why most people don't take cyclists more seriously.
http://www.universalhub.com/2015/bicyclist-has-some-serious-tunnel-vision
Because most people are bigoted arseholes?
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2015, 01:47:22 PM
Because most people are bigoted arseholes?
Hard to be bigoted against stupid. The guy's on I-93.
Quote from: Brandon on July 17, 2015, 02:06:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2015, 01:47:22 PM
Because most people are bigoted arseholes?
Hard to be bigoted against stupid. The guy's on I-93.
But the OP talks about tarring everyone who pedals with the same brush.
It's the same bigoted argument as watching this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFfM7ALZr4U) and then decided all car drivers are idiots who shouldn't be taken seriously.
Quote from: english si on July 17, 2015, 02:19:03 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 17, 2015, 02:06:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2015, 01:47:22 PM
Because most people are bigoted arseholes?
Hard to be bigoted against stupid. The guy's on I-93.
But the OP talks about tarring everyone who pedals with the same brush.
It's the same bigoted argument as watching this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFfM7ALZr4U) and then decided all car drivers are idiots who shouldn't be taken seriously.
Well, that does describe the bicycling community pretty well.
Quote from: roadman on July 17, 2015, 01:13:55 PM
why most people don't take cyclists more seriously.
http://www.universalhub.com/2015/bicyclist-has-some-serious-tunnel-vision
What does one incident have ANYTHING to do with taking bicyclists seriously? I see far more stupidity daily from motorists. Should I just not take them seriously as well? So no. The bicycle lobby does not wonder. They are taken seriously, just perhaps maybe not by you.
In other words, all cyclists think one way, and all motorists think one way. I'm with NE2 on this one.
I'll start taking pictures at random during my morning commute, and the countless stupid things drivers do should fill up a nice amusing thread about why people don't take them seriously.
Quote from: sdmichael on July 17, 2015, 04:21:37 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 17, 2015, 01:13:55 PM
why most people don't take cyclists more seriously.
http://www.universalhub.com/2015/bicyclist-has-some-serious-tunnel-vision
What does one incident have ANYTHING to do with taking bicyclists seriously? I see far more stupidity daily from motorists. Should I just not take them seriously as well? So no. The bicycle lobby does not wonder. They are taken seriously, just perhaps maybe not by you.
Just to clarify. As a responsible driver, I will treat individual cyclists I encounter on the road with respect. However, I do not have much respect for lobbyist groups who demand special infrastructure for cyclists without then agreeing that those same cyclists be legally required to use said infrastructure - i.e. bike lanes. Nor do I have much respect for lobbyist groups who insist that the solution to curbing bad cyclist behavior (like running red lights) is to change the laws so cyclists can legally continue to engage in such bad behavior. Good example of the latter. In Massachusetts, if a vehicle turning right is in a collision with a cyclist, the fact that the cyclist was attempting to pass the vehicle on the right
cannot be used as a defense by the driver. However, if I try passing a right turning vehicle on the right in my car, I am presumed to be at least partially fault if I collide with that vehicle.
And if the cycling lobby is so interested in the concept of "equal rights, equal responsibilities" (as they are always proclaiming in their propaganda), then explain why suggestions to require cyclists to register their vehicles and carry a minimum amount of insurance are always met with so much opposition. Or why, when a car/truck vs. bike incident is reported, why is the vehicle driver almost immediately vilified on the Internet and in social media, even before the circumstances of the crash are known.
Lastly, if the cycling lobby is really that interested in promoting good biking behavior, then why do they not immediately denounce such incidents like these when they happen? For that matter, what have they been doing to discourage the attitudes of many cyclists that increasingly profess a mantra of "When cyclists break laws like running red lights, they're only putting themselves at risk of serious injury. Therefore, why do you consider the fact we break the law is a big deal" ?
Yes, drivers can and often do stupid things and flaunt the traffic laws as well. However, in the walking portion of my typical daily commute through Downtown Boston (which is about two miles), I have been nearly hit multiple times by "entitled" cyclists who feel they have the "right" to ignore traffic laws (like stopping for red lights) and/or often rocket down sidewalks that they legally are not supposed to be riding on. Yet, in all that time (35+ years), I have yet to see a car using a sidewalk when a marked lane in the adjacent street is available, or a car suddenly appear from behind a stopped line of traffic waiting at a red light and dart through the intersection immediately in front of cars approaching on the green light.
