This is why you look for bicyclist when you're out on those drives.
09-24-2013, 12:41 PM
#106
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Lafayette CA
Posts: 293
Car Info: Ver8 Bugeye
I drive Grizzly Peak twice a day. Those damn cyclists are half the reason I got a diesel 
In the middle of the road in the fog. I sure as hell don't wanna get in a head on going around em.
In the middle of the road in the fog. I sure as hell don't wanna get in a head on going around em.
09-24-2013, 01:26 PM
#107
I don't really see where he's agreeing with you. I don't see anywhere he said to ban bicycles from the road?
What he says makes sense. What you said is full of one sided arrogance with zero rational or legal support.
I personally agree with what he said to a point.
On one side he's saying screw the 3ft law because it's stupid and screw Brown for passing it. On the other hand he's saying to pass more regulation.
You can't have it both ways. You want more government control... you got it. The hippies rule the land in California. Why? Because they're active. Because they vote. Because they pay out.
So they fought for a stupid law and it passed.
Essentially they're passing a law to tell people to break an established law... i.e. stay in your own damned lane. It makes no sense. You're telling someone to be 3 feet away from a cyclist with no legal verbiage guiding the cyclist on where to be. So if a cyclist is 5 feet from the side of the road or outside of a bike lane you still have to be 3 feet away... which puts half your car in to on coming traffic probably in a solid yellow situation.
So now if a police officer sees you you're screwed.
Situations...
1. You slow down because there's traffic going by and you can't give the bike 3 feet. Get a ticket for slowing traffic or you get rear ended and hit the bike anyways.
2. You pass the bike. Give the 3 ft. Go across a solid yellow and get a ticket for an illegal pass. Since technically you just passed a "vehicle" in a non passing zone. Or you hit an suv on it's way to soccer practice... kill a family and hit the bike anyways.
3. You pass without swerving in to the lane and you get a ticket for not giving the bike 3 feet of space. You hit the bike anyways because you are pulling over for the cop and forget about the cyclist.
It's a stupid law.
I agree with some limits and/or creating bike more bike lanes, etc. But the fact of the matter is that it can't ever be a perfect system and someone will always be pissed off at some point or get killed. **** happens.
I got hit because I was riding like a moron. I was on the wrong side of the road. Why was I on that side of the road? Because no bike lanes and I don't trust vehicles to see me from behind on a busy road. So I was on the wrong side. Car wasn't looking for a bike coming from the wrong way. We hit. I put no blame on the person and road away with a separated shoulder and my ribs popped off my sternum along with 2 torn muscles, a bent rim and bent handle bars. She drove away with a busted mirror.
**** happens because of chance or because someone is stupid. Can't stop stupid. Pass all the laws you want and SOMEONE will still be out there doing wtf ever they want there will just be more legislature blocking our freedoms.
How would you feel if a popular road that more bikes use than cars do got shut down from cars? It's not a commute road. It's not a road that's necessary to drive. But you like driving it. There's 20 bikes to every one car so the bikes fight... get it shut down. Now you can no longer drive it. You can't ride up hill 30 miles to get where you used to be able to drive... so you can not go there anymore. You're rights of transportation the way you choose are taken, your right to go where you want is taken.
You're proposing to do the same thing. Some people ride. They do not own cars. I didn't have my license until I was 20. If you said... hey you can't ride here anymore on a few roads... guess what... now I can't get to work, or school or whatever.
So now I HAVE to purchase a car that maybe I can't afford because I'm going to school and working to pay rent.
So you are effecting my right to survive because cyclist annoy you.
Legislature is not always the means to an end OR necessary.
There are already laws in place to protect cyclist.
You are suppose to wear a helmet. You can't have both ears covered with head phones. You have to use bike lanes when available. You have to obey ALL vehicle laws including, speed, merge, stop lights and stop signs.
You can try to get those enforced more but a bike going 40mph isn't going to catch the eye of an officer like a car going 75. They can't stop everything.
What he says makes sense. What you said is full of one sided arrogance with zero rational or legal support.
I personally agree with what he said to a point.
