Question arises from information from years ago that the safest thing to do if you see you're about to crash into a vehicle you should "aim" your car so that the impact is full frontal.
A cousin died when she tried to avoid a trailer that came loose from a farm truck (this was 1994) and the side of her car took the impact. Her passengers were safe, but the state trooper stated she and everyone would have survived if she had kept the car straight.
We now have side-impact air bags, my Volvo does, but I still think keeping the car in the lane and not trying to turn away from a crash is the best thing to do.
Any other opinions?
I have done this sort of thing... as my car was unavoidably going into a ditch, rather than hit the brakes and slide in sideways and possibly roll over or worse, I kept my foot stead on the gas so I could straighten out in hopes of jumping across, or at least absorbing whatever impact with the front of the car... the front bumper caught the other side, leaving the front wheels hanging. No permanent damage to anything, just needed a tow truck. Heck, a cop even drove right by me and didn't bother to stop.
I have to admit, I plan for accidents as I'm driving. If someone pulls up to an intersection, my mind begins thinking about what action I should prepare to take if he pulls out in front of me. It has actually "saved" me a couple of times.
I do that, too. It's a cycling thing.
Quote from: JWC on February 22, 2009, 07:29:28 PM
I have to admit, I plan for accidents as I'm driving. If someone pulls up to an intersection, my mind begins thinking about what action I should prepare to take if he pulls out in front of me. It has actually "saved" me a couple of times.
Sometimes it saves you, sometimes it makes things worse if other drivers do things that are completely unexpected. Like when I was the left lane of a two-way four-lane road - a car pulls onto the road from the left side and heads directly into my path. I assume they don't see me, so I swerve into the right lane, but apparently their plan all along was to pull across my path and into the right lane, so I actually ended up swerving directly towards them, and had to swerve back to the left lane and in the process almost lost the rear end (probably would have flipped, being a Samurai going 45-50 mph). Sometimes it is useless trying to predict what other drivers will do.
Quote from: Psilos on February 22, 2009, 07:30:56 PM
I do that, too. It's a cycling thing.
True, that may explain why I do it. If you bike regularly, you are always on the lookout and/or planning an evasive maneuver.
Quote from: NACar on February 22, 2009, 07:36:25 PM
Sometimes it saves you, sometimes it makes things worse if other drivers do things that are completely unexpected. Like when I was the left lane of a two-way four-lane road - a car pulls onto the road from the left side and heads directly into my path. I assume they don't see me, so I swerve into the right lane, but apparently their plan all along was to pull across my path and into the right lane, so I actually ended up swerving directly towards them, and had to swerve back to the left lane and in the process almost lost the rear end (probably would have flipped, being a Samurai going 45-50 mph). Sometimes it is useless trying to predict what other drivers will do.
I thought Consumer Reports invented the Samurai's rollover risk in back-and-forth lane changes?
Quote from: Psilos on February 22, 2009, 07:30:56 PM
I do that, too. It's a cycling thing.
I'm sure that helps, but I'm not much of a bike rider and I do the same thing.
I'll admit there are times when I'm a more passive about it, but the majority of the time I'm quite active at scanning and planning.
I can say with 100% certainty that its kept me from being rear-ended hard at least once, and probably prevented a few other incidents as well.
in the middle of the topgear clip here http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=17738.0
There is footage of a Renault Megane hitting full frontal and a pole from the side.
It's obvious the front is better protected, plus seatbelts and seats are designed more for frontal than huge side hits..
i swerve around accidents at all cost... i'd rather take the chance of hitting nothing
The one accident I don't know how to avoid is getting rear-ended. People follow too closely around here, and even if I leave enough space ahead for my own reaction, the dope behind me probably won't get on his brakes in time.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on February 23, 2009, 08:17:00 AM
The one accident I don't know how to avoid is getting rear-ended. People follow too closely around here, and even if I leave enough space ahead for my own reaction, the dope behind me probably won't get on his brakes in time.
If someone is tailgating me, I always check how much room is on each side. In case I have to stop quick, I'd be looking to cut into the next lane or onto the shoulder.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on February 23, 2009, 08:17:00 AM
The one accident I don't know how to avoid is getting rear-ended. People follow too closely around here, and even if I leave enough space ahead for my own reaction, the dope behind me probably won't get on his brakes in time.
Sometimes there isn't much you can do. Other times plan an out.
The one time I almost got rear ended I had just had to brake pretty hard, I had room left, but just as I was about stopped I glanced up and saw that the Neon behind me hadn't even started to slow down yet.
I turned hard to the left into the center turning lane. I glanced over my shoulder and the Neon finally stopped with its front end right about where my seat back would have been.
What pissed me off more is that the son of a bitch wouldn't let me back into traffic when we got moving again. I'd just saved us all a lot of grief and this idiot pulls this shit?
Quote from: VTEC_Inside on February 23, 2009, 10:43:24 AM
Sometimes there isn't much you can do. Other times plan an out.
The one time I almost got rear ended I had just had to brake pretty hard, I had room left, but just as I was about stopped I glanced up and saw that the Neon behind me hadn't even started to slow down yet.
I turned hard to the left into the center turning lane. I glanced over my shoulder and the Neon finally stopped with its front end right about where my seat back would have been.
What pissed me off more is that the son of a bitch wouldn't let me back into traffic when we got moving again. I'd just saved us all a lot of grief and this idiot pulls this shit?
That's when I just make like a big city taxi driver and stick my nose in front of him and butt in front. It works pretty well at lower speeds.
Quote from: JWC on February 22, 2009, 07:39:49 PM
True, that may explain why I do it. If you bike regularly, you are always on the lookout and/or planning an evasive maneuver.
+1
I always assume that I'm going to get hit when I'm biking. The thing that scares me the most about biking is getting mowed over from behind, which has almost happened to me a few times.
Quote from: Psilos on February 22, 2009, 07:30:56 PM
I do that, too. It's a cycling thing.
If you idiots didn't keep running red lights and acting as if everyone on the road is there to serve you, you'd be fine.
Quote from: JWC on February 22, 2009, 07:39:49 PM
True, that may explain why I do it. If you bike regularly, you are always on the lookout and/or planning an evasive maneuver.
No, it's part of being a good driver. You should always be on the lookout for potential hazards, unsafe drivers, road anomalies, et al. Devotion to an outdated form of transportation has nothing to do with safety.
Quote from: Raza on February 23, 2009, 11:53:24 AM
No, it's part of being a good driver. You should always be on the lookout for potential hazards, unsafe drivers, road anomalies, et al. Devotion to an outdated form of transportation has nothing to do with safety.
Outdated? :rolleyes:
Quote from: thecarnut on February 23, 2009, 12:30:24 PM
Outdated? :rolleyes:
What is not outdated about cycling?
Quote from: Raza on February 23, 2009, 11:53:24 AM
No, it's part of being a good driver. You should always be on the lookout for potential hazards, unsafe drivers, road anomalies, et al. Devotion to an outdated form of transportation has nothing to do with safety.
Unlike on a bike, the inside of a car can be quite isolated from reality, and that leads to people driving carelessly. People who bike regularly are more likely to be in the habit of operating a vehicle with due care, and therefore are less likely to drive carelessly. It's not very hard logic to follow, you anti-bicyclist jerk dickhead fuckface cocktard assbloodshit dickfistfuckerpenispumper bastard. Of course, there is no hard and fast rule, because there are careless bicyclists as well, but these people are very unlikely the ones who ride on a regular basis - unlike people in cars, because every idiot has a license.
Quote from: NACar on February 23, 2009, 12:59:18 PM
Unlike on a bike, the inside of a car can be quite isolated from reality, and that leads to people driving carelessly. People who bike regularly are more likely to be in the habit of operating a vehicle with due care, and therefore are less likely to drive carelessly. It's not very hard logic to follow, you anti-bicyclist jerk dickhead fuckface cocktard assbloodshit dickfistfuckerpenispumper bastard. Of course, there is no hard and fast rule, because there are careless bicyclists as well, but these people are very unlikely the ones who ride on a regular basis - unlike people in cars, because every idiot has a license.
Most people are idiots. Just because you ride a bicycle like a fucking six year old doesn't mean you're not.
Quote from: Raza on February 23, 2009, 12:35:36 PM
What is not outdated about cycling?
Even the Prius can't beat that gas mileage.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1005348#msg1005348 date=1235419330
Most people are idiots. Just because you ride a bicycle like a fucking six year old doesn't mean you're not.
wat :lol:
Quote from: ifcar on February 23, 2009, 01:03:59 PM
Even the Prius can't beat that gas mileage.
But it has it licked on weather protection.
Quote from: Raza on February 23, 2009, 01:58:18 PM
But it has it licked on weather protection.
No technology is perfect.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1005374#msg1005374 date=1235422698
But it has it licked on weather protection.
(http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/bike-rain-roof1.jpg)
:lol:
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1005294#msg1005294 date=1235415135
If you idiots didn't keep running red lights and acting as if everyone on the road is there to serve you, you'd be fine.
Why is it that whenever I begin to respect you, you something as fucking stupid as this? Jeebus...
I agree with NACar's post.
Quote from: NACar on February 23, 2009, 02:08:01 PM
(http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/bike-rain-roof1.jpg)
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
Now where do you put the groceries?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1005591#msg1005591 date=1235442944
:lol:
:lol:
Now where do you put the groceries?
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? :rolleyes:
Quote from: NACar on February 23, 2009, 07:38:58 PM
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? :rolleyes:
:lol:
Quote from: NACar on February 23, 2009, 07:38:58 PM
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? :rolleyes:
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?
1 pp, ouch, in your case, you, and only if you like it.
(http://images.43things.com/entry/86215pw150.jpg)
;)
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.
a car weighs 100x more then a bicycle... it automatically wins at any intersection. Cyclists should realize that.
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. ;)
Quote from: r0tor on February 24, 2009, 08:18:45 AM
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.
Quote from: JWC on February 24, 2009, 03:48:26 AM
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.
Quote from: JWC on February 24, 2009, 03:48:26 AM
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.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 24, 2009, 07:14:41 PM
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.
Quote from: NACar on February 24, 2009, 07:16:30 PM
Disabled can get their government-paid electric wheelchairs. Tourists will have to make do with rickshaws.
Two stroke rickshaws? :wub:
Quote from: thecarnut on February 24, 2009, 07:21:15 PM
Two stroke rickshaws? :wub:
tuk tuks?
no motorized vehicles in the downtown area :nono:
Quote from: NACar on February 24, 2009, 07:22:00 PM
tuk tuks?
no motorized vehicles in the downtown area :nono:
What if the elderly people want to go downtown?
Quote from: thecarnut on February 24, 2009, 07:25:33 PM
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.
Quote from: NACar on February 24, 2009, 07:10:48 PM
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.
:ohyeah:
Quote from: thecarnut on February 24, 2009, 07:14:41 PM
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. :ohyeah:
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.
Quote from: Psilos on February 24, 2009, 08:55:23 PM
Amsterdam. :ohyeah:
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. :lol:
But yeah, in a dusty place, fully enclosed chain is the best, although IMO they look like crap.
Dutch bikes are the shit, and I wish mine worked and was here. They're very high quality, to boot.
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?
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.
Quote from: Psilos on February 25, 2009, 12:09:13 AM
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.
Which one? The first?
:lol:
Quote from: JWC on February 24, 2009, 03:48:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Raza on February 25, 2009, 08:37:11 AM
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.
Quote from: NACar on February 25, 2009, 09:36:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Raza on February 23, 2009, 12:35:36 PM
What is not outdated about cycling?
The same things that aren't outdated about a single shot bolt action rifle.
It works.
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.
Quote from: Psilos on February 25, 2009, 12:09:13 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: JWC on February 25, 2009, 06:11:28 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Pansy.
Quote from: JWC on February 25, 2009, 06:11:28 PM
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.
As I recall, they were riding four or even five across the lane, and refused to move over. And these were as far from "casual" as you an get.
And I never have good dealings with cyclists. They're always acting like I'm intruding on their road, and not the other way around.
I even had a cyclist on another forum threaten me, should I attempt to angrily pass him when he's on the road. I pointed out the fact that a 180 pound man with a helmet and Spandex wouldn't stand much a chance against 3000 pounds of metal, and all of a sudden I was the bad guy.
John, you may be the most responsible cyclist out there. But the rest of your people don't belong on the road.
And like I said, if they want to be considered the same way as other motor vehicles, there should be a licensing process.
Technically, there is a licensing process. As in the guy who got the ticket for running the stop sign. If a bicycle was not considered a road vehicle, the police officer couldn't have done anything to him.
There are some a-holes out there and they have their own organization, Critical Mass. Google it. I hate CM riders and their attitudes.
Quote from: Raza on February 26, 2009, 11:19:15 AM
As I recall, they were riding four or even five across the lane, and refused to move over. And these were as far from "casual" as you an get.
And I never have good dealings with cyclists. They're always acting like I'm intruding on their road, and not the other way around.
I even had a cyclist on another forum threaten me, should I attempt to angrily pass him when he's on the road. I pointed out the fact that a 180 pound man with a helmet and Spandex wouldn't stand much a chance against 3000 pounds of metal, and all of a sudden I was the bad guy.
John, you may be the most responsible cyclist out there. But the rest of your people don't belong on the road.
And like I said, if they want to be considered the same way as other motor vehicles, there should be a licensing process.
I've had people in cars yell at me for riding on the side of the road too. :huh:
And the number of careless drivers far outweighs the number of careless cyclists (because there are so many more drivers, but still). I've been almost hit many times by idiot drivers going way too fast, weaving in and out of the bike lane.
You can hate on irresponsible cyclists but it's kind of hypocritical when there are so many more idiotic, irresponsible drivers.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 26, 2009, 01:41:36 PM
I've had people in cars yell at me for riding on the side of the road too. :huh:
And the number of careless drivers far outweighs the number of careless cyclists (because there are so many more drivers, but still). I've been almost hit many times by idiot drivers going way too fast, weaving in and out of the bike lane.
You can hate on irresponsible cyclists but it's kind of hypocritical when there are so many more idiotic, irresponsible drivers.
# wise, yes, you'll probably have a lot more irresponsible drivers than cyclists. But % wise, I think it's a wash.
Quote from: Raza on February 26, 2009, 11:19:15 AM
As I recall, they were riding four or even five across the lane, and refused to move over. And these were as far from "casual" as you an get.
And I never have good dealings with cyclists. They're always acting like I'm intruding on their road, and not the other way around.
I even had a cyclist on another forum threaten me, should I attempt to angrily pass him when he's on the road. I pointed out the fact that a 180 pound man with a helmet and Spandex wouldn't stand much a chance against 3000 pounds of metal, and all of a sudden I was the bad guy.
John, you may be the most responsible cyclist out there. But the rest of your people don't belong on the road.
And like I said, if they want to be considered the same way as other motor vehicles, there should be a licensing process.
My experience is the opposite, but maybe it is the area I'm in. Pickup trucks tend to buzz me...almost all have big tires and lift kits. I did have some woman cut me off during a left hand turn. I took the lane, gave a hand signal for the turn and she drove around me, passing me on a double yellow and an intersection. All because she "owned" the road as a car driver. Bitch probably didn't expect me to chase her down. Same with the old guy who almost ran over me trying to pass, same exact scenario, but different intersection. He managed to brake just before he ran me over. That was the last time I road without a mirror. It was unfortunate for him also that we were in a twenty-five mph area. I was on my road bike and pulled up beside him and told him to roll his window down, then told him what I thought of his driving skills.
They have an organization for you too Raza, it is called RTS, Retake the Streets, if I remember right. It is the same as Critical Mass, but for car drivers. They take over the streets proclaiming their ownership of roads over cyclists and pedestrians. I think they proclaim the automobile another step of the evolutionary ladder.
Quote from: JWC on February 25, 2009, 06:11:28 PM
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.
Seems to me there are too many bicyclists around there who think they have the benefits of both vehicles and pedestrians. They claim their right to the roadway as a vehicle, but seem to think they have the undisputed right-of-way of a pedestrian when it comes to traffic signals and stop signs. I was driving down the road last year and saw a bicyclist (looked like a fairly serious cyclist, not some Joe on a bike) blow right through a redlight at a blind intersection in front of me. By blind I mean there are trees and houses in the way such that you don't see another vehicle crossing the intersection until it is actually in the intersection. Had I been a few seconds further down the road than I was, I would have had to slam on the brakes to miss them.
No one will deny that there are stupid cyclists. But bikes aren't cars, and some of the rules that apply to cars don't fit bikes.
I can think of one time when a frontal accident would have been much worse. I'm pretty sure I've told the story here so I'll just say that when it's icy and you're sliding in an older Saturn, a side impact is better (if you are going pretty slow). Plastic body panels don't dent or cave in. :lol:
Did it make a *boink* sound?
:lol:
Quote from: JWC on February 26, 2009, 07:00:15 PM
They have an organization for you too Raza, it is called RTS, Retake the Streets, if I remember right. It is the same as Critical Mass, but for car drivers. They take over the streets proclaiming their ownership of roads over cyclists and pedestrians. I think they proclaim the automobile another step of the evolutionary ladder.
When cyclists start paying taxes for highway maintenance, then I would start to consider such an organization of having an ounce of credibility.
Bikes do almost no damage to roads.
Quote from: Psilos on March 03, 2009, 07:00:34 PM
Bikes do almost no damage to roads.
mother nature does the most damage... bikers can help pay for the roads if they want to "own" them
Quote from: JWC on February 26, 2009, 07:00:15 PM
My experience is the opposite, but maybe it is the area I'm in. Pickup trucks tend to buzz me...almost all have big tires and lift kits. I did have some woman cut me off during a left hand turn. I took the lane, gave a hand signal for the turn and she drove around me, passing me on a double yellow and an intersection. All because she "owned" the road as a car driver. Bitch probably didn't expect me to chase her down. Same with the old guy who almost ran over me trying to pass, same exact scenario, but different intersection. He managed to brake just before he ran me over. That was the last time I road without a mirror. It was unfortunate for him also that we were in a twenty-five mph area. I was on my road bike and pulled up beside him and told him to roll his window down, then told him what I thought of his driving skills.
They have an organization for you too Raza, it is called RTS, Retake the Streets, if I remember right. It is the same as Critical Mass, but for car drivers. They take over the streets proclaiming their ownership of roads over cyclists and pedestrians. I think they proclaim the automobile another step of the evolutionary ladder.
These RTS people sound a bit unreasonable. Human beings are born with legs, and don't have to wear stupid pants to use them. :lol:
Quote from: r0tor on March 03, 2009, 10:51:28 AM
When cyclists start paying taxes for highway maintenance, then I would start to consider such an organization of having an ounce of credibility.
Look, we allowed cars to ride our bike roads at the turn of the last century. Turns out car drivers damaged our roads, so it became necessary for those doing the damage to maintain the roadways to the condition cyclists had become accustomed to.
Quote from: JWC on March 04, 2009, 06:30:21 PM
Look, we allowed cars to ride our bike roads at the turn of the last century. Turns out car drivers damaged our roads, so it became necessary for those doing the damage to maintain the roadways to the condition cyclists had become accustomed to.
i'd like to see someone on a roadbike hit some of the potholes in PA from the freeze/thaw cycle... lol
Quote from: r0tor on March 05, 2009, 05:53:37 AM
i'd like to see someone on a roadbike hit some of the potholes in PA from the freeze/thaw cycle... lol
Any cyclist worth anything will be scanning out far enough to see it, and take appropriate action to avoid. Or there's always a bunny hop.
Why do roadies insist on riding on or as close to the fog line as possible? In Michigan (at least in the UP), we have mostly 8 foot shoulders. 8 feet. Yet they ride the white line. It's annoying as hell. I'm a biker (mountain, not road), and I ride as far to the right as possible...I'm not taking any chances. And then there are the douche bags that ride on a busy 55-MPH road that HAS NO SHOULDER, just dirt...so these roadies are there riding IN the road, which has many blind curves, and people go 65, not 55. It pisses me off. They embarrass me.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 05, 2009, 07:40:25 AM
Why do roadies insist on riding on or as close to the fog line as possible? In Michigan (at least in the UP), we have mostly 8 foot shoulders. 8 feet. Yet they ride the white line. It's annoying as hell. I'm a biker (mountain, not road), and I ride as far to the right as possible...I'm not taking any chances. And then there are the douche bags that ride on a busy 55-MPH road that HAS NO SHOULDER, just dirt...so these roadies are there riding IN the road, which has many blind curves, and people go 65, not 55. It pisses me off. They embarrass me.
I ride more or less on the line because any further and the road isn't swept clean of debris by passing traffic, which means ruining your tires on rocks and things for roadies. Plus, if there is no shoulder are bikes just supposed to not bother? There are some beautiful back roads around where I live and I have no problem waiting for just a moment for traffic to clear and pass them. My car also doesn't take up the whole lane, so I have no problem just putting my left wheels on the center stripe and passing them like that at a reasonable speed. It wouldn't bother me as a biker to get passed like that either.
Quote from: JWC on March 04, 2009, 06:30:21 PM
Look, we allowed cars to ride our bike roads at the turn of the last century. Turns out car drivers damaged our roads, so it became necessary for those doing the damage to maintain the roadways to the condition cyclists had become accustomed to.
:lol:
Quote from: R-inge on March 05, 2009, 08:38:13 AM
I ride more or less on the line because any further and the road isn't swept clean of debris by passing traffic, which means ruining your tires on rocks and things for roadies. Plus, if there is no shoulder are bikes just supposed to not bother? There are some beautiful back roads around where I live and I have no problem waiting for just a moment for traffic to clear and pass them. My car also doesn't take up the whole lane, so I have no problem just putting my left wheels on the center stripe and passing them like that at a reasonable speed. It wouldn't bother me as a biker to get passed like that either.
Swept clean of debris? Jesus, I understand that your 87439-psi tires don't offer you the best ride out there, but for god's sake, the shoulder's there for a reason. If I was a roadie, I'd probably ride close to the white line...but if a damn car was coming...I'd move over for a second to wait for a car to go by. The thing that bothers me is when these douche bags don't move over when there's opposing traffic, especially when they have a gigantic shoulder for them to use.
Quote from: JWC on March 04, 2009, 06:30:21 PM
Look, we allowed cars to ride our bike roads at the turn of the last century. Turns out car drivers damaged our roads, so it became necessary for those doing the damage to maintain the roadways to the condition cyclists had become accustomed to.
I think that's an issue you have to take up with the horses.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 05, 2009, 05:01:00 PM
I think that's an issue you have to take up with the horses.
I bet the horses were pissed for bikes taking up space on their roads.
Quote from: R-inge on March 05, 2009, 08:38:13 AM
I ride more or less on the line because any further and the road isn't swept clean of debris by passing traffic, which means ruining your tires on rocks and things for roadies. Plus, if there is no shoulder are bikes just supposed to not bother? There are some beautiful back roads around where I live and I have no problem waiting for just a moment for traffic to clear and pass them. My car also doesn't take up the whole lane, so I have no problem just putting my left wheels on the center stripe and passing them like that at a reasonable speed. It wouldn't bother me as a biker to get passed like that either.
:ohyeah:
I don't brake for arrogant cyclists.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 05, 2009, 12:00:21 PM
Swept clean of debris? Jesus, I understand that your 87439-psi tires don't offer you the best ride out there, but for god's sake, the shoulder's there for a reason. If I was a roadie, I'd probably ride close to the white line...but if a damn car was coming...I'd move over for a second to wait for a car to go by. The thing that bothers me is when these douche bags don't move over when there's opposing traffic, especially when they have a gigantic shoulder for them to use.
You try riding a road bike over gravelly asphalt and get back to me on how well that works out. Or sandy asphalt for that matter; on a curve you could easily wipe out on that stuff.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 05, 2009, 10:55:36 PM
I don't brake for arrogant cyclists.
Clothesline them with a hockey stick! It's fun, and no one gets hurt. Well, the cyclist gets hurt, but cyclists aren't people.
Quote from: Raza on March 06, 2009, 03:02:46 PM
Clothesline them with a hockey stick! It's fun, and no one gets hurt. Well, the cyclist gets hurt, but cyclists aren't people.
You probably wouldn't think it a good idea if you realized that some cyclists carry "devices" for taking care of arrogant car drivers.
Seriously. I don't have any reservations about smacking a car with possible dent force that cuts me off, etc. Most drivers just think they hit me, which is shock enough for them.
Quote from: R-inge on March 06, 2009, 02:17:23 PM
You try riding a road bike over gravelly asphalt and get back to me on how well that works out. Or sandy asphalt for that matter; on a curve you could easily wipe out on that stuff.
Yes, I know...I used to ride with a guy who would ride a road bike whilst I rode my mountain bike. I saw him wipe out going around a street corner because there was some spilled oil (from a leaky car, no doubt) on the ground. I've ridden a road bike. It fucking sucks on gravel. The slightest pebble would vibrate my entire body. All I'm saying is that WHEN THERE'S TRAFFIC (especially opposing), a roadie should GTFO of my lane because the shoulder is 8 goddamn feet wide and he can suffer for 3 seconds while I don't kill myself (or him) trying to avoid his spandexed ass.
No matter how you wish to view cyclists on the road, there is one piece of reality you can't change...a bicycle, is considered a legal road vehicle when driven on the road.
Shoulders are acceptable, but not required.
It is that simple.
Hell, in some countries, bicycles have the right of way over motor vehicles. I believe it is that way in several states.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 07:13:47 PM
No matter how you wish to view cyclists on the road, there is one piece of reality you can't change...a bicycle, is considered a legal road vehicle when driven on the road.
Shoulders are acceptable, but not required.
It is that simple.
Hell, in some countries, bicycles have the right of way over motor vehicles. I believe it is that way in several states.
No matter how you wish to view that, there is one piece of reality you can't change: It hurts to get run over.
There's a rhyme they teach new boaters that would apply.
Here lies the body of Michael O'Day
Who died maintaining the right of way.
He was right, and had been all along.
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 06, 2009, 07:18:18 PM
No matter how you wish to view that, there is one piece of reality you can't change: It hurts to get run over.
There's a rhyme they teach new boaters that would apply.
Here lies the body of Michael O'Day
Who died maintaining the right of way.
He was right, and had been all along.
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
At my age, it just means you're paying for my daughter's education. I've had my fun.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 07:19:33 PM
At my age, it just means you're paying for my daughter's education. I've had my fun.
Well, that seems fair. But, I wasn't really planning on running you down personally.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 07:13:47 PM
No matter how you wish to view cyclists on the road, there is one piece of reality you can't change...a bicycle, is considered a legal road vehicle when driven on the road.
Shoulders are acceptable, but not required.
It is that simple.
Hell, in some countries, bicycles have the right of way over motor vehicles. I believe it is that way in several states.