So forgive me if I have an issue with a cyclist who decides, either through arrogance, stupidity, or whatever else may be going on in their mind, to not only enter an
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ramp, but also continue to keep on going after realizing "Hey, this obviously isn't the Kennedy Greenway."
Can I play the race card now?
Quote from: roadman on July 17, 2015, 06:00:58 PMHowever, I do not have much respect for lobbyist groups who demand special infrastructure for cyclists without then agreeing that those same cyclists be legally required to use said infrastructure - i.e. bike lanes.
...
In Massachusetts, if a vehicle turning right is in a collision with a cyclist, the fact that the cyclist was attempting to pass the vehicle on the right cannot be used as a defense by the driver. However, if I try passing a right turning vehicle on the right in my car, I am presumed to be at least partially fault if I collide with that vehicle.
You can't have it both ways. In the first sentence, you want to require bicyclists to ride in their own lane (typically located to the right of vehicles) rather than allowing them to ride with vehicles. In the second, you try to blame them for an accident when they're exactly where you've forced them to be.
Quote from: roadman on July 17, 2015, 06:00:58 PM
Yes, drivers can and often do stupid things and flaunt the traffic laws as well.
I flaunt the traffic laws all the time when driving a bicycle. In particularly, I love to flaunt the one that allows me to ride on the road.
Some people seem to be hung up on a cyclist on an interstate. This interstate, yeah, a problem.
West of the Mississippi River, it's quite allowed, in certain states every inch of interstate highway is legal for cycling.
Doesn't change the stupidity of this one person.
I do know a former pro cyclist who on a dare rode almost all of I-190 in central Mass. He got on via the Leominster Connector form the north end, and attempted to get to exit 1/MA 12 considering he'd end up on 290 if he got further. He got to exit 3 before a state trooper pulled him over and made him get off there. Amazingly no ticket, maybe because it was 3 AM and he did bother to have some lighting on the bike (enough to be legal on the roads actually allowed on).
Only restricted thing I've been on is the US 6/MA 138 bridge over the Taunton River. The new one restricts bikes/peds and has a bike trail on the north side. It was winter and as usual they didn't clear it of snow despite the roads being clear for well over a week.
Quote from: roadman on July 17, 2015, 01:13:55 PM
why most people don't take cyclists more seriously.
http://www.universalhub.com/2015/bicyclist-has-some-serious-tunnel-vision
I sent the link to my brother, who commutes 28 miles roundtrip by bike most days from Falls Church to Fair Lakes in Northern Virginia, and I thought his reply was an excellent succinct summary:
"Wow...good way to get dead."
Quote from: roadman on July 17, 2015, 06:00:58 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on July 17, 2015, 04:21:37 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 17, 2015, 01:13:55 PM
why most people don't take cyclists more seriously.
http://www.universalhub.com/2015/bicyclist-has-some-serious-tunnel-vision
What does one incident have ANYTHING to do with taking bicyclists seriously? I see far more stupidity daily from motorists. Should I just not take them seriously as well? So no. The bicycle lobby does not wonder. They are taken seriously, just perhaps maybe not by you.
Just to clarify. As a responsible driver, I will treat individual cyclists I encounter on the road with respect. However, I do not have much respect for lobbyist groups who demand special infrastructure for cyclists without then agreeing that those same cyclists be legally required to use said infrastructure - i.e. bike lanes. Nor do I have much respect for lobbyist groups who insist that the solution to curbing bad cyclist behavior (like running red lights) is to change the laws so cyclists can legally continue to engage in such bad behavior. Good example of the latter. In Massachusetts, if a vehicle turning right is in a collision with a cyclist, the fact that the cyclist was attempting to pass the vehicle on the right cannot be used as a defense by the driver. However, if I try passing a right turning vehicle on the right in my car, I am presumed to be at least partially fault if I collide with that vehicle.
And if the cycling lobby is so interested in the concept of "equal rights, equal responsibilities" (as they are always proclaiming in their propaganda), then explain why suggestions to require cyclists to register their vehicles and carry a minimum amount of insurance are always met with so much opposition. Or why, when a car/truck vs. bike incident is reported, why is the vehicle driver almost immediately vilified on the Internet and in social media, even before the circumstances of the crash are known.
Lastly, if the cycling lobby is really that interested in promoting good biking behavior, then why do they not immediately denounce such incidents like these when they happen? For that matter, what have they been doing to discourage the attitudes of many cyclists that increasingly profess a mantra of "When cyclists break laws like running red lights, they're only putting themselves at risk of serious injury. Therefore, why do you consider the fact we break the law is a big deal" ?