On one side he's saying screw the 3ft law because it's stupid and screw Brown for passing it. On the other hand he's saying to pass more regulation.
You can't have it both ways. You want more government control... you got it. The hippies rule the land in California. Why? Because they're active. Because they vote. Because they pay out.
So they fought for a stupid law and it passed.
Essentially they're passing a law to tell people to break an established law... i.e. stay in your own damned lane. It makes no sense. You're telling someone to be 3 feet away from a cyclist with no legal verbiage guiding the cyclist on where to be. So if a cyclist is 5 feet from the side of the road or outside of a bike lane you still have to be 3 feet away... which puts half your car in to on coming traffic probably in a solid yellow situation.
So now if a police officer sees you you're screwed.
Situations...
1. You slow down because there's traffic going by and you can't give the bike 3 feet. Get a ticket for slowing traffic or you get rear ended and hit the bike anyways.
2. You pass the bike. Give the 3 ft. Go across a solid yellow and get a ticket for an illegal pass. Since technically you just passed a "vehicle" in a non passing zone. Or you hit an suv on it's way to soccer practice... kill a family and hit the bike anyways.
3. You pass without swerving in to the lane and you get a ticket for not giving the bike 3 feet of space. You hit the bike anyways because you are pulling over for the cop and forget about the cyclist.
It's a stupid law.
I agree with some limits and/or creating bike more bike lanes, etc. But the fact of the matter is that it can't ever be a perfect system and someone will always be pissed off at some point or get killed. **** happens.
I got hit because I was riding like a moron. I was on the wrong side of the road. Why was I on that side of the road? Because no bike lanes and I don't trust vehicles to see me from behind on a busy road. So I was on the wrong side. Car wasn't looking for a bike coming from the wrong way. We hit. I put no blame on the person and road away with a separated shoulder and my ribs popped off my sternum along with 2 torn muscles, a bent rim and bent handle bars. She drove away with a busted mirror.
**** happens because of chance or because someone is stupid. Can't stop stupid. Pass all the laws you want and SOMEONE will still be out there doing wtf ever they want there will just be more legislature blocking our freedoms.
How would you feel if a popular road that more bikes use than cars do got shut down from cars? It's not a commute road. It's not a road that's necessary to drive. But you like driving it. There's 20 bikes to every one car so the bikes fight... get it shut down. Now you can no longer drive it. You can't ride up hill 30 miles to get where you used to be able to drive... so you can not go there anymore. You're rights of transportation the way you choose are taken, your right to go where you want is taken.
You're proposing to do the same thing. Some people ride. They do not own cars. I didn't have my license until I was 20. If you said... hey you can't ride here anymore on a few roads... guess what... now I can't get to work, or school or whatever.
So now I HAVE to purchase a car that maybe I can't afford because I'm going to school and working to pay rent.
So you are effecting my right to survive because cyclist annoy you.
Legislature is not always the means to an end OR necessary.
There are already laws in place to protect cyclist.
You are suppose to wear a helmet. You can't have both ears covered with head phones. You have to use bike lanes when available. You have to obey ALL vehicle laws including, speed, merge, stop lights and stop signs.
You can try to get those enforced more but a bike going 40mph isn't going to catch the eye of an officer like a car going 75. They can't stop everything.
09-24-2013, 02:53 PM
#108
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
No, it's not, but that's a pretty funny thing to say. You're telling me that I am not actually seeing what I am seeing every day because you don't see it? Or something? Why would you even do that? I wonder how you could possibly drive here and not see this. I paid extra attention to other drivers after reading your posts, because I thought, hey, maybe I am wrong here. But, I am not.
Last night on the way home I paid very close attention. I was behind the same car for 7 stops signs, and they did not stop at one of them. I came down a hill and was able to watch another 6 cars go through a stop as I approached. Not one stopped and some accelerated once the car in front went through (like the stop sign had just turned green or something). I saw two people almost collide at Alameda and Hillsdale because of not stopping. I looked really hard and did not see one person come to a complete stop at a stop sign in around 10 miles.
This was one leg of one day's commute. Just like every single day.
