drive at night in a car without headlamps or in the rain without wipers.  You'd be breaking the law.

[Raza]

haha
I thought this crap was resolved.
Here's my take on it:

1- bikes aren't cars
2- no one should expect bikes to behave exactly like cars.
3- bikes are still legally allowed to use the roadways that cars do.
4- since bikes can't go as fast as cars can, it will be cars bikes that have to make some concessions to bikes cars.
5- otherwise bikes should follow the same laws as cars.
6- Bicycles must be registered for on-road use.
7- Cyclists must be trained, tested, and licensed.
8- Bicycles must be fitted with headlamps for road use.
9- Cyclists must wear M2005 approved helmets.

I think that could cover most of my concerns.

[Rupert]

You're an idiot. 

Drive at night in a car without headlamps or in the rain without wipers.  You'd be breaking the law.

Obviously, bikes don't need wipers. Otherwise, it's illegal to ride a bike at night without lights, just like for a car. Fool.

[giant_mtb]

Bikes don't have windshields.  Therefore they don't need windshield wipers.

I wish I had glasses-wipers, though. 

[bing_oh]

haha
I thought this crap was resolved.
Here's my take on it:

1- bikes aren't cars
2- no one should expect bikes to behave exactly like cars.
3- bikes are still legally allowed to use the roadways that cars do.
4- since bikes can't go as fast as cars can, it will be cars that have to make some concessions to bikes.
5- otherwise bikes should follow the same laws as cars.

Damnit, you stop applying common sense to this argument!

[bing_oh]

6- Bicycles must be registered for on-road use.
7- Cyclists must be trained, tested, and licensed.

Why? So you can bitch about how the government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong?

8- Bicycles must be fitted with headlamps for road use.

Bicycles ARE required to have a front white light and flashing red rear light for use on a roadway. Please know what you're talking about before you post, Raza.

9- Cyclists must wear M2005 approved helmets.

Uh...ok.

[Cookie Monster]

Bikes don't have windshields.  Therefore they don't need windshield wipers.

I wish I had glasses-wipers, though. 

I wonder how well Rain-X would work on glasses...

[giant_mtb]

I wonder how well Rain-X would work on glasses...

Mmmm, the possibilities.

[AutobahnSHO]

"4- since bikes can't go as fast as cars can, it will be cars bikes that have to make some concessions to bikes cars.
5- otherwise bikes should follow the same laws as cars.
6- Bicycles must be registered for on-road use.
7- Cyclists must be trained, tested, and licensed.
8- Bicycles must be fitted with headlamps for road use.
9- Cyclists must wear M2005 approved helmets."

I think that could cover most of my concerns.

4- Bikes already do. We ride to the far right as safe as it is to do so. That allows cars to pass, even in NO PASSING zones, as long as it's safe. If it's not safe then the Car needs to obey the law and Not Pass.
6- When's the last time cops needed to look up a license plate because a bike was used for a (robbery/hit and run/ manslaughter). That's just silly.
7- Ok but it costs the government far more than $25 to pay for all of that. So you want to boost WHO's taxes to subsidize that program?
8- Already a requirement in most parts of the world, if you ride at night.
9- what's m2005??  MANY MANY communities already require ANSI and/or SNELL certified helmets..  You probably cry about motorcyclists being Forced to wear helmets though..

[CALL_911]

I think that could cover most of my concerns.

I think that might be one of the posts containing the greatest amount of fail seen yet on this forum.

[Raza]

Why? So you can bitch about how the government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong?

Bicycles ARE required to have a front white light and flashing red rear light for use on a roadway. Please know what you're talking about before you post, Raza.

Uh...ok.

I need a license to operate my vehicle, and my vehicle must be registered.  Bicycles should be no different.

I didn't know that about bikes.  I've never seen a bike with lights on the road before. 