Yes, drivers can and often do stupid things and flaunt the traffic laws as well. However, in the walking portion of my typical daily commute through Downtown Boston (which is about two miles), I have been nearly hit multiple times by "entitled" cyclists who feel they have the "right" to ignore traffic laws (like stopping for red lights) and/or often rocket down sidewalks that they legally are not supposed to be riding on. Yet, in all that time (35+ years), I have yet to see a car using a sidewalk when a marked lane in the adjacent street is available, or a car suddenly appear from behind a stopped line of traffic waiting at a red light and dart through the intersection immediately in front of cars approaching on the green light.
So forgive me if I have an issue with a cyclist who decides, either through arrogance, stupidity, or whatever else may be going on in their mind, to not only enter an INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ramp, but also continue to keep on going after realizing "Hey, this obviously isn't the Kennedy Greenway."
So again... What does this ONE INCIDENT which has NOTHING TO DO WITH BICYCLING ADVOCACY have to do with "taking the bicycle lobby seriously"? One has nothing to do with the other.
I'm also willing to bet that the vast majority of bicyclists already have driver licenses and carry insurance. No group is working to change the laws to legalize running red lights. Changing the laws to allow going on a red when the light doesn't change, perhaps. I would think that would benefit more than just bicyclists. Running lights blatantly, no.
Also, riding along freeways is quite common throughout the US, usually in more rural areas but those laws vary by state. I've ridden along I-5 in California and Washington, as well as portions of other non-Interstate freeways in California.
But sure. Go ahead and continue your rant about bicycle lobby groups when you see some random person on a bicycle riding where they aren't supposed to who isn't advocating its legality or safety.
Complaining about bicyclists now?
Why did drivers of luxury cars get free parking in Covington during the All-Star Game, while drivers of regular cars did not?
The other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.
Quote from: hm insulators on July 21, 2015, 07:20:30 PM
The other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.
And the bicycle lobby still has the nerve to be all pro-bicycling!
I like to think of bicycles the same way as trains: the safest crossings of train and auto traffic are the ones where they don't cross at all.
QuoteThe other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.
To be fair, for every cyclist that runs a red, there are a number of vehicle drivers who do the same thing. Which do you think is more dangerous?
Quote from: froggie on July 22, 2015, 08:07:43 AM
QuoteThe other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.
To be fair, for every cyclist that runs a red, there are a number of vehicle drivers who do the same thing. Which do you think is more dangerous?
Bicycles. Cyclists are out in the open and therefore less protected than those traveling inside a vehicle.
Quote from: froggie on July 22, 2015, 08:07:43 AM
QuoteThe other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.
To be fair, for every cyclist that runs a red, there are a number of vehicle drivers who do the same thing. Which do you think is more dangerous?
Personally, my biggest beef isn't so much that bicyclists are going thru the red lights. What irritates me the most is that many of these bicyclists are adamant about wanting their share of the road, and that they have just as much right to the road as a vehicle. Then they ignore the rules of the road.
Percentage wise, the number of bicyclists going thru red lights is way higher than the number of cars going thru red lights.
Quote from: Rothman on July 22, 2015, 08:21:27 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 22, 2015, 08:07:43 AM
QuoteThe other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.
To be fair, for every cyclist that runs a red, there are a number of vehicle drivers who do the same thing. Which do you think is more dangerous?
Bicycles. Cyclists are out in the open and therefore less protected than those traveling inside a vehicle.
I think he meant dangerous as in dangerous to their potential victims, not the idiot causing themselves harm.
It's funny, when I'm driving, I think of cyclists as a potential death I'm going to have to live with on my conscience for the rest of my life. As a cyclist, I think of motorists as slow and lumbering and trapped in traffic simply by virtue of their vehicles size–rarely a threat. As a pedestrian, I wish they both would slow the fuck down and look where they're going.
Running a red light less than 1 second after it stops being yellow does not count as running a red light for purposes of this thread.
Bicyclists think they can go straight through a red light even through opposing traffic. That's what's dangerous, not missing the yellow by 1/10 of a second.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 22, 2015, 08:46:34 AM
It's funny, when I'm driving, I think of cyclists as a potential death I'm going to have to live with on my conscience for the rest of my life. As a cyclist, I think of motorists as slow and lumbering and trapped in traffic simply by virtue of their vehicles size–rarely a threat. As a pedestrian, I wish they both would slow the fuck down and look where they're going.