People are stopping when there is a lot of traffic, because if they do not, they will hit other cars. Hopefully that make sense.
That intersection near NDNU, and every other multiple stop gets backed up because people have no idea what to do when there is more than one stop sign at an intersection. This is mostly because most people are looking down at the phones and such as they approach the intersection, so even if they wanted to be competent, they missed the ordering of the intersection as they approached, so they have no idea when to go.
This is another thing that I watch happen every single day.
It's definitely NOT because people are so good at following the rules and stopping. LOL!
And - people absolutely do not stop at that intersection you mentioned when there is not much traffic. I almost never see people stop there, unless there are a lot of cars and not stopping would cause a collision. In fact, most of the times, people heading toward NDNU will mildly race each other to beat the other car through the merge. Been watching this happen for more than 15 years.
I go up there a lot, park on Lyall and enter the trail there. I know what you mean, and have seen people doing that when I am up there as well. I also see people doing stupid things on longboards and in cars.
You do? That's great. Though, I think we are basically talking about you not seeing something happening that happens constantly in this area that you drive in and is something that just about everyone you talk to in the San Mateo, Belmont and San Carlos area acknowledges and knows about.
Not slowing down for a stop sign? That sounds stupid and dangerous! Saying one illegal thing is better than the next makes you sound like a biased motorist who has not spent much time on a bicycle mixing it up in traffic. It's also interesting to compare who's breaking of the law is "more okay" according to each of us, based on our individual points of view.
Oh cool!
By the way, today I left the shop near Harbor/Old County and was going toward Ralston on Elmer Street, and this guy on a bike riding the wrong way down the other sidewalk while eating a sandwich just casually rode off the sidewalk diagonally across in front of me as if I was not even there. Pretty much exactly the thing you were talking about with people in these areas, right? I thought of you when I saw that dude. LOL! More like a dumbass on a bike than a cyclist though.
Wow. While I believe it would take many years and potentially an impossible effort to actually make that happen, It does seem logical. I think the idea is that "wouldn't it be nice if we didn't need stuff like this" but sadly, it seems that we do.
Because this is personally relayed experience that directly contradicts your comments about how bikes are not faster than cars, and other related things. It sheds light on the concept that different things apply in different places, which is why it's hard to make laws for stuff like this.
Riding a bike on a trail, on a road with a bike lane or without, in SF, in SJ, in a small town - these are all very different experiences with potentially the same device.
Yep.
Might be technically obeying the rules, but holding up cars on a twisty back road "because it's your legal right to do so" is stupid, and something that only a self-centered ******* would do (IMHO).
Sure, it's "the law" but I would be damned if I would hold up even one car for a while and expect everyone to just chill behind me at bike speed. I occasionally ride for short distances on 35 (MTB trail to MTB trail) and I almost never have my tire on the road. Usually on the right side of the line. Never had any sort of issue whatsoever out there with cars passing or my ability to not ride like a douchebag.
GREAT post. I have been in similar situations on my commute, usually only in the mornings, and near freeway onramps. I have been faced with "choose which one looks like it will hurt less" but have been lucky so far.
The really fun part is for some reason, bus drivers like to talk trash. Had one last week telling me that I was in the wrong lane and such, when I was not, and I was making room for him so he could just take off without having to wait for me. He kept at it. Probably just a bored idiot wishing he was on a bike.
NOTE: my posts would be much shorter if Palo Alto Networks firewalls were faster to commit changes.
Last night on the way home I paid very close attention. I was behind the same car for 7 stops signs, and they did not stop at one of them. I came down a hill and was able to watch another 6 cars go through a stop as I approached. Not one stopped and some accelerated once the car in front went through (like the stop sign had just turned green or something). I saw two people almost collide at Alameda and Hillsdale because of not stopping. I looked really hard and did not see one person come to a complete stop at a stop sign in around 10 miles.
This was one leg of one day's commute. Just like every single day.