So you're telling me that a cop would not be angered with me if I were to ride my bike IN a lane on a 4-lane, 55 MPH highway? I can simply tell him that I am a legal vehicle and I should not be in trouble?
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 06, 2009, 07:28:58 PM
So you're telling me that a cop would not be angered with me if I were to ride my bike IN a lane on a 4-lane, 55 MPH highway? I can simply tell him that I am a legal vehicle and I should not be in trouble?
Not on a restricted access highway, no you can't.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 06, 2009, 07:28:58 PM
So you're telling me that a cop would not be angered with me if I were to ride my bike IN a lane on a 4-lane, 55 MPH highway? I can simply tell him that I am a legal vehicle and I should not be in trouble?
Freeways are usually exempt from any vehicle that cannot maintain a minimum speed. An unrestricted four-lane is fair game.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 07:30:52 PM
Freeways are usually exempt from any vehicle that cannot maintain a minimum speed. An unrestricted four-lane is fair game.
?
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/06/6-14-07-go-kart_1.jpg)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 06, 2009, 07:32:48 PM
?
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/06/6-14-07-go-kart_1.jpg)
That isn't a registered vehicle though. :lol:
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 07:36:17 PM
That isn't a registered vehicle though. :lol:
Neither is your bike.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 06, 2009, 07:37:06 PM
Neither is your bike.
Which is why I can't ride it on a freeway.
But...if you're getting technical, state laws define what a bicycle, moped, and motor vehicle is and governs it accordingly.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 07:39:30 PM
But...if you're getting technical, state laws define what a bicycle, moped, and motor vehicle is and governs it accordingly.
That was my point: there are laws that differentiate between bicycles and motorized vehicles. To pretend otherwise is silly.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 06, 2009, 07:40:48 PM
That was my point: there are laws that differentiate between bicycles and motorized vehicles. To pretend otherwise is silly.
I don't get your point....state laws give cyclists the right to ride on roadways, to suggest otherwise, is silly. Some states, require car drivers to actually merge with cyclists before executing some right turns, such as California. In Washington state, drivers have to leave bike lanes open and give cyclists the right of way before executing a right hand turn.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 07:30:52 PM
Freeways are usually exempt from any vehicle that cannot maintain a minimum speed. An unrestricted four-lane is fair game.
For some reason, I highly doubt I would get any positive signs or well-wishes from police if I decided to ride my bicycle on a 4-lane highway. Plus I'd get run over before a cop even had a chance to spot me. This is the attitude that bikers have that pisses me off. "Well, we're legally allowed to be on the road, so like..." What happened to etiquette?
I believe that's the law everywhere, not just Washington.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 06, 2009, 07:55:53 PM
For some reason, I highly doubt I would get any positive signs or well-wishes from police if I decided to ride my bicycle on a 4-lane highway. Plus I'd get run over before a cop even had a chance to spot me. This is the attitude that bikers have that pisses me off. "Well, we're legally allowed to be on the road, so like..." What happened to etiquette?
Fuck etiquette. Cars don't do bikes any favors.
Quote from: Psilos on March 06, 2009, 07:57:38 PM
I believe that's the law everywhere, not just Washington.
It isn't written in NC, so I can't say for sure that it is an actual law.
Quote from: Psilos on March 06, 2009, 07:58:49 PM
Fuck etiquette. Cars don't do bikes any favors.
Exactly. I'm a biker and I ride on the side of the road quite often. If there're cars coming...forget the fact that I'm a legal resident of the road I'm on...I'm moving the fuck over. A) Pissed drivers are in control of 3000+ pound pieces of machinery, B) why would I want to piss anyone off?, and C) It's my fucking life on the line. I'll be nice and move the fuck over so I don't get hit.
Obama isn't done yet. Wait till he introduces national cycling laws and make cagers play second fiddle. :ohyeah:
:lol: That'll be the day...
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 06, 2009, 08:00:21 PM
Exactly. I'm a biker and I ride on the side of the road quite often. If there're cars coming...forget the fact that I'm a legal resident of the road I'm on...I'm moving the fuck over. A) Pissed drivers are in control of 3000+ pound pieces of machinery, B) why would I want to piss anyone off?, and C) It's my fucking life on the line. I'll be nice and move the fuck over so I don't get hit.
Which increases the belief among car drivers that THEY own the road.
I'm guessing you've never come across a farm tractor moving at a max speed of 20mph on a roadway have you? It is one thing to believe that a 3000 pound vehicle will save you if you're traveling along a country road at 55mph and round a curve to find a bicycle, but quite another if you round that curve and find a two ton farm implement aimed at your windshield. In other words, it is your responsibility to drive safely for the conditions present. A guy in a mini-van was killed last year when he decided his vehicle could safely tail gate a tobacco primer on the four lane down the road from me. He didn't count on the rail taking the top of his head off when it crashed through his windshield.
But, I can understand your fear. I ride very defensively...one thing you can't trust is a car driver to make a rational decision while talking on the phone or texting.
On the other hand...
I'm constantly dodging cars because some idiot bike rider thinks he is a pedestrian and is riding against traffic forcing cars to move toward move instead of around me.
I hate people on bikes who think they're walking. It does nothing good for anyone, including them.
I also ride extremely defensively. That's why I've never had an altercation with a car. I consider all possibilities and take appropriate action. If you ride defensively enough, you will never say "well, the car just came out of nowhere!"
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 07:45:32 PM
I don't get your point....state laws give cyclists the right to ride on roadways, to suggest otherwise, is silly. Some states, require car drivers to actually merge with cyclists before executing some right turns, such as California. In Washington state, drivers have to leave bike lanes open and give cyclists the right of way before executing a right hand turn.
Being allowed to ride on the road and being considered on par with all other road vehicles is two different things: and you list the differences there yourself.
When I'm driving a car, I get more pissed at bike riders who are not following the rules. I pulled up to an intersection a couple of weeks ago, green light and I was making a left. I bike rider was coming from the opposite direction. I stopped, turn signal flashing, and waited for him to go through the intersection. Instead, asshole stops. He had no idea he had the right of way. If I pull out and he takes off resulting in me hitting him, I making the illegal move. I gave up on trying to wave him through and risked it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 06, 2009, 08:32:44 PM
Being allowed to ride on the road and being considered on par with all other road vehicles is two different things: and you list the differences there yourself.
I"m speaking legally. As an issue of car vs bike, bike loses. Legally, the bike has as much right to the road as a car. It is for the car driver, and mostly the bike rider, to realize this. If more bike riders would come to the realization that asserting themselves in the lane makes them more visible to car drivers, and most importantly, more predictable, there would be far fewer motor vehicle vs bike collisions.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/VCIntro.htm
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 08:35:51 PM
I"m speaking legally. As an issue of car vs bike, bike loses. Legally, the bike has as much right to the road as a car. It is for the car driver, and mostly the bike rider, to realize this. If more bike riders would come to the realization that asserting themselves in the lane makes them more visible to car drivers, and most importantly, more predictable, there would be far fewer motor vehicle vs bike collisions.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/VCIntro.htm
Legally, other slow moving vehicles that are not bikes are required to have a reflective orange triangle on them. Legally, other vehicles submit to many more regulations and pay far more in fees. Legally, operators ofcars and motorcycles can be stopped and ticketing for not wearing helemts or seatbelts or having faulty equipment.
Legally, they are not equal. Bikes have right of ways that must be respected that are many times the same as those applying to cars, but also sometimes have exceptions made especially for them.
Do people need to be more aware of what rights cyclists have? Yes.
Are bikes legally the same as motor vehicles? No.
Mass:You may ride your bicycle on any public road, street, or bikeway in the Commonwealth, except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bikes have been posted.
NC:In North Carolina, the bicycle has the legal status of a vehicle. This means that bicyclists have full rights and responsibilities on the roadway and are subject to the regulations governing the operation of a motor vehicle.
California: Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs
PA: In Pennsylvania, a bicycle is considered a vehicle and, as such, is governed by a general set of rules (common to all vehicles) and a specific set of rules (designed for bicycles).
It continues on...but you get the picture.
The "designed for bicycles" exception applies to helmets, letting people ride on your bike etc.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 08:57:16 PM
Mass:You may ride your bicycle on any public road, street, or bikeway in the Commonwealth, except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bikes have been posted.
NC:In North Carolina, the bicycle has the legal status of a vehicle. This means that bicyclists have full rights and responsibilities on the roadway and are subject to the regulations governing the operation of a motor vehicle.
California: Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs
PA: In Pennsylvania, a bicycle is considered a vehicle and, as such, is governed by a general set of rules (common to all vehicles) and a specific set of rules (designed for bicycles).
It continues on...but you get the picture.
The "designed for bicycles" exception applies to helmets, letting people ride on your bike etc.
Show me a person who has had his bicycle towed for lacking turn signals in NC, and I'll agree with you.
We don't tow cars for lack of turn signals. Turn signals have to be operational...and like automobiles, bike riders are LEGALLY required to signal before turning.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 09:02:44 PM
We don't tow cars for lack of turn signals. Turn signals have to be operational...and like automobiles, bike riders are LEGALLY required to signal before turning.
The fuck you don't. But, that's another story entirely.
If a car and a bicycle get in a collision: when the cop shows up, who's getting the evil eye? Who's getting the ride to the hospital in the magic white van?
Like it or not, cyclists can and do get away with a lot more than motorists do; they are not treated equally by the law or under the law.
I am fully behind you on supporting the rights that cyclists do have and wanting more people to know what the rules are and act accordingly; but you know what?
Well, of course you do.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 06:21:52 PM
You probably wouldn't think it a good idea if you realized that some cyclists carry "devices" for taking care of arrogant car drivers.
And it's statements like this that make me hate cyclists even more. The sheer idiocy of a cyclist thinking that he can go up against a car and come out on top trumps the arrogance of any driver on the road.
Quote from: Psilos on March 06, 2009, 06:42:30 PM
Seriously. I don't have any reservations about smacking a car with possible dent force that cuts me off, etc. Most drivers just think they hit me, which is shock enough for them.
And then one of these days, you're going to end up either panicking someone too much and they'll make an abrupt movement that makes cutting you off seem completely innocuous. Or, you'll dent the car of the wrong person who will intentionally make cutting you off seem playful. And you'll entirely deserve what you get.
Quote from: Psilos on March 06, 2009, 07:58:49 PM
Fuck etiquette. Cars don't do bikes any favors.
Yet you wonder why people go on rants against fucking holier-than-thou cyclists.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 06, 2009, 08:00:21 PM
Exactly. I'm a biker and I ride on the side of the road quite often. If there're cars coming...forget the fact that I'm a legal resident of the road I'm on...I'm moving the fuck over. A) Pissed drivers are in control of 3000+ pound pieces of machinery, B) why would I want to piss anyone off?, and C) It's my fucking life on the line. I'll be nice and move the fuck over so I don't get hit.
That's the first sensible thing I've seen from a cyclist in a long, long time.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 08:12:40 PM
Which increases the belief among car drivers that THEY own the road.
We do. We pay registration for our vehicles. We pay licensing fees. We pay taxes to run our cars. When cyclists do all that, then I'll gladly share the road.
Quote from: JWC on March 06, 2009, 08:32:59 PM
When I'm driving a car, I get more pissed at bike riders who are not following the rules. I pulled up to an intersection a couple of weeks ago, green light and I was making a left. I bike rider was coming from the opposite direction. I stopped, turn signal flashing, and waited for him to go through the intersection. Instead, asshole stops. He had no idea he had the right of way. If I pull out and he takes off resulting in me hitting him, I making the illegal move. I gave up on trying to wave him through and risked it.
More evidence that bikes used on roads and their riders should be subject to the same licensing process that drivers go through.
I just did 20 laps around my kitchen on my bicycle, and I almost got hit by a car.
Quote from: NACar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:05 PM
I just did 20 laps around my kitchen on my bicycle, and I almost got hit by a car.
Stop parking your Metro in your kitchen then!
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1018413#msg1018413 date=1236978878
Stop parking your Metro in your kitchen then!
I don't even have a Metro.
Quote from: NACar on March 13, 2009, 03:17:10 PM
I don't even have a Metro.
Well, there's your problem.
Quote from: Raza on March 13, 2009, 03:04:43 PM
[...]
And then one of these days, you're going to end up either panicking someone too much and they'll make an abrupt movement that makes cutting you off seem completely innocuous. Or, you'll dent the car of the wrong person who will intentionally make cutting you off seem playful. And you'll entirely deserve what you get.
[...]
If they cut me off already, there's not much more they can do, other than throw it into reverse. ;)
And I can handle myself, unless they've got a gun, in which case, I'm fucked. I'll take my chances.
What I don't get is what is so hard about giving some courtesy to cyclists. It's not like every one of them on the road is out to piss the rest of you guys off.
Quote from: R-inge on March 13, 2009, 06:38:29 PM
What I don't get is what is so hard about giving some courtesy to cyclists. It's not like every one of them on the road is out to piss the rest of you guys off.
And it will cost a car driver what, 1-2
seconds of their busy day ???
Quote from: Psilos on March 13, 2009, 06:22:13 PM
If they cut me off already, there's not much more they can do, other than throw it into reverse. ;)
And I can handle myself, unless they've got a gun, in which case, I'm fucked. I'll take my chances.
They have a car...
Quote from: R-inge on March 13, 2009, 06:38:29 PM
What I don't get is what is so hard about giving some courtesy to cyclists. It's not like every one of them on the road is out to piss the rest of you guys off.
Maybe not
every cyclist...
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1019726#msg1019726 date=1237162615
They have a car...
I can go places a car can't.
Quote from: Psilos on March 15, 2009, 09:57:55 PM
I can go places a car can't.
Yeah. No one can get out of a car. Once you get in it, you're chemically bonded forever, unless you need to leave to pollute or something.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1020122#msg1020122 date=1237176561
Yeah. No one can get out of a car. Once you get in it, you're chemically bonded forever, unless you need to leave to pollute or something.
Quote from: Psilos on March 13, 2009, 06:22:13 PM
[...]
And I can handle myself, unless they've got a gun, in which case, I'm fucked. I'll take my chances.
So, to sum it all up, I can outrun a guy on foot, out-maneuver a car, and if all that fails, I can take care of myself.
Quote from: R-inge on March 13, 2009, 06:38:29 PM
What I don't get is what is so hard about giving some courtesy to cyclists. It's not like every one of them on the road is out to piss the rest of you guys off.
The way I ride, people are courteous to me. Probably because they think I'm being courteous to them by giving them the space I think I deserve. Most people that pass me in their cars move over partially into the next lane...and I ride the outside of the shoulder. Give and you shall receive. :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 16, 2009, 05:16:52 AM
The way I ride, people are courteous to me. Probably because they think I'm being courteous to them by giving them the space I think I deserve. Most people that pass me in their cars move over partially into the next lane...and I ride the outside of the shoulder. Give and you shall receive. :huh:
So you think that it's discourteous to be on the shoulder but not 10 feet over from the white line?
Quote from: R-inge on March 16, 2009, 10:50:12 AM
So you think that it's discourteous to be on the shoulder but not 10 feet over from the white line?
I think it's discourteous to ride the white line whilst there are cars passing by in both directions. ...as I've said a few times before in this god forsaken thread.
Quote from: Psilos on March 16, 2009, 12:05:31 AM
So, to sum it all up, I can outrun a guy on foot, out-maneuver a car, and if all that fails, I can take care of myself.
Okay. And if aliens come for you, I'm sure you'll just activate your wings and fly away.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 16, 2009, 05:16:52 AM
The way I ride, people are courteous to me. Probably because they think I'm being courteous to them by giving them the space I think I deserve. Most people that pass me in their cars move over partially into the next lane...and I ride the outside of the shoulder. Give and you shall receive. :huh:
If people all think like this, the world will be a better place. It's it's all about me, me, me! Plus, majority of the cyclists don't follow the traffic rules anyways.
:praise:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 16, 2009, 11:37:25 AM
I think it's discourteous to ride the white line whilst there are cars passing by in both directions. ...as I've said a few times before in this god forsaken thread.
I think it's discourteous of automobile operators to expect a cyclist to GTFO of the way just because he has more mass, even though the cyclist has every right to be there.
Quote from: R-inge on March 16, 2009, 03:51:05 PM
I think it's discourteous of automobile operators to expect a cyclist to GTFO of the way just because he has more mass, even though the cyclist has every right to be there.
Is there not a minimum speed that a vehicle is allowed to travel on a given road? If so, I would suspect that a cyclist has NO right obstructing traffic on a 55-MPH highway.
:wtf:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 16, 2009, 04:06:32 PM
Is there not a minimum speed that a vehicle is allowed to travel on a given road? If so, I would suspect that a cyclist has NO right obstructing traffic on a 55-MPH highway.
:wtf:
Depends. The highway that ran through my home town had a speed limit of up to 65 in parts, and cyclists could be found on it on occasion.
Shit, when I was more hard core my personal benchmark ride was on the same highway during an 8 mile climb. On the way down I outran cars in parts.
And you know what? People actually moved over and didn't shout or throw shit at them and generally act upset about it!
Quote from: R-inge on March 16, 2009, 04:32:53 PM
Depends. The highway that ran through my home town had a speed limit of up to 65 in parts, and cyclists could be found on it on occasion.
Shit, when I was more hard core my personal benchmark ride was on the same highway during an 8 mile climb. On the way down I outran cars in parts.
And you know what? People actually moved over and didn't shout or throw shit at them and generally act upset about it!
I get pissed at both cars and cyclists equally for holding me up. You stay out of my way, and I stay out of your way, you're happy, I'm happy.
Quote from: R-inge on March 16, 2009, 04:32:53 PM
Depends. The highway that ran through my home town had a speed limit of up to 65 in parts, and cyclists could be found on it on occasion.
Shit, when I was more hard core my personal benchmark ride was on the same highway during an 8 mile climb. On the way down I outran cars in parts.
And you know what? People actually moved over and didn't shout or throw shit at them and generally act upset about it!
I give up. You're one of the roadie douche bags that holds up traffic. I'm one of the realistic, I-want-to-keep-my-life-so-I'm-sensible bikers.
:huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 16, 2009, 06:09:07 PM
I give up. You're one of the roadie douche bags that holds up traffic. I'm one of the realistic, I-want-to-keep-my-life-so-I'm-sensible bikers.
:huh:
I also stay as far to the right as I can, although I hate biking between parked cars and the cars in the right lane.
My biggest fear, though, is someone not paying attention in one of the parallel parked cars and they just randomly open their driver door. It always scares me so I try to look into the cars to make sure they're empty while I bike past.
Quote from: thecarnut on March 16, 2009, 06:35:23 PM
I also stay as far to the right as I can, although I hate biking between parked cars and the cars in the right lane.
My biggest fear, though, is someone not paying attention in one of the parallel parked cars and they just randomly open their driver door. It always scares me so I try to look into the cars to make sure they're empty while I bike past.
That's exactly your responsibility. You do that when you're in a car, don't you? Being on a bike makes it no different. :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 16, 2009, 06:43:56 PM
That's exactly your responsibility. You do that when you're in a car, don't you? Being on a bike makes it no different. :huh:
Do what in a car? If I'm in the right lane in a car I'm not scared of people opening their doors because they'll notice me in a car before they open the door. It's a lot easier to miss someone on a bike than a car.
Quote from: thecarnut on March 16, 2009, 06:45:28 PM
Do what in a car? If I'm in the right lane in a car I'm not scared of people opening their doors because they'll notice me in a car before they open the door. It's a lot easier to miss someone on a bike than a car.
How do you know they'll notice you? You're stupid if you don't watch out for people opening their doors when you're driving down a street with parallel parking on the side. Bike or car, you should be watching.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 16, 2009, 06:48:12 PM
How do you know they'll notice you? You're stupid if you don't watch out for people opening their doors when you're driving down a street with parallel parking on the side. Bike or car, you should be watching.
If someone opens the door on me while driving a car I'll smash through it. On a bike I'm going to flip over and face plant on the other side of the door.
I'm not saying I don't watch out, I'm saying I'm not scared of the possibility of people opening their doors on me.
Quote from: thecarnut on March 16, 2009, 06:59:19 PM
If someone opens the door on me while driving a car I'll smash through it. On a bike I'm going to flip over and face plant on the other side of the door.
I'm not saying I don't watch out, I'm saying I'm not scared of the possibility of people opening their doors on me.
:facepalm:
It's the door opener's responsibility to check for cars and bikes.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1020394#msg1020394 date=1237228438
Okay. And if aliens come for you, I'm sure you'll just activate your wings and fly away.
Uh-huh. This is an instance where I can validly say that you don't know because you don't ride a bike.
Now is when you say that of course you don't ride a bike; it's a toy! And etc.
Quote from: NomisR on March 16, 2009, 12:41:06 PM
If people all think like this, the world will be a better place. It's it's all about me, me, me! Plus, majority of the cyclists don't follow the traffic rules anyways.
There are multiple reasons cyclists don't follow traffic rules, and the best is that some traffic rules don't make sense when applied to bikes.
Begin the classic argument now: But if cyclists want to be taken seriously, they have to obey all the rules and stop at stop signs! Etc.
Quote from: Psilos on March 16, 2009, 07:45:28 PM
It's the door opener's responsibility to check for cars and bikes.
No kidding, but people forget sometimes. I just don't understand how carnut can say he doesn't worry about it when he's driving (and could do thousands in damages) and only cares about it when he's riding a bike when he could stop on a dime and avoid anything major.
:huh:
You must not ride in the street very much. ;)
That's one of the more common accidents between cars and bikes. It's because people open doors right in front of a bike, who has no time to react, let alone stop. I don't worry about it when I'm driving, either.
Its never happened to me, is all. I think it's a very legitimate thing to worry about whether riding or driving.
Maybe we're using different connotations of "worry"... I'm nervous passing parked cars on my bike, but not while driving (which is why I pay close attention to the front seat of parked cars while riding).
Quote from: Psilos on March 16, 2009, 07:46:53 PM
Uh-huh. This is an instance where I can validly say that you don't know because you don't ride a bike.
Now is when you say that of course you don't ride a bike; it's a toy! And etc.
I'll skip that part then.
But you see, I don't ride a bike anymore (I'm an adult and wear full length pants and everything), but I used to ride a bike, since I was at one point 6, so...
Quote from: Psilos on March 16, 2009, 08:18:38 PM
Maybe we're using different connotations of "worry"... I'm nervous passing parked cars on my bike, but not while driving (which is why I pay close attention to the front seat of parked cars while riding).
Don't get me wrong...I pay much closer attention to drivers potentially opening doors while riding more than while driving.
Then what's the argument?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1020829#msg1020829 date=1237256555
I'll skip that part then.
But you see, I don't ride a bike anymore (I'm an adult and wear full length pants and everything), but I used to ride a bike, since I was at one point 6, so...
You, ah, didn't skip anything, there, chief. ;)
Although this should be obvious, riding a bike as a kid is much different that riding one as an adult. I didn't really have to say that, did I?
The argument was that I think that paying attention to potentially-opening doors is necessary while both riding and driving. :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 16, 2009, 10:16:29 PM
The argument was that I think that paying attention to potentially-opening doors is necessary while both riding and driving. :huh:
I don't think anyone was disagreeing...
Quote from: Psilos on March 16, 2009, 10:54:05 PM
I don't think anyone was disagreeing...
Hmph.
:confused: :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 17, 2009, 06:42:19 AM
Hmph.
:confused: :huh:
Quote from: thecarnut on March 16, 2009, 06:59:19 PM
If someone opens the door on me while driving a car I'll smash through it. On a bike I'm going to flip over and face plant on the other side of the door.
I'm not saying I don't watch out, I'm saying I'm not scared of the possibility of people opening their doors on me.
:huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 16, 2009, 06:09:07 PM
I give up. You're one of the roadie douche bags that holds up traffic. I'm one of the realistic, I-want-to-keep-my-life-so-I'm-sensible bikers.
:huh:
You know what, fuck you. Fuck you and your, "I can't win the argument so I'll resort to name calling."
I am not a roadie, for one. I follow all the traffic laws, for two. I stay on the shoulder, but you'll have to forgive me for not wanting to ride amongst the broken glass and trash and gravel on the side of the road, oh so sorry. I don't see what the fuckin' problem is.
Quote from: R-inge on March 17, 2009, 09:53:45 PM
You know what, fuck you. Fuck you and your, "I can't win the argument so I'll resort to name calling."
I am not a roadie, for one. I follow all the traffic laws, for two. I stay on the shoulder, but you'll have to forgive me for not wanting to ride amongst the broken glass and trash and gravel on the side of the road, oh so sorry. I don't see what the fuckin' problem is.
I can't win the argument and neither can you...neither of us will ever change our views, so what's the point? If you're not a roadie, then you ride your mountain bike on the roads? And you refuse to ride amongst the "broken glass and trash and gravel" on the side of the road? Shit, man...I've been riding there for 6+ years and haven't had a flat or any discomfort. I didn't think "oh my God, this SUCKS riding over here...I should probably ride the white line and piss people off 'cause I'm ALLOWED to be there and disturb traffic." Just...never occurred to me, man.
R-inge is right on this. You can ride a road bike and not be a "roadie," whatever that is supposed to be.
To me, a "roadie" is anyone who rides a road bike. A "mountain biker" is anyone who rides a mountain bike. A "bowler" is anyone who bowls.
:huh:
A roadie, in the way you used it, implies spandex and an attitude. A better word for people on bikes in town sans attitude, etc., and no matter the type of bike, is cyclist.
Cyclist. Odd, I've never called myself (nor allowed anyone else to ever call me) a cyclist.
It sounds strangely feminine.
I can see that, but cyclist is what you are. Try using "cycler." :lol: I think cyclist is the least pretentious name for bike riders, other than bike rider, which is too sixth grade.
Indeed, "cycler" is ridiculous. I usually just say I'm a "mountain biker" or simply a "biker". But usually the former. Cyclist just makes me cringe for some reason. :mask:
Biker by itself is synonymous with Harley Davidsons. How about Cyclateur? It sounds classy and vaguely French.
Yeah, that's why I usually don't say "biker" unless it's someone I know and they know what I mean.
I'll just stick with "mountain biker." :lol:
Bicyclist?
Too weird to say out loud. :huh:
:lol:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 17, 2009, 10:49:27 PM
I can't win the argument and neither can you...neither of us will ever change our views, so what's the point? If you're not a roadie, then you ride your mountain bike on the roads? And you refuse to ride amongst the "broken glass and trash and gravel" on the side of the road? Shit, man...I've been riding there for 6+ years and haven't had a flat or any discomfort. I didn't think "oh my God, this SUCKS riding over here...I should probably ride the white line and piss people off 'cause I'm ALLOWED to be there and disturb traffic." Just...never occurred to me, man.