I used to bicycle everywhere -- up to 36 miles/day a few times a week. I always kept to the side of the road and definitely kept aware of vehicles as they came up behind me.
Even back then, the entitlement some cyclists feel to impede traffic rubs me the wrong way. When you see two lone cyclists riding side-by-side, taking up the lane, to me that's not "sharing the road." Yes, cyclists can preach about how technically the laws in certain states allow them to do that, but in reality, it's just them getting in the way out of some exaggerated sense of entitlement.
I was driving behind a guy once who thought he was cycling fast enough downhill to not impede traffic when he was. He was right in the middle of the lane. Personally, I think once he got going that he wasn't skilled enough to control his bike at the speed he was going (despite is spiffy gear and clothing) and didn't have enough control to move over. Very frustrating all around to be stuck behind him.
I have no problem with cyclists that share the road. Heck, I even understand if the shoulder is filled with broken glass and whatever else that a cyclist may have to ride left of the white line (if there is one). But, cycling down the middle of the road? Nah. Sharing the road goes both ways. I'll swing out as much as I can to give you room, but you've got to do your part in this as well.
When it comes to me being a pedestrian, I have no sympathy at all for cyclists that collide with walkers that claim that they gave adequate warning and blame the walker.
Quote from: 1 on July 22, 2015, 09:06:50 AM
Bicyclists think they can go straight through a red light even through opposing traffic. That's what's dangerous, not missing the yellow by 1/10 of a second.
Not all of them.
QuoteRunning a red light less than 1 second after it stops being yellow does not count as running a red light for purposes of this thread.
Running a red is still running a red, whether it's by 1/10th of a second or by 10 seconds.
My earlier point is that cars are by far more dangerous. If a car hits a bike or ped, it's far more likely to cause damage, injury, and death than if the bicycle is the one doing the hitting. As for Rothman's recent comment about bikes hitting peds, it goes both ways. Bikes often don't give enough space while passing but at the same time there are just as many peds who unpredictably turn or have headphones on and are oblivious to their surroundings. Furthermore, while it's not unheard of, a bike hitting a ped is far less likely to cause serious injury or death than a vehicle hitting either...
Quote from: Rothman on July 22, 2015, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 22, 2015, 09:06:50 AM
Bicyclists think they can go straight through a red light even through opposing traffic. That's what's dangerous, not missing the yellow by 1/10 of a second.
Not all of them.
This is at the heart of the fatal flaw of the thread–cyclists do not share a brain, do not act collectively, and do not for the most part take part in any kind of lobby. People who describe cyclists in blanket terms as if what I say is not true sound like Donald Trump talking about... anything.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 22, 2015, 10:04:30 AM
This is at the heart of the fatal flaw of the thread–cyclists do not share a brain, do not act collectively, and do not for the most part take part in any kind of lobby. People who describe cyclists in blanket terms as if what I say is not true sound like Donald Trump talking about... anything.
I don't know. The Critical Mass cyclists in Chicago might share a brain. :)
I joke. Mostly.
http://chicagocriticalmass.org/ (http://chicagocriticalmass.org/)
Quote from: sipes23 on July 22, 2015, 12:16:27 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 22, 2015, 10:04:30 AM
This is at the heart of the fatal flaw of the thread–cyclists do not share a brain, do not act collectively, and do not for the most part take part in any kind of lobby. People who describe cyclists in blanket terms as if what I say is not true sound like Donald Trump talking about... anything.
I don't know. The Critical Mass cyclists in Chicago might share a brain. :)
I joke. Mostly.
http://chicagocriticalmass.org/ (http://chicagocriticalmass.org/)
Those guys are jerks, IMHO. Some of them actively advocate running red signals and stop signs.
The problem isn't so much that there are bicycles and cars, but that safety is compromised for all when people (using either) start doing unpredictable things (such as running red lights). Road safety for all users is predicated on the predictability of said road users. One should be able to predict that when the cross street has a red signal or stop sign, that all road users will wait at said red light until it turns green, or at said stop sign until traffic is clear.