If you go through old county and Ralston you'll notice that there are times where you can't cross Ralston going north because the stop sign by Wendy's is always backed up because people take forever to go through that stop sign
Ralston gets backed up so bad both ways because of the stop sign by ndnu which just this morning I saw a New Benz stop 5ft short of the line,and then stop again at the line for more than a second
Ralston gets backed up so bad both ways because of the stop sign by ndnu which just this morning I saw a New Benz stop 5ft short of the line,and then stop again at the line for more than a second
That intersection near NDNU, and every other multiple stop gets backed up because people have no idea what to do when there is more than one stop sign at an intersection. This is mostly because most people are looking down at the phones and such as they approach the intersection, so even if they wanted to be competent, they missed the ordering of the intersection as they approached, so they have no idea when to go.
This is another thing that I watch happen every single day.
It's definitely NOT because people are so good at following the rules and stopping. LOL!
And - people absolutely do not stop at that intersection you mentioned when there is not much traffic. I almost never see people stop there, unless there are a lot of cars and not stopping would cause a collision. In fact, most of the times, people heading toward NDNU will mildly race each other to beat the other car through the merge. Been watching this happen for more than 15 years.
You do? That's great. Though, I think we are basically talking about you not seeing something happening that happens constantly in this area that you drive in and is something that just about everyone you talk to in the San Mateo, Belmont and San Carlos area acknowledges and knows about.
By the way, today I left the shop near Harbor/Old County and was going toward Ralston on Elmer Street, and this guy on a bike riding the wrong way down the other sidewalk while eating a sandwich just casually rode off the sidewalk diagonally across in front of me as if I was not even there. Pretty much exactly the thing you were talking about with people in these areas, right? I thought of you when I saw that dude. LOL! More like a dumbass on a bike than a cyclist though.
1)Outlaw bikes from roads with no designated bike path. Set up said law to make a bike path marked by a 10" wide white reflective stripe, and said path must be at least 28" wide.
2)Change state financeing to support cities/counties who want to make more bike paths on roads. Offer money in the form of road grants, to NOT make "beautification" upgrades but rather add said bike paths. Tie said grants to the need for more paths, but also that it may not remove the flow of traffic, or parking spaces. (meaning better to make sidewalks a few feet narrower and not do a "green strip" down the center of roads.)
3)Create harsher punishments for cars that violate the new bike path laws, but also create heavy fines/punisments for bikes that cross into automotive traffic areas.
4)Mandate a 'saftey course' for all cycle riders in the state, and a licenseing system that mirrors the DMV. Make this mandatory for bikers that wish to ride "extended rides" outside of 3 miles of their home. (this would let kids ride to school and such without the need to go get the license, short commutes, pleasure riding around the block, etc...)
2)Change state financeing to support cities/counties who want to make more bike paths on roads. Offer money in the form of road grants, to NOT make "beautification" upgrades but rather add said bike paths. Tie said grants to the need for more paths, but also that it may not remove the flow of traffic, or parking spaces. (meaning better to make sidewalks a few feet narrower and not do a "green strip" down the center of roads.)
3)Create harsher punishments for cars that violate the new bike path laws, but also create heavy fines/punisments for bikes that cross into automotive traffic areas.
4)Mandate a 'saftey course' for all cycle riders in the state, and a licenseing system that mirrors the DMV. Make this mandatory for bikers that wish to ride "extended rides" outside of 3 miles of their home. (this would let kids ride to school and such without the need to go get the license, short commutes, pleasure riding around the block, etc...)
Because this is personally relayed experience that directly contradicts your comments about how bikes are not faster than cars, and other related things. It sheds light on the concept that different things apply in different places, which is why it's hard to make laws for stuff like this.
Riding a bike on a trail, on a road with a bike lane or without, in SF, in SJ, in a small town - these are all very different experiences with potentially the same device.
Might be technically obeying the rules, but holding up cars on a twisty back road "because it's your legal right to do so" is stupid, and something that only a self-centered ******* would do (IMHO).
I agree that bikes take up less space than cars and should move over for faster traffic. Its easy enough and I encourage it when its safe.
Would you put yourself in a dangerous situation to let slower traffic pass you?
Since you don't want to answer that, I will assume you will say no as that would be my answer as well.