You just seem to think that anything short of riding as far as possible to the right is unsafe and somehow discourteous to drivers, and that's just wrong. Frankly drivers need to educate themselves on the correct way to conduct themselves around cyclists, and apologists like you need to lay off those of us who don't feel the need to go out in full body armor and stay an arm's length from anything that might hurt us.
Quote from: R-inge on March 18, 2009, 08:47:23 AM
You just seem to think that anything short of riding as far as possible to the right is unsafe and somehow discourteous to drivers, and that's just wrong. Frankly drivers need to educate themselves on the correct way to conduct themselves around cyclists, and apologists like you need to lay off those of us who don't feel the need to go out in full body armor and stay an arm's length from anything that might hurt us.
Odd...I never said any of those things. :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 18, 2009, 10:13:25 AM
Odd...I never said any of those things. :huh:
:banghead:
You're about as dense as a fruitcake sometimes.
Quote from: Psilos on March 16, 2009, 07:49:45 PM
There are multiple reasons cyclists don't follow traffic rules, and the best is that some traffic rules don't make sense when applied to bikes.
Begin the classic argument now: But if cyclists want to be taken seriously, they have to obey all the rules and stop at stop signs! Etc.
This is the problem of the whole argument. Bikers wants the advantages of both pedestrians and drivers without any of the disadvantages. You cannot have it both ways.
Cyclist wants the ability to be able to ride on both the road and the sidewalks, ride however fast they want. They want the ability to be able to ride across the road, like a jaywalker, to be able to take up a lane on the road if it's convenient for them.
And they want all this privileges without any of the responsibility. If a cyclist runs into a car because of their reckless behavior, the driver will have to end up forking over $$$ for damages done to their car through no fault of their own.
You know what, pick one, you're either a pedestrian or a vehicle, not both.
Quote from: R-inge on March 18, 2009, 10:58:08 AM
:banghead:
You're about as dense as a fruitcake sometimes.
You're as dense as a white dwarf. :rolleyes:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 18, 2009, 11:10:20 AM
You're as dense as a white dwarf. :rolleyes:
:nono: neutron star
Quote from: NomisR on March 18, 2009, 11:08:34 AM
This is the problem of the whole argument. Bikers wants the advantages of both pedestrians and drivers without any of the disadvantages. You cannot have it both ways.
See that's the thing. It's not "either bikes or pedestrians" black and white. Bikes are their own category, because they have abilities like both pedestrians and cars. It's like saying you can't go faster then 75 mph on a track in a race car because the rest of the cars in the world have to stay that slow.
Quote
Cyclist wants the ability to be able to ride on both the road and the sidewalks, ride however fast they want. They want the ability to be able to ride across the road, like a jaywalker, to be able to take up a lane on the road if it's convenient for them.
Cyclists should stay the hell off the sidewalks! Is dangerous for them, for pedestrians, and it makes everyone mad. Also, bikes can't go faster than the speed limit in most places.
Quote
And they want all this privileges without any of the responsibility. If a cyclist runs into a car because of their reckless behavior, the driver will have to end up forking over $$$ for damages done to their car through no fault of their own.
You know what, pick one, you're either a pedestrian or a vehicle, not both.
It's pretty rare that a cyclist hits a car where it's the cyclist's fault.
Bikes
are both.
Quote from: Psilos on March 18, 2009, 06:38:52 PM
See that's the thing. It's not "either bikes or pedestrians" black and white. Bikes are their own category, because they have abilities like both pedestrians and cars. It's like saying you can't go faster then 75 mph on a track in a race car because the rest of the cars in the world have to stay that slow.
Cyclists should stay the hell off the sidewalks! Is dangerous for them, for pedestrians, and it makes everyone mad. Also, bikes can't go faster than the speed limit in most places.
It's pretty rare that a cyclist hits a car where it's the cyclist's fault.
Bikes are both.
Yeah, unfortunately, I've seen too many bikes speeding on the sidewalks rather than ride in the bike lane. And those that ride in the bike lane sometimes ride on the wrong side of traffic, again dangerous. And the problem is, at the speed they're going, I risk having them running into me because they blow stop signs and fail to yield because of their dangerous behavior. This should be stopped or someone will get seriously hurt. And it won't be me.
Blowing through stop signs is safe in a lot of cases, but, obviously, not every cyclist has good judgment in that regard. There are some laws that completely apply to cyclists, and riding on the right side of the road and right-of-way are two of the most important. If cyclists don't obey right-of-way, even when they're blowing through stop signs, drivers have no way to predict what the cyclist might do.
Psilos is correct. As a pedestrian, would you want to come face-to-face with someone on a bike doing 15mph. Doesn't sound very fast, but two hundred pounds at 15mph can do a lot of damage to a young adult...think about kids and seniors. Then you have cars backing out of driveways and crossing sidewalks, peds are going slow enough to see a car backing out and stop. Bikes are going to get flattened.
Bike lanes are marginally safer, but there is a lot of debate about that because car drivers tend to make bike lanes a parking lane. When that happens, bikes are forced to weave between parked cars. Most regular bike riders feel it is far safer to just "take" the regular roadway lane.
Quote from: Psilos on March 19, 2009, 07:23:12 PM
Blowing through stop signs is safe in a lot of cases, but, obviously, not every cyclist has good judgment in that regard. There are some laws that completely apply to cyclists, and riding on the right side of the road and right-of-way are two of the most important. If cyclists don't obey right-of-way, even when they're blowing through stop signs, drivers have no way to predict what the cyclist might do.
I regularly take a standing stop at a stop sign. Though that is technically illegal in most states....most require the rider to come to a stop and put one foot on the ground. At one time I regularly made rolling rights at stop signs, but it only took one close call to break that bad habit.
The problem isn't drivers.
It's AMERICAN drivers. Of cars And bikes.
Bikes and cars get along fine most other places.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on March 21, 2009, 10:03:03 AM
The problem isn't drivers.
It's AMERICAN drivers. Of cars And bikes.
Bikes and cars get along fine most other places.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9kis4qI4KY
Quote from: Psilos on March 18, 2009, 06:38:52 PM
See that's the thing. It's not "either bikes or pedestrians" black and white. Bikes are their own category, because they have abilities like both pedestrians and cars. It's like saying you can't go faster then 75 mph on a track in a race car because the rest of the cars in the world have to stay that slow.
It's pretty rare that a cyclist hits a car where it's the cyclist's fault.
Bikes are both.
I disagree 100%. Bikes are vehicles...period! Ridden properly, they should act like vehicles and be treated as vehicles. They're not as safe as a car, obviously, but that doesn't make them pedestrians. Both under the law in most states and under proper training (and, yes, I have knowledge of both...I'm a trained bike cop), you're taught that bicycles are vehicles. And, contrary to some opinions, it's frequently both proper and legal for a bicyclist to "take the lane of travel" and not ride in the crap along the right side. The law doesn't say that you have to be as far to the right as possible, it's as far to the right as is safe and practical.
There definitely
is a problem regarding how many drivers treat bicyclists. Most drivers don't know a damn thing about riding and how it's done properly, assuming that the bicyclist is supposed to be treated as a pedestrian and not sharing the road as they should. Of course, most bicyclists aren't educated in riding on the roadway, assuming that they have the right of way and acting like pedestrians.
QuoteCyclists should stay the hell off the sidewalks! Is dangerous for them, for pedestrians, and it makes everyone mad. Also, bikes can't go faster than the speed limit in most places.
This we can agree on. The sidewalks aren't for bikes, they're for pedestrians. Many states and municipalities have laws against riding a bike on the sidewalk.
Quote from: bing_oh on March 29, 2009, 10:08:04 AM
I disagree 100%. Bikes are vehicles...period! Ridden properly, they should act like vehicles and be treated as vehicles. They're not as safe as a car, obviously, but that doesn't make them pedestrians. Both under the law in most states and under proper training (and, yes, I have knowledge of both...I'm a trained bike cop), you're taught that bicycles are vehicles. And, contrary to some opinions, it's frequently both proper and legal for a bicyclist to "take the lane of travel" and not ride in the crap along the right side. The law doesn't say that you have to be as far to the right as possible, it's as far to the right as is safe and practical.
There definitely is a problem regarding how many drivers treat bicyclists. Most drivers don't know a damn thing about riding and how it's done properly, assuming that the bicyclist is supposed to be treated as a pedestrian and not sharing the road as they should. Of course, most bicyclists aren't educated in riding on the roadway, assuming that they have the right of way and acting like pedestrians.
This we can agree on. The sidewalks aren't for bikes, they're for pedestrians. Many states and municipalities have laws against riding a bike on the sidewalk.
Oh, bikes are vehicles, all right. They're just different vehicles than cars, and so some laws that apply or should apply to one don't apply to the other. We agree, for the most part.
Quote from: bing_oh on March 29, 2009, 10:08:04 AM
And, contrary to some opinions, it's frequently both proper and legal for a bicyclist to "take the lane of travel" and not ride in the crap along the right side. The law doesn't say that you have to be as far to the right as possible, it's as far to the right as is safe and practical.
I find coming up behind a bicyclist whos doing 10mph on a road where the speed limit is 45 mph, slamming on the brakes, honking the horn, down shifting to second with a loud exhaust, watching the bicyclist shit themselves, and then seeing them use their common sense to get the fuck out of the way is clearly in the best interest of everybody's safety on the road.
Quote from: r0tor on March 30, 2009, 10:52:56 AM
I find coming up behind a bicyclist whos doing 10mph on a road where the speed limit is 45 mph, slamming on the brakes, honking the horn, down shifting to second with a loud exhaust, watching the bicyclist shit themselves, and then seeing them use their common sense to get the fuck out of the way is clearly in the best interest of everybody's safety on the road.
That just makes them whine and bitch about how "we're vehicles, too" and that you shouldn't treat them as such!!!!
:rolleyes:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 30, 2009, 12:34:23 PM
That just makes them whine and bitch about how "we're vehicles, too" and that you shouldn't treat them as such!!!!
:rolleyes:
Well if bicycles are vehicles too then what is the purpose of driving aggressively around one? What r0tor described is generally considered to be fairly poor driving and etiquette in any other case.
And I really love this whole "might makes right" attitude that a lot of drivers have now that I am also riding a motorcycle. As if mass gives you special rights.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on March 21, 2009, 10:03:03 AM
The problem isn't drivers.
It's AMERICAN drivers. Of cars And bikes.
Bikes and cars get along fine most other places.
yes, thank you.
Quote from: R-inge on March 31, 2009, 08:58:53 AM
Well if bicycles are vehicles too then what is the purpose of driving aggressively around one? What r0tor described is generally considered to be fairly poor driving and etiquette in any other case.
And I really love this whole "might makes right" attitude that a lot of drivers have now that I am also riding a motorcycle. As if mass gives you special rights.
Yeah, I find the "but cars are huge, so you should stay out of their way" argument to be pretty ridiculous. It's the wrong attitude, entirely.
Quote from: r0tor on March 30, 2009, 10:52:56 AM
I find coming up behind a bicyclist whos doing 10mph on a road where the speed limit is 45 mph, slamming on the brakes, honking the horn, down shifting to second with a loud exhaust, watching the bicyclist shit themselves, and then seeing them use their common sense to get the fuck out of the way is clearly in the best interest of everybody's safety on the road.
I have many close calls because a more than just one or two bicyclists have this entitlement to play with the big dogs.
BIKES GET OUT OF THE WAY YOU WILL LOSE EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 31, 2009, 11:32:21 PM
I have many close calls because a more than just one or two bicyclists have this entitlement to play with the big dogs.
BIKES GET OUT OF THE WAY YOU WILL LOSE EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Next time I'm driving a crew cab through Seattle during rush hour, I'll think of that, Cougs.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 31, 2009, 11:32:21 PM
I have many close calls because a more than just one or two bicyclists have this entitlement to play with the big dogs.
BIKES GET OUT OF THE WAY YOU WILL LOSE EVERY SINGLE TIME.
And, on a related note, I have never had a close call with a bike while in my car. Ever. Seriously. Why do you think that is?
Quote from: R-inge on March 31, 2009, 08:58:53 AM
Well if bicycles are vehicles too then what is the purpose of driving aggressively around one? What r0tor described is generally considered to be fairly poor driving and etiquette in any other case.
And I really love this whole "might makes right" attitude that a lot of drivers have now that I am also riding a motorcycle. As if mass gives you special rights.
For the record I'd do the same to a person driving their car at 10 mph in a 45mph zone... however they probably wouldn't shit their pants
Quote from: r0tor on April 01, 2009, 06:13:31 AM
For the record I'd do the same to a person driving their car at 10 mph in a 45mph zone... however they probably wouldn't shit their pants
It's a little different with a car. One could easily cause a major accident, but with a cyclist it's frequently a quick and easy option to simply pass them rather than making a big deal about it.
Quote from: Psilos on March 31, 2009, 11:59:27 PM
And, on a related note, I have never had a close call with a bike while in my car. Ever. Seriously. Why do you think that is?
Because there are less hispanics grown men riding around on BMX bikes going the wrong way at very fast rate on the sidewalks in your area? At night..
Quote from: R-inge on April 01, 2009, 07:44:20 AM
It's a little different with a car. One could easily cause a major accident, but with a cyclist it's frequently a quick and easy option to simply pass them rather than making a big deal about it.
I choose to give people the same respect they give to others.... if a cyclist wants to ride like he's a car and take up the whole lane, then his ass will be tailgated
Quote from: Psilos on March 18, 2009, 06:38:52 PM
See that's the thing. It's not "either bikes or pedestrians" black and white. Bikes are their own category, because they have abilities like both pedestrians and cars. It's like saying you can't go faster then 75 mph on a track in a race car because the rest of the cars in the world have to stay that slow.
Which pays road use tax?
If you want to pick and choose which laws to follow, then don't be upset when people around you also pick and choose which laws to follow.
And while "might" does notmake "right" it still makes, well, "might." For example, if youre a pedestrian, and you have a crosswalk to legally cross at, and you step off the sidewalk 20 feet in font of a car doing 30mph, it's not HIS fault that he can't stop in time, even though you have the right to cross at that crosswalk. the physics of the situation say don't step out on front of a car. If you're in a car, you don't cut a Semi off going slower than they are and then act like it's his fault that he's all up your tailpipe.
If YOU decide to take something out there that is known to be more vulnerable, and can't even keep up with traffic, then the onus is indeed on you to make sure that you're safe. And that includes aknowledging and working with the reality of the physics of cars being much larger and legally able to go faster.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 01, 2009, 11:35:05 AM
And while "might" does notmake "right" it still makes, well, "might." For example, if youre a pedestrian, and you have a crosswalk to legally cross at, and you step off the sidewalk 20 feet in font of a car doing 30mph, it's not HIS fault that he can't stop in time, even though you have the right to cross at that crosswalk. the physics of the situation say don't step out on front of a car. If you're in a car, you don't cut a Semi off going slower than they are and then act like it's his fault that he's all up your tailpipe.
Yeah, but the public at large does not seem to understand the concept of physics. I see this happen all the time and I shake my head everytime I see it happen. Yet, those people that commit those deeds do not see themselves being at fault. Instead, they want to change the habits of others to conform to their lack of understanding of physics and their impediment of other people's freedom. :huh:
Quote from: ChrisV on April 01, 2009, 11:35:05 AMWhich pays road use tax?
If you want to pick and choose which laws to follow, then don't be upset when people around you also pick and choose which laws to follow.
And while "might" does notmake "right" it still makes, well, "might." For example, if youre a pedestrian, and you have a crosswalk to legally cross at, and you step off the sidewalk 20 feet in font of a car doing 30mph, it's not HIS fault that he can't stop in time, even though you have the right to cross at that crosswalk. the physics of the situation say don't step out on front of a car. If you're in a car, you don't cut a Semi off going slower than they are and then act like it's his fault that he's all up your tailpipe.
If YOU decide to take something out there that is known to be more vulnerable, and can't even keep up with traffic, then the onus is indeed on you to make sure that you're safe. And that includes aknowledging and working with the reality of the physics of cars being much larger and legally able to go faster.
I follow the laws when I bike, and yet I still am concerned about the behavior of drivers around me.
Just because you have the ability to push around someone smaller than you doesn't mean that you have the right. I drive a full-size pickup, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to PIT the little bastard in the ricer in front of me, no matter how much his driving annoys me...by that mentality, semis have the right to do whatever they want because they're the biggest vehicles in the road. Safety is the responsibility of BOTH the bicyclist and the other motorists, not just the bicyclist because he's not surrounded by a ton of metal.
Cyclists are absolutely in charge of their own safety, the same as pedestrians, small cars, and crew cab duallies. I've ridden many miles through car-infested areas, and I've had quite a few close calls that would have been accidents if I had not been riding very defensively and anticipated the possible dumb moves of a car. At the same time, those close calls wouldn't have even happened if drivers paid attention and respected the rights of cyclists in the first place. I've never had a car-bike accident (just bike-inanimate object, bike-slick spot, bike-curb, etc. :lol: ).
Yep, it's similar to motorcycling in some ways. I have to basically assume that everyone else around me can't see me or is too stupid to look for me, and act accordingly. That doesn't absolve them of their own responsibilities, however.
Exactly.
So why not just move the fuck out of the way and you won't have to worry so much about stupid drivers?
:facepalm:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 03, 2009, 02:01:28 AM
So why not just move the fuck out of the way and you won't have to worry so much about stupid drivers?
:facepalm:
Why should I move out of the way because somebody else is an idiot? Where else am I supposed to ride if not on the road if I'm trying to get somewhere? The bicyclists are just asking for a little common courtesy when sharing the road...personally, I try to stay as far out of the lane of travel as is safe, but that's not always possible.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 03, 2009, 02:01:28 AM
So why not just move the fuck out of the way and you won't have to worry so much about stupid drivers?
:facepalm:
One simply cannot always ride 20ft from cars, I'm sorry. Do you want me to post you a picture of our bicycle lanes here? They are roughly 2.5' wide and are directly adjacent to the vehicle lane (no buffer at all). In fact, the right turn lanes pass through the cyclist lane in places, and in other parts of town and outside of town no such lanes exist. The paved shoulder is, again, about 2' wide with a distinct drop down to the dirt road bed on the sides. Riding around here requires the cyclist to be in close proximity to cars at all times. But you know what? They somehow get along here. Except for a few rare asshats most cars simply move to the far side of their lane and carry on like it's no big deal.
When making a left turn in traffic here, guess what? The cyclist has to merge with traffic and become part of it. That means that on a left hand turn I occasionally have to go slowly because a cyclist is in front of me. But do I have to sit there riding my horn like a douchebag? No, I simply wait till he clears the intersection and gets into his bicycle lane to overtake him. When I am on a state highway around here and overtake a cyclist who, due to the fact that the shoulder is even narrower and often filled with sand and gravel from winter road treatment, are basically forced to ride on the line or even in the lane of travel I simply slow down as I overtake them and pass them with enough reasonable room to do so. As a cyclist there is nothing much I could do except just hold the line as well as possible. If someone wants to make a scene about it that's their problem, I'm not holding them up. Seriously how can someone with a power to weight ratio many times my own bitch about having to pass me?
Quote from: bing_oh on April 03, 2009, 06:29:22 AM
Why should I move out of the way because somebody else is an idiot? Where else am I supposed to ride if not on the road if I'm trying to get somewhere? The bicyclists are just asking for a little common courtesy when sharing the road...personally, I try to stay as far out of the lane of travel as is safe, but that's not always possible.
:ohyeah:
Quote from: R-inge on April 03, 2009, 08:15:39 AM
One simply cannot always ride 20ft from cars, I'm sorry. Do you want me to post you a picture of our bicycle lanes here? They are roughly 2.5' wide and are directly adjacent to the vehicle lane (no buffer at all). In fact, the right turn lanes pass through the cyclist lane in places, and in other parts of town and outside of town no such lanes exist. The paved shoulder is, again, about 2' wide with a distinct drop down to the dirt road bed on the sides. Riding around here requires the cyclist to be in close proximity to cars at all times. But you know what? They somehow get along here. Except for a few rare asshats most cars simply move to the far side of their lane and carry on like it's no big deal.
When making a left turn in traffic here, guess what? The cyclist has to merge with traffic and become part of it. That means that on a left hand turn I occasionally have to go slowly because a cyclist is in front of me. But do I have to sit there riding my horn like a douchebag? No, I simply wait till he clears the intersection and gets into his bicycle lane to overtake him. When I am on a state highway around here and overtake a cyclist who, due to the fact that the shoulder is even narrower and often filled with sand and gravel from winter road treatment, are basically forced to ride on the line or even in the lane of travel I simply slow down as I overtake them and pass them with enough reasonable room to do so. As a cyclist there is nothing much I could do except just hold the line as well as possible. If someone wants to make a scene about it that's their problem, I'm not holding them up. Seriously how can someone with a power to weight ratio many times my own bitch about having to pass me?
:ohyeah:
Quote from: R-inge on April 03, 2009, 08:15:39 AM
One simply cannot always ride 20ft from cars, I'm sorry. Do you want me to post you a picture of our bicycle lanes here? They are roughly 2.5' wide and are directly adjacent to the vehicle lane (no buffer at all). In fact, the right turn lanes pass through the cyclist lane in places, and in other parts of town and outside of town no such lanes exist. The paved shoulder is, again, about 2' wide with a distinct drop down to the dirt road bed on the sides. Riding around here requires the cyclist to be in close proximity to cars at all times. But you know what? They somehow get along here. Except for a few rare asshats most cars simply move to the far side of their lane and carry on like it's no big deal.
When making a left turn in traffic here, guess what? The cyclist has to merge with traffic and become part of it. That means that on a left hand turn I occasionally have to go slowly because a cyclist is in front of me. But do I have to sit there riding my horn like a douchebag? No, I simply wait till he clears the intersection and gets into his bicycle lane to overtake him. When I am on a state highway around here and overtake a cyclist who, due to the fact that the shoulder is even narrower and often filled with sand and gravel from winter road treatment, are basically forced to ride on the line or even in the lane of travel I simply slow down as I overtake them and pass them with enough reasonable room to do so. As a cyclist there is nothing much I could do except just hold the line as well as possible. If someone wants to make a scene about it that's their problem, I'm not holding them up. Seriously how can someone with a power to weight ratio many times my own bitch about having to pass me?
Um, no. Keep your pictures to yourself...I ride in the bike lanes here every day and am well aware of merging with automobile lanes and the crisis that can be turning left.
I understand exactly what you're saying...I'm certainly not saying that when there's a 2-foot shoulder that you should just GTFO the road. My argument this whole time has been with bikers who insist on riding the white line while they have an 8-foot mega shoulder at their obvious disposal.
:huh:
Originally, this thread was about "aiming" your vehicle in the event of an accident.
On that subject, a perfect example of doing so, depending on your POV, happened this week. One of my regular customers was traveling 55mph on a four lane when another vehicle pulled out in front of her. In an attempt to avoid hitting that driver, she swerved and lost control of her car..rolling it over three times. Fortunately, she walked away with bruises and scratches....and a citation for unsafe lane change. The other driver never stopped. If she had held her lane and hit the brakes, she may have hit him/her, but it would have been the other driver's fault.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 06:44:25 AM
Originally, this thread was about "aiming" your vehicle in the event of an accident.
On that subject, a perfect example of doing so, depending on your POV, happened this week. One of my regular customers was traveling 55mph on a four lane when another vehicle pulled out in front of her. In an attempt to avoid hitting that driver, she swerved and lost control of her car..rolling it over three times. Fortunately, she walked away with bruises and scratches....and a citation for unsafe lane change. The other driver never stopped. If she had held her lane and hit the brakes, she may have hit him/her, but it would have been the other driver's fault.
What kind of a dick LEO cites someone after they've just experienced such a thing?
It was her word against someone who wasn't there.
Same thing they used to tell me in California. If driving on the highway and someone crosses into your lane, if you move over to avoid hitting them and instead you hit the car in the next lane, it becomes your fault, even though someone else started the chain reaction. You're not supposed to move unless you can safely do so.
She is going to try to get the ticket dismissed.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 03, 2009, 08:46:19 PM
Um, no. Keep your pictures to yourself...I ride in the bike lanes here every day and am well aware of merging with automobile lanes and the crisis that can be turning left.
I understand exactly what you're saying...I'm certainly not saying that when there's a 2-foot shoulder that you should just GTFO the road. My argument this whole time has been with bikers who insist on riding the white line while they have an 8-foot mega shoulder at their obvious disposal.
:huh:
The argument shifted to dealing with cyclists who are in the road, to which my response is supposed to clarify that it simply unavoidable most of the time.
And no don't worry about the pics man. I'll post some pics of the typical roads around here and you can post your 8' shoulder and get this clarified a bit. Because first of all, I've never seen an 8' shoulder on anything other than a major highway or interstate, and you can't ride on those. I am pretty sure that your supporters from PA have never seen a bike lane, because they don't seem to exist in PA.
And in general I don't get the argument that only people who pay taxes to support road repair should be allowed to use them. If that logic stands, they truckers should be able to push cars out of the way IMHO, since they pay way more for the right to use the road and anybody in the way should just GTFO.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 07:23:26 AM
It was her word against someone who wasn't there.
Same thing they used to tell me in California. If driving on the highway and someone crosses into your lane, if you move over to avoid hitting them and instead you hit the car in the next lane, it becomes your fault, even though someone else started the chain reaction. You're not supposed to move unless you can safely do so.
She is going to try to get the ticket dismissed.
I hope so, too bad there were no witnesses and that other bastard ran.
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1/giant_mtb/DSC00057.jpg)
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1/giant_mtb/SV500023.jpg)
These are the kinds of roads (55 MPH 'backroad' highways) I see cyclists riding the white line on.
Do you not see where I'm coming from?
And what's this about PA? I've never lived in nor ever even been in PA...I live in Michigan. :huh: :confused:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:28:48 AM
And what's this about PA? I've never lived in nor ever even been in PA...I live in Michigan. :huh: :confused:
That's aimed at Raza and r0tor.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:27:09 AM
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1/giant_mtb/DSC00057.jpg)
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1/giant_mtb/SV500023.jpg)
These are the kinds of roads (55 MPH 'backroad' highways) I see cyclists riding the white line on.
Do you not see where I'm coming from?
On that road I see your point! The problem is that half the guys posting here don't have roads like that. That's where I'm coming from when I hear people railing against cyclists.
Oh. Then we have no disagreement whatsoever. I've been preaching about cyclists riding the white line on these wide-shouldered roads (which are very prevalent in my area).
:huh:
Quote from: R-inge on April 04, 2009, 07:43:55 AM
The argument shifted to dealing with cyclists who are in the road, to which my response is supposed to clarify that it simply unavoidable most of the time.
And no don't worry about the pics man. I'll post some pics of the typical roads around here and you can post your 8' shoulder and get this clarified a bit. Because first of all, I've never seen an 8' shoulder on anything other than a major highway or interstate, and you can't ride on those. I am pretty sure that your supporters from PA have never seen a bike lane, because they don't seem to exist in PA.