That said, I had a most wonderful (in a good way) encounter with bicyclists today. A group of them in Aurora, IL, were waiting to cross Orchard Rd (which had the green) at Galena Blvd (https://goo.gl/maps/uR1il). However, a small crowd had decided to wait on the corner on the right side of the right turn lane instead of proceeding to the island. Thus, I stopped as I was turning right to let them go to the island. As far as I am concerned, if you turn across the main stream of traffic, you must wait for that stream of traffic to clear (exact same principal for turning left with oncoming traffic).
I try to avoid threads like this. They tend to stir up a shit storm on this forum. There are bad cyclists. There are bad cycling lobby groups. But for the most part cyclists follow the rules. There are bad drivers. But most drivers are good. Blanket statements are rarely true. Of course cyclists who run red lights are stupid - who's arguing with you? That doesn't give you the right to off cyclists as a whole.
iPad
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on August 06, 2015, 12:12:28 AM
I try to avoid threads like this. They tend to stir up a shit storm on this forum. There are bad cyclists. There are bad cycling lobby groups. But for the most part cyclists follow the rules. There are bad drivers. But most drivers are good. Blanket statements are rarely true. Of course cyclists who run red lights are stupid - who's arguing with you? That doesn't give you the right to off cyclists as a whole.
iPad
Are you sure? I would like to off the ones who can't tell the difference between a green and red light in Chicago but I digress. On Dearborn St in the Loop, there are cyclist stoplights. Do you know how many times a day I see a cyclist ignore the light that is specific to them? At least a half dozen times a day on that street alone. That's too much. It has gotten to the point that the cyclists in this city are almost as bad as the cab drivers.
I have no issue with giving cyclists a bike lane on the road. I think they area good idea. But I do take exception to the entitled asshole who thinks the rules of the road don't apply to them too.
BTW, Chicago just added 400 cyclist cops this week AND they will be giving tickets to the cyclists who do blow the lights and stop signs.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 06, 2015, 10:03:14 AM
BTW, Chicago just added 400 cyclist cops this week AND they will be giving tickets to the cyclists who do blow the lights and stop signs.
Something tells me that misbehaving cyclists are in better shape than the cops. How do you stop a cyclist when they can outrun you and how many resources should you dedicate to do so before it becomes absurdly too costly? It's not like bicycles have license plates.
Quote from: Rothman on August 06, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 06, 2015, 10:03:14 AM
BTW, Chicago just added 400 cyclist cops this week AND they will be giving tickets to the cyclists who do blow the lights and stop signs.
Something tells me that misbehaving cyclists are in better shape than the cops. How do you stop a cyclist when they can outrun you and how many resources should you dedicate to do so before it becomes absurdly too costly? It's not like bicycles have license plates.
Actually, in NYC they sort of do.
iPhone
Quote from: empirestate on August 06, 2015, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 06, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 06, 2015, 10:03:14 AM
BTW, Chicago just added 400 cyclist cops this week AND they will be giving tickets to the cyclists who do blow the lights and stop signs.
Something tells me that misbehaving cyclists are in better shape than the cops. How do you stop a cyclist when they can outrun you and how many resources should you dedicate to do so before it becomes absurdly too costly? It's not like bicycles have license plates.
Actually, in NYC they sort of do.
iPhone
Quote from: empirestate on August 06, 2015, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 06, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 06, 2015, 10:03:14 AM
BTW, Chicago just added 400 cyclist cops this week AND they will be giving tickets to the cyclists who do blow the lights and stop signs.
Something tells me that misbehaving cyclists are in better shape than the cops. How do you stop a cyclist when they can outrun you and how many resources should you dedicate to do so before it becomes absurdly too costly? It's not like bicycles have license plates.
Actually, in NYC they sort of do.
iPhone
Huh. I didn't know that. Just skimming things it looks like commercial business bikes have to be marked with their business, but is there any requirement for recreational cyclists?
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 06, 2015, 10:03:14 AM
I would like to off the ones
Premeditated murder is fun.
And the absurdity continues: http://www.boston.com/news/2015/08/05/man-rides-bicycle-interstate-during-boston-rush-hour/TNPBbcfVZ920usQAjGqTBJ/story.html?p1=feature_sec_hp
Wonder what they've been putting in the local water.
Quote from: Rothman on August 06, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 06, 2015, 10:03:14 AM
BTW, Chicago just added 400 cyclist cops this week AND they will be giving tickets to the cyclists who do blow the lights and stop signs.
Something tells me that misbehaving cyclists are in better shape than the cops. How do you stop a cyclist when they can outrun you and how many resources should you dedicate to do so before it becomes absurdly too costly? It's not like bicycles have license plates.