Lets say a bike moves over for a car to let them pass in a turn. Now the car is abreast to the bike and holy **** oncoming car! Now what? Car moves back over and the cyclist goes off the cliff.
This is why Cyclists take full lanes. Self preservation.
I am not talking about outliers and scofflaws who break laws and never let people pass. Cars and cyclists alike, they both do it and it's not right.
"We are all in this together. Keep your stick on the ice." -Red Green
Would you put yourself in a dangerous situation to let slower traffic pass you?
Since you don't want to answer that, I will assume you will say no as that would be my answer as well.
Lets say a bike moves over for a car to let them pass in a turn. Now the car is abreast to the bike and holy **** oncoming car! Now what? Car moves back over and the cyclist goes off the cliff.
This is why Cyclists take full lanes. Self preservation.
I am not talking about outliers and scofflaws who break laws and never let people pass. Cars and cyclists alike, they both do it and it's not right.
"We are all in this together. Keep your stick on the ice." -Red Green
The really fun part is for some reason, bus drivers like to talk trash. Had one last week telling me that I was in the wrong lane and such, when I was not, and I was making room for him so he could just take off without having to wait for me. He kept at it. Probably just a bored idiot wishing he was on a bike.
NOTE: my posts would be much shorter if Palo Alto Networks firewalls were faster to commit changes.
09-24-2013, 03:03 PM
#109
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
Holy crap dude - well said, you nailed it. That law does seem ridiculous as a cyclist could intentionally crowd a motorist and get the motorist in trouble or something, since there is no corresponding regulation stating a distance that cyclists should keep from motorists. This sounds like a "lose-lose" for the motorist where obeying the law would entail patiently riding behind a cyclist at whatever speed they choose to go, where there is a double yellow and such.
Should just shut this bad boy down now.
Should just shut this bad boy down now.
09-24-2013, 04:18 PM
#110
A car doing a 5mph rolling stop can easily stop within a few feet if they need to...however for a bike doing 15-20mph and not slowing down, it's already too late by the time they try to react and brake
So yes, one illegal thing is more dangerous than the other
That's not opinion that's the truth
So yes, one illegal thing is more dangerous than the other
That's not opinion that's the truth
09-25-2013, 08:15 PM
#111
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
Ever seen the result of a headon? I'm 30 feet in front of you and I'm not in a loud metal box which means i can hear and see the road ahead a whole lot better than you can. If your waiting behind me the odds of you hitting me are basically 0 so why would I steer you into an accident that i'm going to have to sit around and give a witness statement about?
remember how i said youre an ******* and i'm not?
QED mother****er.
09-26-2013, 05:54 AM
#112
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Leandro, CA
Posts: 3,856
Car Info: Forester XTi
yes... "when its safe for them"
Ever seen the result of a headon? I'm 30 feet in front of you and I'm not in a loud metal box which means i can hear and see the road ahead a whole lot better than you can. If your waiting behind me the odds of you hitting me are basically 0 so why would I steer you into an accident that i'm going to have to sit around and give a witness statement about?
remember how i said youre an ******* and i'm not?
QED mother****er.
Ever seen the result of a headon? I'm 30 feet in front of you and I'm not in a loud metal box which means i can hear and see the road ahead a whole lot better than you can. If your waiting behind me the odds of you hitting me are basically 0 so why would I steer you into an accident that i'm going to have to sit around and give a witness statement about?
remember how i said youre an ******* and i'm not?
QED mother****er.
Yea, you are an *******, flat out, no question about it. You also should not have Penn as your AV, because you know nothing of what his views and librtarian ways are.
09-26-2013, 10:33 AM
#114
Registered User
Banning Bikes? No that is just wrong. Bikes are my mode of transportation, and were for most of my life before getting a car. There are plenty of people who still ride bikes, but the majority of those who do ride bikes are just ****ing dumb. I've noticed most of these dick bikers are usually the ones who wear bright neon bicyclist clothing. 
IMO, banning bicyclists would be wrong, and the best thing to do would be to create laws and enforce them harder.