And in general I don't get the argument that only people who pay taxes to support road repair should be allowed to use them. If that logic stands, they truckers should be able to push cars out of the way IMHO, since they pay way more for the right to use the road and anybody in the way should just GTFO.
Didn't I state in this thread that I used to live in an area where there were bike lanes, where people blatantly disregarded them?
I've never lived anywhere but PA.
Oh, and speaking of asshole cyclists...
Yesterday, I was driving at a three stop T cross, and got to the stop sign first, and made a complete stop. To my right was a cyclist rolling in, reaching his stop sign long after I reached mine. He signals for a left turn, so I go ahead make mine, stupidly thinking that's he'd stop at that red sign. What are they called? "Stop unless you're a moron"? "Don't stop unless you really want to?" "Stop in the name of love?" No, they're STOP signs. He rolls right through, almost hits me, and then looks at me like I'm the asshole in the wrong. I made a complete stop and signaled my turn and then took it, and he ran the stop.
THIS is the kind of jackassery I see from cyclists all the time.
I love the shot of the car sitting in the breakdown lane. This is why many riders do not ride in this lane...it creates a situation where you have to swerve back into traffic to get around a car, which makes you unpredictable and become more of a risk. Which is going to slow the driver of a car down more, seeing and knowing that a cyclist is ahead of you and slowing, going around him or seeing the rider in the breakdown lane and then have him swerve in front of you and having to fill out the police report for an accident?
In many states, parking or driving in the breakdown lane is illegal. Technically, since a bicycle is considered a vehicle that is required to follow the laws of the road, riding in the breakdown lane is illegal.
Quote from: Raza on April 04, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
Oh, and speaking of asshole cyclists...
Yesterday, I was driving at a three stop T cross, and got to the stop sign first, and made a complete stop. To my right was a cyclist rolling in, reaching his stop sign long after I reached mine. He signals for a left turn, so I go ahead make mine, stupidly thinking that's he'd stop at that red sign. What are they called? "Stop unless you're a moron"? "Don't stop unless you really want to?" "Stop in the name of love?" No, they're STOP signs. He rolls right through, almost hits me, and then looks at me like I'm the asshole in the wrong. I made a complete stop and signaled my turn and then took it, and he ran the stop.
THIS is the kind of jackassery I see from cyclists all the time.
I have to agree there. I tend to go if it's my turn to go, whether someone else is already moving or not. They can deal with it... and the cyclist would have had an ass-chewing.
Quote from: Raza on April 04, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
Oh, and speaking of asshole cyclists...
Yesterday, I was driving at a three stop T cross, and got to the stop sign first, and made a complete stop. To my right was a cyclist rolling in, reaching his stop sign long after I reached mine. He signals for a left turn, so I go ahead make mine, stupidly thinking that's he'd stop at that red sign. What are they called? "Stop unless you're a moron"? "Don't stop unless you really want to?" "Stop in the name of love?" No, they're STOP signs. He rolls right through, almost hits me, and then looks at me like I'm the asshole in the wrong. I made a complete stop and signaled my turn and then took it, and he ran the stop.
THIS is the kind of jackassery I see from cyclists all the time.
Unfortunately, there are as many morons riding bikes as morons driving cars. At least a majority of bikers don't ride and talk on cell phones....but I've seen it.
Quote from: Raza on April 04, 2009, 08:34:51 AM
Didn't I state in this thread that I used to live in an area where there were bike lanes, where people blatantly disregarded them?
I've never lived anywhere but PA.
:shrug: Look, I know there are asshat cyclists but most of us don't have an option when it comes to riding next to traffic, that's all I'm trying to say.
And if you've ever riden in a bike lane, you'd know that most are trash and glass filled paths that most drivers think are actually parking spaces.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 08:41:59 AM
I love the shot of the car sitting in the breakdown lane. This is why many riders do not ride in this lane...it creates a situation where you have to swerve back into traffic to get around a car, which makes you unpredictable and become more of a risk. Which is going to slow the driver of a car down more, seeing and knowing that a cyclist is ahead of you and slowing, going around him or seeing the rider in the breakdown lane and then have him swerve in front of you and having to fill out the police report for an accident?
In many states, parking or driving in the breakdown lane is illegal. Technically, since a bicycle is considered a vehicle that is required to follow the laws of the road, riding in the breakdown lane is illegal.
Or there's a very simple solution that I must be a genius for for coming up with myself! When approaching a stopped vehicle on the shoulder on a bicycle, (1) look back to see if there is any traffic approaching from behind, (2) if there is not, proceed to go around the car, or (3) if there is, simply slow down (stop, if necessary) and wait for traffic to clear!
I deserve a fucking Nobel Prize.
MTB, you must be the reason soccer moms give for wanting an Excursion...so they can take a lane whenever they wish....over that POS Metro that is already there.
But, yeah, you're a genius.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 08:44:31 AM
Unfortunately, there are as many morons riding bikes as morons driving cars. At least a majority of bikers don't ride and talk on cell phones....but I've seen it.
I rarely see people, even on cell phones, run stop signs or red lights. However, a cyclist once ran a red light right in front of me, causing me to have to slam on the brakes because I thought the guy would stop at a stoplight. Little did I know...
He was also on a cell phone at the time...
Quote from: R-inge on April 04, 2009, 08:45:23 AM
:shrug: Look, I know there are asshat cyclists but most of us don't have an option when it comes to riding next to traffic, that's all I'm trying to say.
I'm sure there are considerate cyclists out there. If I ever come across one, I'll pop right in here and report on it.
It's just common sense. I don't really like when I have to inhibit my travels because of a cyclist when I'm driving my car, so I'm certainly going to do what I can to not get in anybody else's way when I myself and riding my bike. It's like when I'm riding through crowds of people here on campus between classes. I consider the sidewalks to be theirs. If I'm riding through people and have to stop because I can't pass, or maybe go onto the grass on the side to go around somebody, I'll do it. I'm not going to inconvenience somebody or yell at somebody walking because I want to ride my bike faster than they walk. Similarly, I consider the road to belong to cars/trucks...I'm not going to bother them.
Well, there are bike riders and there are cyclists...cyclists who ride VC. The bike riders are the ones who don't know their rights or obligations and piss off enough car drivers that we all get grouped as bike riding morons. Then, there cyclists who actually ride according to the rules of the road, stop at lights and stop signs, don't ride on roads where bicycles are not allowed and know our rights.
Quote from: R-inge on April 04, 2009, 08:43:45 AM
I have to agree there. I tend to go if it's my turn to go, whether someone else is already moving or not. They can deal with it... and the cyclist would have had an ass-chewing.
The part that got me is that I stopped longer at the sign because I didn't know if the cyclist was just going to blow through. When I saw him signal, I thought to myself "Oh, if this guy's signaling, he'll probably stop at the sign, because he knows the rules." Instead, he used the turn signal as an excuse to disregard the rule completely.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:58:18 AM
It's just common sense. I don't really like when I have to inhibit my travels because of a cyclist when I'm driving my car, so I'm certainly going to do what I can to not get in anybody else's way when I myself and riding my bike. It's like when I'm riding through crowds of people here on campus between classes. I consider the sidewalks to be theirs. If I'm riding through people and have to stop because I can't pass, or maybe go onto the grass on the side to go around somebody, I'll do it. I'm not going to inconvenience somebody or yell at somebody walking because I want to ride my bike faster than they walk. Similarly, I consider the road to belong to cars/trucks...I'm not going to bother them.
Actually, you should dismount in crowds and walk through, not ride through. Trying to ride through is dangerous to you and pedestrians and is considered rude.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:02:04 AM
Actually, you should dismount in crowds and walk through, not ride through. Trying to ride through is dangerous to you and pedestrians and is considered rude.
:facepalm:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:47:56 AM
I deserve a fucking Nobel Prize.
The way they hand those things out to anybody with a pulse, yeah I'd say you deserve one.
Jesus, this thread is nothing but rubbish. Time to put it to rest.
To summarize: Cyclists are legally vehicles, whether people dig it or not and should follow all applicable laws per their state's motor vehicle code. Yes there are asshat riders, but there are also asshat drivers which is why people are taught when they receive their driver's license to drive defensively, not aggressively or oblivious to your surrounds. If it is safe and legal to do so, yes by all means ride as far to the right as is reasonably possible, but drivers need to recognize a cyclist's rights and responsibilities (and vice versa) and respect them, rather than acting like mass gives moral superiority in all situations. If anything cars have a greater responsibility in all situations because they have the greatest potential for possible harm to others. And since road usage is allowed to farm implements, horse-drawn carts, etc. there is no real reason to assume that only those who are licensed and are paying taxes should be allowed to use a road way. There are of course laws to regulate all things, and by learning and living by those laws rather than just doing what you feel like doing we can all live together in peace, harmony, and all that jazz.
That's it, end of discussion,
/thread.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:02:04 AM
Actually, you should dismount in crowds and walk through, not ride through. Trying to ride through is dangerous to you and pedestrians and is considered rude.
No one does that, though. In my campus days, I've been clipped by bikers on sidewalks before. It fucking hurts. It's not bad if you get hit with an arm or backpack, but if they get you with part of the bike, that's going to sting for a while.
Quote from: Raza on April 04, 2009, 09:00:38 AM
The part that got me is that I stopped longer at the sign because I didn't know if the cyclist was just going to blow through. When I saw him signal, I thought to myself "Oh, if this guy's signaling, he'll probably stop at the sign, because he knows the rules." Instead, he used the turn signal as an excuse to disregard the rule completely.
He was probably wondering why the jerk in the car was taking so long to go thru and guessed that you were allowing him through first as a courtesy...then you took off almost hitting him. I'm constantly finding myself at intersections faced with a car driver trying to wave me through though he obviously has the right of way. He wouldn't do it to another car, why me on a bike? Because the car driver doesn't know the rules.
The problem is, the next time it happens, cyclists don't know what the car driver has in mind...are they waiting to let us through because they want to be friendly, or are they confused about who has the right of way?
Fuck this thread.
Quote from: Raza on April 04, 2009, 09:05:35 AM
No one does that, though. In my campus days, I've been clipped by bikers on sidewalks before. It fucking hurts. It's not bad if you get hit with an arm or backpack, but if they get you with part of the bike, that's going to sting for a while.
If they hit you with a handlebar, they are mostly likely going down.
At our university, sidewalks on campus are closed to bike riders. You can commute to the school, but once there, you have to dismount and become a pedestrian.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:07:40 AM
He was probably wondering why the jerk in the car was taking so long to go thru and guessed that you were allowing him through first as a courtesy...then you took off almost hitting him. I'm constantly finding myself at intersections faced with a car driver trying to wave me through though he obviously has the right of way. He wouldn't do it to another car, why me on a bike? Because the car driver doesn't know the rules.
The problem is, the next time it happens, cyclists don't know what the car driver has in mind...are they waiting to let us through because they want to be friendly, or are they confused about who has the right of way?
He was a good distance away from the stop sign when I had completed my stop. When I saw him signal, I went.
I know the right of way. I got to the stop sign first and therefore had the right of way. I just didn't want a bike shaped dent in my door because some asshole thought he was above the law because he was on a kid's form of transportation.
I'm an extremely skilled and agile rider and watch vicariously people's movements. I'm certainly not a dick about it. Unlike the douche bags on the university road biking team (or whatever) that ride 20+ MPH through campus on the sidewalks all the time. I really want to stick my foot out when one of them comes by.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:10:05 AM
If they hit you with a handlebar, they are mostly likely going down.
At our university, sidewalks on campus are closed to bike riders. You can commute to the school, but once there, you have to dismount and become a pedestrian.
I got clipped by a handlebar once, but he hit my bag, not my body, and we both managed to stay upright.
At our campus, since most buildings are a good distance off the road, cyclists are allowed everywhere. Many buildings have bike racks in front of them.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 09:13:46 AM
I'm an extremely skilled and agile rider and watch vicariously people's movements. I'm certainly not a dick about it. Unlike the douche bags on the university road biking team (or whatever) that ride 20+ MPH through campus on the sidewalks all the time. I really want to stick my foot out when one of them comes by.
Use a stick instead. You'd probably break a bone doing that.
Quote from: Raza on April 04, 2009, 09:14:51 AM
Use a stick instead. You'd probably break a bone doing that.
Reminds me of "Breaking Away".
Quote from: Raza on April 04, 2009, 09:14:51 AM
Use a stick instead. You'd probably break a bone doing that.
Good point.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:58:18 AM
It's just common sense. I don't really like when I have to inhibit my travels because of a cyclist when I'm driving my car, so I'm certainly going to do what I can to not get in anybody else's way when I myself and riding my bike. It's like when I'm riding through crowds of people here on campus between classes. I consider the sidewalks to be theirs. If I'm riding through people and have to stop because I can't pass, or maybe go onto the grass on the side to go around somebody, I'll do it. I'm not going to inconvenience somebody or yell at somebody walking because I want to ride my bike faster than they walk. Similarly, I consider the road to belong to cars/trucks...I'm not going to bother them.
So, then where do bikes belong? Not sidewalks, not roads, and the trails belong to hikers and horses...
Yay for being second class vehicles.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:07:40 AM
He was probably wondering why the jerk in the car was taking so long to go thru and guessed that you were allowing him through first as a courtesy...then you took off almost hitting him. I'm constantly finding myself at intersections faced with a car driver trying to wave me through though he obviously has the right of way. He wouldn't do it to another car, why me on a bike? Because the car driver doesn't know the rules.
The problem is, the next time it happens, cyclists don't know what the car driver has in mind...are they waiting to let us through because they want to be friendly, or are they confused about who has the right of way?
Whenever a car tries to wave me through a stop sign or some such, and it's their right of way, even if I'm track-standing, I'll put both feet down and look at them like they're yelling at me in Russian. Right of way is one thing that all cyclists (and drivers, but we're talking about bikes, here) should always, always follow.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1034715#msg1034715 date=1238858000
He was a good distance away from the stop sign when I had completed my stop. When I saw him signal, I went.
I know the right of way. I got to the stop sign first and therefore had the right of way. I just didn't want a bike shaped dent in my door because some asshole thought he was above the law because he was on a kid's form of transportation.
Aaaaaaand there. That's where you became an intolerable fuck head.
Quote from: Psilos on April 04, 2009, 03:35:15 PM
So, then where do bikes belong? Not sidewalks, not roads, and the trails belong to hikers and horses...
Yay for being second class vehicles.
Giant_mtb, like so many drivers today, think that the road belongs exclusively to
him. All others on the road are obstructions "inhibit[ing his] travels." He doesn't care where the bikes are, as long as they aren't in front of him slowing him down...no matter what their rights to the roads actually are.
Well, he rides a bike, so I wonder why he's got that attitude.
Quote from: Psilos on April 04, 2009, 03:39:35 PM
Aaaaaaand there. That's where you became an intolerable fuck head.
Nah, Raza's been an intolerable fuckhead for a long time.
I do find it amusing that Raza thinks that my Trek, that runs probably around $1400 including lights, is a "kid's form of transportation." He also probably doesn't understand that that "kid's form of transportation" is not only a hobby for me, but an extremely useful tool in my job.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 04, 2009, 04:12:40 PM
Giant_mtb, like so many drivers today, think that the road belongs exclusively to him. All others on the road are obstructions "inhibit[ing his] travels." He doesn't care where the bikes are, as long as they aren't in front of him slowing him down...no matter what their rights to the roads actually are.
Excuse me?
Once again...this entire time, I've been repeating over and over (with pictures to prove my point) that I dislike cyclists who ride the white line when they have ample room on the shoulder. That is all I'm fucking saying.
And then I said that I'd rather be courteous than piss people off. Is that inappropriate? Does that suddenly mean that when some jackhole biker is riding the white line ON ROADS LIKE I POSTED PICTURES OF and is thus in my way because I can't pass due to opposing traffic that I have no reason to say "WTF"? I'm a courteous fuckin' guy to bikers...I'm one of them.
Do you really need to put words in my mouth?
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 30, 2009, 12:34:23 PM
That just makes them whine and bitch about how "we're vehicles, too" and that you shouldn't treat them as such!!!!
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 03, 2009, 02:01:28 AM
So why not just move the fuck out of the way and you won't have to worry so much about stupid drivers?
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:58:18 AMI don't really like when I have to inhibit my travels because of a cyclist when I'm driving my car...
I'm not "putting words in youir mouth," your comments have simply given the impression that you don't like sharing the road with bicyclists.
I don't like sharing it with assholes that I have described that do not show me the courtesy that I show them. And that goes both ways...whether I'm riding or driving. I do a lot of both.
Never have I said anything of ownership.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 04, 2009, 04:17:40 PM
Nah, Raza's been an intolerable fuckhead for a long time.
I do find it amusing that Raza thinks that my Trek, that runs probably around $1400 including lights, is a "kid's form of transportation." He also probably doesn't understand that that "kid's form of transportation" is not only a hobby for me, but an extremely useful tool in my job.
You're a bike cop?
Quote from: Psilos on April 04, 2009, 03:39:35 PM
Aaaaaaand there. That's where you became an intolerable fuck head.
Fucking cry about it. Do you expect me to pretend to be nice about some asshole on a bicycle because you're a sensitive boy?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1035062#msg1035062 date=1238888836
Fucking cry about it. Do you expect me to pretend to be nice about some asshole on a bicycle because you're a sensitive boy?
Ha!
Your attitude doesn't help anyone, including you.
Mtb, if you can't spare the minute it takes to slow down until there is room to pass, you're going to die young and unhappy. The cyclists are following the law. A cyclist that follows the rules of the road is predictable....which makes him safer. Why is your minute more precious than the cyclist, who you wish would stop and wait for traffic to clear before going around a vehicle in the breakdown lane?
If you're riding your bike in the manner you propose, you'll next be crying that some cager hit you and didn't even stop. We just had a bike rider killed because he tried to ride like a pedestrian and ended up in the blind spot of a bus. He was crunched beneath the rear wheels. If he had maintained his lane at the intersection, he would have remained visible and still have a life.
I'm a CYCLIST and a DRIVER and HATE American Drivers.
As evidenced by the post about the worst states, US drivers don't know the laws. And how many that Know the laws Follow them??
My FIRST day downtown in Germany an old guy on a bike was going really slow in the Street, fairly close to the right-hand curb. Some guy driving (a VW?) turning right just Barely Clipped the back of the old guy's tire. They both stopped, old guy got off the bike to inspect it, young guy looked like he was begging for his life. I couldn't understand any of the language but it was obvious the driver knew he was wrong about it all.
I got yelled at by a cop in Utah. I was in Logan, where Wide Square blocks on 20mph streets had stop signs every 2 blocks. i was behind a bus and keeping up with him from light to light. So I rode in the middle of the lane. Then i stop and the bus goes through the intersection but it wasn't safe so I wait.
-Cop comes up next to me (on my right), where there was actually a right-turn lane (marked)- I was still in the straight-left lane.
-He yells at me for not staying to the right. I didn't argue, just said, "ok" and after traffic cleared kept going.
-Idiot didn't realize that if I was staying tothe right I'd be blocking him from turning while I waited for traffic.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 06:35:44 PM
Mtb, if you can't spare the minute it takes to slow down until there is room to pass, you're going to die young and unhappy. The cyclists are following the law. A cyclist that follows the rules of the road is predictable....which makes him safer. Why is your minute more precious than the cyclist, who you wish would stop and wait for traffic to clear before going around a vehicle in the breakdown lane?
If you're riding your bike in the manner you propose, you'll next be crying that some cager hit you and didn't even stop. We just had a bike rider killed because he tried to ride like a pedestrian and ended up in the blind spot of a bus. He was crunched beneath the rear wheels. If he had maintained his lane at the intersection, he would have remained visible and still have a life.
Crying about getting hit? Fucker, I've
been hit while riding my bike. Don't give me shit.
If drivers are taught to drive defensively, why is it so wrong to ride defensively? Seriously...I'm not gonna fuck around with 3000+ pound machines...that's all there is to it. It's not about my "rights"...it's about courtesy and wanting to live.
Quote from: Raza on April 04, 2009, 05:44:38 PM
You're a bike cop?
I'm trained as a bike cop, yea. My normal assignment is road patrol, but I get on the bike during the summer and during special events.
Some day, I feel like doing something that would warrant a cop to chase me on his bike while I'm on mine.
I'd probably get away. :lol:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 07:44:42 PM
Some day, I feel like doing something that would warrant a cop to chase me on his bike while I'm on mine.
I'd probably get away. :lol:
I kinda doubt it. We're trained to do things on bikes that most people wouldn't even think about trying...and performed quite a few endos learning how to do em, too!
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 07:00:51 PM
Crying about getting hit? Fucker, I've been hit while riding my bike. Don't give me shit.
If drivers are taught to drive defensively, why is it so wrong to ride defensively? Seriously...I'm not gonna fuck around with 3000+ pound machines...that's all there is to it. It's not about my "rights"...it's about courtesy and wanting to live.
Well, "fucker", I guess we know who was to blame, you.
I don't recall saying anything against riding defensively...fucker. Riding defensively, does not mean riding illegally...which you are advocating. Ride in a vehicular manner, i.e. vehicular cycling and you are riding safely.
Weaving around parked cars, riding is trash, and weaving around pedestrians is just as bad as riding at night, intoxicated, without lights.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 04, 2009, 07:49:27 PM
I kinda doubt it. We're trained to do things on bikes that most people wouldn't even think about trying...and performed quite a few endos learning how to do em, too!
Hm, well, I guess my years of single-track and general mountain biking haven't given me the speed, agility, or skills to outrun a grown man on a bike. :huh:
Unless, of course, he is, himself, a biker. :lol:
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 07:50:25 PM
Well, "fucker", I guess we know who was to blame, you.
I don't recall saying anything against riding defensively...fucker. Riding defensively, does not mean riding illegally...which you are advocating. Ride in a vehicular manner, i.e. vehicular cycling and you are riding safely.
Weaving around parked cars, riding is trash, and weaving around pedestrians is just as bad as riding at night, intoxicated, without lights.
No, I was not to blame. I was legally riding on the street and someone pulled into me!!!!! STUPID DRIVERS UGH. Why would I be to blame? :confused:
:rolleyes:
Riding illegally? How does one ride a bike illegally? Backwards? Without a helmet? :wtf: When did I advocate "illegal" riding of bicycles? Because I stay out of the way of faster traffic? :huh: I thought that was just common
vehicular courtesy. Is it illegal for me to stay far right, or what?
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 07:55:16 PM
No, I was not to blame. I was legally riding on the street and someone pulled into me!!!!! STUPID DRIVERS UGH. Why would I be to blame? :confused:
:rolleyes:
Riding illegally? How does one ride a bike illegally? Backwards? Without a helmet? :wtf: When did I advocate "illegal" riding of bicycles? Because I stay out of the way of faster traffic? :huh: I thought that was just common vehicular courtesy. Is it illegal for me to stay far right, or what?
Based on your claimed riding style, you are a bike rider (not cyclist) and are an unpredictable rider.
Riding illegally, depending on your location, is riding on sidewalks and riding in a break down lane (which you advocate)instead of the roadway itself, etc. You stay right as safely possible, but is not required when the lane changes to a right turn only, or if you have to make a left turn. You are then "legally" supposed to take the lane that is your intended direction of travel. To do otherwise, can lead to car drivers "pulling" into you.
Sounds like you need to stay on a closed singlel track and stay off the streets.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 07:51:22 PM
Hm, well, I guess my years of single-track and general mountain biking haven't given me the speed, agility, or skills to outrun a grown man on a bike. :huh:
Unless, of course, he is, himself, a biker. :lol:
Wouldn't you think that most bike cops would be bikers?
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 08:07:36 PM
Based on your claimed riding style, you are a bike rider (not cyclist) and are an unpredictable rider.
Riding illegally, depending on your location, is riding on sidewalks and riding in a break down lane (which you advocate)instead of the roadway itself, etc. You stay right as safely possible, but is not required when the lane changes to a right turn only, or if you have to make a left turn. You are then "legally" supposed to take the lane that is your intended direction of travel. To do otherwise, can lead to car drivers "pulling" into you.
Sounds like you need to stay on a closed singlel track and stay off the streets.
Are you seriously telling me that I should ride inches from 55 MPH traffic instead of 5 feet over in the fuckin' wide (see pics) shoulder? Break down lane, my ass...for some strange reason, I've never been ticketed for riding in the shoulder! :rolleyes: Am I allowed to walk there?!?! Sometimes my parents go for walks in the "break down lane". Are you going to police them, too?
And I do follow the lanes of traffic when I ride in the city. In fact, I just did. I - holy shit! - used the left-turn lane to make a left turn at a traffic light because I was riding on the road! Unpredictable? Jesus hell, man...sorry that I stay to the right, ride on the sidewalks to get to my classes (where there are - holy shit! - bike racks right outside to conveniently use), use bike lanes, and follow the proper lanes of traffic when I need to.
:huh:
Besides, I never have claimed myself to be a "cyclist". I call myself a "mountain biker." That's what I do. I ride to a place and ride my mountain bike. Excuse the absolute shit out of me for riding in the "breakdown lane" instead of within highway-speed traffic to protect my life. Slower traffic keep right. I keep right. Is that such a problem? :rolleyes:
The roads I ride on have such wide shoulders for a reason. We get more snow than you have period blood shoved up your ass, and a wider shoulder provides a much easier plowing surface for plow trucks to make a viable road out of. On a four-lane highway, yeah, sure, it's the breakdown lane. But considering the fact that the road which I posted pictures of has a wider shoulder than the 4-lane highways in my area, I don't really know what to think.
I'd rather stay safe than legal. If some bitchass cop wants to cite me for riding out of the way of highway traffic, so be it. Will it stop me from protecting myself from possibly getting hit again? No. It won't.
Well, stay in the mountains and stop copping such a self-righteous attitude. Ride in the snow piled up on the shoulder if you wish. Your points are so laughable I agree with R-inge, it isn't worth it. You only want it your way, without regard to what the laws say.
Point-- Am I allowed to walk there?!?! Sometimes my parents go for walks in the "break down lane". Are you going to police them, too?
You obviously see bike riding and walking as comparable. This is why I say you need to stay off the road.
Stop for a moment and think about this...you admitted that the shoulders are wider where you're at than where I'm at...which is exactly why every state has almost the exact same law on the books regarding cycling and cars and how they interact. The roadways may differ from state to state, but the bike/roadway laws remain constant, so there is no confusion.
There are things to avoid. On one of the bike forums, someone asked if the shoulder of the road is full of gravel and the highway speed limit is 70mph, where is the best place to ride. The answer was a unanimous..."somewhere else".