Oh I would venture to guess that there are plenty of cops who are also cyclists.
He was probably moving a lot faster than anyone else on that road. Should've worn a sign that said "If you were biking you'd be a mile ahead by now, and in better shape."
Regardless, as stupid as this guy was, I hope the Glob starts devoting as much ink to our collective numbness to egregious driving behavior as it does to that of bicyclists.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 06, 2015, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 06, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 06, 2015, 10:03:14 AM
BTW, Chicago just added 400 cyclist cops this week AND they will be giving tickets to the cyclists who do blow the lights and stop signs.
Something tells me that misbehaving cyclists are in better shape than the cops. How do you stop a cyclist when they can outrun you and how many resources should you dedicate to do so before it becomes absurdly too costly? It's not like bicycles have license plates.
Oh I would venture to guess that there are plenty of cops who are also cyclists.
Cyclists here get ticketed. Usually in some kind of sting operation, and usually in Cambridge, but it happens. Red light violations and failure to yield to peds seem to be the big targets.
Quote from: roadman on August 06, 2015, 10:58:22 AM
And the absurdity continues: http://www.boston.com/news/2015/08/05/man-rides-bicycle-interstate-during-boston-rush-hour/TNPBbcfVZ920usQAjGqTBJ/story.html?p1=feature_sec_hp
Wonder what they've been putting in the local water.
I can understand why motorists were getting out of the way. They probably wouldn't want to be driving near a heroin-drugged hippie riding a bicycle on an interstate. And then getting questioned by the police and their insurance company how they managed to hit the guy.
Quote from: Rothman on August 06, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 06, 2015, 10:03:14 AM
BTW, Chicago just added 400 cyclist cops this week AND they will be giving tickets to the cyclists who do blow the lights and stop signs.
Something tells me that misbehaving cyclists are in better shape than the cops. How do you stop a cyclist when they can outrun you and how many resources should you dedicate to do so before it becomes absurdly too costly? It's not like bicycles have license plates.
Actually, in NYC they sort of do.
iPhone [/quote]
Huh. I didn't know that. Just skimming things it looks like commercial business bikes have to be marked with their business, but is there any requirement for recreational cyclists?
[/quote]
Not at the moment, but commercial bikes make up a very large percentage of the total traffic, at least in Manhattan where I typically encounter problems.
iPhone
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/08/lost_deliveryman_rides_wrong-way_into_holland_tunnel_officials_say.html#incart_river_mobileshort
Electric bicycle + Riding wrong way into Holland Tunnel = Delivery order that never made it to the hungry customer.
Some inexcusable behavior from a professional BMXer who breaks tons of traffic laws in NYC (skip to 2:18 for lane-splitting while going the wrong way on a one-way street):
I'm pro-cycling, but this guy is just an asshole that deserves to lose any kind of endorsements he's earned. Also needs to spend some jail time. Full article at the Gothamist (http://gothamist.com/2015/09/15/bmx_video_radibonzical.php).
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 17, 2015, 08:30:36 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 17, 2015, 06:00:58 PMHowever, I do not have much respect for lobbyist groups who demand special infrastructure for cyclists without then agreeing that those same cyclists be legally required to use said infrastructure - i.e. bike lanes.
...
In Massachusetts, if a vehicle turning right is in a collision with a cyclist, the fact that the cyclist was attempting to pass the vehicle on the right cannot be used as a defense by the driver. However, if I try passing a right turning vehicle on the right in my car, I am presumed to be at least partially fault if I collide with that vehicle.
You can't have it both ways. In the first sentence, you want to require bicyclists to ride in their own lane (typically located to the right of vehicles) rather than allowing them to ride with vehicles. In the second, you try to blame them for an accident when they're exactly where you've forced them to be.
You missed the point. Just because the cyclist is "where you've forced them to be" doesn't give them a free pass on paying attention to the traffic around them. If a car is making a right turn in front of them, it doesn't do the cyclist any good at all to be "right" or "legal." In this case, "right" might equal "dead."
The law cited by roadman is another in a long line of laws passed by The Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts written by legislators who haven't a clue.
If right equals dead, motorist equals murderer.
Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2015, 04:00:16 PM
If right equals dead, motorist equals murderer.
Unfortunately, you can't do much more once you're dead. I got taught early that you may be in the right (and this includes while driving), but it's better not to be literally dead right.
It's also better to kill than drive safely. Or so I learned.