And if a cyclist gets hit by a car, you think that tiny little helmet that's required by law will do anything?  Motorcyclists wear M2005 helmets and sometimes survive crashes.  Perhaps bicycles following the same safety laws as motorcycles is fine enough.

[Raza]

4- Bikes already do. We ride to the far right as safe as it is to do so. That allows cars to pass, even in NO PASSING zones, as long as it's safe. If it's not safe then the Car needs to obey the law and Not Pass.
6- When's the last time cops needed to look up a license plate because a bike was used for a (robbery/hit and run/ manslaughter). That's just silly.
7- Ok but it costs the government far more than $25 to pay for all of that. So you want to boost WHO's taxes to subsidize that program?
8- Already a requirement in most parts of the world, if you ride at night.
9- what's m2005??  MANY MANY communities already require ANSI and/or SNELL certified helmets..  You probably cry about motorcyclists being Forced to wear helmets though..

It's not about crimes committed using bikes, it's about crimes committed by cyclists.  A cyclist decides to run red lights or stop signs, then he or she has a license and can be penalized more than financially.  Why should it cost that much?  Cyclist licensing would go through the same DMV/DOT as motor licensing, and training would dealt with the same groups that do driver training.  Optional training, but much like a motor license, a written test will be required and based on the road laws. 

M2005 is a Snell rating, so that covers that.  And yes, I'm morally opposed to helmet laws (and seatbelt laws), but if motorcyclists are going to be subjected to it, then so should cyclists. 

[Raza]

I think that might be one of the posts containing the greatest amount of fail seen yet on this forum.

Jeez, you're a moron.  If you want to have an argument, let's have an argument.  If you don't like what I say and have nothing to with which to rebut, then say nothing.

[bing_oh]

M2005 is a Snell rating, so that covers that.  And yes, I'm morally opposed to helmet laws (and seatbelt laws), but if motorcyclists are going to be subjected to it, then so should cyclists.

At least in Ohio, motorcyclists don't have a helmet requirement if they're out of their probationary rider period. Probationary, or "novice," riders are, like kids with their learners permit in a car, under more restrictions because they're just learning how to operate their vehicle.

[Raza]

At least in Ohio, motorcyclists don't have a helmet requirement if they're out of their probationary rider period. Probationary, or "novice," riders are, like kids with their learners permit in a car, under more restrictions because they're just learning how to operate their vehicle.

Pennsylvanians have similar laws.  That's why that neanderthal Steelers QB faceplanted when he crashed his Harley.  Over 21 and 2 years of licensed riding exempts you from wearing a helmet. 

I'd be okay with cyclists adhering to the same helmet laws as motorcyclists.

Like I said, I'm a reasonable man.  I like bikes, I think more people should ride them when possible.  I think not so long ago I said that I supported incentivizing using bikes as commuter vehicles.  I am just unsatisfied with current cyclists, cyclists' attitudes, and the way cyclists use the road.  Share the road goes both ways, and I see none of that reciprocity from any of the cyclists neither here, nor in practice.  Well, that's not true.  Giant seemed to try to be courteous, and he was ostracized for it, reinforcing my prejudices against cyclists. 

[giant_mtb]

I need a license to operate my vehicle, and my vehicle must be registered.  Bicycles should be no different.

I didn't know that about bikes.  I've never seen a bike with lights on the road before. 

And if a cyclist gets hit by a car, you think that tiny little helmet that's required by law will do anything?  Motorcyclists wear M2005 helmets and sometimes survive crashes.  Perhaps bicycles following the same safety laws as motorcycles is fine enough.

Regarding helmets, bike helmets are designed to protect the head in relatively low-speed types of impacts.  Since a bike is relatively slow, it shouldn't make a difference.  If a car going 60 MPH hits a motorcyclist moving 20 MPH, he has as much of a chance of living as a guy riding a bike wearing a helmet going 20 MPH.  A bike rider isn't going to strap on a full-face motocross helmet because bikes simply do not go speeds that require such protection.  Getting hit by a car is getting hit by a car.