For one, you have to know the law. In California, cycling on freeways is forbidden. In NC, you can ride everywhere a motor vehicle is allowed but across one bridge on the Outer Banks. With that in mind, all vehicles are forbidden on certain roadways if they are traveling less than twenty mph of the posted speed limit....but this only applies to four lane interstates.
Finally, I'm 51, been riding since I was five or six, and doing so on the streets..we could do that back then...and have never been hit by a car. Since you have been hit, that may tell you something about how you ride.
...dude. I was hit by a fucking car. I was riding down a 25 MPH street and some cunt in an SUV pulled out of her driveway into me. Is that such a fucking problem for you?
Self-righteous attitude? For fuck's sake, I'm simply trying to stay safe.
The day I get cited for riding on the shoulder, I shall bow down to your laws. Until then, I will protect my life as best I can.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 07:00:51 PM
Crying about getting hit? Fucker, I've been hit while riding my bike. Don't give me shit.
If drivers are taught to drive defensively, why is it so wrong to ride defensively? Seriously...I'm not gonna fuck around with 3000+ pound machines...that's all there is to it. It's not about my "rights"...it's about courtesy and wanting to live.
Riding defensively is looking out for obstacles and unpredictable cars, following right of way, and always having an escape route. Being scared of cars and letting them own the road is riding timidly.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 04, 2009, 07:49:27 PM
I kinda doubt it. We're trained to do things on bikes that most people wouldn't even think about trying...and performed quite a few endos learning how to do em, too!
That's not always the case. The bike cops where I grew up were less competent and slower than most cyclists.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:49:02 PM
The day I get cited for riding on the shoulder, I shall bow down to your laws. Until then, I will protect my life as best I can.
I'm not saying (and don't remember saying) that you'll get cited for it, but if hit, it becomes your fault. Take the couple that got hit this past week...they were riding on the shoulder. The guy that hit them didn't notice them, he was watching the road ahead, which was clear, started talking on his cell phone and drifted onto the shoulder. One dead, one seriously injured.
...but I do look for obstacles, unpredictable cars, follow the right-of-way, and keep an eye out for what to do in a WTF situation. I just simply don't fuck with cars.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 08:53:57 PM
I'm not saying (and don't remember saying) that you'll get cited for it, but if hit, it becomes your fault. Take the couple that got killed this past week...they were riding on the shoulder. The guy that hit them didn't notice them, he was watching the road ahead, which was clear, started talking on his cell phone and drifted onto the shoulder. One dead, one seriously injured.
...so if they had been on the white line, they would have been saved! They could have been hit just the same.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:47:36 PM
...dude. I was hit by a fucking car. I was riding down a 25 MPH street and some cunt in an SUV pulled out of her driveway into me. Is that such a fucking problem for you?
Self-righteous attitude? For fuck's sake, I'm simply trying to stay safe.
Was it a 100% blind driveway? Could you have possibly seen her coming? Looking for stuff like cars coming out of alleys and driveways is a big part of defensive riding. I've been nearly hit more than once because of the exact same thing, but I saw it coming and reacted appropriately to avoid the collision every time.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:54:47 PM
...so if they had been on the white line, they would have been saved! They could have been hit just the same.
:rolleyes:
The white line is part of where drivers typically look, even if distracted. They may have been seen had they been there.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:54:11 PM
...but I do look for obstacles, unpredictable cars, follow the right-of-way, and keep an eye out for what to do in a WTF situation. I just simply don't fuck with cars.
I don't fuck with cars, either. But I'm not scared of them.
Quote from: Psilos on April 04, 2009, 08:57:44 PM
Was it a 100% blind driveway? Could you have possibly seen her coming? Looking for stuff like cars coming out of alleys and driveways is a big part of defensive riding. I've been nearly hit more than once because of the exact same thing, but I saw it coming and reacted appropriately to avoid the collision every time.
There was a fence and a tree. It was quite blind. I did see her at the last moment, though I couldn't stop quick enough. So by the time she decided to stop and had already completely driven over my bike, I had been hit in the shoulder and had jumped off the bike.
Jesus Christ, you guys are making it seem like it was totally my fault that I got hit. For Christ's sake, I always go around hidden drives wide to avoid such things. This time, it didn't work.
Quote from: Psilos on April 04, 2009, 08:59:35 PM
I don't fuck with cars, either. But I'm not scared of them.
I ride amongst them every single day. I'm cautious and defensive. Not scared. Where did I say "I'm scared of cars?"
Is there any real discussion or are you guys just trying to argue with each other that your e-penis is bigger?
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 09:00:49 PM
I ride amongst them every single day. I'm cautious and defensive. Not scared. Where did I say "I'm scared of cars?"
Implied. Riding in unsafe places because it's further from the big mean cars...
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 04, 2009, 09:06:22 PM
Is there any real discussion or are you guys just trying to argue with each other that your e-penis is bigger?
We're just arguing, no e-penis...
Quote from: Psilos on April 04, 2009, 09:07:13 PM
Implied. Riding in unsafe places because it's further from the big mean cars...
Big mean cars? I just prefer to be far from the direct path of a 3000+ pound piece of metal travelling at 60 MPH.
Seriously, why's that such a problem for you people?
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 09:00:05 PM
There was a fence and a tree. It was quite blind. I did see her at the last moment, though I couldn't stop quick enough. So by the time she decided to stop and had already completely driven over my bike, I had been hit in the shoulder and had jumped off the bike.
Jesus Christ, you guys are making it seem like it was totally my fault that I got hit. For Christ's sake, I always go around hidden drives wide to avoid such things. This time, it didn't work.
Well, if you couldn't see her until the last moment, how do you expect her to see you? You should have been more cautious approaching a blind driveway...beside, she had the larger vehicle and in America, it gives her the right to do as she pleases. :lol:
Seriously though, if she pulled out into traffic from a driveway she was at fault. She should have been cited, paid for the damage to the bike, and paid your medical expenses.
These types of debates usually are...you're not going to change the mind of the person you're debating, but it does allow the casual reader to see different points of view and maybe learn something new.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 04, 2009, 09:12:17 PM
It's pointless.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:13:54 PM
Well, if you couldn't see her until the last moment, how do you expect her to see you? You should have been more cautious approaching a blind driveway...beside, she had the larger vehicle and in America, it gives her the right to do as she pleases. :lol:
Seriously though, if she pulled out into traffic from a driveway she was at fault. She should have been cited, paid for the damage to the bike, and paid your medical expenses.
I went around the drive wide because it was blind. She didn't see me whatsoever. I was going at a good rate of speed and thus couldn't stop quickly enough. Wasn't really my fault. She hit me.
She should have paid me. But I told her I was happy enough to just be physically okay after having been hit by a Chevy Traverse.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 09:10:48 PM
Big mean cars? I just prefer to be far from the direct path of a 3000+ pound piece of metal travelling at 60 MPH.
Seriously, why's that such a problem for you people?
As long as you see yourself as a second class citizen on a roadway, those 3,000lb cages will see you that way as well.
Cars that are not moving as just as dangerous as those that are moving. Riding as far to the right as possible opens up more avenues to injury.
I'm talking about riding to the right on roads such as the ones I posted pictures of. A parked car is a pretty observable and defeatable obstacle.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 09:20:26 PM
I went around the drive wide because it was blind. She didn't see me whatsoever. I was going at a good rate of speed and thus couldn't stop quickly enough. Wasn't really my fault. She hit me.
She should have paid me. But I told her I was happy enough to just be physically okay after having been hit by a Chevy Traverse.
Should have called the PD or at least made her pay. All she learned from that encounter is that she can hit someone on a bike and get away with it.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:24:20 PM
Should have called the PD or at least made her pay. All she learned from that encounter is that she can hit someone on a bike and get away with it.
I realize that. But, shit, I just got hit by a fucking car. I was relatively dazed and simply concentrating on making sure I was ok. She was very apologetic and insisted I let her pay for the damage.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 09:23:08 PM
I'm talking about riding to the right on roads such as the ones I posted pictures of. A parked car is a pretty observable and defeatable obstacle.
It is defeatable, until someone opens their car door.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:31:56 PM
It is defeatable, until someone opens their car door.
Ok. On a road like the ones I posted pictures of. You see a car from a mile away. As you get closer, you naturally wonder "who's there? what's going on?" You naturally look around. You naturally look inside the car to see who's in it, if anyone.
Adjust accordingly.
:huh:
I am getting absolutely raped here.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 09:33:26 PM
Ok. On a road like the ones I posted pictures of. You see a car from a mile away. As you get closer, you naturally wonder "who's there? what's going on?" You naturally look around. You naturally look inside the car to see who's in it, if anyone.
Adjust accordingly.
:huh:
I am getting absolutely raped here.
On a road where you can see a car a mile away, a car driver should have no problem seeing you, adjust his speed and then travel around you, which is what they are supposed to do.
Ride on the shoulder, blend in with the scenery, and the driver will not notice you, become complacent, crank up the stereo, text a quick message about picking up some bread, wonder what it was he just ran over on the shoulder of the road and head for Piggly Wiggly.
My question is: Since when is faster traffic supposed to slow down for slower traffic? Isn't slower traffic (bikes, in this case) supposed to move out of the way for the faster traffic? I mean, that's assuming bikes are subject to all motor vehicle laws...which you're saying they are.
...and I thought we were talking about parked cars. :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 09:40:10 PM
My question is: Since when is faster traffic supposed to slow down for slower traffic? Isn't slower traffic (bikes, in this case) supposed to move out of the way for the faster traffic? I mean, that's assuming bikes are subject to all motor vehicle laws...which you're saying they are.
...and I thought we were talking about parked cars. :huh:
I thought we were talking about both...
Are you suggesting that slower cars are supposed to move to the shoulder when a faster car approaches?
Do you have a driver's license?
I give up. I really do.
And yes, I have a DL.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 09:10:48 PM
Big mean cars? I just prefer to be far from the direct path of a 3000+ pound piece of metal travelling at 60 MPH.
Seriously, why's that such a problem for you people?
That, specifically, isn't an issue. It's the rest of the things you've said, ans the attitude they have conveyed.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 09:20:26 PM
I went around the drive wide because it was blind. She didn't see me whatsoever. I was going at a good rate of speed and thus couldn't stop quickly enough. Wasn't really my fault. She hit me.
She should have paid me. But I told her I was happy enough to just be physically okay after having been hit by a Chevy Traverse.
Whoa, whoa. She didn't pay for everything? Or did she? Because, if not, she reeeaaaaallllllyyyy should have. If a car hits me while I'm on a bike, and it's the car's fault, especially for something dumb like backing out of a blind driveway too fast, I'm going to make their wallet as light as I can, if just to prove the point that you can't fuck with bikes.
See, that's the attitude I don't have. "You can't fuck with bikes." For crying out loud, you people sound like a fuggin' cult.
Not having that attitude is why cars do fuck with bikes.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 08:47:36 PM
..., I'm simply trying to stay safe.
FAIL.
I'm 34, been biking since 7yrs old, bought my first mtn bike at 16. (they didn't have them when I was real young.)
-I've been hit
once by a car. I decided to follow my friends through a light that turned yellow For THEM. A VW rabbit was sitting at the light and it turned green, she hit the gas, and I was right in front of her, I got smashed a little, I put my foot on her hood and pushed off and kept going..
Another time I was doing ~30mph in a 30zone, going straight through a light, someone coming towards me turning left totally Misjudged my speed and when in front of me- I locked the rear wheel on purpose (I could have slowed with the front brake,) so they would get the point that I was braking.
One of those friends though has broken a leg going over a sedan (he was doing ~35mph, passing someone turning right and the person coming out of the street didn't see him,) as well as had run-ins all the time with pedestrians. In all cases he's been LEGAL but
not smart.-----------------------------------------------------
Point is, my motto is ALWAYS SAFE, USUALLY LEGAL.
-Every once in a while I'll run a redlight, if there are NO cars around, and I've been stopped for a minute or two, and there's no pedestrian button, and it's tripped by a car waiting..
-My hometown is all 20mph. I'd do 30mph down some of the hills.. :-o
...why do I fail when your motto is "always safe?" :confused:
I ride legally when I'm on city streets. On a 55 MPH highway like I posted pics of, I ride the shoulder (which is apparently rape-worthy). I got hit out of a blind drive by a damn Chevy Traverse and was able to hop off my bike before it was consumed.
What more do you people want from me? :huh:
Quote from: Psilos on April 04, 2009, 08:53:21 PM
That's not always the case. The bike cops where I grew up were less competent and slower than most cyclists.
Not always, that's true. First, bike cops are not, necessarily,
trained bike cops. I rode bike on duty before I received training, and I'd say that it's not uncommon in some departments. There's a huge difference between an untrained bike cop and a trained one, though...the training is impressive. And, considering that bicycling is a physical skill, there will be difference in skill levels between different bike cops. I'm competitant on a bike, but I looked like a kid with the training wheels just taken off compaired to some guys in my class.
And, just for the record, how fast a bicyclist is rarely relates to skill on a bike. Actually,
slow speed is the test of a skilled bicyclist.
Well, if that's the case, then all the kids will get away when they sprint away on their bikes because the cop's only good at the game of foot-down.
:lol:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 05, 2009, 08:23:47 AM
Well, if that's the case, then all the kids will get away when they sprint away on their bikes because the cop's only good at the game of foot-down.
:lol:
Like my bike school instructor said, "Fast is easy. Slow is hard." Anybody can ride fast...it's how we all learned to ride in the first place and physics helps us out alot. Try riding at less than walking speed through a crowd and maintain control...not as easy as it looks.
...it was a joke. I ride bikes, too, ya know. I know what riding slow is and how difficult it is. :rolleyes: :huh:
Speaking of physics, I recently discovered the physics behind why we lean when we turn and do not turn the handlebars (at speed, anyway). It's quite intriguing.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 05, 2009, 08:35:09 AM
...it was a joke. I ride bikes, too, ya know. I know what riding slow is and how difficult it is. :rolleyes: :huh:
I know it was a joke. I just decided to continue the raping you've been getting in this thread. :lol:
Quote from: bing_oh on April 05, 2009, 08:36:45 AM
I know it was a joke. I just decided to continue the raping you've been getting in this thread. :lol:
:lockedup:
u guys should ride fixie so you can ride backwards
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 05, 2009, 08:36:00 AM
Speaking of physics, I recently discovered the physics behind why we lean when we turn and do not turn the handlebars (at speed, anyway). It's quite intriguing.
It is even more intriguing on a motorcycle, where to lean fast into a turn, you have to noticeably push the handlebars hard in the opposite direction. :wub:
Physics. :wub:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 05, 2009, 07:07:09 AM
...why do I fail when your motto is "always safe?" :confused:
Because of
Quote
I got hit out of a blind drive by a damn Chevy Traverse
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You have to think like a driver and where they're looking.
If you were in the middle of the lane would the Chevy have seen and avoided you?
I hug the right edge of pavement usually, unless being in the middle of a lane
a- won't get me hit AND
b- makes more visible, or
c- gets me ready to make a left turn, with traffic still able to go about their business.
PS-
Did you ever see my New ride??
http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=8743.750
...I said I went wide around the drive because it was blind.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 05, 2009, 09:20:25 AM
PS-
Did you ever see my New ride??
http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=8743.750
Disk brakes. :nono:
Quote from: bing_oh on April 05, 2009, 09:27:15 AM
Disk brakes. :nono:
??
They stop way better than v-brakes, which were better than cantilever, which tromp all over side-pulls.
Mine are mechanical, meaning you just have to adjust them once in a while and change the pads/ cable out when they give up the ghost.
PLUS you don't have to do ANYTHING to the brakes to remove the wheels.
Why don't you like them??
Quote from: Psilos on April 04, 2009, 06:09:17 PM
Ha!
Your attitude doesn't help anyone, including you.
And your point is...?
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:21:10 PM
As long as you see yourself as a second class citizen on a roadway, those 3,000lb cages will see you that way as well.
Cars that are not moving as just as dangerous as those that are moving. Riding as far to the right as possible opens up more avenues to injury.
Bikes are second class citizens. As are skateboards, roller skaters, horses, and anything without an engine that isn't a pedestrian.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 04, 2009, 09:06:22 PM
Is there any real discussion or are you guys just trying to argue with each other that your e-penis is bigger?
You can't have a "real" discussion when there are so many stubborn cyclists and me involved. I believe I started out reasonable, but then the cyclists started with their "cars shouldn't be on the road, bikes are the only way" bullshit, then I got worse, they got worse, and it goes on and on.
Last I tuned in, they were yelling at Chris because he doesn't want to get hit by a car. This kind of false moral superiority of cyclists is what pisses me off the most.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:46:33 PM
I thought we were talking about both...
Are you suggesting that slower cars are supposed to move to the shoulder when a faster car approaches?
Do you have a driver's license?
Bikes are not cars. Until you realize that, we'll never get anywhere.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 05, 2009, 07:07:09 AM
What more do you people want from me? :huh:
I don't want anything more from you, than to see you live long and ride safe. Thousands of people ride as you do and live. I do think it is important to get the message across that there is a specific way to ride, a way that has been proven safe. What you do reflects on all cyclists, because being predictable and riding to specific rules, trains car drivers what to expect from all cyclists.
Quote from: Raza on April 05, 2009, 01:51:40 PM
Bikes are not cars. Until you realize that, we'll never get anywhere.
Raza, you are spouting words not written here...at least not from what I remember. No one said bikes are cars. They are legal road vehicles, a designation given to them by state law just like cars, and as such bikes have a responsibility while traveling highways and cars have a responsibility...to respect each others' rights. What I read here was a lack of respect for cyclists' rights---the opinion they need to just stay out of a car's way. At the very least, a lack of understanding that cyclist's have rights.
Quote from: JWC on April 05, 2009, 02:38:41 PM
Raza, you are spouting words not written here...at least not from what I remember. No one said bikes are cars. They are legal road vehicles, a designation given to them by state law just like cars, and as such bikes have a responsibility while traveling highways and cars have a responsibility...to respect each others' rights. What I read here was a lack of respect for cyclists' rights---the opinion they need to just stay out of a car's way. At the very least, a lack of understanding that cyclist's have rights.
Cyclists have rights, sure. But the attitude I see here is that their rights are above those of motorists, and that's just bullshit.
Quote from: Raza on April 05, 2009, 02:40:23 PM
Cyclists have rights, sure. But the attitude I see here is that their rights are above those of motorists, and that's just bullshit.
That attitude is a misguided reaction to many Drivers' attitude and common practice that bikers are second-class citizens. ;-)
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 05, 2009, 02:46:04 PM
That attitude is a misguided reaction to many Drivers' attitude and common practice that bikers are second-class citizens. ;-)
Bikers
are second class.
THEY DON'T HAVE ENGINES AND ARE NOT MOTOR VEHICLES. Therefore they are not the same class as motor vehicles.
Quote from: Raza on April 05, 2009, 02:57:33 PM
Bikers are second class.
THEY DON'T HAVE ENGINES AND ARE NOT MOTOR VEHICLES. Therefore they are not the same class as motor vehicles.
Need we say more? You prove our point...it really isn't the cyclists who have the attitude, but the car drivers.
Quote from: JWC on April 05, 2009, 03:03:47 PM
Need we say more? You prove our point...it really isn't the cyclists who have the attitude, but the car drivers.
But you're
wrong.
See, that's where the problem lies.
You can't do what cars can do. It's as simple as that. If I took my car on a hardcore offroad trail, and I held up everyone and acted like an asshole and like I was better than everyone else because I was more environmentally friendly, then all those hardcore offroaders would be rightfully pissed at me. My car is not an offroad truck. So I don't go offroading. Your bike is not a car. You cannot treat it as if it were a car. Therefore, you can't act as if you are a car.
I said it earlier. Until cyclists are licensed and bicycles are registered, and they are held to the same legal standards as car,
without equivocation or ambiguity, they will always be second class vehicles. And even when licensed and registered, they will still
not have the right to hold up traffic.
Much of my problem with cyclists stems from the fact that they don't follow any set of rules. The moral superiority thing is annoying, but it's not much worse than Prius drivers. If cyclists all had to ride on the road with a fixed set of rules, and they had consequences for breaking them, I think the cyclist/"cager" relationship would be much healthier.
Quote from: Raza on April 05, 2009, 03:13:31 PM
But you're wrong.
Much of my problem with cyclists stems from the fact that they don't follow any set of rules. The moral superiority thing is annoying, but it's not much worse than Prius drivers. If cyclists all had to ride on the road with a fixed set of rules, and they had consequences for breaking them, I think the cyclist/"cager" relationship would be much healthier.
Raza, I know a lot of car drivers that don't follow the rules set for them. Cyclists have a set of rules to follow, it is published by the state you reside in. The problem is that motorist and many cyclists do not realize that those rules exist.
Education is the key, for both. What you see here as a "attitude" from cyclists, is really just relating what those guidelines and rules are..unfortunately, it seems to be determined here that cyclists should NOT follow those rules, but ride in any manner that individual decides is safe. Anarchy.
"Holding up traffic" is really just an opinion. I've ridden in traffic and have stayed with the same cars from intersection to intersection, even having to check up slightly because the car in front of me wasn't going fast enough.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 05, 2009, 08:13:05 AM
Not always, that's true. First, bike cops are not, necessarily, trained bike cops. I rode bike on duty before I received training, and I'd say that it's not uncommon in some departments. There's a huge difference between an untrained bike cop and a trained one, though...the training is impressive. And, considering that bicycling is a physical skill, there will be difference in skill levels between different bike cops. I'm competitant on a bike, but I looked like a kid with the training wheels just taken off compaired to some guys in my class.
And, just for the record, how fast a bicyclist is rarely relates to skill on a bike. Actually, slow speed is the test of a skilled bicyclist.
Duh, but a cyclist who's faster than a bike cop is gonna get away. ;)
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1035758#msg1035758 date=1238960587
Bikes are second class citizens. As are skateboards, roller skaters, horses, and anything without an engine that isn't a pedestrian.
Your and idiot.
Why aren't cars the second class citizens in your odd little mind? Because you drive them? That's not logical. Bikes were here first, after all. Bikes are a
different class of vehicle, but the attitude that they don't belong on the road is why cyclists don't like car drivers. And here's the thing-- that attitude is
your problem, not ours. We understand how to fairly share the road with cars, and most of us cyclists (not necessarily the bike riders that JWC differentiates) behave in ways that
do fairly share the road with cars. So ya know what? Fuck you and the car you drove in on.
Quote from: Psilos on April 05, 2009, 03:42:34 PM
Your and idiot.
Why aren't cars the second class citizens in your odd little mind? Because you drive them? That's not logical. Bikes were here first, after all.
What many people forget is...
The deplorable conditions of the nations roads became a great public concern in the late nineteenth century with the invention of the bicycle and later the motor car. In the early 1890's bicycle clubs in the United States pushed hard for road improvements. These efforts brought about the "National League for Good Roads" in 1892. Continued dissatisfaction with the conditions of the nations roads resulted in the creation of the "Office of Road Inquiry" by Congress in 1893
Quote from: Psilos on April 05, 2009, 03:42:34 PM
Your and idiot.
Why aren't cars the second class citizens in your odd little mind? Because you drive them? That's not logical. Bikes were here first, after all. Bikes are a different class of vehicle, but the attitude that they don't belong on the road is why cyclists don't like car drivers. And here's the thing-- that attitude is your problem, not ours. We understand how to fairly share the road with cars, and most of us cyclists (not necessarily the bike riders that JWC differentiates) behave in ways that do fairly share the road with cars. So ya know what? Fuck you and the car you drove in on.
Why aren't bikes second class citizens? Because you ride them? That's not logical. Cars are much faster, after all. They are a much different class of vehicles. Your attitude that a bike's ability is equal to a car's is why car drivers don't like cyclists. And here's the thing - that attitude is your problem, not the car drivers'. Most drivers share the road fairly well and only get pissed off at idiotic riders that think they own the road. So ya know what? Fuck you and the bike you rode in on.
See how you can turn that around?
Quote from: JWC on April 05, 2009, 02:31:09 PM
I don't want anything more from you, than to see you live long and ride safe. Thousands of people ride as you do and live. I do think it is important to get the message across that there is a specific way to ride, a way that has been proven safe. What you do reflects on all cyclists, because being predictable and riding to specific rules, trains car drivers what to expect from all cyclists.
You really are making me out to be some shitty, unpredictable, 13-year-old on a BMX bike rider. That's not what I am. For God's sake I'll say it again: I ride on the shoulder when I'm on roads like that which I posted and I ride on the city streets in streets while using common sense traffic laws.
:huh: :lockedup:
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 08:41:59 AM
In many states, parking or driving in the breakdown lane is illegal. Technically, since a bicycle is considered a vehicle that is required to follow the laws of the road, riding in the breakdown lane is illegal.
How sure are you about that?
From the Montana code:
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/61/8/61-8-605.htm (http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/61/8/61-8-605.htm)
61-8-605. Riding on roadways. (1) As used in this section:
(a) "laned roadway" means a roadway that is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic; and
(b) "roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the paved shoulder.
(2) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable
Quote from: Tave on April 05, 2009, 05:07:07 PM
From the Montana code:
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/61/8/61-8-605.htm (http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/61/8/61-8-605.htm)
61-8-605. Riding on roadways. (1) As used in this section:
(a) "laned roadway" means a roadway that is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic; and
(b) "roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the paved shoulder.
(2) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable
"Practicable" is the key word. If the breakdown lane is full of glass, tire scraps etc, then it isn't practicable to ride there, plus, practicable also goes back to where you are the most visible to others
sharing the road. This is debated quite often among VC riders...what is practicable. It comes down to being visible to cars.
Besides, as stated, it can vary slightly by state. Also, try driving on the shoulder sometime in your car or on your motorcycle, though line (b) designates it as part of the roadway, and see if you don't get pulled over. I've had several friends try beating traffic jams in California by riding their motorcycles along the shoulder and got hefty fines for doing so.
Look, I don't agree with how lenient LEO's are with bike riders, at least locally. Police in this town refuse to stop people for riding against traffic, though it is illegal. That isn't the rider's fault, but the fault of a law enforcement agency that is either ignorant of the law or doesn't want to take the time (or ribbing from colleagues) to do the right thing. This is part of the problem...and also contributes to the attitude that car drivers have about cyclists.
Quote from: JWC on April 05, 2009, 06:19:40 PM
Also, try driving on the shoulder sometime in your car or on your motorcycle, though line (b) designates it as part of the roadway, and see if you don't get pulled over. I've had several friends try beating traffic jams in California by riding their motorcycles along the shoulder and got hefty fines for doing so.
:confused:
I'm not talking about motorcycles.
You said it was illegal to ride your bicycle in a breakdown lane/shoulder. I'm questioning
that assertion.
Quote from: JWC on April 05, 2009, 06:19:40 PM
plus, practicable also goes back to where you are the most visible to others sharing the road. This is debated quite often among VC riders...what is practicable. It comes down to being visible to cars.