I for one ride my bike for exercise, and a long term passion. There are plenty of people out there just like me who have similar reasons why they ride bikes. And it would be sad to see bikes be ban due to the stupidity of most bikers. Just like any community; cars, motorcycles, school, etc, there are and will be idiots who have no common sense, and if it comes down to banning bikes, it would, in my opinion be a crime for many.
To a certain point I agree, however, I believe that drivers should be a little more patient, and allow a biker to pull off to designated safe zones to pull over just cars.
IMO, banning bicyclists would be wrong, and the best thing to do would be to create laws and enforce them harder.I for one ride my bike for exercise, and a long term passion. There are plenty of people out there just like me who have similar reasons why they ride bikes. And it would be sad to see bikes be ban due to the stupidity of most bikers. Just like any community; cars, motorcycles, school, etc, there are and will be idiots who have no common sense, and if it comes down to banning bikes, it would, in my opinion be a crime for many.
To a certain point I agree, however, I believe that drivers should be a little more patient, and allow a biker to pull off to designated safe zones to pull over just cars.
Out of all the posts here so far, your post matches what I believe however...
1)Outlaw bikes from roads with no designated bike path. Set up said law to make a bike path marked by a 10" wide white reflective stripe, and said path must be at least 28" wide.
2)Change state financeing to support cities/counties who want to make more bike paths on roads. Offer money in the form of road grants, to NOT make "beautification" upgrades but rather add said bike paths. Tie said grants to the need for more paths, but also that it may not remove the flow of traffic, or parking spaces. (meaning better to make sidewalks a few feet narrower and not do a "green strip" down the center of roads.)
3)Create harsher punishments for cars that violate the new bike path laws, but also create heavy fines/punisments for bikes that cross into automotive traffic areas.
4)Mandate a 'saftey course' for all cycle riders in the state, and a licenseing system that mirrors the DMV. Make this mandatory for bikers that wish to ride "extended rides" outside of 3 miles of their home. (this would let kids ride to school and such without the need to go get the license, short commutes, pleasure riding around the block, etc...)
2)Change state financeing to support cities/counties who want to make more bike paths on roads. Offer money in the form of road grants, to NOT make "beautification" upgrades but rather add said bike paths. Tie said grants to the need for more paths, but also that it may not remove the flow of traffic, or parking spaces. (meaning better to make sidewalks a few feet narrower and not do a "green strip" down the center of roads.)
3)Create harsher punishments for cars that violate the new bike path laws, but also create heavy fines/punisments for bikes that cross into automotive traffic areas.
4)Mandate a 'saftey course' for all cycle riders in the state, and a licenseing system that mirrors the DMV. Make this mandatory for bikers that wish to ride "extended rides" outside of 3 miles of their home. (this would let kids ride to school and such without the need to go get the license, short commutes, pleasure riding around the block, etc...)
dangerous...lets get this clear, a bike takes up a HELL of a lot less space, if he can't get his fat butt over far enough to make enough room to let the car pass, then he shouldnt be on that particular road in the first damn place.
You are trying to defend the one here who is in the wrong, that is your first mistake right there. Bike going slow on a road that was made for *gasp* cars...MOVE THE **** OVER or pull over and get off your damn bike tell people pass...not very hard to do.
You are trying to defend the one here who is in the wrong, that is your first mistake right there. Bike going slow on a road that was made for *gasp* cars...MOVE THE **** OVER or pull over and get off your damn bike tell people pass...not very hard to do.
bikes should be BANNED on roads like redwood, skyline fish ranch etc.. it is just pure stupidity. Frankly if you want to go out and do that go to a ****ing trail, be considerate of your leisure activities impact on everyone else, but more importantly have common sense and don't endanger your life senselessly.
Stating that bikes only belong on trails is the equivalent to saying that cars only belong on pavement. That's BS. Do you honestly expect all the road bikers affected by such a law to let that slide?
Both bikes and cars have their on-pavement and off-road places.
Fact is, bicycles have almost every right to be on the public roads as do cars, just that they're restricted from entering freeways.
BIGOTS, I've gotten that way because bicyclists are entitled ****** and are not forced to obey laws.
**** you Jerry turd brown, 3ft buffer what a moron. New law is so goddamn stupid because people don't want to accept the fact it's usually bicyclists transitioning between acting as a car and acting as a pedestrian or breaking traffic laws, e.g. trying to pass a car turning right on the right because they don't want to wait. If we want protection we need to force cyclists to protect themselves by law, because they are the ones taking short cuts and causing problems.
**** you Jerry turd brown, 3ft buffer what a moron. New law is so goddamn stupid because people don't want to accept the fact it's usually bicyclists transitioning between acting as a car and acting as a pedestrian or breaking traffic laws, e.g. trying to pass a car turning right on the right because they don't want to wait. If we want protection we need to force cyclists to protect themselves by law, because they are the ones taking short cuts and causing problems.
It's frustrating for me to follow damn near every bicycle law and see some ignorant commuters with no regard to others just ride around as if they had some magical invincibility space bubble as they ignore motor vehicles and pedestrians alike.
I understand those who are very anti-cyclist (I KNOW a lot of us Subaru enthusiasts here are cyclists as well!), however, the problem isn't to eliminate cyclist rights completely. A moderate amount of enforcement and/or regulation can help fix the massive "uneducated cyclist" problem.
There are a lot of uneducated yet licensed drivers out there right now, but it's a much worse proportion in the world of cyclists. So although I do understand Overbear's frustration with most cyclists, a complete ban just isn't going to fix the problem.
09-26-2013, 12:47 PM
#116
I'm just going to throw this out there.
There are those of us who like to drive quickly to and from work, and on the weekends track and auto-x our cars. And we hate - absolutely HATE - being lumped in with the Street Racers who want to zip in and out of traffic the freeway, cut corners, do 60 in a school zone and run over puppies.
Same goes for us that cycle. I'm responsible. I wear safety equipment and lights. I ride cautiously, and safely, and let traffic pass. I stay in bike lanes as much as possible. I listen for traffic and don't ride with headphones in. And I don't want to be lumped in with the fist-on-hood pounding hipsters on their fixed gear bikes in the Mission, nor with the idiot roadies who are riding 5 wide on a 2 lane road.
Think before you speak. Putting yourself in other people's shoes would be helpful. And whether you hate them or not, the cyclists have a right to use those public roads as much as anyone else. They're tax payers and we all get use of those public roads. And no one, NO ONE, even if they are Douchey McDouche, deserves to be hit, run over, or not given space on the road - driver or rider. Human life is invaluable. Take care to watch for others on the road. It starts with you, and common courtesy goes a long way.
There are those of us who like to drive quickly to and from work, and on the weekends track and auto-x our cars. And we hate - absolutely HATE - being lumped in with the Street Racers who want to zip in and out of traffic the freeway, cut corners, do 60 in a school zone and run over puppies.
Same goes for us that cycle. I'm responsible. I wear safety equipment and lights. I ride cautiously, and safely, and let traffic pass. I stay in bike lanes as much as possible. I listen for traffic and don't ride with headphones in. And I don't want to be lumped in with the fist-on-hood pounding hipsters on their fixed gear bikes in the Mission, nor with the idiot roadies who are riding 5 wide on a 2 lane road.
Think before you speak. Putting yourself in other people's shoes would be helpful. And whether you hate them or not, the cyclists have a right to use those public roads as much as anyone else. They're tax payers and we all get use of those public roads. And no one, NO ONE, even if they are Douchey McDouche, deserves to be hit, run over, or not given space on the road - driver or rider. Human life is invaluable. Take care to watch for others on the road. It starts with you, and common courtesy goes a long way.
Last edited by Prettym1k3; 09-26-2013 at 12:56 PM.
09-27-2013, 08:35 AM
#118
Registered User
09-27-2013, 01:01 PM
#120
That kind of system is insanely expensive to institute from the ground up when it has not been built in place to begin with.
And it only solves the problem in major cities. Systems like that can't work in rural areas and smaller districts with little to no public transit or space for splitting.
As it is the space on some of these roads is tight for vehicles to get through. Adding a bike lane would mean cutting it down to a one lane road. Not any safer for anyoen.