I'm not trying to be a dick--just curious--but do you have any evidence for this? When I'm on a highway like the one Giant posted, I'm scanning the whole roadway and then some (making sure there aren't deer approaching the pavement). We have plenty of highways like that here, as well as cyclists who use them, and I have never thought that they were hard to see if they used the shoulder, which 99% of them do.
That shoulder is not in the driver's blindspot. I'm having a hard time believing that riding a few feet to the right of the line instead of on it somehow makes a rider harder to see.
Quote from: Tave on April 05, 2009, 06:35:37 PM
:confused:
I'm not talking about motorcycles.
You said it was illegal to ride your bicycle in a breakdown lane/shoulder. I'm questioning that assertion.
If you would actually go back an re-read the original quote you pointed out as being in dispute, you'll notice it said, "in many states", which clearly indicates...not ALL states. Or did you miss that?
I'm pointing out that because the shoulder is designated as part of a road, doesn't mean you can drive on it, bicycle or not. It has to be designated as such so that it is considered part of the right-of-way, and such a designation gives LEO's the authority to govern the roadway, including the shoulder.
Quote from: JWC on April 05, 2009, 06:43:40 PM
If you would actually go back an re-read the original quote you pointed out as being in dispute, you'll notice it said, "in many states", which clearly indicates...not ALL states. Or did you miss that?
I did not. I guess I can start looking up the regs state-by-state, but I figured I'd open it up to discussion first. :huh:
Did you know what the laws were like in Giant's state before you started berating him?
Yes, PA allows riding on the shoulder, but that doesn't mean it is the safest place to ride, which was the original point. Many states do not allow riding on the shoulder or break-down lane. Even in PA, he needs to check the laws for that roadway to make sure it is legal, since PA laws, like any states, have exceptions for many roads.
For California, no bicycle, moped, scooter, or pedestrian is allowed on the freeway. But, even that law has exceptions, because certain parts of I-5 are open for short distances to cyclists.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 05, 2009, 11:15:27 AM
??
They stop way better than v-brakes, which were better than cantilever, which tromp all over side-pulls.
Mine are mechanical, meaning you just have to adjust them once in a while and change the pads/ cable out when they give up the ghost.
PLUS you don't have to do ANYTHING to the brakes to remove the wheels.
Why don't you like them??
I've been totally unimpressed with disk brakes so far, and that seems to be the concensus among the other bike cops I've talked to as well.
I have a Fuji Police at work (disk brakes) and my Trek Police that I stared with and went through bike school with (caliper brakes). The Fuji's stopping power sucks compaired to my Trek...something that appears to have been confirmed when we compared stopping distances between some of Columbus PD's Smith and Wesson's with disk brakes against pretty much anything with caliper brakes in panic stopping. We've also had nothing but problems with getting them properly adjusted and maintenance/upkeep with the disk brakes.
Overall, I'm not impressed at this point with disk brakes.
Quote from: Raza on April 05, 2009, 02:40:23 PM
Cyclists have rights, sure. But the attitude I see here is that their rights are above those of motorists, and that's just bullshit.
Cyclists don't have more rights than motorists, they have equal rights to motorists. No matter your opinion, bicycles are vehicles and have the same legal rights and obligations on the roads as you do driving in your car.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 05, 2009, 04:11:25 PM
Why aren't bikes second class citizens? Because you ride them? That's not logical. Cars are much faster, after all. They are a much different class of vehicles. Your attitude that a bike's ability is equal to a car's is why car drivers don't like cyclists. And here's the thing - that attitude is your problem, not the car drivers'. Most drivers share the road fairly well and only get pissed off at idiotic riders that think they own the road. So ya know what? Fuck you and the bike you rode in on.
No, you got that wrong, chief. A bike's ability is not the same as a car's, and that's pretty bloody obvious. My attitude is, and the facts of the law are, that bikes have an equal
right to the road as a car. If you actually read and understood the rest of my posts in this thread, you would know that I think that the difference in ability of cars versus bikes results in some laws that don't necessarily apply to both. My point wasn't that bikes are better than cars and have super powers that make them immune to laws, logic, and safety, but that while cars and bikes are a different class of vehicles (duh), they have and deserve equal rights to the road. In other words, neither cars nor bikes are second class vehicles.
Quote from: JWC on April 05, 2009, 06:53:03 PM
Yes, PA allows riding on the shoulder, but that doesn't mean it is the safest place to ride, which was the original point. Many states do not allow riding on the shoulder or break-down lane. Even in PA, he needs to check the laws for that roadway to make sure it is legal, since PA laws, like any states, have exceptions for many roads.
Once again...I do not live in PA.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Psilos on April 05, 2009, 11:01:12 PM
No, you got that wrong, chief. A bike's ability is not the same as a car's, and that's pretty bloody obvious. My attitude is, and the facts of the law are, that bikes have an equal right to the road as a car. If you actually read and understood the rest of my posts in this thread, you would know that I think that the difference in ability of cars versus bikes results in some laws that don't necessarily apply to both. My point wasn't that bikes are better than cars and have super powers that make them immune to laws, logic, and safety, but that while cars and bikes are a different class of vehicles (duh), they have and deserve equal rights to the road. In other words, neither cars nor bikes are second class vehicles.
You want equal rights, but then you also want special rights, like the ability to run red lights or hold up traffic. Nor do you want to sit in stop and go traffic, but ride right up the side of cars waiting their turn in stop and go traffic.
If you're not going to follow the rules of the road with cars, then you're not going to get treated as though you're in a car.
MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 300 of 1949
257.660a Operation of bicycle upon highway or street; riding close to right-hand curb or edge of roadway; exceptions.
Sec. 660a.
A person operating a bicycle upon a highway or street at less than the existing speed of traffic shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
There you go, motherfuckers. Excuse the hell out of me for riding on the shoulder. If you think it's not safe, I don't give a flying fuck. Is it legal? Hell yes it is, so don't tell me it isn't.
:evildude:
Quote from: ChrisV on April 06, 2009, 07:39:41 AM
You want equal rights, but then you also want special rights, like the ability to run red lights or hold up traffic. Nor do you want to sit in stop and go traffic, but ride right up the side of cars waiting their turn in stop and go traffic.
If you're not going to follow the rules of the road with cars, then you're not going to get treated as though you're in a car.
I don't want special rights as a bicyclist. I follow the laws as they apply to bicycles, including traffic control devices. Don't clump those of us who do ride legally with those who either don't know the laws or choose not to follow them.
Well, I wasn't really talking to you as much as to the people here that were plainly stating that since the physics of riding were different than driving, they could pick and choose what laws applied to them.
Still, if you're riding in stop and go traffic, do you sit like a motorcycle with traffic and inch forward, or do you use the small size to ride past all the cars waiting in their lane?
Quote from: Psilos on April 04, 2009, 09:07:13 PM
Implied. Riding in unsafe places because it's further from the big mean cars...
False because of the law.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:37:19 PM
On a road where you can see a car a mile away, a car driver should have no problem seeing you, adjust his speed and then travel around you, which is what they are supposed to do.
Ride on the shoulder, blend in with the scenery, and the driver will not notice you, become complacent, crank up the stereo, text a quick message about picking up some bread, wonder what it was he just ran over on the shoulder of the road and head for Piggly Wiggly.
Hm, sorry. It's the law.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:46:33 PM
I thought we were talking about both...
Are you suggesting that slower cars are supposed to move to the shoulder when a faster car approaches?
Do you have a driver's license?
Nope. Bikes are supposed to ride as close to the right as possible. It's the law.
Quote from: JWC on April 05, 2009, 02:31:09 PM
I don't want anything more from you, than to see you live long and ride safe. Thousands of people ride as you do and live. I do think it is important to get the message across that there is a specific way to ride, a way that has been proven safe. What you do reflects on all cyclists, because being predictable and riding to specific rules, trains car drivers what to expect from all cyclists.
I do follow all the laws. I ride on city streets legally, and I ride to the right on roads like I posted pictures of. Why do I ride to the right? Because I deem it to be most safe and courteous and, uh, it's the law.
Quote from: Tave on April 05, 2009, 06:41:14 PM
I'm not trying to be a dick--just curious--but do you have any evidence for this? When I'm on a highway like the one Giant posted, I'm scanning the whole roadway and then some (making sure there aren't deer approaching the pavement). We have plenty of highways like that here, as well as cyclists who use them, and I have never thought that they were hard to see if they used the shoulder, which 99% of them do.
That shoulder is not in the driver's blindspot. I'm having a hard time believing that riding a few feet to the right of the line instead of on it somehow makes a rider harder to see.
You're a godsend.
So, really, I've been following the law the entire time, and JWC and Psilos have been raping me for riding on the shoulder when, actually, it is the law to do so. Don't whip out the "practicable" playing card. I ride a mountain bike. A goddamn pebble doesn't scare me out of the tights I don't wear, and I've never gotten a flat riding the shoulder. I've always considered riding on the shoulder away from traffic to be the safest place to ride, you guys were lighting me up for it, but actually it's the law.
Do governments make laws that purposely endanger those that are supposed to follow them? I think not. I think the logic they thought of was "Hm, a biker is gonna be going about 20 MPH and a car is gonna be going about 60 MPH...where's the safest place for him to ride? Probably away from the 60 MPH cars, hey? Alright, let's make the law state that bikes should ride as far to the right as possible..."
Maybe I should be a fucking politician or something since my logic is/was the same as theirs. :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
If you guys are so indignant on following the law, then why have you been telling me to disobey the law? And since when the fuck do I live in PA?
As I said earlier it depends on the state and the local municipality responsible for that section of roadway.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 06, 2009, 08:20:35 AM
Hm, sorry. It's the law.
Actually, it isn't the law, it is just allowable. The law has the following exceptions, which several have pointed out as a reason NOT to ride on the shoulder.
(c) When conditions make the right-hand edge of the roadway unsafe or reasonably unusable by bicycles, including, but not limited to, surface hazards, an uneven roadway surface, drain openings, debris, parked or moving vehicles or bicycles, pedestrians, animals, or other obstacles, or if the lane is too narrow to permit a vehicle to safely overtake and pass a bicycle.
Hm...do you see any major objects on the road of which I posted pictures of? Do you think a few pebbles will scare me? I ride a mountain bike.
That's my point.
My main points are:
a) You guys have been flaming me for riding illegally and "unsafe."
- The way I ride I deem to be safe (to the right, on the shoulder) and turns out is the legal way to ride.
b) I see that the law states that a biker should ride on the shoulder "as is practicable."
- I ride a Trek Fuel EX5.5. Riding to the right and running over a few pebbles isn't going to shake me.
- Even if the road is extremely littered (which hardly any that I ride are) there is a giant shoulder (see pics) and the middle of the shoulder is always clean enough.
c) When in the city on 25 MPH streets and the like, I ride with traffic.
- I can keep up with traffic.
- I use bike lanes when they're presented.
- I merge with traffic to turn left.
- etc.
So, tell me, folks...is all the bashing on me really necessary?
Again, the law does not say ride on the shoulder, it says ride as close to the right as "practicable". That, in and of itself, even as the law reads, is a matter of interpretation.
Also, this is from the Michigan safe riding website:
Generally, the usable width of the road begins where you can ride without increased danger of falls, jolts or blowouts. A road may have a gravel shoulder, its edge may be covered with sand or trash or the pavement may be broken. Don't ride there. Closer to the center, there's better pavement, which is swept clean of sand and debris by the passing cars. The right side of the road begins here.
Most bicycle crashes are simple falls or are caused by hazards in front of you. Train your eyes to scan the scene ahead, and be wary of blindspots. Keep your eyes moving - you have to look up at the traffic and also down at the road for potholes and cracks. You may sometimes need to slow down in order to spot hazards in time.
Ride far enough into the lane to avoid the risk from blindspots. If you ride too close to parked cars on your right you can't see around them into side streets and driveways.
IIf the road has a paved shoulder or an extra-wide right lane, don't ride all the way over at the right edge. Instead, keep riding in a straight line 3 or 4 feet to the right of the cars. Stay at a steady distance from the left side of the right lane.
If you stay all the way over at the right edge in an extra-wide lane, you give up your escape zone to the right, and you're much more likely to be cut off by a right-turning car. When this happens, it's harder for you to avoid a crash. By the time you see the car, it will be blocking your path. If you're closer to the car, you can turn with it and avoid a crash.
Quote from: Psilos on April 05, 2009, 03:42:34 PM
Your and idiot.
Why aren't cars the second class citizens in your odd little mind? Because you drive them? That's not logical. Bikes were here first, after all. Bikes are a different class of vehicle, but the attitude that they don't belong on the road is why cyclists don't like car drivers. And here's the thing-- that attitude is your problem, not ours. We understand how to fairly share the road with cars, and most of us cyclists (not necessarily the bike riders that JWC differentiates) behave in ways that do fairly share the road with cars. So ya know what? Fuck you and the car you drove in on.
Bikes are second class because they are not as capable as cars, you moron. How many times do I have to say that?
Quote from: bing_oh on April 05, 2009, 07:34:17 PM
Cyclists don't have more rights than motorists, they have equal rights to motorists. No matter your opinion, bicycles are vehicles and have the same legal rights and obligations on the roads as you do driving in your car.
I've never even heard of a bike getting pulled over for running a stop sign or red light, and they do it all the time.
Quote from: Psilos on April 05, 2009, 11:01:12 PM
No, you got that wrong, chief. A bike's ability is not the same as a car's, and that's pretty bloody obvious. My attitude is, and the facts of the law are, that bikes have an equal right to the road as a car. If you actually read and understood the rest of my posts in this thread, you would know that I think that the difference in ability of cars versus bikes results in some laws that don't necessarily apply to both. My point wasn't that bikes are better than cars and have super powers that make them immune to laws, logic, and safety, but that while cars and bikes are a different class of vehicles (duh), they have and deserve equal rights to the road. In other words, neither cars nor bikes are second class vehicles.
You're saying that you should get the right to pick and choose which laws to which you adhere, and that's just fucking wrong. If you want to pretend that you
should have the same right to the road as motorists, then you need to adhere to the same rules. I don't get the choice to run a red light at 3AM because no one is there. I stop just the same as if there were school children playing in the afternoon. Cyclists don't. They ride through with no regard for anyone else, and with very little regard, it seems, for their own life.
YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If you want to be treated the same as a motorist, then you have to adhere to the same rules. I said this already. You had a problem with it, apparently, because you believe bikes are made in the image of god and no rules should apply to them.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 06, 2009, 07:39:41 AM
You want equal rights, but then you also want special rights, like the ability to run red lights or hold up traffic. Nor do you want to sit in stop and go traffic, but ride right up the side of cars waiting their turn in stop and go traffic.
If you're not going to follow the rules of the road with cars, then you're not going to get treated as though you're in a car.
Thank you. That's all I'm trying to say.
And I do believe there should be a licensing and registration process for people who intend to ride their bikes on public roads.
Quote from: Raza on April 06, 2009, 08:59:36 AM
Bikes are second class because they are not as capable as cars, you moron. How many times do I have to say that?
"Not as capable" of what?
Quote from: Raza on April 06, 2009, 09:02:05 AM
I've never even heard of a bike getting pulled over for running a stop sign or red light, and they do it all the time.
Well, now you have. I've chewed plenty of bicyclists asses for running red lights and stop signs. I've even cited them out of crashes.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 06, 2009, 09:21:41 AM
"Not as capable" of what?
Well, now you have. I've chewed plenty of bicyclists asses for running red lights and stop signs. I've even cited them out of crashes.
Is that a serious question? When was the last time you saw a bicycle do fifty miles an hour?
Well, there you go. Now I've heard of it. But I've still seen many more cyclists running red lights and stop signs than I have motorists.
Quote from: JWC on April 06, 2009, 08:59:23 AM
Again, the law does not say ride on the shoulder, it says ride as close to the right as "practicable". That, in and of itself, even as the law reads, is a matter of interpretation.
Also, this is from the Michigan safe riding website:
Generally, the usable width of the road begins where you can ride without increased danger of falls, jolts or blowouts. A road may have a gravel shoulder, its edge may be covered with sand or trash or the pavement may be broken. Don't ride there. Closer to the center, there's better pavement, which is swept clean of sand and debris by the passing cars. The right side of the road begins here.
Most bicycle crashes are simple falls or are caused by hazards in front of you. Train your eyes to scan the scene ahead, and be wary of blindspots. Keep your eyes moving - you have to look up at the traffic and also down at the road for potholes and cracks. You may sometimes need to slow down in order to spot hazards in time.
Ride far enough into the lane to avoid the risk from blindspots. If you ride too close to parked cars on your right you can't see around them into side streets and driveways.
IIf the road has a paved shoulder or an extra-wide right lane, don't ride all the way over at the right edge. Instead, keep riding in a straight line 3 or 4 feet to the right of the cars. Stay at a steady distance from the left side of the right lane.
If you stay all the way over at the right edge in an extra-wide lane, you give up your escape zone to the right, and you're much more likely to be cut off by a right-turning car. When this happens, it's harder for you to avoid a crash. By the time you see the car, it will be blocking your path. If you're closer to the car, you can turn with it and avoid a crash.
Then perhaps the better course of tact would have been to say, "yes, you can use that space, but be wary of X, Y, and Z. Sometimes, it's not safe to ride there, for the reasons I listed, although you know your roads better than I do."
Instead you treated him like the anti-Christ. :huh: You did share some useful knowledge, but it came wrapped in a cloak of holier-than-thou attitude which would have turned anyone off.
And in the end, he was as right as you. Of course there are exceptions to any rule, and one must always remain vigilant when they're sharing the road with cars, but to chastise him for riding in the breakdown lane he posted was just petty and uncalled for. Even the other cyclists agreed with him after they saw the picture.
There's a way to go about speaking your mind, which from what I can tell is vast and informative on this subject, without treating him like crap.
Quote from: Raza on April 06, 2009, 09:33:01 AM
Is that a serious question? When was the last time you saw a bicycle do fifty miles an hour?
So, "capability" is determined by speed alone? Therefore, you're a "second class citizen" to the crotch rockets out there who are capable of blowing your doors off, right?
Quote from: bing_oh on April 06, 2009, 09:38:54 AM
So, "capability" is determined by speed alone? Therefore, you're a "second class citizen" to the crotch rockets out there who are capable of blowing your doors off, right?
Now you're just being dense on purpose. It's not just speed, clearly.
But if they can't keep up with traffic, then they are second class citizens. Traffic often moves at 50mph, and if a bike can't keep up with that, then it should get the fuck out of the way. It's as simple as that.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 06, 2009, 08:03:07 AM
Well, I wasn't really talking to you as much as to the people here that were plainly stating that since the physics of riding were different than driving, they could pick and choose what laws applied to them.
Still, if you're riding in stop and go traffic, do you sit like a motorcycle with traffic and inch forward, or do you use the small size to ride past all the cars waiting in their lane?
Realistically, I rarely ride in stop and go traffic unless I'm on duty. As a common sense rider, I know that my safety in the saddle is more likely if I stay away from heavy traffic congestion. Do I usually wait in traffic while on bike? Yes...and I realize that I'm probably in the minority amongst bicyclists in that respect.
On duty, yes, I usually do just the same as a motorcycle and wait in line with the rest of the traffic. I say "usually" because, as a public safety vehicle, I'm technicaly exempt from traffic laws and do have the occasion and necessity to violate them from time to time as the situation requires.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 06, 2009, 09:38:54 AM
So, "capability" is determined by speed alone? Therefore, you're a "second class citizen" to the crotch rockets out there who are capable of blowing your doors off, right?
If you have a broken down vehicle and you have to drive slowly with your hazards on because you're in the way of other vehicles, or are driving a tractor that has a placard on it to warn motorists that you're slow, etc, you are driving a "second class vehicle" and must stay out of the way of traffic. Much like the laws stating "impeding 4 or more vehicles is illegal. Must use turnouts" in most states.
A bicycle is a slow vehicle, and as such, must not impede faster traffic. it isnt' about whether someone can go faster than the speed limit, but about vehicles that by necessity are going vastly SLOWER than the speed limit. While a crotch rocket is faster than Raza's car, BOTH the crotch rocket and Raza's car can move at the speed limit or above, so the differnces between them are not germaine to the discussion here.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 06, 2009, 09:44:32 AM
Realistically, I rarely ride in stop and go traffic unless I'm on duty. As a common sense rider, I know that my safety in the saddle is more likely if I stay away from heavy traffic congestion. Do I usually wait in traffic while on bike? Yes...and I realize that I'm probably in the minority amongst bicyclists in that respect.
Yes you are. In 30 years of driving, I've NEVER seen a cyclist/bike rider wait in traffic on any street, anywhere.
QuoteOn duty, yes, I usually do just the same as a motorcycle and wait in line with the rest of the traffic. I say "usually" because, as a public safety vehicle, I'm technicaly exempt from traffic laws and do have the occasion and necessity to violate them from time to time as the situation requires.
And that is a completely different situation. One that I fully support.
Quote from: Raza on April 06, 2009, 09:41:02 AM
Now you're just being dense on purpose. It's not just speed, clearly.
But if they can't keep up with traffic, then they are second class citizens. Traffic often moves at 50mph, and if a bike can't keep up with that, then it should get the fuck out of the way. It's as simple as that.
No, I'm not being dense...you're being obstinant. I asked you what constituted "capability" and you said speed. Just because a vehicle can't do 50 mph does not make them "incapable" and, therefore, not vehicles with the right to share the roadway. Horse-drawn carrages, farm equipment, and mopeds are all incapable of travelling at car speeds, but they all remain vehicles and have a right to be on the roadway...no matter how annoying they may be to you.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 06, 2009, 09:45:53 AM
If you have a broken down vehicle and you have to drive slowly with your hazards on because you're in the way of other vehicles, or are driving a tractor that has a placard on it to warn motorists that you're slow, etc, you are driving a "second class vehicle" and must stay out of the way of traffic. Much like the laws stating "impeding 4 or more vehicles is illegal. Must use turnouts" in most states.
A bicycle is a slow vehicle, and as such, must not impede faster traffic. it isnt' about whether someone can go faster than the speed limit, but about vehicles that by necessity are going vastly SLOWER than the speed limit. While a crotch rocket is faster than Raza's car, BOTH the crotch rocket and Raza's car can move at the speed limit or above, so the differnces between them are not germaine to the discussion here.
That's a new one on me. Ohio has no such laws for normal roadways...the only roadways that have minimum speeds in Ohio are highways, and bicycles and other such slow-moving vehicles are not permitted on them.
Some examples from Washington State, where i grew up and spent most of my time...
"The issue of driving too slow is covered in Revised Code of Washington 46.61.425:
(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law."
And yet bicycles do this. If you want to be treated the same as a motor vehicle, then the capability of maintaining the speed limit is a necessity.
"The requirement to move right is covered in RCW 46.61.427:
On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place."
This is typical. Bicycles never pull over when room exists.
If you're incapable of moving at road speeds, but are legally allowed to use roadways, then you have to use these types of rules. That's part of being treated as any other vehicle on the road. If you don't want to comply with these rules, then yes, you want special treatment as a bicycle.
The second one would apply to bicycles. The first applies to "motor vehicles," which a bicycle obviously is not, given that it lacks a motor (unless your state says otherwise...such are the vaguaries of state laws :huh:). I know that seems like nitpicking, but the law's like that.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 06, 2009, 10:01:04 AM
The second one would apply to bicycles. The first applies to "motor vehicles," which a bicycle obviously is not, given that it lacks a motor (unless your state says otherwise...such are the vaguaries of state laws :huh:). I know that seems like nitpicking, but the law's like that.
Which is the point, Either you act like a motor vehicle and obey all motor vehicle laws, or you don't, and thus should not be expected to be treated as a motor vehicle with the same rights. As Raza says, you don't get to have it both ways.
From the Montana code:
"61-8-602. Traffic laws applicable to persons operating bicycles. Every person operating a bicycle shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by chapter 7, this chapter, and chapter 9 except as to special regulations in this part and except as to those provisions of chapter 7, this chapter, and chapter 9 which by their very nature can have no application."
Washington most likely has a similar clause.
I can't imagine every state rewrites their codes to cover every instance of cycling. They just say, "Cyclists, follow the law for motorized vehicles unless we tell you otherwise."
Quote from: JWC on April 06, 2009, 08:59:23 AM
Again, the law does not say ride on the shoulder, it says ride as close to the right as "practicable". That, in and of itself, even as the law reads, is a matter of interpretation.
And to me, riding farther to the right on the shoulder (which is generally clean in my case) is practicable.
My point is that you've been bashing me this entire time for riding on the goddamn shoulder when it is perfectly legal and completely practicable by me.
What's your fucking problem?
Quote from: Tave on April 06, 2009, 09:37:23 AM
Then perhaps the better course of tact would have been to say, "yes, you can use that space, but be wary of X, Y, and Z. Sometimes, it's not safe to ride there, for the reasons I listed, although you know your roads better than I do."
Instead you treated him like the anti-Christ. :huh: You did share some useful knowledge, but it came wrapped in a cloak of holier-than-thou attitude which would have turned anyone off.
And in the end, he was as right as you. Of course there are exceptions to any rule, and one must always remain vigilant when they're sharing the road with cars, but to chastise him for riding in the breakdown lane he posted was just petty and uncalled for. Even the other cyclists agreed with him after they saw the picture.
There's a way to go about speaking your mind, which from what I can tell is vast and informative on this subject, without treating him like crap.
He uses language that I don't appreciate, so he is treated with the respect that I thought appropriate. But, if he'd read the website, which is where the quote is from, even his own state doesn't suggest riding as close to the right as possible.
Your quote's from, what, the "Michigan safe riding website?"
Mine's from the Law. As in...the law. Not suggestion.
MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 300 of 1949
257.660a Operation of bicycle upon highway or street; riding close to right-hand curb or edge of roadway; exceptions.
Sec. 660a.
A person operating a bicycle upon a highway or street at less than the existing speed of traffic shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
All I'm saying is you've been flaming me for riding on the shoulder. It's perfectly legal.
What's the problem?
The same Michigan state website:
Many cyclists believe they are safer and more comfortable riding further to the right than this booklet recommends. They fear being passed uncomfortably close by a motorist, or feel intimidated by impatient drivers. Riding too far to the right is very dangerous for several reasons. It puts the cyclist in the danger zone of poor sightlines and opening car doors; it gives motorists an opportunity or even invitation to attempt a close pass; and it takes away the cyclist's escape route to the right in the event of the unexpected. The correct lane positions described in this booklet are the safest and most efficient. Do not be intimidated. Take responsibility for your own safety, even if other traffic must occasionally slow and follow you.
The only thing there that even pertains to me riding on the shoulder on the types of roads OF WHICH I POSTED PICTURES OF is the "escape route to the right." But, unless there's a guardrail, you can see there's a lot of room to the right of the road. :rolleyes:
Fear of being passed to closely? Shit, there's tons of room. I'm gonna give it to them, they give it to me. Even when I'm farther to the right, most drivers still move left. Poor sightlines and opening car doors? Dude, look at the pictures. Sightlines = Miles. Opening car doors? You see a car in the "breakdown lane" from a long ways off. Plenty of time to assess the situation. :rolleyes: Gives motorists an opportunity to pass close? What? Is someone going to purposely come over into the shoulder to pass me from inches away? Maybe if I was riding the white line. Most people stay in their lanes. :rolleyes:
I'm simply following what the law says. You've been telling me to do so this entire thread.
Again, I ask...what's your problem?
Geez, do what ever you want, ignore the safety experts that wrote the book for Michigan cyclists.
I'm obeying the law, am I not? You've been telling me to do so this entire time.
What's your problem?
Quote from: JWC on April 06, 2009, 10:55:37 AM
Geez, do what ever you want, ignore the safety experts that wrote the book for Michigan cyclists.
He's not ignoring them. He's considering all the advice they give him and then adapting it to his situation, according to the law. This is exactly what Michigain wants him to do.
I nominate this to be one of the dumbest arguments ever.
Quote from: thecarnut on April 06, 2009, 10:58:57 AM
I nominate this to be one of the dumbest arguments ever.
Actually, I agree.
Is MtB within the law? Simply, yes. Do the folks who write the guide books on cycling for the state of Michigan consider hugging the far right the safest place to be, evidently not.
I've mentioned sightlines, dirt, trash, glass, everything but the escape zone...and the booklet supports those concerns.
I know many "bike riders" who think it is best to ride against traffic so they can see on coming cars, in their eyes it is the safest way to ride. Doesn't make it so, but according to them it is. If MTB's roadway has such a large shoulder to ride on, maybe riding against traffice on that paritcular road is the "safest" way to ride, for that stretch of roadway. Experts say not to, but if I feel it is in my best interest, then....
It's not as if I ride inches from the literal edge of the road. :rolleyes: I'm usually just within the right-half of the shoulder.
Quote from: JWC on April 06, 2009, 11:30:42 AM
Is MtB within the law? Simply, yes. Do the folks who write the guide books on cycling for the state of Michigan consider hugging the far right the safest place to be, evidently not.
He doesn't say he does it all the time. He's pointing out specific instances where he thinks it's a good idea: clean, wide two-lanes with large shoulders, good sightlines and high speeds. Then he even goes as far to provide a picture of what he's talking about, to which the other cyclists respond, "Yeah, I can see what you're talking about.
QuoteI've mentioned sightlines, dirt, trash, glass, everything but the escape zone...and the booklet supports those concerns.
And he's responded to most of those concerns, providing justification for some, and admitting circumstances where he would adjust his behavior to fit others.
I'm sure if he came out of his house one day and noticed that the shoulders were covered in dirt and debris, he might push further to the left. :huh:
I'm not sure what I did wrong, either. :huh:
Quote from: ChrisV on April 06, 2009, 10:16:25 AM
Which is the point, Either you act like a motor vehicle and obey all motor vehicle laws, or you don't, and thus should not be expected to be treated as a motor vehicle with the same rights. As Raza says, you don't get to have it both ways.
Quote from: Tave on April 06, 2009, 10:16:30 AM
From the Montana code:
"61-8-602. Traffic laws applicable to persons operating bicycles. Every person operating a bicycle shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by chapter 7, this chapter, and chapter 9 except as to special regulations in this part and except as to those provisions of chapter 7, this chapter, and chapter 9 which by their very nature can have no application."
Washington most likely has a similar clause.
I can't imagine every state rewrites their codes to cover every instance of cycling. They just say, "Cyclists, follow the law for motorized vehicles unless we tell you otherwise."
There is a difference, legally, is between "vehicles" and "motorized vehicles." From the two laws that Chris posted, I'd guess that Washington is very similar to Ohio in that the laws
are actually written specifically for either "vehicles" (which includes everything from semis and cars to bikes and rollerblades) or "motorized vehicles" (only vehicles powered by a motor). There are usually even different legal definitions in the law books for "vehicle" and "motorized vehicle." As I said, while it seems like nitpicking, such are the vaguaries of state law. It's not a matter of bicyclists wanting special treatment, it's a matter of the law applying or not applying to a particular type of vehicle.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 06, 2009, 09:48:37 AM
No, I'm not being dense...you're being obstinant. I asked you what constituted "capability" and you said speed. Just because a vehicle can't do 50 mph does not make them "incapable" and, therefore, not vehicles with the right to share the roadway. Horse-drawn carrages, farm equipment, and mopeds are all incapable of travelling at car speeds, but they all remain vehicles and have a right to be on the roadway...no matter how annoying they may be to you.
I mentioned one thing, and you took that to mean it was the only thing.
And all those vehicles you mentioned usually have the decency to move to the right lane or partially on to a shoulder to allow visibility for passing. They're far more courteous than cyclists tend to me.
Quote from: R-inge on April 04, 2009, 07:44:45 AM
I hope so, too bad there were no witnesses and that other bastard ran.
Always keep a running camera on your car. Hero Cams are a cheap safeguard.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 06, 2009, 04:10:10 PM
There is a difference, legally, is between "vehicles" and "motorized vehicles." From the two laws that Chris posted, I'd guess that Washington is very similar to Ohio in that the laws are actually written specifically for either "vehicles" (which includes everything from semis and cars to bikes and rollerblades) or "motorized vehicles" (only vehicles powered by a motor). There are usually even different legal definitions in the law books for "vehicle" and "motorized vehicle." As I said, while it seems like nitpicking, such are the vaguaries of state law. It's not a matter of bicyclists wanting special treatment, it's a matter of the law applying or not applying to a particular type of vehicle.
Do you see where I'm comming from though? In the Montana codebook I posted, it says "Every person operating a bicycle shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle." So for Montana's purposes, a cyclist is expected to obey all the same laws as a motor vehicle, found earlier in the codebook, excepting the guidelines lain out in the pages following the stuff I quoted.
In other words, the State is saying, "here are all the special rules for bicycles, otherwise do what the law tells motor vehicles to do."
Here's one for CA
Quote
Operation on Roadway
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.
So you bikers needs to stay right unless you're driving my speed.!
But there are exceptions. Road bikers don't like small pebbles. They freak out and blow their tights off. And then ride the white line.
:lol:
Raza, this news article is right up your alley. I know I shouldn't, but every time I read it and it says the guy spit the ear out at him, I have to laugh.
I could just imagine Raza doing this.
http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20090403/NEWS01/904030310/1002
Curtis A. "Alan" Cross, 43, was charged Thursday with battery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Class C felony carrying a standard four-year prison term. He was being held in the Henry County jail under a $3,250 bond.
Cross's alleged victim, Jeffrey H. Guffey, 31, told city police he was riding a bicycle in the 800 block of North 20th Street about 5 p.m. when he shouted at the driver of a sport-utility vehicle that passed him at a high rate of speed
Guffey said he told the driver, "I'm just asking you to slow down. I don't want trouble, but there are kids out."
The man hit Guffey in the face, then "took him to the ground, where he struck him some more with his hands, then bit off his ear," city patrolman M. Chase Hightower reported.
"Guffey stated the man then got up and spit his ear out at him," Hightower wrote.
ouch
SEE? CAR DRIVERS ARE ALL EVIL!!!!!
/wacky untruthiness
This thread makes me want to sell my cars and ride my bikes everywhere, waving a lead pipe at the dumb drivers the whole way.
Have we finally reached the apex, where we all punch each other, and then go drinking?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1036424#msg1036424 date=1239056835
I mentioned one thing, and you took that to mean it was the only thing.
And all those vehicles you mentioned usually have the decency to move to the right lane or partially on to a shoulder to allow visibility for passing. They're far more courteous than cyclists tend to me.
All those large, slow vehicles are also, well, large. Drivers don't generally miss the giant green John Deere ambling down the right side of the road, but drivers do miss cyclists, and surprisingly often.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1036151#msg1036151 date=1239029976
Bikes are second class because they are not as capable as cars, you moron. How many times do I have to say that?
Many, many more. And one of those times, you should try to find something to support it. ;)
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 06, 2009, 08:28:32 AM
So, really, I've been following the law the entire time, and JWC and Psilos have been raping me for riding on the shoulder when, actually, it is the law to do so. Don't whip out the "practicable" playing card. I ride a mountain bike. A goddamn pebble doesn't scare me out of the tights I don't wear, and I've never gotten a flat riding the shoulder. I've always considered riding on the shoulder away from traffic to be the safest place to ride, you guys were lighting me up for it, but actually it's the law.
Do governments make laws that purposely endanger those that are supposed to follow them? I think not. I think the logic they thought of was "Hm, a biker is gonna be going about 20 MPH and a car is gonna be going about 60 MPH...where's the safest place for him to ride? Probably away from the 60 MPH cars, hey? Alright, let's make the law state that bikes should ride as far to the right as possible..."
Maybe I should be a fucking politician or something since my logic is/was the same as theirs. :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
If you guys are so indignant on following the law, then why have you been telling me to disobey the law? And since when the fuck do I live in PA?
The shoulder riding is marginal. It's probably safe enough, on those roads. I would worry about being seen by cars, but you don't seem to care about debris, and there is probably enough of an escape route. I'm ragging on you because of your attitude.
My attitude was brought on by you guys who insisted that I was riding illegally/improperly.
:confused:
Yeah, I suppose it's hard to see an object that is high in contrast to the road in broad daylight. Because, geez, from a mile or more away, it'll make such a difference whether I'm seen or not if I'm on the shoulder or on the white line.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: ChrisV on April 06, 2009, 07:39:41 AM
You want equal rights, but then you also want special rights, like the ability to run red lights or hold up traffic. Nor do you want to sit in stop and go traffic, but ride right up the side of cars waiting their turn in stop and go traffic.
If you're not going to follow the rules of the road with cars, then you're not going to get treated as though you're in a car.
Ugh. And ugh again.
Did you know that, in Idaho, bikes don't have to stop at stop signs? Also, at red lights, bike can go on a red, after stopping. It all depends on right-of-way, of course,
just like I've been saying for literal years. Look that shit up if you don't believe me.
And here's a thought: I don't want to be treated as if I'm in a car. I'm on a bike! Treat me like I'm on a bike, with the same lawful right to the road as you in your car!
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 06, 2009, 11:29:54 PM
My attitude was brought on by you guys who insisted that I was riding illegally/improperly.
:confused:
Yeah, I suppose it's hard to see an object that is high in contrast to the road in broad daylight. Because, geez, from a mile or more away, it'll make such a difference whether I'm seen or not if I'm on the shoulder or on the white line.
:rolleyes:
Actually, I re-read this thread yesterday at work, and the attitude began with you and your attitude with R-inge. You're the one with smart-ass comments and foul language....usually, the sign someone knows they are wrong and is afraid to admit it. Even when I mentioned the legality of riding on breakdown lanes, I used the words "in many states" because I know some states allow it...I didn't even know which state you resided.
I think I also mentioned that you needed to check local laws. While the state sets the legal standard, local governments control roads they are responsible for. Local police can restrict travel on certain roadways for bicycles...and do so legally.
We have electric vehicles running around my town, Ford Th!nks. Their top speed is 25mph.
I suppose several people here think they shouldn't be allowed on the streets either, especially in areas up to 45mph. Yet, they are licensed and have to pass a safety inspection every year. I know some policemen think so, since they have pulled them over and told the owners not to drive on the road. That was in a 35mph zone. That ruling has since been over turned.
The point is there are all types of vehicles out there. It is everyone's responsibility to share the road. Even if you don't like the idea, you'll still responsible for doing so. Cyclists who run stops signs and weave in and out of parked cars, or cut corners at intersections should be punished just like a car driver who does such things.
...and I don't run stop signs, weave in and out of cars, or cut corners.
...and I said I live in MI back on page 8.
...and why does swearing imply that I know I'm wrong? Turns out this is all pretty much a matter of opinion (or law interpretation). I don't think I could be wrong. :huh:
...and you're still treating me as if I disobey every common sense road law on the planet. Which I don't...I follow them when I'm on my bike.
:confused:
What's your problem?
Problem? Not me.
You seem to be overly defensive..even when something said isn't meant for you.
Overly defensive? Shit, you guys just raped me for 7 pages for wanting to ride on the shoulder of a goddamn road.
:confused:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 07, 2009, 06:57:47 AM
Overly defensive? Shit, you guys just raped me for 7 pages for wanting to ride on the shoulder of a goddamn road.
:confused:
See. Nobody "raped" you. We just stated the case that it isn't the safest place to ride. Even the booklet published in your own state makes that point.
Quote from: JWC on April 07, 2009, 07:11:52 AM
See. Nobody "raped" you.
Dude, c'mon dude. That was a bonafied anal reaming.
Quote from: JWC on April 07, 2009, 04:15:54 AM
Actually, I re-read this thread yesterday at work, and the attitude began with you and your attitude with R-inge.
Roy agreed with him 7 pages ago.
Quote from: R-inge on April 04, 2009, 08:31:28 AM
On that road I see your point!
Then when the discussion continued he lost interest.
Quote from: R-inge on April 04, 2009, 09:08:03 AM
Fuck this thread.
Quote from: JWC on April 07, 2009, 07:11:52 AM
See. Nobody "raped" you. We just stated the case that it isn't the safest place to ride. Even the booklet published in your own state makes that point.
And you made me out to be the worst rider on the planet because of it. For 7 pages. Who's the overly defensive one, if not both of us?
I don't care what some booklet says. When was the last time you saw a pedestrian walking along the white line of a road like I posted pictures of? Probably never, hey? Why is me riding a bike any different? The only real difference is that on a bike, I'm travelling at, say, 12-15 MPH intsead of 2-3.
:huh:
Christ, you even tried to negate me because I got hit by a car.
:confused:
I never made you out to be the worst rider on the planet, except in your own mind. Just not the safest, in my opinion...which tends to be backed up by a lot of experts.
Also, you blamed the car driver for not seeing you as she came out of a blind driveway, and I stated that it went both ways, if you couldn't see her, she couldn't see you. You admitted you knew it was a blind driveway and went wide to avoid it...you knew the risk was there. It was still her fault, though, and if you remember I agreed that it was and you shouldn't have let her get away with it.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 07:50:25 PM
Well, "fucker", I guess we know who was to blame, you.
I don't recall saying anything against riding defensively...fucker. Riding defensively, does not mean riding illegally...which you are advocating. Ride in a vehicular manner, i.e. vehicular cycling and you are riding safely.
Weaving around parked cars, riding is trash, and weaving around pedestrians is just as bad as riding at night, intoxicated, without lights.
You said I was to blame for getting hit and that I was advocating illegal riding because I ride on the shoulder and take the sidewalk to the convenient bike racks outside of my class buildings. :huh: :confused:
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 09:13:54 PM
Well, if you couldn't see her until the last moment, how do you expect her to see you? You should have been more cautious approaching a blind driveway...beside, she had the larger vehicle and in America, it gives her the right to do as she pleases. :lol:
Seriously though, if she pulled out into traffic from a driveway she was at fault. She should have been cited, paid for the damage to the bike, and paid your medical expenses.
Yeah, I know...but you initially said I was to blame and that I was advocating illegal riding. That's usually a pretty considerate thing to do when someone tells you they got hit by a car on a bike.
:rolleyes:
As far as I can tell, you started the negative riding comments by calling people douche bags.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 05, 2009, 07:40:25 AM
Why do roadies insist on riding on or as close to the fog line as possible? In Michigan (at least in the UP), we have mostly 8 foot shoulders. 8 feet. Yet they ride the white line. It's annoying as hell. I'm a biker (mountain, not road), and I ride as far to the right as possible...I'm not taking any chances. And then there are the douche bags that ride on a busy 55-MPH road that HAS NO SHOULDER, just dirt...so these roadies are there riding IN the road, which has many blind curves, and people go 65, not 55. It pisses me off. They embarrass me.
Quote from: R-inge on March 05, 2009, 08:38:13 AM
I ride more or less on the line because any further and the road isn't swept clean of debris by passing traffic, which means ruining your tires on rocks and things for roadies. Plus, if there is no shoulder are bikes just supposed to not bother? There are some beautiful back roads around where I live and I have no problem waiting for just a moment for traffic to clear and pass them. My car also doesn't take up the whole lane, so I have no problem just putting my left wheels on the center stripe and passing them like that at a reasonable speed. It wouldn't bother me as a biker to get passed like that either.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 05, 2009, 12:00:21 PM
Swept clean of debris? Jesus, I understand that your 87439-psi tires don't offer you the best ride out there, but for god's sake, the shoulder's there for a reason. If I was a roadie, I'd probably ride close to the white line...but if a damn car was coming...I'd move over for a second to wait for a car to go by. The thing that bothers me is when these douche bags don't move over when there's opposing traffic, especially when they have a gigantic shoulder for them to use.
As far as I know, R-inge agreed with me and understood where I was coming from once I had posted pics of the types of wide-shouldered roads I was talking about.
:huh:
If you're going to quote a thread where I curse, let's put in the correct perspective. It was in response to your original quote.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 04, 2009, 07:00:51 PM
Crying about getting hit? Fucker, I've been hit while riding my bike. Don't give me shit.
If drivers are taught to drive defensively, why is it so wrong to ride defensively? Seriously...I'm not gonna fuck around with 3000+ pound machines...that's all there is to it. It's not about my "rights"...it's about courtesy and wanting to live.
Quote from: JWC on April 04, 2009, 07:50:25 PM
Well, "fucker", I guess we know who was to blame, you.
I don't recall saying anything against riding defensively...fucker. Riding defensively, does not mean riding illegally...which you are advocating. Ride in a vehicular manner, i.e. vehicular cycling and you are riding safely.
Weaving around parked cars, riding is trash, and weaving around pedestrians is just as bad as riding at night, intoxicated, without lights.
I understand that. I wasn't talking about the cursing. I was referring to the fact that you blamed me for getting hit by a car...as I said.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Psilos on April 06, 2009, 11:31:07 PM
And here's a thought: I don't want to be treated as if I'm in a car. I'm on a bike! Treat me like I'm on a bike, with the same lawful right to the road as you in your car!
You either follow the rules of the road, like a motor vehicle, or you don't. One or the other. If you don't want to follow the rules of the road, like in/on a motor vehicle, then you do NOT deserve to be on the roadway any more than a pedestrian does.
You don't get to have special treatment that makes you more important than motor vehicles. Which is exactly what you want when you state you can legally hold up motor vehicles, and treat stop LIGHTS like stop SIGNS.
So what about the part where it is clearly the law to ride as close to the curb or whatever on the road and yield to cars. Why is it so hard to bicycle riders to do that?
They think it's unsafe.
:huh: :confused:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 07, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
(http://www.lolkink.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/pooper2.jpg)
Yeah? Why don't you cry about it? :rolleyes:
:lol:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 07, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
They think it's unsafe.
:huh: :confused:
:huh:
Yeah, I know.. but 200lb vs 4000lb, wouldn't u err on the side of caution? They have the weight, they have the right of way, my life is not worth the headache. Especially if I'm in the wrong to begin with by riding on the white line when the law specifically tells me to move out of the car's way.
That's what I've been trying to say the whole time. :huh:
League of Michigan Bicyclists has already been quoted in this thread. For those that missed it here are the Cliff Notes:
Generally, the usable width of the road begins where you can ride without increased danger of falls, jolts or blowouts.
Closer to the center, there's better pavement, which is swept clean of sand and debris by the passing cars. The right side of the road begins here.
IIf the road has a paved shoulder or an extra-wide right lane, don't ride all the way over at the right edge.
If you stay all the way over at the right edge in an extra-wide lane, you give up your escape zone to the right, and you're much more likely to be cut off by a right-turning car.
Riding too far to the right is very dangerous for several reasons. It puts the cyclist in the danger zone of poor sightlines and opening car doors; it gives motorists an opportunity or even invitation to attempt a close pass; and it takes away the cyclist's escape route to the right in the event of the unexpected. The correct lane positions described in this booklet are the safest and most efficient.
Yeah, cool. My roads aren't like that. I don't fear of a blow out because my tires are more 2.25 inches wide and have some real tread on them. Jolts? lol I get jolts all the time when I'm riding down singletrack. A bump in the road isn't going to kill me like it does to those roadies. Better pavement? Bah. It's all the same, save for some dust and pebbles...which, once again, I ride a mountain bike...I'm not worried about it and they do not inhibit my way of travel.
Basically, those rules apply to wimpy road bikers with skinny, high-pressure tires. Not to me and the roads of which I posted pictures.
Take it up with the organization, LMB, which helps with safety classes in your state and helps make the laws.
Like R-inge, I'm done.
Why would I take it up with them? The law says that what I'm doing is legal. In my opinion, it's safe.
It appears you no longer have a problem with that after 8 pages.
:huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 07, 2009, 03:17:31 PM
Why would I take it up with them? The law says that what I'm doing is legal. In my opinion, it's safe.
It appears you no longer have a problem with that after 8 pages.
:huh:
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES IN YOUR STATE THAT ADVISE ON THE SAFEST WAY TO RIDE A BICYCLE.
GET IT?
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 07, 2009, 03:11:27 PM
Yeah, cool. My roads aren't like that. I don't fear of a blow out because my tires are more 2.25 inches wide and have some real tread on them. Jolts? lol I get jolts all the time when I'm riding down singletrack. A bump in the road isn't going to kill me like it does to those roadies. Better pavement? Bah. It's all the same, save for some dust and pebbles...which, once again, I ride a mountain bike...I'm not worried about it and they do not inhibit my way of travel.
Basically, those rules apply to wimpy road bikers with skinny, high-pressure tires. Not to me and the roads of which I posted pictures.
The side of the road are covered by pebbles because cyclists do not ride there, if they ride there, they can blow away all the debris just like cars do! Problem solved!
Quote from: JWC on April 07, 2009, 03:19:56 PM
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES IN YOUR STATE THAT ADVISE ON THE SAFEST WAY TO RIDE A BICYCLE.
GET IT?
For who? Roadies? The only part of what you posted that even closely pertains to me is the escape route to the right. But, I'm not afraid of grass if I have to use it, soooo.
:huh:
Do you listen to everything everybody tells you, JWC?
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 07, 2009, 03:46:51 PM
For who? Roadies? The only part of what you posted that even closely pertains to me is the escape route to the right. But, I'm not afraid of grass if I have to use it, soooo.
:huh:
Grass hurts less than being hit by cars.
it seems fairly obvious to me that riding closer to oncoming traffic and pissing off motorist more then whats needed should be considered "safe" :confused:
Quote from: NomisR on April 07, 2009, 03:58:32 PM
Grass hurts less than being hit by cars.
A true "cyclist" wouldn't be afraid of some grass.
Then again, I don't consider myself a "cyclist" because every time I hear the word, I think of the magazine cover with a guy riding a chintzy road bike with spandex on the cover. Not my style.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 07, 2009, 04:48:41 PM
A true "cyclist" wouldn't be afraid of some grass.
Then again, I don't consider myself a "cyclist" because every time I hear the word, I think of the magazine cover with a guy riding a chintzy road bike with spandex on the cover. Not my style.
Road bike + spandex = FAST.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 07, 2009, 04:48:41 PM
A true "cyclist" wouldn't be afraid of some grass.
Then again, I don't consider myself a "cyclist" because every time I hear the word, I think of the magazine cover with a guy riding a chintzy road bike with spandex on the cover. Not my style.
hehehe
My one and only Official (NORBA sponsored!) Race (starting in Wyoming, ending up inthe mountains of Utah,) one of the officials said at the starting line, "I've never seen so many hairy legs!!"
(Including mine.)
((That was a ROUGH ride. They called it the "hurl ride"- it was probably 2-3k feet uphill, over 26.whatever miles.. I Bonked with about 2miles to go.)
Quote from: NACar on April 07, 2009, 05:04:03 PM
Road bike + spandex = FAST.
One time I rode my friend's old road bike with him whilst he rode his new one (since I don't own one). I wore regular gym shorts and a t-shirt, he was in spandex. Did I lag behind?
No.
:huh:
:lol:
Quote from: ChrisV on April 07, 2009, 08:14:47 AM
You either follow the rules of the road, like a motor vehicle, or you don't. One or the other. If you don't want to follow the rules of the road, like in/on a motor vehicle, then you do NOT deserve to be on the roadway any more than a pedestrian does. You don't get to have special treatment that makes you more important than motor vehicles. Which is exactly what you want when you state you can legally hold up motor vehicles, and treat stop LIGHTS like stop SIGNS.
It's not one or the other just because you say it is. These are your opinions, not the law, where bicycles have the same legal right to the road. And some more of the law? The part of my post that you didn't quote? That part of the law, here in Idaho, says that, yes, I
can treat stop lights as stop signs, and stop signs as yield signs. And even more of the law? Bikes
can legally hold up motor vehicles, in certain situations.
What about speeding? That's a rule of the road. You don't get up in arms about drivers who speed not deserving to be on the road. In fact, you don't get up in arms about drivers who break any of the commonly broken rules of the road not deserving to use the road. Running a stop light when you have the right of way on a bike (in a state where it's illegal; i.e. not here) is akin to driving 5-10 mph over the speed limit.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 07, 2009, 03:11:27 PM
Yeah, cool. My roads aren't like that. I don't fear of a blow out because my tires are more 2.25 inches wide and have some real tread on them. Jolts? lol I get jolts all the time when I'm riding down singletrack. A bump in the road isn't going to kill me like it does to those roadies. Better pavement? Bah. It's all the same, save for some dust and pebbles...which, once again, I ride a mountain bike...I'm not worried about it and they do not inhibit my way of travel.
Basically, those rules apply to wimpy road bikers with skinny, high-pressure tires. Not to me and the roads of which I posted pictures.
And there's the dick face attitude again.
I've been a road biker, a mountain biker, a commuter, a single-speeder, and all of those at once. You're not doing anyone, including mountain bikers, a service by being such a prick towards roadies.
Quote from: Psilos on April 07, 2009, 07:53:15 PM
You're not doing anyone, including mountain bikers, a service by being such a prick towards roadies.
:( :cry: :huh:
Sorry, but I had to LOL at this. You guys are really fanatical about your bicycles.
So who is the Shark and who is the Jet?
I ride by myself and rarely talk to other bikers. I'm servicing no one. Dick face attitude? I'm simply stating the fact that I'm not worried about things outlined in the "safety handbook" or whatever that JWC quoted from. I'm not on some rigid, skinny/high-pressure tired bike.
All I'm trying to say is that what JWC is telling me is irrelevant since all of those things do not bother me. Pebbles, cracks, whatever...I hardly feel them, and I explained why.
I've ridden my road bike on off road trails, and in the ice and snow. It has a fucking cyclocross tire, dammit.
Quote from: Tave on April 07, 2009, 08:05:24 PM
:( :cry: :huh:
Sorry, but I had to LOL at this. You guys are really fanatical about your bicycles.
So who is the Shark and who is the Jet?
Similar fanaticism to that applied to cars... ;)
I'm the Puerto Rican one. Because I have black hair. :lol:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 07, 2009, 08:06:16 PM
I ride by myself and rarely talk to other bikers. I'm servicing no one. Dick face attitude? I'm simply stating the fact that I'm not worried about things outlined in the "safety handbook" or whatever that JWC quoted from. I'm not on some rigid, skinny/high-pressure tired bike.
All I'm trying to say is that what JWC is telling me is irrelevant since all of those things do not bother me. Pebbles, cracks, whatever...I hardly feel them, and I explained why.
Well, then you're an antisocial dick face. ;)
And you might just be trying to get a point across (which is well past across), but you're doing with a prick attitude, and that's not going to win you any friends. I could go through and quote you all the places where, in addition to making a comment relevant to your larger point, you were a cock, but that would be a waste of my time.
Quote from: NACar on April 07, 2009, 08:07:41 PM
I've ridden my road bike on off road trails, and in the ice and snow. It has a fucking cyclocross tire, dammit.
Yeah, I had cross tires on my single speed road bike for a long time (well, until they wore out, which wasn't that long, being cross tires). There are some wide gravel park trails on my way home (were I used to live) that I used to ride everyday, and it's super fun to be zipping through the trees, apexing corners, on a road bike. :lol:
Quote from: Psilos on April 07, 2009, 07:50:27 PM
It's not one or the other just because you say it is. These are your opinions, not the law, where bicycles have the same legal right to the road. And some more of the law? The part of my post that you didn't quote? That part of the law, here in Idaho, says that, yes, I can treat stop lights as stop signs, and stop signs as yield signs. And even more of the law? Bikes can legally hold up motor vehicles, in certain situations.
What about speeding? That's a rule of the road. You don't get up in arms about drivers who speed not deserving to be on the road. In fact, you don't get up in arms about drivers who break any of the commonly broken rules of the road not deserving to use the road. Running a stop light when you have the right of way on a bike (in a state where it's illegal; i.e. not here) is akin to driving 5-10 mph over the speed limit.
THE DIFFERENCE is though, that many drivers are too impatient-
They get all annoyed if they're held up EVEN ONE SECOND....
Quote from: Psilos on April 07, 2009, 07:50:27 PM
It's not one or the other just because you say it is. These are your opinions, not the law, where bicycles have the same legal right to the road. And some more of the law? The part of my post that you didn't quote? That part of the law, here in Idaho, says that, yes, I can treat stop lights as stop signs, and stop signs as yield signs. And even more of the law? Bikes can legally hold up motor vehicles, in certain situations.
If you want to use the road like a motor vehicle, you follow motor vehicle road laws. If you don't want to follow the SAME laws as motor vehicles, then quit bitching when you're treated differently. This is my problem. You whine when people don't treat you the same as a car, but you don't want to follow the same rules as a car. That means you want SPECIAL treatment. What part of that don't you get? If it's not the SAME as a car, then I'm not going to treat it as a car. I'm going to treat it as a slow obstacle, that doesn't have to follow car rules.
QuoteWhat about speeding? That's a rule of the road. You don't get up in arms about drivers who speed not deserving to be on the road. In fact, you don't get up in arms about drivers who break any of the commonly broken rules of the road not deserving to use the road. Running a stop light when you have the right of way on a bike (in a state where it's illegal; i.e. not here) is akin to driving 5-10 mph over the speed limit.
No, it's not. Running a stop light is akin to... running a stop light. And there's a vast safety difference between speeding a little bit and running a stop light.
And being an obstacle and forcing traffic to treat you specially is akin to... weaving in an out of traffic or driving 50 in the fast lane. And I get up in arms about people driving 50 in the fast lane, as well. Because left lane camping is the same self righteous BS as a fucking bike moron holding up traffic on a two lane road becasue they want special fucking treatment. The difference is, those left lane hogs PAID to be on the road, both in license fees and in road use tax.
Also, I don't say speeding even a little bit is LEGAL, and I have a right to do it because I'm special and want to follow special rules. If I'm speeding and get caught, I dont' say "it's my right to use the road but I follow my own rules." And I'd come down as hard on someone who argued that speeding may be illegal for some but not for them I'd also come down the same on someone who pulled a formula car out of their garage, went speeding down the road, and said that even though the car is unregistered, unlicensed, and doesn't have road equipment, it has as much right to be on the road as licensed cars and since it's designed differently, can use the roads differently than licensed cars.
Quote from: Psilos on April 07, 2009, 11:05:37 PM
Well, then you're an antisocial dick face. ;)
And you might just be trying to get a point across (which is well past across), but you're doing with a prick attitude, and that's not going to win you any friends. I could go through and quote you all the places where, in addition to making a comment relevant to your larger point, you were a cock, but that would be a waste of my time.
I don't need biker friends. :huh: :lol:
And apparently my point didn't get across, because some people (cough JWC cough) continued to argue with me for 7+ pages. :confused: It's people like him that piss me off. OMG THA ROAD IS FOR BIKEZ TOO YOU MUST RIDE WHITE LINE IT'S SAFEST AND SMOOTHEST PREVENTS BLOWOUTZ AND PEBBLES FROM RUNNING INTO UR TYRES.
No, it isn't the safest place to ride (opinion) and I'm not worried about bad roads. End of story. (he couldn't understand the whole "IMO" part or the "on roads of which I posted pictures of" stuff)
Psilos, a very knowledgeable rider, commented earlier that sometimes running a stop sign was safe. That is or was his opinion. Safety experts say he is wrong, but Psilos has evidently done this many times or he wouldn't have the idea that it is safer. That is Psilos' opinion. Do you believe that for Psilos, it is safer to run stop signs or is it just safer to run a stop sign at certain intersections?
It is a matter of opinion. Which is why I've repeated SO many times things like "on roads of which I posted pictures of." Yet you still beat the dead horse.
:confused:
Why could you not simply say "alright, that's your opinion" like you just did for Psilos?
:confused: x 100
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 08, 2009, 01:17:24 PM
Why could you not simply say "alright, that's your opinion" like you just did for Psilos?
:confused: x 100
Sarcasm. I didn't agree with Psilos either.
Are you going to bash him for 8 pages, too?
You know, you sound like the folks who own 4x4's and believe they can ride through ice and snow at any speed. In their opinion, they can continue to drive as if nothing matters because they own a 4x4. Safety and the laws of physics are suspended due to their awesomeness.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 08, 2009, 01:20:50 PM
Are you going to bash him for 8 pages, too?
He didn't cop an attitude.
I'm just wondering. :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 08, 2009, 01:27:09 PM
And you didn't?
I've already re-run the quotes that showed that you showed your butt first...with R-inge.
But, as I was waiting for Car Traders to come on it hit me.
You are only carrying on because you enjoy the act. You already ride on the road, not the shoulder, and are just saying the opposite because it stirs emotions and gets a reaction. My daughter used to do that when she was five or six.
You win dude! This was awesome and I fell for it, hook line and sinker. I knew anyone with this kind of perseverance and this attitude would never allow himself to be regulated to the shoulder of the road...and I fell for the act.
You my man are awesome!!!!
:confused:
I was just asking. But, to answer my own question, you did show an attitude as well, regardless of whether or not I did first.
Plus, R-inge agreed with me as soon as I posted pictures of the roads of which I was speaking. You still haven't grasped that.
P.S. You've shown just as much verve and perseverance in staying with your side of the argument. :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 08, 2009, 01:40:40 PM
:confused:
I was just asking. But, to answer my own question, you did show an attitude as well, regardless of whether or not I did first.
Plus, R-inge agreed with me as soon as I posted pictures of the roads of which I was speaking. You still haven't grasped that.
P.S. You've shown just as much verve and perseverance in staying with your side of the argument. :huh:
I grasped the agreement part, I also know that you still gave him an attitude even after he did so and he decided you were not worth debating with.
He didn't know what I now know, it was all just an act. Too smart for me dude. Ride on!
Now you're arguing about arguing and relegating me down to an actor?
:confused:
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 08, 2009, 01:48:52 PM
Now you're arguing about arguing and relegating me down to an actor?
:confused:
I can't stop laughing at myself for being so taken in.
You da man!
:zzz:
So we've spent ... 15 pages to argue something that's irrelevant to the original topic?
Quote from: NomisR on April 08, 2009, 03:54:53 PM
So we've spent ... 15 pages to argue something that's irrelevant to the original topic?
Well, I tried a couple of times to turn it back around, but it turned out to be a lost cause.
Quote from: JWC on April 08, 2009, 05:45:39 PM
Well, I tried a couple of times to turn it back around, but it turned out to be a lost cause.
So if we lose control, aim the car at the cyclist!
Quote from: NomisR on April 08, 2009, 05:50:13 PM
So if we lose control, aim the car at the cyclist!
Pretty much...he'll be riding on the shoulder of the roadway. :evildude:
Quote from: ChrisV on April 08, 2009, 05:36:49 AM
If you want to use the road like a motor vehicle, you follow motor vehicle road laws. If you don't want to follow the SAME laws as motor vehicles, then quit bitching when you're treated differently. This is my problem. You whine when people don't treat you the same as a car, but you don't want to follow the same rules as a car. That means you want SPECIAL treatment. What part of that don't you get? If it's not the SAME as a car, then I'm not going to treat it as a car. I'm going to treat it as a slow obstacle, that doesn't have to follow car rules.
No, it's not. Running a stop light is akin to... running a stop light. And there's a vast safety difference between speeding a little bit and running a stop light.
And being an obstacle and forcing traffic to treat you specially is akin to... weaving in an out of traffic or driving 50 in the fast lane. And I get up in arms about people driving 50 in the fast lane, as well. Because left lane camping is the same self righteous BS as a fucking bike moron holding up traffic on a two lane road becasue they want special fucking treatment. The difference is, those left lane hogs PAID to be on the road, both in license fees and in road use tax.
I don't whine when I'm treated differently from a car. I'll leave it up to you to find the hundred billion times I've said that in this thread.
I've explained many times in other bike threads, that I know you've been a part of, about the difference in running a stop light/sign on a bike versus in a car. There must be something to it, because in the many miles of urban riding that I've done, and the many stop lights/signs I've run, I've never been hit, or caused a car to swerve, emergency brake (or even brake at all, for that matter), etc.
Quote from: JWC on April 08, 2009, 12:42:27 PM
Psilos, a very knowledgeable rider, commented earlier that sometimes running a stop sign was safe. That is or was his opinion. Safety experts say he is wrong, but Psilos has evidently done this many times or he wouldn't have the idea that it is safer. That is Psilos' opinion. Do you believe that for Psilos, it is safer to run stop signs or is it just safer to run a stop sign at certain intersections?
Not saf
er, just as safe, or even safe enough. I don't think it should be a requirement for cyclists to run stop signs when they have the right of way (duh).
BTW, since I can sense the anti-stop sign running people around, I don't run stop signs if it would cause a car to take any action other than noticing that I went. No braking. ;)
Quote from: NomisR on April 08, 2009, 03:54:53 PM
So we've spent ... 15 pages to argue something that's irrelevant to the original topic?
That's new around here? :lol:
Quote from: Psilos on April 08, 2009, 07:35:11 PM
Not safer, just as safe, or even safe enough. I don't think it should be a requirement for cyclists to run stop signs when they have the right of way (duh).
BTW, since I can sense the anti-stop sign running people around, I don't run stop signs if it would cause a car to take any action other than noticing that I went. No braking. ;)
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."
... wow, thats obviously not written by a hardcore biker...
Quote from: JWC on April 09, 2009, 07:58:48 AM
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."
:wtf:
Why the hell would I be jealous of someone sweating in the 100+ degree sun or being drenched in the rain, having to smell my exhaust while I sit in my nicely air conditioned car listening to music, away from the elements? Especially during morning commute. Plus, most people in LA won't be able to commute to work by bike and the only ones that does are either hispanics or mormon, but the mormons aren't really "working"
Quote from: NomisR on April 09, 2009, 09:27:40 AM
:wtf:
Why the hell would I be jealous of someone sweating in the 100+ degree sun or being drenched in the rain, having to smell my exhaust while I sit in my nicely air conditioned car listening to music, away from the elements? Especially during morning commute. Plus, most people in LA won't be able to commute to work by bike and the only ones that does are either hispanics or mormon, but the mormons aren't really "working"
You're just jealous, too.
Of bikers and Mormons. :lol: ;)
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 09, 2009, 09:39:13 AM
You're just jealous, too.
Of bikers and Mormons. :lol: ;)
You're right.. shhhhhhhhhh, don't let other people know. :lol:
Quote from: NomisR on April 09, 2009, 09:27:40 AM
:wtf:
Why the hell would I be jealous of someone sweating in the 100+ degree sun or being drenched in the rain, having to smell my exhaust while I sit in my nicely air conditioned car listening to music, away from the elements? Especially during morning commute. Plus, most people in LA won't be able to commute to work by bike and the only ones that does are either hispanics or mormon, but the mormons aren't really "working"
Yeah, I rarely find being out in the elements a "freedom". More like an annoyance.
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...)
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 09, 2009, 04:50:10 PM
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.
Quote from: JWC on April 09, 2009, 07:58:48 AM
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. :lol:
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).
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.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 09, 2009, 05:07:48 PM
If you ride fast enough, the breeze keeps you cool.
:nono:
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..
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 09, 2009, 08:06:09 PM
:nono:
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. :lol:
Sweating is actually the main reason I don't bicycle most of the time.
How do you sweat in Maine?!?!?
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Tave on April 09, 2009, 08:39:34 PM
How do you sweat in Maine?!?!?
:thumbsup:
I am fat guy. I start sweating during inactivity as soon as the temp goes over 70?F.
Quote from: Tave on April 09, 2009, 08:32:50 PM
After the A/C died in my 4runner, I had to ride around Phoenix shirtless. :lol:
I had no Subie A/C last summer. It will be well worth the >$1k I spent to get it fixed.
Quote from: Psilos on April 06, 2009, 11:23:05 PM
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....
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1040018#msg1040018 date=1239564695
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."
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1040018#msg1040018 date=1239564695
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.
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.
With Raza, shit's never resolved.
I'm pretty stubborn, too. :lol:
Quote from: CALL_911 on April 12, 2009, 01:59:35 PM
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.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 12, 2009, 02:48:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1040065#msg1040065 date=1239569969
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.
Bikes don't have windshields. Therefore they don't need windshield wipers.
I wish I had glasses-wipers, though. :lol:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 12, 2009, 02:48:22 PM
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!
Quote from: Raza on April 12, 2009, 03:06:31 PM
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? :rolleyes:
Quote8- 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.
Quote9- Cyclists must wear M2005 approved helmets.
Uh...ok.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 12, 2009, 03:15:19 PM
Bikes don't have windshields. Therefore they don't need windshield wipers.
I wish I had glasses-wipers, though. :lol:
I wonder how well Rain-X would work on glasses... :lol:
Quote from: thecarnut on April 12, 2009, 04:30:16 PM
I wonder how well Rain-X would work on glasses... :lol:
Mmmm, the possibilities. :rockon:
Quote from: Raza on April 12, 2009, 03:06:31 PM
"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..
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17741.msg1040068#msg1040068 date=1239570391
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.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 12, 2009, 04:21:20 PM
Why? So you can bitch about how the government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong? :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 12, 2009, 06:57:03 PM
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.
Quote from: CALL_911 on April 12, 2009, 07:49:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Raza on April 12, 2009, 09:08:48 PMM2005 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.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 12, 2009, 09:30:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Raza on April 12, 2009, 09:03:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Raza on April 12, 2009, 09:40:27 PM
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.
Everything you've ever said about bikes, except just now, does not support that. I think you need to ride a bike as your main source of transportation for a few months, then get back to us. Of course, I've suggested that before, and you made some idiotic comment about bikes being fro six year olds.
Quote from: Raza on April 12, 2009, 09:08:48 PM
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.
But seriously as much as cyclists brag about jumping over curbs and being able to outrun cops, how realistic is that?
If a cyclist blew a stop sign and had blue/reds behind him/her, I'm sure the cop could catch the biker, so no need to write down a tag number and whatever.
Besides, according to your first list, they'd be licensed anyway, so that would go on the paperwork- if they don't have their license they'd have have the bike impounded.
The problem with your entie theory is that most would just skip ever retrieving their bike: and you're not going to jail 10-15yr olds because they were riding illegally. Seriously your idea is nutz in that regard.
As far as requiring "rider's training"- I'm all for it. A lot of kids don't get the training mine are. It would also be a mandatory part of driver's ed, so that drivers know the rules for bikes, with an additional little "how to maneuver around bikes" 5-minute lesson.
(In Germany the 100 question written multiple-guess test US military members take had 10-20 "right of way" questions involving intersections with and without stop signs/lights- bike and horses were on several scenarios.)
Your helmet idea is a no-go, it's unreasonable, too expensive, and unwieldy. A cyclist needs more peripheral vision than a motorcyclist. (Of course your solution might be to mandate mirrors, ok but you're now requiring another bazillion tax dollars for bike safety regulations and inspections.)
Any bike or
any car which moves will eventually cause someone to get hurt/ killed. (Bikers get killed occasionally in non-car related accidents.) You're just shooting the odds. Imposing a 20mph speed limit on all vehicles would probably bring the death toll WAY down to almost 0%. But it's not practical.
-So how much practical vs. safety vs. government regulation do you want?
all bikes operated on the road should also have to undergo mandatory state safety inspections just like cars and motorcycles... afterall, while that cyclist is "rightfully" using up a lane of traffic, i don't need his wheel to fall off, him fall, and then me get sued for running over his ass...
Ok so in Maryland it gets inspected ONCE- when you buy it. And new cars are exempt.
Some states (WY, Georgia?) don't even have car inspections.
Great idea. :lol:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 13, 2009, 09:45:03 AM
Ok so in Maryland it gets inspected ONCE- when you buy it. And new cars are exempt.
Some states (WY, Georgia?) don't even have car inspections.
Great idea. :lol:
PA needs an inspection every year... screw you PA bike riders :evildude:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 12, 2009, 06:57:03 PM
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.
Yeah, but a lot of people here are suggesting that the cyclists ride on the while line even if there's a huge shoulder zone and is safe to do so and they would be holding traffic by doing so. Go back 10+ pages.
And again, majority of the bike riders, at least in CA ride like assholes anyways. You have these assholes riding up a one way mountain road against traffic and then proceed to yell at cars driving down the road. And they would be breaking all sorts of law because they do not believe it applies to them. Maybe YOU GUYS don't do it.. but others certainly do. That's what my and a lot of the other people's problems are. That's why people want it to be either one way or the other, you can't be allowed to choose your own rules to follow or these asshole would ruin the road for all of us.
Quote from: r0tor on April 13, 2009, 09:08:55 AM
all bikes operated on the road should also have to undergo mandatory state safety inspections just like cars and motorcycles... afterall, while that cyclist is "rightfully" using up a lane of traffic, i don't need his wheel to fall off, him fall, and then me get sued for running over his ass...
I've never had to subject any of my cars to a safety inspection. That's Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
Quote from: Psilos on April 12, 2009, 03:12:33 PM
Obviously, bikes don't need wipers. Otherwise, it's illegal to ride a bike at night without lights, just like for a car. Fool.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 12, 2009, 04:21:20 PM
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.
I don't think that's true for all states. I think everywhere requires reflectors for night riding, but in some places I think the lights are only a (strong) suggestion.
lights and turn signals are required here for motocycles... should be the same for all cycles
Quote from: r0tor on April 15, 2009, 10:52:07 AM
lights and turn signals are required here for motocycles... should be the same for all cycles
You're supposed to signal when turning and stopping on a bicycle, too...not as law but as a common courtesy and good way to warn the guy controlling several tons of steel behind you what you're doing so he doesn't run you over. Hand signals, as opposed to lighted turn signals, are still legal around here in all vehicles. Most people don't know them anymore and practically nobody uses them, but that's a different story.
I can't pa a PA state inspection for a car or a motorcycle without functioning turnsignals... bicycles should be the same to drive on a road
Quote from: bing_oh on April 15, 2009, 11:04:16 AM
Most people don't know them anymore and practically nobody uses them, but that's a different story.
I do! I do!
My roomate licensed his little 250 quad for public roads. It had a break light but no turn signals so we had to use hand signals.
It took awhile to get used to; I would always downshift, clutch-out to free my hand for the signal, and leave some nice skidmarks if I wasn't paying attention. :lol:
But I'm glad I made my mistakes on it before I tried doing that on a motorbike. :mask:
Quote from: r0tor on April 15, 2009, 11:09:45 AM
I can't pa a PA state inspection for a car or a motorcycle without functioning turnsignals... bicycles should be the same to drive on a road
That's gonna be a little difficult considering that most bicycles don't have the electrical systems and controls necessary for turn signals.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 15, 2009, 11:29:13 AM
That's gonna be a little difficult considering that most bicycles don't have the electrical systems and controls necessary for turn signals.
When I was about 6 years old, I had a 16" Murray BMX with turn signals. It just took 2 C batteries. :praise:
Quote from: NACar on April 15, 2009, 11:31:35 AM
When I was about 6 years old, I had a 16" Murray BMX with turn signals. It just took 2 C batteries. :praise:
And I'm sure you looked very cute with them on your bike with your Strawberry Shortcake basket and My Little Kitty helmet... :lol:
Quote from: bing_oh on April 15, 2009, 11:34:17 AM
And I'm sure you looked very cute with them on your bike with your Strawberry Shortcake basket and My Little Kitty helmet... :lol:
Yeah, except nobody had ever heard of a "bicycle helmet" back then.
"There are many things that we can point to that proof that the human being is not smart. The helmet is my personal favorite. The fact that we had to invent the helmet. Now why did we invent the helmet? Well, because we were participating in many activities that were cracking our heads. We looked at the situation. We chose not to avoid these activities, but to just make little plastic hats so that we can continue our head-cracking lifestyles.
The only thing dumber than the helmet is the helmet law, the point of which is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly, it's not even trying to stop the cracking of the head that it's in..."
Don't even get me started on the stupidity of helmet laws, motorized bike or not, and the constant stream of "my helmet saved my life" bull on the bike forums.
I take a lot of shit for rarely wearing a helmet. It's bloody annoying.
IIRC, bicycle helmets are designed primarily to protect children in stationary or near-stationary accidents.
I would never make an adult wear one. I make my kids wear them, even in the bike trailer. I almost always wear one riding.
My mom freaked out the first time my friend and I returned to the house to grab ours. we were 17ish? and planned to drive up into the mountains to ride and thought better safe than sorry.
Same friend hit a car (who pulled in front of him) a couple years later and broke a leg and his helmet.
And one time broke a different helmet as he missiled off his bike head-first into a tree.
Head injuries 0 Helmets 2
I took my bike to my first year of college in Wyoming. My roommate said we should go riding- we just never got around to it together. Last week of school we got on the bikes and got about 2 blocks down the street, and playing around on some giant jumps built out of construction piles of dirt he went flying off the bike, broke his glasses, and got a nasty concussion. No helmet.
So I think they're a good idea- you never know when you'll need one.
I guess it depends on the type of helmet as well. I'd trust my $70 ski helmet a lot more than a run-of-the-mill bicycle helmet from Wally-world.
Edit: and obviously anything is better than nothing. If I had been wearing even a baseball cap last semester when I fell off my roomate's quad, I wouldn't have scraped my head nearly as bad as I did.
All bike helmets are pretty much the same, in terms of safety. They all pass the same standards. (Except those crazy old school helmets that have the thick plastic shell).
Quote from: Tave on April 15, 2009, 06:45:35 PM
IIRC, bicycle helmets are designed primarily to protect children in stationary or near-stationary accidents.
I feel safer wearing a helmet. I guess it's just a psychological thing.
Helmet?
(http://www.topgear.com/uk/assets/images/tv-schedule/columns-stig.jpg)
Quote from: Psilos on April 15, 2009, 10:28:24 PM
All bike helmets are pretty much the same, in terms of safety. They all pass the same standards. (Except those crazy old school helmets that have the thick plastic shell).
They all pass, but if bike helmets are anything like car helmets, some pass, and some blow the standards out of the water
I'm not sure, but I don't think that is the case with bike helmets...
Bike helmets are always a balance:
weight vs. crash absortion vs. fit vs. ventilation
The lighter and better ventilated means it's more comfortable and less of an impediment for the racer (and wannabes.)
The fit is critical, since it doesn't do ANY good if it doesn't hit the road before the noggin does.
And of course the whole purpose- crash absortion, should be the ONLY concern, but they ahve to balance it with the above..
One time, I was loading my bike and appropriate gear into my trunk. My mom called me back into the house quickly before I left, and I had yet to put my helmet in the trunk. I closed the trunk and completely forgot about my helmet. I got into my car, and backed up. CRUNCH. I had no idea what I had just done. I backed up over my helmet. The craziest part was that it did not get crushed...it simply broke up into pieces. I was pretty impressed...and it gave me a reason to buy a new helmet. :lol:
Quote from: thecarnut on April 16, 2009, 11:17:08 AM
I feel safer wearing a helmet. I guess it's just a psychological thing.
Probably is psychological.
A bike helmet is tested to withstand a 12mph crash or a 6-7 foot drop.
Any time a helmet is subject to either of those conditions, helmet manufacturers recommend replacing it.
I wear a bike helmet during the summer, not because I feel any safer or believe it will make me safer, but because I'm bald and the helmet's vents allow air to cool my head while protecting me from the sun.
Having suffered a concussion in a car crash years ago, I can attest that a helmet will not necessarily save you from a head injury. Most bike riders who do crash with a helmet, believe that the helmet "saved" them and decline medical treatment. I refused to be checked after the car crash because my head didn't impact anything and I believed that I was not injured. I now know that the ringing in my ear was a tell-tell sign of a brain injury. It took three days before I sought treatment. Had my injury been worse, those three days would have been too late.
Helmets are condoms for your head.
They're ONE TIME USE ONLY and still don't necessarily protect you from everything out there.
:lol:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 19, 2009, 02:51:52 PM
Helmets are condoms for your head.
They're ONE TIME USE ONLY and still don't necessarily protect you from everything out there.
:lol:
:lol:
Maybe you'll supposed to carry a spare. I mean, what happens if you crash while riding and still need to ride home? Since the helmet that just touched the ground is considered no longer safe, you can't ride safely back.
At least a helmet can prevent a lot of road rash, tree rash, rock rash, any rash, or take the fall for a pointy bit of rock that may have otherwise cracked your skull.
:huh: