AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2012, 09:21:11 PM

Title: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2012, 09:21:11 PM
In New Haven, CT, there are plans to tear up the CT-34 expressway spur and make it into a blvd.   Ok, that is bad enough. 

Not only are you ripping up a highway (granted it isn't even a mile long but still..) but all that traffic is going on surface streets and the DOT planners added in bike lanes, bike boxes, exclusive ped walk signals where all traffic stops, raised intersections, narrow lanes at the expense of traffic flow to appease the bike/ped people. 

Bikers balked at CT-34 being five lanes at one intersection. In reality, there were 3 through and 2 turning lanes.   I think they saw the plans on paper and freaked...omg five lanes! 


(To appease the bikers: "ConnDOT has pushed the limits of transportation engineering practices to develop a plan that meets the bare minimum standards for vehicular accommodations while maintaining eligibility for financing through the Federal Highway Authority's funding program." ) and the bike people are STILL complaining. 

It amazing me, that these groups want it ALL. 

These articles give you an idea of how the groups want it all:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/downtown_crossing_debate/

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/islands_disappear/
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: mcdonaat on July 25, 2012, 09:28:32 PM
In their eyes, highways are meant to serve cyclists. I think bicycling is a good idea, but not at the expense of the cars that the road should be meant for.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2012, 12:05:38 AM
I don't see a big deal tearing this one down - there's really not much traffic on it because it's constrained by the feeder roads. So I'm OK with the boulevard concept in this instance. Not okay with exclusive ped walk signals and raised intersections. This is a through route.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: flowmotion on July 26, 2012, 03:45:37 AM
Not familiar with the area & the exact issues, but I don't think there's much value in tearing down a short freeway only to replace it with a highway-style "stroad". You end up with all the negatives of high traffic and none of the positive pedestrian enhancements which can bring life to the area.

Looking at a map (http://goo.gl/maps/qkFLx ) it seems that they could just shift traffic to the one-way "Frontage roads" and develop the land in between.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on July 26, 2012, 11:57:19 AM
I don't think these people would be happy unless cars were banned entirely.  Converting major arteries into glorified sidewalks that allow cars to drive on them only serves to advance the front in the War on Cars.

These people can't be reasoned with.  If they want a car-free future, they should go found their own community, not force their vision on the rest of us.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 26, 2012, 12:31:30 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on July 26, 2012, 03:45:37 AM
Not familiar with the area & the exact issues, but I don't think there's much value in tearing down a short freeway only to replace it with a highway-style "stroad". You end up with all the negatives of high traffic and none of the positive pedestrian enhancements which can bring life to the area.

Looking at a map (http://goo.gl/maps/qkFLx ) it seems that they could just shift traffic to the one-way "Frontage roads" and develop the land in between.

That is what they plan to do, is develop the land and bring the traffic to the frontage roads, but I think all the bike and ped enhancements will create a vehicular nightmare (it already is).  One city official said they want some congestion to force people to take other routes.....but there are no other routes.  No beltway was ever built, there is no expressway on the CT-34 corridor. 

Where is all the traffic going to go?  It won't just evaporate. 
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 26, 2012, 04:27:31 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 26, 2012, 11:57:19 AM
I don't think these people would be happy unless cars were banned entirely.  Converting major arteries into glorified sidewalks that allow cars to drive on them only serves to advance the front in the War on Cars.

These people can't be reasoned with.  If they want a car-free future, they should go found their own community, not force their vision on the rest of us.

The reality is nothing like what your statement suggests. 
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Duke87 on July 26, 2012, 06:49:35 PM
The stupid part is, you don't need to remove the freeway to develop the land it sits on. It's already below grade. Just build over it. Remove the redundant ramps to College St if that makes developing the parcel easier. For Christ's sake, there's already a facility called the Air Rights Garage sitting right at the end of the freeway, designed for it to have gone under it. Clearly somebody was able to grasp of the concept!

But no, this is about transportation politics, not pragmatic problem solving.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2012, 07:33:20 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 26, 2012, 06:49:35 PM
But no, this is about transportation politics, not pragmatic problem solving.

I have never been in New Haven, so I do not know the particulars, but still, I am confident in saying that your sentence above is absolutely correct.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 26, 2012, 10:49:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2012, 07:33:20 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 26, 2012, 06:49:35 PM
But no, this is about transportation politics, not pragmatic problem solving.

I have never been in New Haven, so I do not know the particulars, but still, I am confident in saying that your sentence above is absolutely correct.

Exactly!  Anything pro-highway (meaning vehicular traffic ONLY) is not politically correct.  However, if you talk public transportation, bike paths, multi-use trails and sidewalks then that is politically correct. 

In CT, we can no longer just have a highway project, we have to include something else such as sidewalks.  No matter how ridiculous it is, we have to put it in there. 

I noticed there are sidewalks on the side of the 8-lane bridge on I-95 just adjacent to the US-7 expressway (exits 15-16) and have NEVER seen anyone walking on it.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 26, 2012, 10:55:29 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on July 26, 2012, 10:49:09 PM
Exactly!  Anything pro-highway (meaning vehicular traffic ONLY) is not politically correct.
While in the dystopia pushed by many here, going anywhere except by car is not politically correct.

Quote from: doofy103 on July 26, 2012, 10:49:09 PM
I noticed there are sidewalks on the side of the 8-lane bridge on I-95 just adjacent to the US-7 expressway (exits 15-16) and have NEVER seen anyone walking on it.
Sweet. Connectivity at a low cost. Not that it applies to this specific bridge, being a freeway, but would you rather have someone walking on the sidewalk or on the road, so you have to move over to pass?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: corco on July 26, 2012, 11:24:21 PM
QuoteI noticed there are sidewalks on the side of the 8-lane bridge on I-95 just adjacent to the US-7 expressway (exits 15-16) and have NEVER seen anyone walking on it.

The problem with sidewalks is that you have to do them correctly for people to use them, otherwise they're a waste of money. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to walk down those sidewalks- narrow and way too close to traffic moving way too fast.

Of course, to do sidewalks correctly so that people are comfortable using them is pretty expensive, and that's where the "why the fuck are we putting in sidewalks" crowd ends up winning, so you get a compromise that does technically install sidewalks, but not sidewalks that most people would be comfortable using. If I had to use those out of desperation I might, but you're not convincing anyone who already has a car to take the sidewalk when they're that close to a freeway.

My argument on the whole sidewalk movement in general is that it's a nice idea, and I do think getting people out of cars for local travel long term is probably a good idea, but putting up sidewalks and bike lanes will only do so much before you have to address the actual cause of car use- people living really fucking far from where they work. If you lived a quarter mile from your job and the store, you probably wouldn't drive nearly as much.

The trick is finding a way to do that comfortably and without noticeable sacrifice. Part of that will require a culture shift (and I think we're seeing that with younger generations) and part of that will require some kickass design that I think a lot of people believe could exist one day but has not quite been developed yet.

I still commute, not because I enjoy it but because it's necessity (I love road trips, but the daily slog of commuting sucks). I have two focus points- my job in sprawling north Tucson and the university. If I lived near the university, I'd probably get shot in the rent range I can afford, and up here everything is so spread out I have no choice to drive, but I live up here because I can live in a nicer apartment for less money that's only two miles from one of my focus locations. If somebody could offer me something as nice as what I'm in now that's within walking distance of one of those places, I'd gladly do that, but until then I haven't been presented with a  good enough reason to forgo car transport. 
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: flowmotion on July 27, 2012, 02:24:40 AM
The advocates in question are actually requesting a couple pedestrian islands, which is hardly an extremist position.

I think many of you are using this as a proxy issue for the long-decided fact that this dead-end freeway is never going to be constructed. Which is fine, because if the suburbs want a freeway, they should volunteer to build one through the subdivisions.

Anyway, please tone down the persecution complex.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on July 27, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
Quote from: Special K on July 26, 2012, 04:27:31 PM
The reality is nothing like what your statement suggests. 

How is it not?  This road already has narrow lanes (making life difficult for and when near larger vehicles, and making crossing less of a concern if the people worried could bother to do the math), an all-ped signal phase (which just makes both drivers and peds sit longer; pedestrians and traffic moving at the same green is much nicer for both), and "raised crosswalks" (translation: speed bumps people can walk on).

Quote from: NE2 on July 26, 2012, 10:55:29 PM
While in the dystopia pushed by many here, going anywhere except by car is not politically correct.

How is wanting the freedom to go anywhere you want, whenever you want to, without answering to anyone, worrying about the transit schedule, weather, or being by annoying people, a dystopia?  Walking SUCKS if it's hot, cold, raining or snowing outside.

Quote from: flowmotion on July 27, 2012, 02:24:40 AM
The advocates in question are actually requesting a couple pedestrian islands, which is hardly an extremist position.

I think many of you are using this as a proxy issue for the long-decided fact that this dead-end freeway is never going to be constructed. Which is fine, because if the suburbs want a freeway, they should volunteer to build one through the subdivisions.

Anyway, please tone down the persecution complex.

They want a lot more than a couple pedestrian islands (which the DOT is correct in saying will encourage right turn people to blow right through the intersection).  They want reduced lanes (as doofy already said, where is the traffic going to go?) and higher speed bumps.

And how is this a proxy issue for a long-dead freeway proposal.  Many of us realize that the full CT 34 won't (can't since the ROW was sold off) be be built and that the short stretch that exists could be made a surface street (if done right).  However, that does not change the fact that CT 34 is a major artery, and you can't just wave your magic wand to make the traffic go away (no matter how much the urbanists think you can).
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 27, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
Quote from: Special K on July 26, 2012, 04:27:31 PM
The reality is nothing like what your statement suggests. 

How is it not?

I was speaking to your assessment of the bike lobby.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on July 27, 2012, 12:50:07 PM
I know I am going to hear it from some of you cyclists out there but really you guys need to get a grip. I have no problem with cyclists sharing the road with cars and trucks under a couple of conditions.

1. You have to obey the same signals and stop signs that vehicles do. No more blowing thru a red light or stop sign. I don't give a crap if there is no traffic around. The rules of the road apply to you cyclists too.

2. With the exception of larger cities, I would think it would be best for a cyclist to use a sidewalk or bike path that is just off the road when available. No good reason why the sidewalks in some places can not be used by them. Most small cities and towns do not have the foot traffic to make it necessary for a cyclist not to utilize a paved sidewalk.

3. When using the road as your path, you keep as close to the white line as possible. Do not block traffic by being 3 feet away from the line causing you to be in the vehicle lane hogging it.

I have no problem with responsible cyclists. Yes there needs to be more responsible drivers as well but the cycling community does not make it any easier for other people to go about there business when they do not obey the rules of the road. I am all for bike lanes on a roadway when the user of the said lane is responsible.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 27, 2012, 01:28:25 PM
with regard to #3, usually bicyclists (at least here in CA) have the right to a full lane.

#2, ever been buzzed by a cyclist when you're walking down the sidewalk?  especially the "salmoning" kind.  pedestrians are taught generally to salmon (walk opposite the flow of vehicle traffic) so that they can see what is happening ... a salmoning pedestrian being hunted down by a salmoning bicyclist is a scary, scary thing. 

as for #1... agreed; I've damn near killed several cyclists which have blown through traffic control devices and interrupted my right of way.  the worst was a sidewalk salmon (they're everywhere!) who blew through a four-way stop sign, coming up behind my left shoulder, and almost T-boned my driver's side when I made a legal left turn as it was my turn to go. 

bicyclists need to be ticketed aggressively for what is, in fact, reckless driving.  would you ride a car, or even a motorcycle, backwards to the flow of traffic, on a sidewalk?

oh wait, don't answer that... I've seen it done on a dirt bike.  people are fuckwits.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 27, 2012, 02:31:08 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 27, 2012, 12:50:07 PM
I know I am going to hear it from some of you cyclists out there but really you guys need to get a grip. I have no problem with cyclists sharing the road with cars and trucks under a couple of conditions.

1. You have to obey the same signals and stop signs that vehicles do. No more blowing thru a red light or stop sign. I don't give a crap if there is no traffic around. The rules of the road apply to you cyclists too.

Agreed... for the most part.  The difference being that traffic control/traffic law is currently geared for motor traffic.  There are certain instances when it makes little sense to require non-motor vehicles stop when there is no traffic.  Take for example mag-loop sensors at most intersections.  While sometimes it is possible for a bike to trigger the sensor, many times they just don't have the metal content to cycle the light.  So, there they sit...  My opinion is to treat Stop conditions as Yield in most cases.

Quote2. With the exception of larger cities, I would think it would be best for a cyclist to use a sidewalk or bike path that is just off the road when available. No good reason why the sidewalks in some places can not be used by them. Most small cities and towns do not have the foot traffic to make it necessary for a cyclist not to utilize a paved sidewalk.

Mixing peds and transport-focused bikes is not often a good idea.  As a cyclist traveling from point to point, I need to be in traffic that follows a predictable pattern.  Ped traffic is much too erratic with joggers, dog walkers, stroller-pushing soccer moms, etc...  Also, separating bike traffic from normal vehicular traffic becomes hazardous at intersections, especially for through-traveling bikes as motor vehicles turn right.

Quote3. When using the road as your path, you keep as close to the white line as possible. Do not block traffic by being 3 feet away from the line causing you to be in the vehicle lane hogging it.

Often times, that far right portion of the right lane is where debris collects and pavement degrades, making it a hazard for cyclists.  If I was to cling to the right side as you suggest, I'd constantly be swinging left to avoid these hazards, which makes an even more hazardous situation as motor traffic approaches from the rear.  As a cyclist, I want to keep a predictable line down the street, so the safest place for me to be is in the wear path of the street.

QuoteI have no problem with responsible cyclists. Yes there needs to be more responsible drivers as well but the cycling community does not make it any easier for other people to go about there business when they do not obey the rules of the road. I am all for bike lanes on a roadway when the user of the said lane is responsible.

I think we can agree that bike operation should be taught more as a mode of transportation than as merely a riding toy.  There are responsibilties to using the roadways and that should be taught better.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 27, 2012, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 27, 2012, 02:31:08 PMMy opinion is to treat Stop conditions as Yield in most cases.

fair enough.  we just need to get bicyclists to stop treating it as though it didn't exist, and assuming I will yield to them when I have the right of way.

one day, the laws of physics will catch up with these assholes.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 27, 2012, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 27, 2012, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 27, 2012, 02:31:08 PMMy opinion is to treat Stop conditions as Yield in most cases.

fair enough.  we just need to get bicyclists to stop treating it as though it didn't exist, and assuming I will yield to them when I have the right of way.

one day, the laws of physics will catch up with these assholes.

Fair enough.  Just, when speaking of the bike lobby, don't automatically lump the a-holes in with the rest of us.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on July 27, 2012, 04:40:00 PM
Most of those stop situations were bikes would be better with a yield are also situations where cars would be better off with a yield.  We should take some ideas from Europe: traffic lights go to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night, and replace most stop signs with yield signs.

Quote from: Special K on July 27, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
I was speaking to your assessment of the bike lobby.
How is the bike/ped/urbanist conglomerate not trying to move to a car-free future?  Most of their proposals are hostile to motorists as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 27, 2012, 05:13:56 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 04:40:00 PM
Most of those stop situations were bikes would be better with a yield are also situations where cars would be better off with a yield.  We should take some ideas from Europe: traffic lights go to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night, and replace most stop signs with yield signs.

Quote from: Special K on July 27, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
I was speaking to your assessment of the bike lobby.
How is the bike/ped/urbanist conglomerate not trying to move to a car-free future?  Most of their proposals are hostile to motorists as far as I can tell.

Interesting take. 

For decades, the infrastructure (and culture) of this country has been geared strictly to motor vehicle travel.  The average work commute rises as the population moves their residence farther and farther from their workplace.  All the while fossil fuels deplete and become more and more expensive.  It's a trend that cannot be sustained and people are now realizing that.  So, now there's a movement to accommodate a valid mode of transportation within the existing travel corridors to where people need to be, either to work, shop, or recreate.  To have the gall to ask for a *small* *portion* of that corridor that's safe, direct and convenient; that's hostile to motorists.

The push isn't for car-free society.  It's for sensible multi-modal transportation.  And as many of our roadways come to the end of their design lives, now is a perfect time to include those elements within the reconstruction.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 27, 2012, 05:47:16 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 27, 2012, 05:13:56 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 04:40:00 PM
Most of those stop situations were bikes would be better with a yield are also situations where cars would be better off with a yield.  We should take some ideas from Europe: traffic lights go to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night, and replace most stop signs with yield signs.

Quote from: Special K on July 27, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
I was speaking to your assessment of the bike lobby.
How is the bike/ped/urbanist conglomerate not trying to move to a car-free future?  Most of their proposals are hostile to motorists as far as I can tell.

Interesting take. 

For decades, the infrastructure (and culture) of this country has been geared strictly to motor vehicle travel.  The average work commute rises as the population moves their residence farther and farther from their workplace.  All the while fossil fuels deplete and become more and more expensive.  It's a trend that cannot be sustained and people are now realizing that.  So, now there's a movement to accommodate a valid mode of transportation within the existing travel corridors to where people need to be, either to work, shop, or recreate.  To have the gall to ask for a *small* *portion* of that corridor that's safe, direct and convenient; that's hostile to motorists.

The push isn't for car-free society.  It's for sensible multi-modal transportation.  And as many of our roadways come to the end of their design lives, now is a perfect time to include those elements within the reconstruction.

That is fair Special K, but in the New Haven case, it seems the bike/ped improvements are at the expense of a design that improves vehicular traffic flow.  If both are improved 50%, without at the expense of the other, then that is a win for everyone.  But, I think the narrow lanes, raised intersections and ped only phases for walk signals will add congestion to an already badly congested corridor. 

....and, the designers have bent over backwards to appease the bike/ped community and they still aren't happy.   
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on July 27, 2012, 05:57:26 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
Walking SUCKS if it's hot, cold, raining or snowing outside.

Your opinion.  I enjoy walking in the heat, the cold, and especially the snow.  Rain, you can have.  When there's a foot of snow on the ground, and blizzarding all around, it's the perfect time to take a walk.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Alps on July 27, 2012, 07:39:46 PM
Ehh... regarding bike laws:

1) Yes, bicyclists MUST stop at red lights and stop signs and treat them like cars do - IF they're riding in the road. You always have the option to dismount and walk your bike through the intersection. (Or go push a ped button and then return to your bike to wait.)
2) No, bicycles should NOT be on sidewalks. In many places it's illegal. Bicyclists belong on the road, which leads to #3.
3) Yes, absolutely, cyclists should keep right. We (and I say this as a very occasional cyclist) have the right to the whole lane, but I'm not using it unless I need it. It's very rare that I actually need a whole lane - typically only when I'm coming up to a left turn and see an acceptable gap in my mirror. I was once yelled at for passing a bicyclist when we got to a light, and I yelled right back, "I bike too, and I keep right. You have no right to yell at me, you were unnecessarily taking an entire lane so I passed you safely." (Paraphrased, obviously)
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 07:47:33 PM
Riding in the middle of the lane is a defensive driving thing. Enough people drive cars like shit and pass way too closely and right hook you when you ride on the far right side that you sometimes need to ride in the middle to indicate "yes, you do have to move over to pass me". Unless the right lane is extra-wide, a car passing a bike will need to cross the lane line, and so the added disruption to traffic flow is minimal to nonexistent if the bike is farther left.
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/animations/lane-control/
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on July 27, 2012, 08:05:27 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 27, 2012, 05:13:56 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 04:40:00 PM
Most of those stop situations were bikes would be better with a yield are also situations where cars would be better off with a yield.  We should take some ideas from Europe: traffic lights go to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night, and replace most stop signs with yield signs.

Quote from: Special K on July 27, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
I was speaking to your assessment of the bike lobby.
How is the bike/ped/urbanist conglomerate not trying to move to a car-free future?  Most of their proposals are hostile to motorists as far as I can tell.

Interesting take. 

For decades, the infrastructure (and culture) of this country has been geared strictly to motor vehicle travel.  The average work commute rises as the population moves their residence farther and farther from their workplace.  All the while fossil fuels deplete and become more and more expensive.  It's a trend that cannot be sustained and people are now realizing that.  So, now there's a movement to accommodate a valid mode of transportation within the existing travel corridors to where people need to be, either to work, shop, or recreate.  To have the gall to ask for a *small* *portion* of that corridor that's safe, direct and convenient; that's hostile to motorists.

The push isn't for car-free society.  It's for sensible multi-modal transportation.  And as many of our roadways come to the end of their design lives, now is a perfect time to include those elements within the reconstruction.
If we put even a fraction of the research into electricity storage that we do to finding locations for new oil wells we'd have viable long-distance electric cars within a decade.

Plus you can accommodate multiple modes of transport without inconveniencing drivers.  We'd also need a lot less accommodations from all sides if everyone would follow the law.  That includes NO JAYWALKING.  If people want to complain about the length of the walk signal that's fine, but the fact is the number of lanes is perfectly safe (especially given that they're narrow; as the plan is, it's more like four lanes from a pedestrian's point of view) as long as the walk signal is long enough and people don't jaywalk.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 08:09:59 PM
Jaywalking when no traffic is coming is like speeding. If you want pedestrians to follow what they feel are silly laws, you should do the same and always drive the speed limit or below.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 08:55:38 PM
How many people who think jaywalking is a problem are aware that the crime of jaywalking can exist only when there are signals on consecutive street blocks?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 08:58:25 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 08:55:38 PM
How many people who think jaywalking is a problem are aware that the crime of jaywalking can exist only when there are signals on consecutive street blocks?
I've also seen jaywalking used to mean crossing on a don't walk, as I think deanej did here.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on July 27, 2012, 09:00:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 08:09:59 PM
Jaywalking when no traffic is coming is like speeding. If you want pedestrians to follow what they feel are silly laws, you should do the same and always drive the speed limit or below.
In general I do, but how on earth is jaywalking a silly law?  Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?

Quote from: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 08:58:25 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 08:55:38 PM
How many people who think jaywalking is a problem are aware that the crime of jaywalking can exist only when there are signals on consecutive street blocks?
I've also seen jaywalking used to mean crossing on a don't walk, as I think deanej did here.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: english si on July 27, 2012, 09:09:08 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 27, 2012, 02:31:08 PMAgreed... for the most part.  The difference being that traffic control/traffic law is currently geared for motor traffic.  There are certain instances when it makes little sense to require non-motor vehicles stop when there is no traffic.  Take for example mag-loop sensors at most intersections.  While sometimes it is possible for a bike to trigger the sensor, many times they just don't have the metal content to cycle the light.  So, there they sit...  My opinion is to treat Stop conditions as Yield in most cases.
Yes, that must be awful for you in America (then again, there were tons of lights when I cycled around Southampton. And despite the smart system, it was annoying early morning with no traffic and the loops didn't sense your bike, so didn't change), with a default stop, rather than default yield.

A stop on a bike is horrendous, especially if there's nothing there, as you've killed all your momentum for nothing. Especially if you actually stop fully - it makes sense that cyclists treat stop signs (though not red lights) as yields - slow down until they can guarantee it's clear, but not have to stop.
QuoteMixing peds and transport-focused bikes is not often a good idea.  As a cyclist traveling from point to point, I need to be in traffic that follows a predictable pattern.  Ped traffic is much too erratic with joggers, dog walkers, stroller-pushing soccer moms, etc...  Also, separating bike traffic from normal vehicular traffic becomes hazardous at intersections, especially for through-traveling bikes as motor vehicles turn right.
My old cycling commute went on a road that had two options - cycle and turn right (so cross all traffic, as we drive-on-the-left) on a busy 4-lane divided highway, or use a shared use path alongside the road. I always felt less safe among the pedestrians than among the cars, plus couldn't go much faster than walking pace without it being unsafe.
QuoteOften times, that far right portion of the right lane is where debris collects and pavement degrades, making it a hazard for cyclists.  If I was to cling to the right side as you suggest, I'd constantly be swinging left to avoid these hazards, which makes an even more hazardous situation as motor traffic approaches from the rear.  As a cyclist, I want to keep a predictable line down the street, so the safest place for me to be is in the wear path of the street.
Yes - the keep to the kerb idea is the way cyclists die. Good practice is riding at least 3 ft out (cars typically give you about the same room on the other side when passing, plus you avoid the drains and stuff that mean that you are erratic), moving to the middle of the lane if going straight on/left (in drive-on-right countries) at junctions so you don't get hit by traffic that will conflict with you trying to pass you.

I typically cycle on quiet roads in the middle of the lane, moving left and slowing down a bit to left cars pass if needed to and it's possible, while on busier roads being a couple of feet over, so there's about 2.5-3.5 ft between me and the kerb minimum, adjusting speed and position to let cars pass and not block the road if they won't.

As for jaywalking, being a Brit I have no idea why that's such an issue - clearly there's a don't be a knobhead common sense to apply, but it's funny with visitors from Germany who won't cross until the light is green, even if the road is clear. Often, on signallised crossings, I won't push the button to stop road traffic unless I can't cross in a gap and need to make a gap. I also get annoyed if the lights stop one car, and behind them is a gap (for similar reasons I avoid zebra crossings when I can, crossing near them, but not forcing traffic to give way to me). I'd also not cross at a crossing if I could cross in a gap when it arrives - especially if I can do a diagonal and save walking a few feet.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 09:09:54 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 09:00:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 08:09:59 PM
Jaywalking when no traffic is coming is like speeding. If you want pedestrians to follow what they feel are silly laws, you should do the same and always drive the speed limit or below.
In general I do, but how on earth is jaywalking a silly law?  Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?
It's a victimless crime if nobody is delayed. (And before you question why motorists have to wait at red lights, their field of vision is significantly limited compared to that of a pedestrian (or a cyclist, for that matter).) Speeding may delay people who want to cross the speeder's path. Do you have the same dislike of them as you do for jaywalkers?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 09:32:26 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 09:00:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 08:58:25 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 08:55:38 PMHow many people who think jaywalking is a problem are aware that the crime of jaywalking can exist only when there are signals on consecutive street blocks?

I've also seen jaywalking used to mean crossing on a don't walk, as I think deanej did here.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Yes, Deanej, that is what I thought you might mean.  That behavior is generally legal.  It becomes illegal only if the signal whose don't-walk indication is being ignored is one of at least two signals on consecutive blocks.

It is unfair to denigrate pedestrians as scofflaws if what they are doing is perfectly legal, even if it is contrary to a signal indication.

Edit:  Inaccurate information now struck out.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 09:38:27 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 09:32:26 PM
Yes, Deanej, that is what I thought you might mean.  That behavior is generally legal.  It becomes illegal only if the signal whose don't-walk indication is being ignored is one of at least two signals on consecutive blocks.
Huh? "A pedestrian shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device specifically applicable to the pedestrian unless otherwise directed by a police officer." This or a variant (search for "A pedestrian shall obey the instructions") is in many states' codes and is probably in the UVC. "Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk." is an additional restriction, not the only one.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 10:47:41 PM
Yes, NE2, you are right--I was under the impression that the upraised hand/"DONT WALK" was advisory in nature, but I have checked the MUTCD (Chapter 4E) and I see that it is a positive prohibition ("a pedestrian shall not enter the roadway in the direction of the [steady] signal indication").  I have therefore edited my last post upthread accordingly.

I don't think it is the case, however, that the equivalent indication in European countries ("red man") is always a compulsory instruction.  In Germany I believe it is but in the UK I think it is not; instead, when red man is showing, the pedestrian loses priority and must not cause vehicles to change speed or direction if and when he chooses to cross.  The offense of jaywalking also does not generally exist because there is no concept of a street block for purposes of defining an adjacency criterion.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 10:59:54 PM
One gets into fuzzy legal territory when dealing with bikes using the sidewalk. Can you turn right on don't walk? (Since you're not crossing the road, I think it's legal.) What if you're turning left from the left turn lane onto the near-side sidewalk? (I think you have to wait for the light to turn, even though you're only going just past the stop line.) What about a left turn from a divided highway onto a multi-use trail with no actuation buttons in the median? (I'm not sure about this one - you may have to turn right and U-turn, Michigan left style.)
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Duke87 on July 27, 2012, 11:34:21 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 09:00:07 PM
how on earth is jaywalking a silly law?  Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?

Pedestrians have special status because they do not risk anyone but themselves. If I am driving, I can kill someone if I run a red light. If I am walking, and I disobey don't walk, nobody but me is possibly going to get hurt.

There is also the very real issue that all cars are more or less made equal but all pedestrians are not. An old man hobbling along with a cane needs a lot more time to cross the street than I do.


Of course, hailing from New York City, I tend to find the idea of pedestrian traffic control to be rather silly in the first place. You scamper across the street whenever and wherever you spot an opening. Who needs pedestrian control? Oncoming traffic is cause to wait before you cross. Orange hands are not.


I tend to take the same attitude about cyclists. Yeah, they're technically supposed to obey red lights and whatnot, but they hurt no one if they just treat it as a yield.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on July 28, 2012, 05:40:06 AM
Some of you guys missed the point I was trying to make with my 3 conditions.

First of all, while i think that making signals at night become a flashing red/yellow is a good idea, that still does not change the fact that so many cyclists believe that signals and stop signs do not apply to them.

In my second condition about the sidewalk, notice I said in much small cities and towns where there is little to no foot traffic. You guys can't deal with say 3 pedestrians per mile? Come on now. How many times have you seen the sidewalk in front of your house in the burbs be crowded enough that it would be impassable for a bicycle? My guess is almost never unless you have a school or downtown businesses nearby.

In the last condition, you do bring up good points about a deteriorating pavement being a hazard for a bicycle. But most places out in the country, at least around here, have a shoulder that at the very least is crushed gravel if not completely paved with a with of 1 to 6 feet. That is not enough room for a bicycle to manage without getting all the way into the driving lane? I would think that riding in the driving lane would be more unsafe. Yes there are drivers who need to yield room to pass a cyclist. I myself do always cross the yellow line when I can if I am passing a cyclist but I do that more as a courtesy.

Duke, the problem with that mentality of treating a stop sign as a yield is that when you get into a more dense area, cyclists tend not to change their habits and do become a hazard.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 28, 2012, 06:16:58 AM
You can't deal with passing 3 cyclists per mile? You shouldn't be driving.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on July 28, 2012, 07:05:57 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 09:09:54 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 09:00:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 27, 2012, 08:09:59 PM
Jaywalking when no traffic is coming is like speeding. If you want pedestrians to follow what they feel are silly laws, you should do the same and always drive the speed limit or below.
In general I do, but how on earth is jaywalking a silly law?  Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?
It's a victimless crime if nobody is delayed. (And before you question why motorists have to wait at red lights, their field of vision is significantly limited compared to that of a pedestrian (or a cyclist, for that matter).) Speeding may delay people who want to cross the speeder's path. Do you have the same dislike of them as you do for jaywalkers?
If I'm on the Thruway waiting to pass some old person or truck(s) going 5-10mph below the speed limit while a line of cars is in the left lane doing 10 over?  Yes.

Quote from: NE2 on July 28, 2012, 06:16:58 AM
You can't deal with passing 3 cyclists per mile? You shouldn't be driving.
Depends on traffic.  In heavy traffic on a two lane road, you're basically stuck.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 28, 2012, 07:11:10 AM
Quote from: deanej on July 28, 2012, 07:05:57 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 28, 2012, 06:16:58 AM
You can't deal with passing 3 cyclists per mile? You shouldn't be driving.
Depends on traffic.  In heavy traffic on a two lane road, you're basically stuck.
Same applies to heavy traffic on a sidewalk.

Oh, and
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 28, 2012, 05:40:06 AM
I would think that riding in the driving lane would be more unsafe.
is a common misconception. A motorist's field of vision is concentrated straight ahead, and it's almost impossible to miss a cyclist there. But one on the extreme side of the road is too easy to ignore, leading to right hooks (turning right just after passing) and other shitty driving. Riding on the sidewalk is even worse. It gets back to defensive driving: is the convenience of motorists more important than the safety of cyclists? If you say yes, fuck you.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on July 28, 2012, 11:37:12 AM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 09:00:07 PM
Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?

No, but pedestrians also shouldn't be given inferior status–which could mean having less right to the road than a motorist, having their interests ignored in favor of motorists', etc.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Duke87 on July 28, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 28, 2012, 07:11:10 AM
A motorist's field of vision is concentrated straight ahead, and it's almost impossible to miss a cyclist there. But one on the extreme side of the road is too easy to ignore, leading to right hooks (turning right just after passing) and other shitty driving.

There is some responsibility to preventing right hooks on both parties involved. If you are driving and you pass someone on a bike, make sure you're aware of where they are before you attempt to make a right turn and make sure you use your turn signal. Meanwhile, if you are cycling and you see someone signaling a right turn in front of you, either go around them to the left or slow down and wait for them to turn.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 28, 2012, 07:11:01 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 28, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 28, 2012, 07:11:10 AM
A motorist's field of vision is concentrated straight ahead, and it's almost impossible to miss a cyclist there. But one on the extreme side of the road is too easy to ignore, leading to right hooks (turning right just after passing) and other shitty driving.

There is some responsibility to preventing right hooks on both parties involved. If you are driving and you pass someone on a bike, make sure you're aware of where they are before you attempt to make a right turn and make sure you use your turn signal. Meanwhile, if you are cycling and you see someone signaling a right turn in front of you, either go around them to the left or slow down and wait for them to turn.

So wrong for several reasons...

- As a through-traveling cyclist, I have the right of way over a right-turning motorist.  I need to ride in a predictable manner, which includes maintaining a constant speed through the intersection.  It is certainly not my "responsibility" to yield that right of way.

- Not all motorists use those things called "turn signals".

- I don't know the intentions of a vehicle approaching from the rear.  If I'm right at the intersection, I won't see a signal if the vehicle is turning right in front of me. (This is the definition of right-hooking, BTW.  A vehicle that overtakes me first, before turning right, certainly has the right of way)

- Swinging left around the car is also a very poor move, putting me in the path of any other vehicle which might be immediately behind the turning vehicle.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: mightyace on July 29, 2012, 01:00:47 AM
I don't bike here in Middle TN for a couple of reasons:

1) The poor driving habits of so many people.
2) Out where I live, there are no shoulders to speak of and the lanes are of sub-standard width.  That wouldn't be too much of a problem except for #1.
3) The road grid in this part of the world doesn't have a lot of redundancy and most through routes have speed limits of 40mph and up.  (even in Nashville) I don't like to bike on a road unless the speed limit is 35 or under.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2012, 01:13:07 AM
Quote from: kphoger on July 27, 2012, 05:57:26 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
Walking SUCKS if it's hot, cold, raining or snowing outside.

Your opinion.  I enjoy walking in the heat, the cold, and especially the snow.  Rain, you can have.  When there's a foot of snow on the ground, and blizzarding all around, it's the perfect time to take a walk.

The Oklahoma Tourism Board called...wanna be their spokesperson?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on July 29, 2012, 12:13:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2012, 11:37:12 AM
Quote from: deanej on July 27, 2012, 09:00:07 PM
Do pedestrians have special status just because they're politically correct while cars aren't?

No, but pedestrians also shouldn't be given inferior status–which could mean having less right to the road than a motorist, having their interests ignored in favor of motorists', etc.

When it comes to boating, the larger, less maneuverable boats (ships and sailboats) take priority over the smaller, more maneuverable ones (motor boats and jet skis).  Surface transportation has it backwards.  While good drivers do recognize that they shouldn't cut off trucks, bikes and pedestrians seem to think that all the traffic should bend to their wishes.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 29, 2012, 12:33:17 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 29, 2012, 12:13:13 PM
good truckers do recognize that they shouldn't expect cars to get out of the way
Fixed for you.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 29, 2012, 01:38:31 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 29, 2012, 12:13:13 PM
When it comes to boating, the larger, less maneuverable boats (ships and sailboats) take priority over the smaller, more maneuverable ones (motor boats and jet skis). Surface transportation has it backwards. 

Bad analogy.  Water transport has a completely different set of variables they deal with.

For instance, land vehicles are limited to very rigidly placed roadways, while vessels are more or less free to maneuver in any direction they choose.  It's for this reason that less maneuverable vessels are given way while land vehicles have generally equal rights and responsibilities to the road.

QuoteWhile good drivers do recognize that they shouldn't cut off trucks, bikes and pedestrians seem to think that all the traffic should bend to their wishes.

There are good and bad drivers, but all cyclists and peds are self-absorbed pricks?  Using these generalities, it seems it's you who is inflexible.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Duke87 on July 29, 2012, 02:01:26 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 28, 2012, 07:11:01 PM
So wrong for several reasons...

I think we have different ideas as to what the definition of a right hook is. I'm thinking of a situation where the car has passed the bike, is in front of the bike, but then slows down to make a right turn and, by the time he does so, the bike has caught back up and is directly in his path. In this situation the cyclist should see what the car is doing (since he was behind the car) and if he blatantly flies by the to the right of the car oblivious to the fact that it is looking to turn right, he is biking irresponsibly.

If you have a situation where a car pulls up alongside a bike and then makes a right turn straight into it without ever having been in front of it, then it's blatant obliviousness on the driver's part and the cyclist cannot be blamed. But my understanding is that this is not the most common scenario.


As for going left around the turning car, there is nothing poor about it so long as there is space to do so that doesn't put you in oncoming traffic or, if there are multiple lanes going one way, the left lane is clear. You move left the same exact way when looking to make a left turn.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 29, 2012, 03:51:02 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 29, 2012, 02:01:26 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 28, 2012, 07:11:01 PM
So wrong for several reasons...

I think we have different ideas as to what the definition of a right hook is. I'm thinking of a situation where the car has passed the bike, is in front of the bike, but then slows down to make a right turn and, by the time he does so, the bike has caught back up and is directly in his path. In this situation the cyclist should see what the car is doing (since he was behind the car) and if he blatantly flies by the to the right of the car oblivious to the fact that it is looking to turn right, he is biking irresponsibly.

If you have a situation where a car pulls up alongside a bike and then makes a right turn straight into it without ever having been in front of it, then it's blatant obliviousness on the driver's part and the cyclist cannot be blamed. But my understanding is that this is not the most common scenario.

I haven't seen any statistics regarding the most common right-hook scenario and because of the fluidity of the situation, I would be skeptical of any report of hard numbers, regardless.

The textbook operation of a successful right-turn movement of a motorist vs. a through-moving cyclist would be one of two ways:
1) The motorist fully overtakes the cyclist, signals the turn and moves to the right side of the lane before making the turn. or
2) The motorist allows the cyclist to continue through the intersection before making the right turn.

In either of these two operations, the cyclist should move farther to the left of the lane to make clear his intention to continue straight.  This will also make the overtaking vehicle more conscious of the presence of the cyclist and take more care to *fully* overtake.

A right-hook collision happens when any one of these variables is not fully met.  Maybe the motorist just barely overtakes the cyclist before immediately making the turn.  Maybe the motorist doesn't signal.  Maybe the cyclist brazenly passes to the right of the motorist. 

Like I said, I haven't seen hard numbers to support this, but my own experience leads me to believe it's most often when a cyclist is left with too little time to react to the right-turning vehicle.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on July 30, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
Most bikes I've seen have been in the shoulder (or sidewalks) when there is one (I think this is a Rochester quirk) and I've never, ever seen one moving faster than 10mph (though I understand bikes can move faster); at that speed, they should be able to react to pretty much any right turn unless the motorist slams on his breaks fast enough to leave tire marks.

Quote from: NE2 on July 29, 2012, 12:33:17 PM
Fixed for you.
So when you drive, you cut off trucks while going down a hill, or position yourself along side a truck making a right turn?  If so, you're an accident waiting to happen.

Quote from: Special K on July 29, 2012, 01:38:31 PM

There are good and bad drivers, but all cyclists and peds are self-absorbed pricks?  Using these generalities, it seems it's you who is inflexible.

Read my post again; I didn't use the word "all" even once.  The ped/bike lobbyists act this way though (which I should have specified, since when I don't specify I mean "in general", as does anyone else who isn't absorbed in political correctness, but I was half asleep).
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 09:31:23 AM
Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
Most bikes I've seen have been in the shoulder (or sidewalks) when there is one (I think this is a Rochester quirk) and I've never, ever seen one moving faster than 10mph (though I understand bikes can move faster); at that speed, they should be able to react to pretty much any right turn unless the motorist slams on his breaks fast enough to leave tire marks.
You're completely wrong.

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 29, 2012, 12:33:17 PM
Fixed for you.
So when you drive, you cut off trucks while going down a hill, or position yourself along side a truck making a right turn?  If so, you're an accident waiting to happen.
I don't pull over to let a truck pass.

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
Quote from: Special K on July 29, 2012, 01:38:31 PM

There are good and bad drivers, but all cyclists and peds are self-absorbed pricks?  Using these generalities, it seems it's you who is inflexible.

Read my post again; I didn't use the word "all" even once.  The ped/bike lobbyists act this way though (which I should have specified, since when I don't specify I mean "in general", as does anyone else who isn't absorbed in political correctness, but I was half asleep).
You seem absorbed in the political correctness of driving.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 30, 2012, 09:57:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 09:31:23 AM
I don't pull over to let a truck pass.
Then deanej is right about you. You should give trucks the right of way for the same reason you do it for trains.

Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 30, 2012, 09:57:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 09:31:23 AM
I don't pull over to let a truck pass.
Then deanej is right about you. You should give trucks the right of way for the same reason you do it for trains.
The fuck?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 30, 2012, 10:26:11 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
The fuck?
You said you don't pull over to let trucks pass. That's a dangerous move on your part. They're bigger than you, have bigger engines, and need more room to stop and slow down. There have been tons of accidents where drivers pull out in front of trucks, and they ended up getting killed. The 1994 accident/tanker fire on the Long Island Expressway at the Sagtikos State Parkway that almost melted the Sagtikos overpass was caused by somebody who pulled out in front of a truck.

Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:45:50 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 30, 2012, 10:26:11 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
The fuck?
You said you don't pull over to let trucks pass. That's a dangerous move on your part. They're bigger than you, have bigger engines, and need more room to stop and slow down. There have been tons of accidents where drivers pull out in front of trucks, and they ended up getting killed. The 1994 accident/tanker fire on the Long Island Expressway at the Sagtikos State Parkway that almost melted the Sagtikos overpass was caused by somebody who pulled out in front of a truck.
The fuck?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 30, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:45:50 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 30, 2012, 10:26:11 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
The fuck?
You said you don't pull over to let trucks pass. That's a dangerous move on your part. They're bigger than you, have bigger engines, and need more room to stop and slow down. There have been tons of accidents where drivers pull out in front of trucks, and they ended up getting killed. The 1994 accident/tanker fire on the Long Island Expressway at the Sagtikos State Parkway that almost melted the Sagtikos overpass was caused by somebody who pulled out in front of a truck.
The fuck?

+1.  I'm not following any of this.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 11:23:20 AM
Just a few observations from an experienced cyclist who commuted by bicycle for ten years:

*  Hooks (which I understand to mean situations where a car driver makes a turn and forces a cyclist on his nearside to make the turn with him) are nearly always a result of inattentive driving (i.e., the car driver being unaware that he has a cyclist on his flank), not some kind of overtaking maneuver where one party has failed to show due courtesy to the other.  It is sometimes suggested that hooks would not occur if cyclists queued at signals as if they were cars, but motorists would not like it if cyclists actually did this because it would hold up cars waiting behind cyclists, prevent them from getting to the detector loops in time to extend the green, and result in multiple-cycle waits.  Motorists waiting behind cyclists at an advanced stop line may have to wait a little longer for cyclists to clear the intersection, but at least the location of the detector loops works in their favor and their chances of getting through the intersection without a multiple-cycle wait are better.

*  A healthy adult cyclist riding a bicycle whose frame size is correctly matched to his inseam length, with the seat adjusted correctly, and in conditions favorable enough to permit smooth running, will generally be cruising in high gear at speeds well in excess of 10 MPH.  I never actually splashed out for a speed measurement device, but when the speed trailers were out in Oxford, I usually registered speeds of around 18 MPH in the absence of significant headwinds.  It is a recipe for serious (frequently fatal) closed-head injuries to expect cyclists moving at this speed to mix with pedestrians on a sidewalk.

*  Read the Kurt Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" to understand why it is unworkable to expect Freds (serious utility cyclists) to abide by the same car-friendly expectations as far less confident leisure cyclists.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 30, 2012, 11:28:17 AM
Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:45:50 AM
The fuck?

+1.  I'm not following any of this.
How can this not make any sense to either of you? You endanger your life and the lives of others when you pull out in front of trucks. The anti-highway lobby does the same thing when they say they want to make driving more difficult under the guise of being pedestrian/bicycle friendly because they think cars and trucks are the cause of all the problems in the world.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 30, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 30, 2012, 11:28:17 AM
Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:45:50 AM
The fuck?

+1.  I'm not following any of this.
How can this not make any sense to either of you? You endanger your life and the lives of others when you pull out in front of trucks. The anti-highway lobby does the same thing when they say they want to make driving more difficult under the guise of being pedestrian/bicycle friendly because they think cars and trucks are the cause of all the problems in the world.

Who's pulling out in front of trucks?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Grzrd on July 30, 2012, 12:08:18 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 11:23:20 AM
inattentive driving (i.e., the car driver being unaware that he has a cyclist on his flank)

I have a question regarding visibility of cyclists.  In Georgia, bicyclists are required to use lights at night, but are not required to do so during the day.  In contrast, motorcyclists are required to run their headlights during all hours, presumably for greater visibility and theoretically greater safety.

Do any jurisdictions require bicyclists to run their lights during daylight hours?  Further, should bicyclists be required to use lights during all hours?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 30, 2012, 12:24:22 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2012, 12:08:18 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 11:23:20 AM
inattentive driving (i.e., the car driver being unaware that he has a cyclist on his flank)

I have a question regarding visibility of cyclists.  In Georgia, bicycles are required to use lights at night, but are not required to do so during the day.  In contrast, motorcycles are required to run their headlights during all hours, presumably for greater visibility and theoretically greater safety.

Do any jurisdicitions require bicycles to run their lights during daylight hours?  Further, should cyclists be required to use lights during all hours?

1) I'm not aware of any.

2) Possibly.  The vehicle codes of a lot of states have some catching up to do in regards to bicycle use.  Remember, though, that the lights on motorcycles and those on bikes have very different illumination capabilities.  I'm not sure how much visibility is gained from running day lights on a bike.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 12:30:05 PM
add another "the fuck" to this.  if I'm going down a road and there is a truck behind me, I should pull over and let it pass, just in case it decides it's having an "I brake for no one" day??
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 30, 2012, 12:36:57 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 29, 2012, 12:13:13 PMRead my post again; I didn't use the word "all" even once. 

OK.  Let's have read, shall we?

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 08:53:50 AMWhile good drivers do recognize that they shouldn't cut off trucks, bikes and pedestrians seem to think that all the traffic should bend to their wishes.

Hmm.  You modified your statement about drivers with the word "good", yet didn't modify your statement about cyclists and peds.  I wonder how I made the mistake of thinking you referred to all of them?  Sorry.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 30, 2012, 12:38:19 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 12:30:05 PM
add another "the fuck" to this.  if I'm going down a road and there is a truck behind me, I should pull over and let it pass, just in case it decides it's having an "I brake for no one" day??

Might as well pull over for every vehicle that approaches from the rear.  Right?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 12:47:48 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 12:38:19 PM


Might as well pull over for every vehicle that approaches from the rear.  Right?

probably shouldn't even leave my house ever.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: english si on July 30, 2012, 01:01:40 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2012, 12:08:18 PMI have a question regarding visibility of cyclists.  In Georgia, bicycles are required to use lights at night, but are not required to do so during the day.  In contrast, motorcycles are required to run their headlights during all hours, presumably for greater visibility and theoretically greater safety.
It's worse still in places where all motorised vehicles are required to have Daytime Running Lights (when I suggested on SABRE that the EU regulations mandating DLRs on new cars will mean that cyclists will fade into the background more as cars increase in visibility, I got a reply from a pro-DLR person saying (rightly) that if you can't see a bike in daylight without it having lights, you shouldn't be driving. My response was along the lines of "if you can't see a car without lights in daylight, not only should you not be driving, but you ought to see a doctor about you being legally blind - so what's the point of DLRs?". Discussion ended there for a good 6 months.

Special K gets the right answer here:
Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 12:24:22 PMRemember, though, that the lights on motorcycles and those on bikes have very different illumination capabilities.  I'm not sure how much visibility is gained from running day lights on a bike.
Bike lights are typically 3V 5x superbright LED things (I think they've updated the rules in the UK to now allow these, rather than only allow low-wattage halogens - 4xAA battery type things). The best might be visible on a sunny day but then only in the shade. Overcast and foggy days they might bare some benefit, but not that much. Certainly I find mine useless at dusk.

Motorcycle lights are going to be the similar in power to car batteries - 12V, lots of amps from a big battery. There's no competition.

Certainly hi-vis ought to be strongly encouraged for cyclists - especially around twilight.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 01:03:13 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2012, 12:08:18 PMI have a question regarding visibility of cyclists.  In Georgia, bicyclists are required to use lights at night, but are not required to do so during the day.  In contrast, motorcyclists are required to run their headlights during all hours, presumably for greater visibility and theoretically greater safety.

I think the requirement for motorcyclists to burn headlights have more to do with their capabilities for great speed and the difficulties car drivers have judging their speed and position.  For cyclists these problems do not exist to nearly the same degree, but it is common for less confident cyclists to use dorky tricks like the "red lamp on arm" to encourage motorists to pass them well to the offside.

QuoteDo any jurisdictions require bicyclists to run their lights during daylight hours?  Further, should bicyclists be required to use lights during all hours?

I know of no jurisdictions which require cyclists to burn lamps by day.  As Special K suggests, cycle lamps are not especially visible by day.  However, in Britain both front and rear lamps are required at night and it is not uncommon for the police to run "blitzes" and fine cyclists for not using them.  (The lamps were originally required to be steady-burn, but the law was liberalized several years ago to allow cyclists to comply using flashing lamps.  I disagreed with this change because I think steady-burn improves drivers' ability to locate cyclists at night.)  It is also increasingly the norm for cyclists to wear reflectorized fluorescent vests or sashes day and night, and in many continental European countries they are in fact required.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on July 30, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 09:31:23 AM
You're completely wrong.
I'm just speaking from observation.  In the suburb I'm from, bikes are mainly considered toys and used by people too young to have a driver's licence.  Once the kids get their licence, they drive to school.

Quote
Fixed for you.
I don't pull over to let a truck pass.
This and future posts leads me to believe that you completely missed what I was saying.  I was talking about people cutting off trucks after they finish passing them (such as if you pass the truck going up the hill, cut him off at the top, and then wonder why he's on your tail going down) or who pull along side one making a right turn on a multi-lane street.

Quote
You seem absorbed in the political correctness of driving.
I hate political correctness.  I believe people should tell things like they are, regardless of whether it's "politically correct" or not.  I will not hop on the transit bandwagon simply because transit is "in" and cars are "out".

Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
Who's pulling out in front of trucks?
Apparently NE2, though I think that's caused by him not understanding my post.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 12:30:05 PM
add another "the fuck" to this.  if I'm going down a road and there is a truck behind me, I should pull over and let it pass, just in case it decides it's having an "I brake for no one" day??
Yes if going down a steep hill and he's right on your tail, but this isn't really what I meant.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 30, 2012, 11:28:17 AM
The anti-highway lobby does the same thing when they say they want to make driving more difficult under the guise of being pedestrian/bicycle friendly because they think cars and trucks are the cause of all the problems in the world.
This is the point of the whole thread which many seem to be missing.

Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 12:36:57 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 29, 2012, 12:13:13 PMRead my post again; I didn't use the word "all" even once. 

OK.  Let's have read, shall we?

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 08:53:50 AMWhile good drivers do recognize that they shouldn't cut off trucks, bikes and pedestrians seem to think that all the traffic should bend to their wishes.

Hmm.  You modified your statement about drivers with the word "good", yet didn't modify your statement about cyclists and peds.  I wonder how I made the mistake of thinking you referred to all of them?  Sorry.
Why should I have to modify it if I don't mean every last one?  The only people who think "all" is implied in the absence of modifiers are those trying to push political correctness.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 30, 2012, 05:40:38 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 09:31:23 AM
You're completely wrong.
I'm just speaking from observation.  In the suburb I'm from, bikes are mainly considered toys and used by people too young to have a driver's licence.  Once the kids get their licence, they drive to school.

Your experience is from a single suburban city?  You must be quite the transportation expert.

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
QuoteFixed for you.I don't pull over to let a truck pass.
This and future posts leads me to believe that you completely missed what I was saying.  I was talking about people cutting off trucks after they finish passing them (such as if you pass the truck going up the hill, cut him off at the top, and then wonder why he's on your tail going down) or who pull along side one making a right turn on a multi-lane street.

How often do either of these happen?  Really.

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
Quote
You seem absorbed in the political correctness of driving.
I hate political correctness.  I believe people should tell things like they are, regardless of whether it's "politically correct" or not.  I will not hop on the transit bandwagon simply because transit is "in" and cars are "out".

I'm not sure what you mean by "transit" here, because that's a catch-all term encompassing all forms of transportation, including cars.  I'm going to assume you mean all other forms of transport besides cars.

Cars will never be out.  At least not in our lifetimes.  However, it's clear that the economics of the car culture can't sustain itself forever and alternative forms of transportation will need to be accommodated.  It's better to be prepared for that time.

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
Who's pulling out in front of trucks?
Apparently NE2, though I think that's caused by him not understanding my post.

I'll have to admit, I'm not understanding some of what you are saying, either.

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 12:30:05 PM
add another "the fuck" to this.  if I'm going down a road and there is a truck behind me, I should pull over and let it pass, just in case it decides it's having an "I brake for no one" day??
Yes if going down a steep hill and he's right on your tail, but this isn't really what I meant.

A 5-ton truck is tailgating a bike and it's the cyclist's problem?  'K.

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 30, 2012, 11:28:17 AM
The anti-highway lobby does the same thing when they say they want to make driving more difficult under the guise of being pedestrian/bicycle friendly because they think cars and trucks are the cause of all the problems in the world.
This is the point of the whole thread which many seem to be missing.

You and Mr. D-Dey seem to be attributing characteristics to the bike/ped lobby that are just not based in reality.  the last thing I want is for motorists to have a more difficult time, because that translates into decreased safety for me.   What we would like is for motorists to be aware of our presence, take the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle a little more seriously and not get worked up about possibly losing 30 seconds of time on the road.

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 12:36:57 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 29, 2012, 12:13:13 PMRead my post again; I didn't use the word "all" even once. 

OK.  Let's have read, shall we?

Quote from: deanej on July 30, 2012, 08:53:50 AMWhile good drivers do recognize that they shouldn't cut off trucks, bikes and pedestrians seem to think that all the traffic should bend to their wishes.

Hmm.  You modified your statement about drivers with the word "good", yet didn't modify your statement about cyclists and peds.  I wonder how I made the mistake of thinking you referred to all of them?  Sorry.
Why should I have to modify it if I don't mean every last one?  The only people who think "all" is implied in the absence of modifiers are those trying to push political correctness.

An unmodified statement is automatically a general statement.  That's kind of how the English language works.

"Women are bad drivers"
Whoah! Hey!  What do you mean all women are bad drivers?
"Sorry.  I meant *most* women are bad drivers."
That's better.

See?  I had to modify that statement since it was too general in its original form.

Secondly, you seem to be slinging "political correctness" around when the subject really doesn't lend itself to that term.  I think the term you're searching for is "political agenda".
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 05:46:01 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 05:40:38 PM

A 5-ton truck is tailgating a bike and it's the cyclist's problem?  'K.

or a car.  or any other reasonable operator. 

"reckless driving" should be a significantly more vigorously enforced infraction.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
I know I am going to get heat for this but it needs to be said.

First of all, deanj,  :clap:

The whole reason why some of us are "not so friendly" to cyclists and their lobby is because the lobby and most of their supporters do have the mentality that cars and trucks need to give way at all times which is complete bull. There is a reason why the signs say "Share The Road" and not "Yield The Road to Bikes and Pedestrians".  The so-called PC of the road seems to be leaning heavily on the non vehicle public.  :banghead:

Like I said before. If the cycling public wants to share the road, I have no problem with that if they are mindful of other vehicles who do have the correct right of way at the appropriate time.

The definition of right of way does need to be inclusive to vehicles and cyclists.

The mentality of some of the cyclists on this forum is exactly what I don't like about some cyclists in general.  Unfortunately, until cyclists are given tickets for breaking the rules of the road, specifically dealing with stop signs and signals, the average mentality of the cyclist will not conform to the rules.

Also, I think it would be appropriate for a cyclist who uses the road to be required to have a license for such riding on the road. This way, you have the cyclists learn the rules of the road given by the secretary of state's office.  You need a special license for a motorcycle so why not for a bicycle? Besides, it would be another revenue for the state.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 05:53:34 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 05:46:01 PM
Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 05:40:38 PM

A 5-ton truck is tailgating a bike and it's the cyclist's problem?  'K.

or a car.  or any other reasonable operator. 

"reckless driving" should be a significantly more vigorously enforced infraction.

Agent, I absolutely agree that reckless driving should be more vigorously enforced. If it were up to me, someone convicted of RD should have an automatic 1 month suspension for the first offense, 3 months for a 2nd, and 1 year for a 3rd. But that being said, RD should be enforced on cyclists as well especially if it is proven that the cyclist was the cause of an accident.

I think I am qualified to say this because unlike most drivers, I drive for a living and am on the road anywhere from 200 to 400 miles a day. I personally think at the very least 1/4 of drivers need to have their license taken away.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 05:53:34 PM

Agent, I absolutely agree that reckless driving should be more vigorously enforced. If it were up to me, someone convicted of RD should have an automatic 1 month suspension for the first offense, 3 months for a 2nd, and 1 year for a 3rd. But that being said, RD should be enforced on cyclists as well especially if it is proven that the cyclist was the cause of an accident.

agreed, but...

if the threat of getting turned into road sushi is not an adequate deterrent against cyclists being completely psychotic assholes, then I don't think a ticket will do the trick either.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 06:13:25 PM
Agent, I think if you hit someone in the pocket book enough, that would be a good start to deter reckless driving/cycling.  Have the tickets be the same as for a vehicle.

The fines below are what is listed on http://www.4mrticket.com/california-traffic-tickets-fines-2011.html for the state of California in 2011.

Failure to stop for a red signal - $436
Failure to stop at a stop sign - $214
Speeding (1 to 15 mph over) - $214
Speeding (16 to 25 mph over) - $328
Passing a school bus with the red signal on - $$616
Cell phone use (not hands free) - $148 1st off, $256 2nd and more
Texting while driving - $148
No seat belts worn - $148
No helmet worn - $178

Some very interesting fines on the document.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 06:33:44 PM
don't forget something like $451 for a carpool lane violation.  yep, worse than running a red light.

we all know where CA's priorities are. 
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 30, 2012, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 06:13:25 PM
Agent, I think if you hit someone in the pocket book enough, that would be a good start to deter reckless driving/cycling.  Have the tickets be the same as for a vehicle.

The fines below are what is listed on http://www.4mrticket.com/california-traffic-tickets-fines-2011.html for the state of California in 2011.

Failure to stop for a red signal - $436
Failure to stop at a stop sign - $214
Speeding (1 to 15 mph over) - $214
Speeding (16 to 25 mph over) - $328
Passing a school bus with the red signal on - $$616
Cell phone use (not hands free) - $148 1st off, $256 2nd and more
Texting while driving - $148
No seat belts worn - $148
No helmet worn - $178

Some very interesting fines on the document.

I guess I'll need seat belts for my Schwinn.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on July 30, 2012, 08:34:40 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2012, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 05:53:34 PM

Agent, I absolutely agree that reckless driving should be more vigorously enforced. If it were up to me, someone convicted of RD should have an automatic 1 month suspension for the first offense, 3 months for a 2nd, and 1 year for a 3rd. But that being said, RD should be enforced on cyclists as well especially if it is proven that the cyclist was the cause of an accident.

agreed, but...

if the threat of getting turned into road sushi is not an adequate deterrent against cyclists being completely psychotic assholes, then I don't think a ticket will do the trick either.

Actually, enforcing the law for cyclists *would* work.  Most people have the mindset that something catastrophic won't happen to them, but it's much more likely to get pegged with a violation.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:29:00 PM
Depends what laws you enforce. Ticketing cyclists for not coming to a full stop at a stop sign, for example, would just be enforcement for enforcement's sake, like many here think of speed enforcement. Is there any enforcement as to how many times I can say enforcement in the same post?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Alps on July 30, 2012, 11:27:37 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:29:00 PM
Depends what laws you enforce. Ticketing cyclists for not coming to a full stop at a stop sign, for example, would just be enforcement for enforcement's sake, like many here think of speed enforcement. Is there any enforcement as to how many times I can say enforcement in the same post?
Yes, but it's arbitrary, like many think of speed enforcement.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on July 31, 2012, 11:55:06 AM
Quote from: Special K on July 30, 2012, 05:40:38 PM
How often do either of these happen?  Really.
Well, as I said most people know better, but just a couple days ago I observed a car get forced into the shoulder because he decided to make a right turn onto US 11 just a couple car lengths in front of a truck moving at full speed.

Quote

Cars will never be out.  At least not in our lifetimes.  However, it's clear that the economics of the car culture can't sustain itself forever and alternative forms of transportation will need to be accommodated.  It's better to be prepared for that time.
IMO most of the issues with cars could be fixed by proper zoning codes/enforcement (ie, make sprawl illegal), making better batteries and then mandating that all new cars are electric (once electric is as good as gas), and eliminating NIMBYs.

Quote

I'll have to admit, I'm not understanding some of what you are saying, either.

<sigh> As far as I'm concerned I'm writing plain English, but I do realize that my brain processes information differently from most people.

Quote

A 5-ton truck is tailgating a bike and it's the cyclist's problem?  'K.
I meant a car, and yes, I've seen trucks try to tailgate me on the Thruway before.  It's not fun, especially when it's clear that the truck driver is just being a jerk.  One time this happened on US 11; next thing I know, he's passing me at 75 miles per hour only to tailgate the guy in front of me.

Quote

You and Mr. D-Dey seem to be attributing characteristics to the bike/ped lobby that are just not based in reality.  the last thing I want is for motorists to have a more difficult time, because that translates into decreased safety for me.   What we would like is for motorists to be aware of our presence, take the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle a little more seriously and not get worked up about possibly losing 30 seconds of time on the road. 

They're pretty much what I've observed.  I don't supposed you've heard about how CT diverted highway money to build a busway that nobody will ever use to appease the mass transit lobby?

Quote

An unmodified statement is automatically a general statement.  That's kind of how the English language works.

"Women are bad drivers"
Whoah! Hey!  What do you mean all women are bad drivers?
"Sorry.  I meant *most* women are bad drivers."
That's better.

See?  I had to modify that statement since it was too general in its original form.
"In general" means "on average", not "all".
Quote

Secondly, you seem to be slinging "political correctness" around when the subject really doesn't lend itself to that term.  I think the term you're searching for is "political agenda".
Political correctness is really just the type of language used to further one type of political agenda.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 31, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 31, 2012, 11:55:06 AM
Political correctness is really just the type of language used to further one type of political agenda.
Like "a busway that nobody will ever use". Yawn.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Scott5114 on July 31, 2012, 12:18:19 PM
I should point out I think it may be premature to predict the death of the car at some unspecified point in the future. Yes, we have the specter of peak oil to worry about, but because of that there's a lot of research going on to replace oil with hydrogen or electric motors. Put simply, I think it's more likely that in the year 2100 we will still have cars, but they'll run on something different, than it is that we will see a large chunk of present day car usage shift to bike, bus, or pedestrian. The car has a lot of advantages that are sacrificed when switching to one of those modes of transport–comfort, not having to worry about scheduling as much (only to avoid rush hour), ability to transport more/larger things with you, and range.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2012, 12:20:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:29:00 PM
Depends what laws you enforce. Ticketing cyclists for not coming to a full stop at a stop sign, for example, would just be enforcement for enforcement's sake, like many here think of speed enforcement.
a simple solution would be "all bicyclists may treat a stop sign as a yield", but enforce that vigorously.  a true yield, not a yield as interpreted by most people (bicyclists and motorists alike), which is "force your way in somehow".

QuoteIs there any enforcement as to how many times I can say enforcement in the same post?
however many times you just used the word, minus one.  please report to death immediately, at your earliest convenience.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2012, 12:23:07 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 31, 2012, 11:55:06 AM
Well, as I said most people know better, but just a couple days ago I observed a car get forced into the shoulder because he decided to make a right turn onto US 11 just a couple car lengths in front of a truck moving at full speed.
I always assume that traffic is going to maintain its velocity.  if I cannot accelerate to match it, I will not make the turn. 

Quotenext thing I know, he's passing me at 75 miles per hour only to tailgate the guy in front of me.

it's even more fun when it's 110 mph.  what the fuck?  I had thought the guy had lost his brakes (this was coming down the hill on I-40, westbound out of Flagstaff) but he didn't use the runaway sand pit, so ... maybe he just liked being a fucklung. 
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on July 31, 2012, 12:26:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2012, 12:20:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 10:29:00 PM
Depends what laws you enforce. Ticketing cyclists for not coming to a full stop at a stop sign, for example, would just be enforcement for enforcement's sake, like many here think of speed enforcement.
a simple solution would be "all bicyclists may treat a stop sign as a yield", but enforce that vigorously.  a true yield, not a yield as interpreted by most people (bicyclists and motorists alike), which is "force your way in somehow".
This certainly works in Idaho (which also lets bikes treat a red light as a stop sign). http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2009/07/28/a-stop-sign-solution/
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 01, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 31, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 31, 2012, 11:55:06 AM
Political correctness is really just the type of language used to further one type of political agenda.
Like "a busway that nobody will ever use". Yawn.
That was the consensus here at AA Roads when we were discussing that project (I don't remember which thread, but probably the Connecticut News one).
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 01, 2012, 11:55:47 AM
The politically correct consensus. Keep digging.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: route56 on August 01, 2012, 12:36:43 PM
You know, when I saw this thread, I would have thought someone would have mentioned the Alliance for a Paving Moratorium. Exactly what it says on the tin. ;)
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 01, 2012, 09:25:10 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 01, 2012, 11:55:47 AM
The politically correct consensus. Keep digging.
That would be more like politically incorrect consensus.  Remember, busses are "in" right now as far as politicians and most leftists are concerned.  But if you're just going to attack anyone who disagrees with you like that, there's no point in arguing.

Quote from: route56 on August 01, 2012, 12:36:43 PM
You know, when I saw this thread, I would have thought someone would have mentioned the Alliance for a Paving Moratorium. Exactly what it says on the tin. ;)
I probably should have; they prove my point perfectly.  Too bad I hadn't heard of them.

There's also a good quote relating to this from another thread:
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2012, 04:05:09 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on July 30, 2012, 03:41:49 PM
Is it just me or do NIMBYs prefer traffic jams on existing roads and do not realize that the road(s) they are blocking may actually HELP them?

Most anti-highway NIMBYs (and elected officials that pander to them) show up at public meetings and hearings regarding highway projects the same way that everyone else does - driving a single-occupant vehicle.  A few will make a show of car-pooling to the event, but most do not. 

The "reasoning" they seem to use involves the following:

(1) Other people can take mass transit (and funding for the highway project in question should be diverted to transit);
(2) Other people can  live in "transit-oriented" neighborhoods (but don't build any apartments in my backyard);
(3) The proposed project is "destructive" and other (usually unspecified) roads can carry the load or be upgraded (though the same people or groups are likely to show up to protest proposals to upgrade arterial roads);
(4) The same persons and groups will also (on occasion) cravenly oppose transit projects and demand that they be relocated away from their homes; and
(5) "Induced" demand for highway capacity (in other words, the proposed highway project will "make traffic worse") is a favorite argument.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 03:05:18 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 01, 2012, 09:25:10 PM
Remember, busses are "in" right now as far as politicians and most leftists are concerned.
So if it's from the left it's political correctness. But if you agree with it it's THE TRUTH.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Zmapper on August 02, 2012, 04:21:20 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 03:05:18 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 01, 2012, 09:25:10 PM
Remember, busses are "in" right now as far as politicians and most leftists are concerned.
So if it's from the left it's political correctness. But if you agree with it it's THE TRUTH.

If buses are so "in" right now, then why does the political left tend to favor rail transport at the expense of bus transport? Typically, I find that people on the left, especially upper-middle class people, tend to be the ones making the comments about how they will gleefully ride the light rail but won't be caught dead on a bus.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2012, 07:58:13 AM
Quote from: Zmapper on August 02, 2012, 04:21:20 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 03:05:18 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 01, 2012, 09:25:10 PM
Remember, busses are "in" right now as far as politicians and most leftists are concerned.
So if it's from the left it's political correctness. But if you agree with it it's THE TRUTH.

If buses are so "in" right now, then why does the political left tend to favor rail transport at the expense of bus transport? Typically, I find that people on the left, especially upper-middle class people, tend to be the ones making the comments about how they will gleefully ride the light rail but won't be caught dead on a bus.

The revealed behavior in most parts of North America is that they don't use either.

Even persons who assert their opposition to any and all highway network improvements and want all motor fuel tax dollars to be spent on capital and operating subsidies for rail transit and maybe a few bike paths.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: english si on August 02, 2012, 09:24:15 AM
Olympic and Tour de France champion Bradley Wiggins argued for compulsory helmets citing an incident that took place last night.

The cyclist did what bike path designers and people like deanej want, and hugged the kerb, going up along the inside of a special Olympic bus in the cycle lane. Bus did a left into him, he got dragged along by the wheel, died due to internal injuries - his head was fine, so a helmet would have done nothing.

Bad bike lanes and large vehicles (lorries and bendy buses, rather than standard London buses) tend to be the main cause of cycling fatalities in London - and women disproportionately more so as they don't ride as defensively (ie assertively). Helmets don't do much other than protect people falling off and hitting their head at low speed and give both driver and cyclist a false sense of security. Compulsory helmets put people (even those who would wear helmets most of the time) off cycling, and the number of cyclists has a great effect on safety - the more there are, the safer they are.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 09:48:11 AM
Quote from: english si on August 02, 2012, 09:24:15 AM
the number of cyclists has a great effect on safety - the more there are, the safer they are.
This, one of the main arguments cited by facility promoters ("build them, even if they're bad more people will ride and there's safety in numbers"), is disputed. But it's also claimed by others that the decrease in overall health caused by people who would be cycling but decide not to rather than wear a helmet outweighs any increase due to helmet wearing.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2012, 12:04:43 PM
I don't think helmets should be mandatory for the simple reason that it is your life, and your right to waste it in a senseless fashion if you so desire.

same with seat belts. 

I wear both helmets and seat belts because it's the sensible thing to do.

(sure gets uncomfortable in the shower!)
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 02, 2012, 12:06:25 PM
Guys, cut the back-and-forth banter. No matter what you guys say to each other, neither will change the other's opinion. So suck it up that you're different and move on.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 02, 2012, 02:14:06 PM
If it's any consulation, I don't want anybody to get the impression that I'm somehow saying "cars & trucks good, bikes bad" or "cars & trucks good, buses bad" or "cars & trucks good, trains bad," or vice versa. There are good and bad drivers of all vehicles. Sometime around the mid-1990's I saw a bike rider run over a pedestrian on the sidewalk of NY 25 in Middle Island, while flying down that steep hill between the former Robert Hall department store and Rocky Point-Yaphank Road. I don't know what this guy was thinking, but I assume he didn't think he'd hurt anybody. Something like that isn't so likely to be solved by road improvements. One could argue for the construction of a bike lane, but that wouldn't guarantee he wouldn't have collided with another bicyclist.


On the other hand around 1986, I saw some hot-headed twenty-something truck driver in a Mack R-Series tractor trailer with a dump trailer in a traffic jam on NY 112 between Mill Road and NY 25 in Coram, spinning his wheels, and blowing his horn at a little old lady in a Honda in front of him, as if it was her fault there was a traffic jam in the first place. A guy like that should've been yanked out of his truck, and had his CDL taken away from him right there. Having said that, there were realignmnet and widening proposals for both NY 112 and NY 25 that could've prevented such traffic jams.

Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2012, 02:18:34 PM
I once had a driver of an 18 wheeler attempt to make a right turn on a narrow street in such a way that I was blocking him.  he was turning southbound to westbound, and I was in the left turn lane from eastbound to northbound.  I could not move backwards, as there was traffic behind me, so I figured he would have the good sense to not attempt the turn.

nope, he got to within inches of me, started honking the horn, and when I looked at him like "I can't do anything" (there were cars everywhere) he started flashing gang signals at me and yelling about how I was dead, bro, dead.

El Paso, everybody!
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: doorknob60 on August 08, 2012, 04:31:21 AM
Ugh, like the Bend Parkway? I don't know all of the details of its planning, but to me it seems like it should have been a full freeway, but instead we got this thing that feels like a freeway with some seldom used sidewalks and bike lanes slapped onto the side of it, along with a painfully slow 45 MPH speed limit. It still serves its purpose well though, 3rd St was a disaster before this (and at times still is), and with the way population of Bend skyrocketed in the past ~10 years, I can't imagine how awful it would have been without the parkway. It just should be a true freeway though.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
Also, I think it would be appropriate for a cyclist who uses the road to be required to have a license for such riding on the road. This way, you have the cyclists learn the rules of the road given by the secretary of state's office.  You need a special license for a motorcycle so why not for a bicycle? Besides, it would be another revenue for the state.

So, a five-year-old riding his bike around neighborhood should have to take a test and get a license?  Really?  Boy, I'm so glad we don't live in a society like that.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 01:25:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
Also, I think it would be appropriate for a cyclist who uses the road to be required to have a license for such riding on the road. This way, you have the cyclists learn the rules of the road given by the secretary of state's office.  You need a special license for a motorcycle so why not for a bicycle? Besides, it would be another revenue for the state.

So, a five-year-old riding his bike around neighborhood should have to take a test and get a license?  Really?  Boy, I'm so glad we don't live in a society like that.
Oh my God are you serious?
In my neighborhood, if a 5 year old is riding his bike IN the street, he would get hit with the traffic. Kids that young need to stay on the sidewalk.  Common sense people.  A Cul de Sac or Court is different from a street, road or highway.  I don't see 5 year olds venturing out on county roads for a 3 mile bike ride. Geesh!

Besides, I was not talking about children within their own quiet neighborhoods. I was talking about any cyclist that wants to use a country road or city street to do long distance cycling or commuting.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 01:44:50 PM
This is taken directly from the Illinois Secretary of State's website. Here is the rule in Illinois concerning cyclists on sidewalks.

Riding on Sidewalks
- When walking or riding your bicycle on a sidewalk or along a crosswalk you must
obey all pedestrian signs and signals.
- Bicyclists must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians on sidewalks or crosswalks. Slow
down and go around them when possible.
- When approaching a pedestrian from behind, slow down and give an audible signal to
alert them of your presence before passing them.

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf

Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 01:46:00 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 01:25:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
Also, I think it would be appropriate for a cyclist who uses the road to be required to have a license for such riding on the road. This way, you have the cyclists learn the rules of the road given by the secretary of state's office.  You need a special license for a motorcycle so why not for a bicycle? Besides, it would be another revenue for the state.

So, a five-year-old riding his bike around neighborhood should have to take a test and get a license?  Really?  Boy, I'm so glad we don't live in a society like that.
Oh my God are you serious?
In my neighborhood, if a 5 year old is riding his bike IN the street, he would get hit with the traffic. Kids that young need to stay on the sidewalk.  Common sense people.  A Cul de Sac or Court is different from a street, road or highway.  I don't see 5 year olds venturing out on county roads for a 3 mile bike ride. Geesh!

Umm. . . . So the traffic in your neighborhood dictates what is safe for my son in my neighborhood?  In my neighborhood of Wichita, young children ride bikes and hot wheels and scooters, kick balls, play basketball, and all sorts of fun stuff–in the street–without incident.  That's because it's not a very busy neighborhood; my street has no sidewalks.  I rode my bike to school every day starting in 1st grade, in the suburbs of Chicago, which means I already knew how to ride and navigate well enough to do so; the street I lived on had no sidewalks.  My son is four years old, and my parents let him ride his bike, supervised, along the streets in their neighborhood; their neighborhood has no sidewalks.  Eventually will come that day that he's allowed to ride unsupervised in ever-widening circles, and I really don't think he will be of age yet to take a state-issued test about traffic laws.

I grew up from fourth grade through high school in a small farm town in western Kansas, and went everywhere by bike.  By junior high I was biking the county roads, and even US-36, for miles at a time.

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
[T]he lobby and most of their supporters do have the mentality that cars and trucks need to give way at all times...

I don't think I've talked with anybody who says that.  Unless that's your rewording of the phrase "defensive driving".
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 01:47:30 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 01:44:50 PM
This is taken directly from the Illinois Secretary of State's website. Here is the rule in Illinois concerning cyclists on sidewalks.

Riding on Sidewalks
• When walking or riding your bicycle on a sidewalk or along a crosswalk you must
obey all pedestrian signs and signals.
• Bicyclists must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians on sidewalks or crosswalks. Slow
down and go around them when possible.
• When approaching a pedestrian from behind, slow down and give an audible signal to
alert them of your presence before passing them.

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf



That is not a requirement to use a sidewalk; indeed, some towns prohibit cycling on sidewalks.  In many places, it is impractical due to tree limbs, parked cars, and pavement irregularities (tree roots buckling the sidewalk).
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 01:50:12 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 01:25:59 PM
Besides, I was not talking about children within their own quiet neighborhoods. I was talking about any cyclist that wants to use a country road or city street to do long distance cycling or commuting.

OK, you added that.  So how would your licensing system work, then?
"Sorry, Johnny, you may only ride your bike seven blocks from your house without a license, and by my reckoning you're nine blocks from home.  I'm going to write you a citation; please make sure to have Mommy sign this for me, OK?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 01:53:41 PM
You don't have near the same traffic that could potentially be a safety risk in a small town as you would a major city. When I was a kid, I would use the sidewalks in my neighborhood until I was roughly 13 when I knew the rules of the road and the safety risks of riding in the road.

Post Merge: August 08, 2012, 08:39:54 PM

There is a difference between a child who is being supervised and an adult who should know better but disregards the stop signs and signals that I see happen all the time here.  Bike paths away from the street are the best place for a child to learn proper cycling.

Post Merge: August 08, 2012, 08:39:59 PM

So do you want to risk your 5 year old riding down say Western Ave or 55th St in Chicago?  And do you think that your child is going to be paying attention to other traffic at that age? How many times have you told them to look both ways before walking across the street and they still don't do it? It is a safety issue for both your child and the motoring public.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: silverback1065 on August 08, 2012, 02:06:11 PM
I never understood those complete streets people. They whine and complain about there being too many highways and not enough bike paths. I think bike paths are great but the road diet approach is annoying. I always wonder if that many people really are going to use them.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 02:12:28 PM
I understand all those points.  But the solution is not to require a license for all cyclists.  Unless you can come up with some magic lines between small town and city, light and heavy traffic areas, short- and long-distance, young and old–then there is no realistic licensing solution.

I would not let my child ride a bike down Western or 55th in Chicago.  In fact, I once saw a child of about six or so riding his bike on Cicero somewhere between Pershing and Midway; I couldn't believe he was doing so, as it was certainly unsafe.  But that doesn't mean children shouldn't be allowed to ride their bikes wherever sidewalks are not present.  That is simply unreasonable; I know my childhood would have been totally zapped if that were the case.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 02:33:24 PM
All I am saying is that if there is a sidewalk option in a neighborhood where you don't get more than say a couple pedestrians in an hour going by, they should be on a sidewalk until they are at least 13.  Like I said Cul de sacs and courts are different.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 02:36:26 PM
All you're saying is that you want to run our lives according to your car-centric views.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 08, 2012, 02:58:47 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 02:33:24 PM
All I am saying is that if there is a sidewalk option in a neighborhood where you don't get more than say a couple pedestrians in an hour going by, they should be on a sidewalk until they are at least 13.  Like I said Cul de sacs and courts are different.

what?  get the damn bikes off the sidewalk.

especially the under-13 crowd.  they are the most likely to be doing something idiotic like salmoning up the sidewalk and running into me from behind.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 08, 2012, 03:19:33 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 01:46:00 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 08, 2012, 01:25:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
Also, I think it would be appropriate for a cyclist who uses the road to be required to have a license for such riding on the road. This way, you have the cyclists learn the rules of the road given by the secretary of state's office.  You need a special license for a motorcycle so why not for a bicycle? Besides, it would be another revenue for the state.

So, a five-year-old riding his bike around neighborhood should have to take a test and get a license?  Really?  Boy, I'm so glad we don't live in a society like that.
Oh my God are you serious?
In my neighborhood, if a 5 year old is riding his bike IN the street, he would get hit with the traffic. Kids that young need to stay on the sidewalk.  Common sense people.  A Cul de Sac or Court is different from a street, road or highway.  I don't see 5 year olds venturing out on county roads for a 3 mile bike ride. Geesh!

Umm. . . . So the traffic in your neighborhood dictates what is safe for my son in my neighborhood?  In my neighborhood of Wichita, young children ride bikes and hot wheels and scooters, kick balls, play basketball, and all sorts of fun stuff–in the street–without incident.  That's because it's not a very busy neighborhood; my street has no sidewalks.  I rode my bike to school every day starting in 1st grade, in the suburbs of Chicago, which means I already knew how to ride and navigate well enough to do so; the street I lived on had no sidewalks.  My son is four years old, and my parents let him ride his bike, supervised, along the streets in their neighborhood; their neighborhood has no sidewalks.  Eventually will come that day that he's allowed to ride unsupervised in ever-widening circles, and I really don't think he will be of age yet to take a state-issued test about traffic laws.

I grew up from fourth grade through high school in a small farm town in western Kansas, and went everywhere by bike.  By junior high I was biking the county roads, and even US-36, for miles at a time.

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 30, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
[T]he lobby and most of their supporters do have the mentality that cars and trucks need to give way at all times...

I don't think I've talked with anybody who says that.  Unless that's your rewording of the phrase "defensive driving".
I wasn't allowed to do anything like that in the street unsupervised regardless of traffic levels.

Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 02:36:26 PM
All you're saying is that you want to run our lives according to your car-centric views.
We most definitely don't want you to run our lives according to your ped-centric views.  But, cars and trucks drive under the umbrella of traffic laws.  Suggest that bikes and peds should do the same, and you guys scream bloody murder.  Why the double standard?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 08, 2012, 03:19:33 PM
But, cars and trucks drive under the umbrella of traffic laws.  Suggest that bikes and peds should do the same, and you guys scream bloody murder.
When did I do that?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 05:07:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 08, 2012, 03:19:33 PM
But, cars and trucks drive under the umbrella of traffic laws.  Suggest that bikes and peds should do the same, and you guys scream bloody murder.
When did I do that?

I'm confused by that too.  I'd be the first to say cyclists and pedestrians should obey traffic laws, with perhaps some laxity regarding stop signs (on bike, when cross traffic is absent) and idiotic "right half of the crosswalk and sidewalk" laws (for pedestrians, in all cases).  Actually, I think that current U.S. law regarding cyclists and pedestrians is quite good, and I would hardly change anything.

But to say that cyclists should stay completely off the road until they've met an age requirement or passed a state licensing exam is simply unreasonable.  What's next?  A license to walk?  It actually reminds me of the book "Fahrenheit 451", in which existed a culture so completely car-centric that people no longer knew anything about the outside world.

Quote
"Bet I know something else you don't. There's dew on the grass in the morning."
He suddenly couldn't remember if he had known this or not, and it made him quite irritable.
"And if you look"–she nodded at the sky–"there's a man in the moon."
He hadn't looked for a long time.

People who think nonmotorized traffic has no place on the roadway really need to spend some time driving in a "developing country".  OTOH, people who think the road infrastructure needs to bend over backwards in order to accommodate nonmotorized traffic also need to spend some time driving in a developing country.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Alps on August 08, 2012, 08:41:05 PM
My take, short and sweet: I don't believe you need a license to ride a bike. It's unmotorized. You're halfway to requiring a license to walk by that point. But you are responsible for knowing the law when you mount that bike - which sidewalks are legal or illegal, and how to follow the rules of the road when you're on it.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 08, 2012, 11:17:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 05:07:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 08, 2012, 03:19:33 PM
But, cars and trucks drive under the umbrella of traffic laws.  Suggest that bikes and peds should do the same, and you guys scream bloody murder.
When did I do that?

I'm confused by that too.  I'd be the first to say cyclists and pedestrians should obey traffic laws, with perhaps some laxity regarding stop signs (on bike, when cross traffic is absent) and idiotic "right half of the crosswalk and sidewalk" laws (for pedestrians, in all cases).  Actually, I think that current U.S. law regarding cyclists and pedestrians is quite good, and I would hardly change anything.
Well, I was referring mainly to the people on the news mainly...

QuoteIt actually reminds me of the book "Fahrenheit 451", in which existed a culture so completely car-centric that people no longer knew anything about the outside world.
I thought that was about TV and media and censorship rather than cars?  At least wikipedia made no mention of a car-centric culture...

Quote
People who think nonmotorized traffic has no place on the roadway really need to spend some time driving in a "developing country".  OTOH, people who think the road infrastructure needs to bend over backwards in order to accommodate nonmotorized traffic also need to spend some time driving in a developing country.
I've seen pictures.  Looks live very frustrating for everyone.  But I just don't like crowded places in general.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 07:22:25 AM
Quote from: Ray Bradbury
There it lay, a game for him to win, a vast bowling alley in the cool morning. The boulevard was as clean as the surface of an arena two minutes before the appearance of certain unnamed victims and certain unknown killers. The air over and above the vast concrete river trembled with the warmth of Montag's body alone; it was incredible how he felt his temperature could cause the whole immediate world to vibrate. He was a phosphorescent target; he knew it, he felt it. And now he must begin his little walk.

Three blocks away a few headlights glared. Montag drew a deep breath. His lungs were like burning brooms in his chest. His mouth was sucked dry from running. His throat tasted of bloody iron and there was rusted steel in his feet.

What about those lights there? Once you started walking you'd have to gauge how fast those beetles could make it down here. Well, how far was it to the other curb? It seemed like a hundred yards. Probably not a hundred, but figure for that anyway, figure that with him going very slowly, at a nice stroll, it might take as much as thirty seconds, forty seconds to walk all that way. The beetles? Once started, they could leave three blocks behind them in about fifteen seconds. So, even if halfway across he started to run ...?

He put his right foot out and then his left foot and then his right. He walked on the empty avenue.

Even if the street were entirely empty, of course, you couldn't be sure of a safe crossing, for a car could appear suddenly over the rise four blocks farther on and be on and past you before you had taken a dozen breaths.

He decided not to count his steps. He looked neither to left nor right. The light, from the overhead lamps seemed as bright and revealing as the midday sun and just as hot.

He listened to the sound of the car picking up speed two blocks away on his right. Its movable headlights jerked back and forth suddenly, and caught at Montag.

Keep going.

Montag faltered, got a grip on the books, and forced himself not to freeze. Instinctively he took a few quick running steps, then talked out loud to himself and pulled up to stroll again. He was now half across the street, but the roar from the beetle's engines whined higher as it put on speed.

The police, of course. They see me. But slow now slow, quiet, don't turn, don't look, don't seem concerned. Walk, that's it, walk, walk.

The beetle was rushing. The beetle was roaring.  The beetle raised its speed. The beetle was whining. The beetle was in high thunder. The beetle came skimming. The beetle came in a single whistling trajectory, fired from an invisible rifle. It was up to 120 mph. It was up to 130 at least. Montag clamped his jaws. The heat of the racing headlights burnt his cheeks, it seemed, and jittered his eyelids and flushed the sour sweat out all over his body.

He began to shuffle idiotically and talk to himself and then he broke and just ran. He put out his legs as far as they would go and down and then far out again and down and back and out and down and back. God! God! He dropped a book, broke pace, almost turned, changed his mind, plunged on, yelling in concrete emptiness, the beetle scuttling after its running food, two hundred, one hundred feet away, ninety, eighty, seventy, Montag gasping, flailing his hands, legs up down out, up down out, closer, closer, hooting, calling, his eyes burnt white now as his head jerked  about to confront the flashing glare, now the beetle was swallowed in its own light, now it was nothing but a torch hurtling upon him; all sound, all blare.  Now -- almost on top of him!

He stumbled and fell.

I'm done! It's over!

But the falling made a difference. An instant before reaching him the wild beetle cut and swerved out. It was gone. Montag lay flat, his head down.  Wisps of laughter trailed back to him with the blue exhaust from the beetle.

His right hand was extended above him, flat. Across the extreme tip of his middle finger, he saw now as he lifted that hand, a faint sixteenth of an inch of black tread where the tire had touched in passing. He looked at that black line with disbelief, getting to his feet.

That wasn't the police, he thought.

He looked down the boulevard. It was clear now. A carful of children, all ages. God knew, from twelve to sixteen, out whistling, yelling, hurrahing, had seen a man, a very extraordinary sight, a man strolling, a rarity, and simply said, "Let's get him," not knowing he was the fugitive Mr. Montag, simply a number of children out for a long night of roaring five or six hundred miles in a few moonlit hours, their faces icy with wind, and coming home or not coming at dawn, alive or not alive, that made the adventure.

They would have killed me, thought Montag, swaying, the air still torn and stirring about him in dust, touching his bruised cheek. For no reason at all in the world they would have killed me.

He walked toward the far curb telling each foot to go and keep going. Somehow he had picked up the spilled books, he didn't remember bending or touching them. He kept moving them from hand to hand as if they were a poker hand he could not figure.

I wonder if they were the ones who killed Clarisse?

He stopped and his mind said it again, very loud.

I wonder if they were the ones who killed Clarisse!

He wanted to run after them yelling.

His eyes watered.

The thing that had saved him was falling flat. The driver of that car, seeing Montag down, instinctively considered the probability that running over a body at such a high speed might turn the car upside down and spill them out. If Montag had remained an upright target? ...

Montag gasped.

Far down the boulevard, four blocks away, the beetle had slowed, spun about on two wheels, and was now racing back, slanting over on the wrong side of the street, picking up speed.

But Montag was gone, hidden in the safety of the dark alley for which he had set out on a long journey, an hour, or was it a minute, ago? He stood shivering  in the night, looking back out as the beetle ran by and skidded back to the center of the avenue, whirling laughter in the air all about it, gone.

Farther on, as Montag moved in darkness, he could see the helicopters falling falling like the first flakes of snow in the long winter to come ...
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on August 09, 2012, 07:53:06 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 08, 2012, 03:19:33 PM
But, cars and trucks drive under the umbrella of traffic laws.  Suggest that bikes and peds should do the same, and you guys scream bloody murder.
When did I do that?

I don't think anyone here has done that at all.  Unfair characterization.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on August 09, 2012, 07:58:14 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 08, 2012, 11:17:57 PMI thought that was about TV and media and censorship rather than cars?  At least wikipedia made no mention of a car-centric culture...

Is this how you've developed all of your opinions?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 09, 2012, 09:45:47 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 07:22:25 AM
Quote from: Ray Bradbury
...
Looks to me like bad driving, though when I'm driving, I'm mainly looking at peds to judge whether they're going to go into the street and if I'll need to slow down/stop for them, not to analyze what they're doing.  The latter could be argued as distracted driving, actually.

Quote from: Special K on August 09, 2012, 07:53:06 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 08, 2012, 03:19:33 PM
But, cars and trucks drive under the umbrella of traffic laws.  Suggest that bikes and peds should do the same, and you guys scream bloody murder.
When did I do that?

I don't think anyone here has done that at all.  Unfair characterization.
Well, every time I've suggested that the problems with these intersections could be avoided by crossing only on the walk signal, people seem to look at me like I have three heads.
Quote from: Special K on August 09, 2012, 07:58:14 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 08, 2012, 11:17:57 PMI thought that was about TV and media and censorship rather than cars?  At least wikipedia made no mention of a car-centric culture...

Is this how you've developed all of your opinions?
Wikipedia is the first stop for info on any topic for anyone of my generation; that said, most of my opinions on driving subjects are from personal experience and the National Motorists Association (http://www.motorists.org/).
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 10:21:42 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 09, 2012, 09:45:47 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 07:22:25 AM
Quote from: Ray Bradbury
...
Looks to me like bad driving, though when I'm driving, I'm mainly looking at peds to judge whether they're going to go into the street and if I'll need to slow down/stop for them, not to analyze what they're doing.  The latter could be argued as distracted driving, actually.
In Bradbury's story, bad driving is the norm. Kind of like reality, actually, just exaggerated like any good dystopia.

Quote from: deanej on August 09, 2012, 09:45:47 AM
Quote from: Special K on August 09, 2012, 07:53:06 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 08, 2012, 03:19:33 PM
But, cars and trucks drive under the umbrella of traffic laws.  Suggest that bikes and peds should do the same, and you guys scream bloody murder.
When did I do that?

I don't think anyone here has done that at all.  Unfair characterization.
Well, every time I've suggested that the problems with these intersections could be avoided by crossing only on the walk signal, people seem to look at me like I have three heads.
Perhaps because crossing against the walk signal when no traffic is coming harms nobody? Unlike the all-too-common turning right without checking for pedestrians. And maybe if there are so many pedestrians crossing against the light that traffic is badly affected, the signals need to be modified. You know, like the NMA and speed limits?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: english si on August 09, 2012, 10:36:30 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 05:07:34 PMBut to say that cyclists should stay completely off the road until they've met an age requirement or passed a state licensing exam is simply unreasonable.  What's next?  A license to walk?  It actually reminds me of the book "Fahrenheit 451", in which existed a culture so completely car-centric that people no longer knew anything about the outside world.
I don't remember that element in the book, but it was years ago I read it in English class, though I can believe it's there (though the protagonist's wife is TV addled, so it could have been the media that's distracting her in your quote, without looking at the context).

Certainly it's something we over in England joke about you Americans - you'd take the car to the other side of the street, you don't care what the weather's like as you move from air-conditioned house to air-conditioned office to air-conditioned shops all via your air-conditioned car.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on August 09, 2012, 11:10:45 AM
Quote from: english si on August 09, 2012, 10:36:30 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 08, 2012, 05:07:34 PMBut to say that cyclists should stay completely off the road until they've met an age requirement or passed a state licensing exam is simply unreasonable.  What's next?  A license to walk?  It actually reminds me of the book "Fahrenheit 451", in which existed a culture so completely car-centric that people no longer knew anything about the outside world.
I don't remember that element in the book, but it was years ago I read it in English class, though I can believe it's there (though the protagonist's wife is TV addled, so it could have been the media that's distracting her in your quote, without looking at the context).

Certainly it's something we over in England joke about you Americans - you'd take the car to the other side of the street, you don't care what the weather's like as you move from air-conditioned house to air-conditioned office to air-conditioned shops all via your air-conditioned car.

Why would we take a car to the other side of the street when there's already a Starbucks on *both* sides?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 09, 2012, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 02:36:26 PM
All you're saying is that you want to run our lives according to your car-centric views.

NE2, So you do want 5 year old children riding in the road with the potential of being hit?

Like I have said over and over again. I have no problem with cyclists wanting to SHARE the road. But sharing the road also means that they need to be just as responsible as a motorist when using it.

When it comes to children riding their bikes, I do not trust them to ride responsibly in a busy street. Had I not been paying attention to what this kid was doing the other day, who was riding his bike 4 feet into traffic and weaving all over the lane, I would have hit him. He was about 10 years old.  And do you think his parents would have punished him for his poor judgement? No. They would have come after me. I was the responsible one waiting for oncoming traffic to clear to pass him in the oncoming lane. Not that 10 year old kid.

How many times did you have to be told as a kid to "look both ways before walking across the street"? I am sure it probably didn't sink in with you until you were in middle school. Of course it may have been longer for you since you wish to go against traffic signals or stop signs when it inconveniences you to wait for the light to change or a sec to actually stop and look both ways.

I sure hope that you don't get hit by a vehicle for your riding mentality but it would not surprise me in the least if you did get hit.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Scott5114 on August 09, 2012, 12:52:58 PM
To me that reads less like "Fahrenheit 451 depicts a car centric culture" and more "Fahrenheit 451 characters are assholes to each other because that is normal for their society".
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: english si on August 09, 2012, 01:09:55 PM
Quote from: Special K on August 09, 2012, 11:10:45 AMWhy would we take a car to the other side of the street when there's already a Starbucks on *both* sides?
I said that you would take a car to the other side of the road, not that you typically do. Lazy! ;)
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 09, 2012, 12:48:48 PMI sure hope that you don't get hit by a vehicle for your riding mentality but it would not surprise me in the least if you did get hit.
Actually, studies into cycle safety have shown that the way to get hit is by riding on pavements, hugging the edge of the roadway, etc. ie everything the anti-cycling 'toot toot' Mr Toad lobby want.

There was even a study in London that showed that those cyclists who treated red lights as yields were safer than those who obeyed the rules - though that led to advanced stop lines, where cyclists wait at the front of the queue for red lights (after having gone up a deadly narrow cycle lane), which addressed the danger by solving it almost the same way as cyclists did.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 09, 2012, 01:10:52 PM
Quote from: english si on August 09, 2012, 10:36:30 AMyou'd take the car to the other side of the street

of course we would.  that's the side we drive on.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 01:26:15 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 09, 2012, 12:48:48 PM
When it comes to children riding their bikes, I do not trust them to ride responsibly in a busy street. Had I not been paying attention to what this kid was doing the other day, who was riding his bike 4 feet into traffic and weaving all over the lane, I would have hit him. He was about 10 years old.  And do you think his parents would have punished him for his poor judgement? No. They would have come after me.
As they should have. If you can't drive properly without hitting someone who may or may not be in the right, get off the fucking road.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 09, 2012, 01:37:24 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 01:26:15 PM

As they should have. If you can't drive properly without hitting someone who may or may not be in the right, get off the fucking road.

what?  if someone is blatantly jumping into traffic, I will give my honest best effort to avoid him, but sometimes the laws of physics and human reflexes dictate that I just plain do not have the time to get out of his way.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 01:47:37 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 09, 2012, 01:37:24 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 01:26:15 PM

As they should have. If you can't drive properly without hitting someone who may or may not be in the right, get off the fucking road.

what?  if someone is blatantly jumping into traffic, I will give my honest best effort to avoid him, but sometimes the laws of physics and human reflexes dictate that I just plain do not have the time to get out of his way.

Hobsini says he was both at least 4 feet into the lane, and remaining within the lane. Therefore he would not have been in your way in the first place, unless you were passing too closely.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 09, 2012, 01:53:40 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 09, 2012, 12:52:58 PM
To me that reads less like "Fahrenheit 451 depicts a car centric culture" and more "Fahrenheit 451 characters are assholes to each other because that is normal for their society".

OK, has anyone on here (besides english si) actually read the book?  In the section NE2 posted, the phrases "in concrete emptiness" and "a man, a very extraordinary sight, a man strolling, a rarity" refer to the car-centric culture that I referred to–which is elaborated upon in the book.  Anyway....

Is there a forum poster on here who is actually suggesting that no ten-year-olds should be allowed to ride a bike on the street?  Because, you know, I've seen adults do idiotic things on bicycles too.  And on motorcycles.  And in cars.  And on foot.  And.........
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 09, 2012, 01:59:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 01:47:37 PM

Hobsini says he was both at least 4 feet into the lane, and remaining within the lane. Therefore he would not have been in your way in the first place, unless you were passing too closely.

Quotewho was riding his bike 4 feet into traffic and weaving all over the lane

I'm imagining the bicycle equivalent of a fruit fly. 

I can give him N feet of lateral separation, but if he suddenly covers N+1 without giving me time to react, I'm gonna kill him.  that's just physics at work.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 01:59:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 09, 2012, 01:53:40 PM
OK, has anyone on here (besides english si) actually read the book?
I read it roughly 15 years ago. And what stuck with me the most was this very crossing the street scene.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: english si on August 09, 2012, 02:22:03 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 09, 2012, 01:59:38 PMI can give him N feet of lateral separation, but if he suddenly covers N+1 without giving me time to react, I'm gonna hurt him.  that's just physics at work.
Fixed it for you - you might kill him, but not amazingly likely given the low level of speed limits in the USA.

But yes - that would indeed be his fault if you hit him and N is suitable big (at least 6 ft).

Certainly cyclists can be at fault, and certainly safety training should be promoted - perhaps some sort of state licence that is recommended by not mandatory, perhaps offered to schoolkids around about 5th grade like drivers ed gets/was offered to older kids.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 10, 2012, 12:25:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 10:21:42 AM
Perhaps because crossing against the walk signal when no traffic is coming harms nobody? Unlike the all-too-common turning right without checking for pedestrians. And maybe if there are so many pedestrians crossing against the light that traffic is badly affected, the signals need to be modified. You know, like the NMA and speed limits?
The same is true of a car at a traffic light when there are no other cars on the road, but I don't see any serious proposals to allow cars to ignore traffic lights when there's no conflicting traffic on the road.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 10, 2012, 01:39:15 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 10, 2012, 12:25:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 10:21:42 AM
Perhaps because crossing against the walk signal when no traffic is coming harms nobody? Unlike the all-too-common turning right without checking for pedestrians. And maybe if there are so many pedestrians crossing against the light that traffic is badly affected, the signals need to be modified. You know, like the NMA and speed limits?
The same is true of a car at a traffic light when there are no other cars on the road, but I don't see any serious proposals to allow cars to ignore traffic lights when there's no conflicting traffic on the road.

Taiwan (and perhaps mainland China) used to have exactly that law.  I believe it was only in the last 15 years that the law was repealed.  I believe there are also some high-crime locations in the world that permit proceeding through a red light after stopping either during nighttime hours or at all times–but this is mainly to allow drivers to avoid getting carjacked.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 10, 2012, 02:03:13 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 10, 2012, 12:25:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 10:21:42 AM
Perhaps because crossing against the walk signal when no traffic is coming harms nobody? Unlike the all-too-common turning right without checking for pedestrians. And maybe if there are so many pedestrians crossing against the light that traffic is badly affected, the signals need to be modified. You know, like the NMA and speed limits?
The same is true of a car at a traffic light when there are no other cars on the road, but I don't see any serious proposals to allow cars to ignore traffic lights when there's no conflicting traffic on the road.
In a car you don't have nearly the same field of vision as you do on a bike or foot. You also have a huge piece of heavy machinery that can kill if you misjudge conditions.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 10, 2012, 02:04:34 PM
NE2, are you not able to visualize what I said? If the kid is 4 feet into the lane and weaving, that is 1) hogging the lane and not sharing it and 2) riding his bike irresponsibly. I would not be at fault if he suddenly swerves into me while I am passing him as long as I am giving him 3 feet as the law in Illinois states. I would not have a gripe if that child stayed by the white line like he should.  And I do think that children under 10 should not be allowed to ride their bike in on busy street.

KP, that is a good point about driving in bad neighborhoods. I personally try not to put myself in that kind of situation. But if I am in a rough neighborhood, you better believe that I have my eyes using all my mirrors in case someone felt like carjacking me. If I feel in danger, yes I would run the light if there is no traffic. But again that goes to a safety issue.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 10, 2012, 02:24:43 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 10, 2012, 02:04:34 PM
If the kid is 4 feet into the lane and weaving, that is 1) hogging the lane and not sharing it
That is riding legally and defensively. As for weaving back and forth, I've had that happen sometimes when getting up to speed.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 10, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
a bicyclist is allowed the full use of the travel lane (at least, here in CA).

as for swerving back and forth - I can see a little oscillation (maybe two feet amplitude) while gaining velocity, but fruitflying it is asking for traumatic inconvenience.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 10, 2012, 02:33:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 10, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
a bicyclist is allowed the full use of the travel lane (at least, here in CA).
Same in Florida, with certain exceptions (e.g. if the lane is wide enough for a car to safely pass a bike in, i.e. 14 feet or more), and probably all other states.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: myosh_tino on August 10, 2012, 03:03:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 10, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
a bicyclist is allowed the full use of the travel lane (at least, here in CA).
I can understand that being the case if there is no marked bike lane but what if the road has a clearly marked bike lane?  Common sense says the cyclists should be confined to that dedicated bike lane.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 10, 2012, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 10, 2012, 03:03:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 10, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
a bicyclist is allowed the full use of the travel lane (at least, here in CA).
I can understand that being the case if there is no marked bike lane but what if the road has a clearly marked bike lane?  Common sense says the cyclists should be confined to that dedicated bike lane.
Depends on the state, and the condition of the bike lane, and the way the cyclist is going (for instance a left turn can usually be made in the normal way).
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 11, 2012, 12:27:11 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 10, 2012, 02:03:13 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 10, 2012, 12:25:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 10:21:42 AM
Perhaps because crossing against the walk signal when no traffic is coming harms nobody? Unlike the all-too-common turning right without checking for pedestrians. And maybe if there are so many pedestrians crossing against the light that traffic is badly affected, the signals need to be modified. You know, like the NMA and speed limits?
The same is true of a car at a traffic light when there are no other cars on the road, but I don't see any serious proposals to allow cars to ignore traffic lights when there's no conflicting traffic on the road.
In a car you don't have nearly the same field of vision as you do on a bike or foot. You also have a huge piece of heavy machinery that can kill if you misjudge conditions.
You haven't had many situations where you were stopped at a light for five minutes and not one car went through the green phase, and it was clear none were coming?  That stuff happens to me all the time, and not just at night (NY uses signal timers for EVERYTHING).

I wouldn't say that a car's field of vision is lower than a bike or ped's.  I would say that it's moving much faster, so if you were to move though a red like that you should be required to slow down or stop.  The solution to the killing problem is this: if you cause an accident by grossly misjudging conditions like that, you licence is automatically revoked, and you have to start all over again with a permit to get it back.  We'd solve a lot of problems if unsafe drivers had to start over again with a permit.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 11, 2012, 02:13:11 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 11, 2012, 12:27:11 PM
You haven't had many situations where you were stopped at a light for five minutes and not one car went through the green phase, and it was clear none were coming?
Cars aren't the only thing you might hit. There's always the possibility of a jogger coming from behind an obstruction.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 11, 2012, 03:25:33 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 10, 2012, 02:24:43 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 10, 2012, 02:04:34 PM
If the kid is 4 feet into the lane and weaving, that is 1) hogging the lane and not sharing it
That is riding legally and defensively. As for weaving back and forth, I've had that happen sometimes when getting up to speed.
In Illinois, the law is 3 feet for a motorist to pass a cyclist.
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf

Here are the other rules in Illinois that a cyclist needs to obey to share the road:

Bicycle requirements:
* Front light visible for at least 500 feet (night riders)
* Red rear reflector visible from 100 to 600 feet
* Horn or bell that can be heard up to 100 feet

Riding on a roadway:
- When riding your bicycle on Illinois roadways, you must obey the same traffic laws,
signs and signals that apply to motorists.
- Bicyclists must ride in the same direction as other traffic. Riding in the opposite
direction of traffic is both dangerous and against the law.

Right Turns – Right turns must be made from the right lane. Stay as close as practical to
the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
Left Turns – When making a left turn, a bicyclist has two choices:
1. Make the turn as a vehicle would. When a left-hand lane exists, stay in the right side
of that lane, then after entering the intersection look in all directions and make the turn
when safe.
2. Stay as close as practical to the right curb or edge of the roadway as you enter the
intersection. Proceed straight across the roadway to the opposite corner, then wait
out of the way of other traffic. After obeying any traffic control device, you may
directly cross the street again to complete the turn in the new direction.

Traffic signs and signals tell drivers when to stop and when to go. They warn of railroad
crossings and other hazards and tell you where you may ride your bike. Bicycle riders,
as well as drivers, must obey all traffic signs and signals.


Right-of-Way Laws:
Two-way Intersections – When you come to a stop sign at a two-way stop intersection,
you must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and vehicles on the cross street before you
go ahead.
Four-way Intersections – At a four-way stop intersection, the driver or bicycle rider who
arrives first at the intersection should be the first to go. Take turns and go one by one
through the intersection after coming to a complete stop. Proceed only when it is safe to
do so.
Unmarked Intersections – At an unmarked intersection or crossing where there are no
traffic signs or signals, the driver or bicycle rider on the left must yield to those on the
right. When driving out of an alley or driveway, you must stop and yield the right-of-way to
pedestrians and vehicles before you cross the sidewalk or enter the street.
Emergency Vehicles – Emergency vehicles with their lights flashing and sirens sounding
always have the right-of-way. The law requires that you pull over to the side of the road
and stop, if necessary, until the emergency vehicle passes you.
Disabled Persons – Blind, hearing impaired or physically disabled persons can be
identified by their white canes, support or guide dogs. You must always yield the right-ofway
to them.
Police – If a police officer directs otherwise, the right-of-way laws do not apply; riders
and pedestrians must obey the officer's directions.

Other rules:
* Ride single file. Do not ride next to each other if possible.

* Ride as close to the right edge of the road as practical. Certain conditions allow a
bicyclist to move farther to the left if necessary, such as broken glass, drain grates,
parked cars, left turns and passing.

* Ride in the same direction as other traffic, not against traffic.

Like I said before, if a cyclist wants to SHARE the road, by all means do so but don't act like an idiot while riding. That kid was an idiot not just by my standard but by the state of Illinois' rules and laws.


Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 11, 2012, 03:28:53 PM
Dean, I whole heartedly agree. Bad drivers who are found guilty of reckless driving should have their license revoked and start the process all over again. I would also add on top of that if anyone has a DUI or DWI, same thing.

Believe me all you cyclist guys on here. Bad drivers piss me off just as much as bad cyclists. :banghead:
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 11, 2012, 03:33:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 11, 2012, 03:25:33 PM
* Ride as close to the right edge of the road as practical. Certain conditions allow a
bicyclist to move farther to the left if necessary, such as broken glass, drain grates,
parked cars, left turns and passing.
It would be nice if people would quote the entire law:
QuoteWhen reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 12, 2012, 12:13:10 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2012, 02:13:11 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 11, 2012, 12:27:11 PM
You haven't had many situations where you were stopped at a light for five minutes and not one car went through the green phase, and it was clear none were coming?
Cars aren't the only thing you might hit. There's always the possibility of a jogger coming from behind an obstruction.

In those times I could see that there were no joggers or anyone else coming.  You might think that timers are used only in dense urban areas where such situations are unlikely to occur, but you'd be wrong.  NY uses them everywhere... even in the middle of nowhere.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: english si on August 12, 2012, 02:35:26 PM
QuoteRide as close to the right edge of the road as practical.
I've said it several times, but I'll say it again - this way of riding is how cyclists on the road get killed.

There's two options for cyclists in IL - bad and unsafe cycling, or legal cycling.
QuoteFor purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
UK traffic regulations recommend leaving the same width between you and the curb when passing a cyclist, motorcyclist, horse or other vulnerable road user (Highway code rules 163 and 211). I'm not sure that definition of 'too narrow' will stand up in court in IL for cycling defensively, given that you are meant to hug the curb and if the car can run 3ft to your left - ie 4ft, maybe 5ft from the edge of the roadway, without crossing the line, then it's a legal overtake, so anything over 10ft wide is going to be good enough for the law. Forcing cyclists into a dangerous corridor alongside the curb, isn't sharing the road, it's hogging the lane.

There's also this:
Quote from: Highway Code rule 213Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
I'd hope that IL would have such advice to drivers on their books, especially since their advice to cyclists encourages an erratic and dangerous mix of avoiding obstacles (a lot of which wouldn't be visible to a car) and going back to hug the curb like a good playtime-fun-thing that isn't a real vehicle.* This weaving about the lane was given as an example of bad cycling upthread, and rightly so. So why does IL demand such bad cycling?

But I doubt IL would have such a warning to motorists about cyclists being dangerous while trying to obey the law, seeing how they use the word 'practical', rather than the word 'safe' when talking about cyclists' position on the road and obstacles - they don't give a rats ass about safety there.

*and given that that is how they are treated, is it surely no wonder why many cyclists break the sensible (ie not the stupid ones that put cyclists into a safe or legal dichotomy) traffic laws - they aren't treated as traffic, so why should they behave like traffic?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 02:44:37 PM
english, I personally treat cyclists as other traffic much like I treat pedestrians that way. My gripe is when the other traffic does not obey the laws and signals and signs that are there for the safety of all traffic. It is pretty common in Chicago that I have to yell at a pedestrian who is crossing the street against a don't walk signal when I have the green arrow.  There are also some cities in Illinois that have odinences against a cyclist or pedestrian to be on a cell phone or listening to music with headphones while crossing a street.

If the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible is more dangerous, what is the english rule of thumb for that?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 03:43:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 02:44:37 PM
the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible
Again, there is no such rule.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: english si on August 12, 2012, 03:52:53 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 02:44:37 PMenglish, I personally treat cyclists as other traffic much like I treat pedestrians that way.
So they shouldn't be on the road at all, but the sidewalk? (which is illegal in Britain as dangerous (Highways Act 1835 section 72) and motorists condemn them for that in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation)
QuoteIf the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible is more dangerous, what is the english rule of thumb for that?
There's not one, but, the highway code says this, which would be our equivalent of the keep right rule.
Quote from: Highway Code Rule 63Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
The design manual for cycling facilities prefers cyclists to be in the rest of the traffic (though less of it, slower and with better junctions - in that order), so cycle lanes are for use only on busy and/or fast roads. They recommend a car overtaking at 30mph should be 5ft away, giving a 4.3m (~14ft) space between curb and curb-side edge of the car that's overtaking the cyclist. They recognize that they are being idealistic here, but not that extreme - they rounded up the amount of wobble, which is 0.8m at low speeds and 0.2m at faster speeds to be 1m, to take into account hazards and for simplicity.

They give a minimum clearance between curb and cyclist as 0.5m - something that should be increased wherever possible and state that on-road cycle lanes (with a few specific exceptional circumstances) must be at least 1.5m (5ft), if not 2m. Bare in mind that cycle lanes are for when they want to segregate bicycle and motor-vehicular traffic as there's too much traffic/too fast traffic.

The principles that they suggest in their design manual suggest that the cyclist should be cycling about a quarter of the way into a lane, certainly not less than 2ft from the curb, and drivers should treat half the lane as the cyclist's should they come across one. A cyclist turning right should do so from the center line providing it's safe to get to the center line (the highway code offers the option of dismounting and crossing the road, or jug-handling if a toucan crossing exists), and a cyclist shouldn't undertake other traffic (unless there's a cycle lane that they are in), but rather overtake.

Obviously common decency would mean that a cyclist, if safe and practical to do so, ought to move nearer the curb and perhaps slow down, if some traffic wants to overtake - same is true for all traffic.

Edit: found on this .pdf that the centre of the lane as 'primary position' and between 0.5 and 1 metre from the curb is 'secondary position'.
Quote from: an explainationCyclists should not cycle in the gutter. Where there is little other traffic and/or there is plenty
of room to be overtaken they may ride in the
secondary position.

Where the road is narrow and two-way traffic would
make it dangerous for the cyclist to be overtaken by
a following vehicle they may choose to ride in the
primary position.
If the cyclist is riding at the speed of other traffic
then they should do so in the primary position.

Reasoning
Cyclists may be wary of cycling in the primary
position as this will put them in the path of motor
traffic when their natural instinct might be to keep
away from it. However, where appropriate, it will
actually offer them more protection as they will be
able to see more, be seen more easily by other road
users and most importantly it will prevent drivers
from attempting to overtake them where the road is
too narrow.

If unsure, the default position is the primary position.
So there we go - middle of the lane is British Government policy for cyclists to ride in.
Quote from: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 03:43:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 02:44:37 PMthe Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible
Again, there is no such rule.
So the lawmakers of IL are better than I give them credit for, or is it a guideline without force of law?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 04:27:50 PM
Quote from: english si on August 12, 2012, 03:52:53 PM
So the lawmakers of IL are better than I give them credit for, or is it a guideline without force of law?

Here's the actual law, not the misleading "summary" from the DMV:
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2012, 03:33:57 PM
QuoteWhen reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Note that the vast majority of roads have "substandard width lanes". This is pretty normal across states, meaning it probably comes from the Uniform Vehicle Code.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 05:14:57 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 03:43:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 02:44:37 PM
the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible
Again, there is no such rule.
And once again you ignore the fact it IS in the Illinois Rules of The Road publication that I have sourced.
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf
Page 7 dumbass!
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 05:22:00 PM
english said:
So they shouldn't be on the road at all, but the sidewalk? (which is illegal in Britain as dangerous (Highways Act 1835 section 72) and motorists condemn them for that in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation)

That is not what I meant by the pedestrians and cyclists get the same treatment from me. I may have been too vague for you but what I mean is that I don't care what other traffic does as long as they are obeying the signs and signals and the rules of the road when sharing the road. How many times do I have to say that before you guys figure it out? If a cyclist wants to ride in the road, by all means do so as long as that cyclist obeys the rules. It is the disregard of such signals and signs I do object to.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 05:22:39 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 05:14:57 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 03:43:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 02:44:37 PM
the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible
Again, there is no such rule.
And once again you ignore the fact it IS in the Illinois Rules of The Road publication that I have3 sourced.
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf
Page 7 dubmass!
That publication doesn't have the force of law. Dubmass [sic]!
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 05:35:54 PM
NE2, so now you are saying that the Secretary of State's office has no "force of the law"?

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/police/about.html

By your logic, I guess all rules of the road can be thrown out. Run the red lights. Go 80 mph in a school zone. Hell go ahead and drink some vodka while going down the highway. Go ahead everyone. It's ok. NE2 has given his blessing for you to do so.

You see how stupid that sounds?

I don't know how Florida operates but here in Illinois the Secretary of State's office DOES have some enforcement power and does use it. We have the Secretary of State Police. They can (and will) issue tickets just as much as a local police, sheriff's officers, or state troopers.

Before you comment on someone else's state and how it's run, get some facts.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 05:52:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 05:35:54 PM
I don't know how Florida operates but here in Illinois the Secretary of State's office DOES have some enforcement power and does use it. We have the Secretary of State Police. They can (and will) issue tickets just as much as a local police, sheriff's officers, or state troopers.
And if those tickets are bullshit, they'll get thrown out by the courts (unless they too are corrupt). Dubmass!
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 06:18:21 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 05:52:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 05:35:54 PM
I don't know how Florida operates but here in Illinois the Secretary of State's office DOES have some enforcement power and does use it. We have the Secretary of State Police. They can (and will) issue tickets just as much as a local police, sheriff's officers, or state troopers.
And if those tickets are bullshit, they'll get thrown out by the courts (unless they too are corrupt). Dubmass!

So now you say that any ticket issued by a police agency is bullshit?
My my. I think you need to see a doctor soon. Perhaps he can help with that stick up your ass.

In the meantime, let me give you some friendly advice. Stay out of Illinois. Certainly don't break an laws here that would get you a ticket. If you are issued a ticket, do pay it. Because if you refuse to pay that ticket, the state will come after you for "contempt of court" and until they find you, your license would be suspended. States do cooperate in that way. Just like if I went to Ohio, got a ticket and refused to pay, Ohio would say to Illinois to suspend my license.  So once again I say as friendly advice. Stay out of Illinois for your own good. I would really hate to see you lose your license.

Other than that, enjoy your day buddy.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: english si on August 12, 2012, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 05:22:00 PMI don't care what other traffic does as long as they are obeying the signs and signals and the rules of the road when sharing the road. How many times do I have to say that before you guys figure it out?
I know you say that, it is irrelevant for the discussion we're having.

I'm saying that both the treatment that cyclists get from both the government and other road users encourage them to break the rules, especially the rules that create a safe/legal dichotomy, and that needs to be changed - in part by changing the bad rules, in part by changing the culture on the road - both of cyclists and of motorists.
QuoteIf a cyclist wants to ride in the road, by all means do so as long as that cyclist obeys the rules. It is the disregard of such signals and signs I do object to.
Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?

How long do I have to keep saying it, some laws are dangerous for cyclists to follow, in which case why should a cyclist follow such a law? Certainly if I got ticketed for that in IL, I'd counter-sue the state for reckless endangerment, because that's what having to obey that law would be doing - endangering my life.

It seems to me that either you feel that projecting an image of being a gestapo-loving legalist, who is no doubt an unlikeable jobsworth, is better than someone who cares about the lives of cyclists, or your hogging the lane comment when talking about taking primary position is a showing of your true colours - a Mr Toad who doesn't like people getting in the way of his driving fun. Poop! Poop!
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 08:16:53 PM
Quote from: english si on August 12, 2012, 07:56:21 PM
Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?
The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: myosh_tino on August 12, 2012, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 08:16:53 PM
Quote from: english si on August 12, 2012, 07:56:21 PM
Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?
The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.
Are you referring to Illinois law?  Florida law?  California law?  Please be more specific because your statement implies that riding the in the middle of a lane is OK nationwide (which is probably not the case).
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 12, 2012, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 08:16:53 PM
Quote from: english si on August 12, 2012, 07:56:21 PM
Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?
The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.
Are you referring to Illinois law?  Florida law?  California law?  Please be more specific because your statement implies that riding the in the middle of a lane is OK nationwide (which is probably not the case).
Obviously I'm referring to Illinois law. But chances are it is OK nationwide. It appears to be allowed anywhere that uses the Uniform Vehicle Code at least.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:19:50 AM
OK, so I went digging through the California Vehicle Code and here's California's laws regarding cyclists...

Operation on a Roadway with no bike lanes...
Quote21202.  (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
The way I read this is cyclists need to keep as far right as can safely be done.  It doesn't give them carte blanche to ride in the middle of the right lane although subsection (3) is very, very vague (perhaps too vague) and it seems to be an easy out for cyclists... "but officer, there are a couple of pebbles on the right shoulder and it's too dangerous".

Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes
Quote21208.  (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.
I find subsection (b) the most interesting because if a cyclist needs to move out of the bike lane into a travel lane, he/she needs to do so WHEN IT'S SAFE, not whenever the cyclist feels like it.  Bicycles have brakes too so if they see someone pulling out of a driveway up ahead, use your brakes and slow down instead of swerving right in front of a car and expecting the driver to slam on his/her brakes.

Of interest is Section 21656 which states that on a two-lane highway, a slow moving vehicle must pull off into a designated turnout *OR* wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists to allow vehicles to pass.  This part of the CVC also applies to cyclists.  I find it highly annoying when I and other motorists get stuck behind a slow-moving cyclist on a two-lane highway with no way to pass and the cyclist doesn't pull off the road per section 21656 of the CVC.

Finally, I will agree with hobsini2 on one major point... All vehicle operators (drivers AND cyclists) need to obey the rules of the road and that includes stop signs and signals.  While I do see drivers not stopping at stop signs (usually by doing the "California Stop"), cyclists don't even slow down at stop signs... they blow though at full speed.  There is an ongoing case in San Francisco where a cyclist blew through a red light and struck and killed a elderly man in the crosswalk.  Shortly after the accident, the cyclist dedicated his post on a local cycling group's website to his broken helmet (very self-centered IMO).  The cyclist was charged with felony vehicular manslaughter and is currently awaiting trial.  He could get 16 months in jail if convicted and I hope they throw the book at him.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 12:26:44 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:19:50 AM
(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.
Yep, the normal "substandard width lane" criterion.

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:19:50 AM
Finally, I will agree with hobsini2 on one major point... All vehicle operators (drivers AND cyclists) need to obey the rules of the road and that includes stop signs and signals.  While I do see drivers not stopping at stop signs (usually by doing the "California Stop"), cyclists don't even slow down at stop signs... they blow though at full speed.
Bigot.

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:19:50 AM
There is an ongoing case in San Francisco where a cyclist blew through a red light and struck and killed a elderly man in the crosswalk.  Shortly after the accident, the cyclist dedicated his post on a local cycling group's website to his broken helmet (very self-centered IMO).  The cyclist was charged with felony vehicular manslaughter and is currently awaiting trial.  He could get 16 months in jail if convicted and I hope they throw the book at him.
Yep, he's an asshole. Doesn't mean you should be an asshole to other cyclists.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:42:40 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 12:26:44 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:19:50 AM
Finally, I will agree with hobsini2 on one major point... All vehicle operators (drivers AND cyclists) need to obey the rules of the road and that includes stop signs and signals.  While I do see drivers not stopping at stop signs (usually by doing the "California Stop"), cyclists don't even slow down at stop signs... they blow though at full speed.
Bigot.
How so?  Please explain yourself.

Quote from: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 12:26:44 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:19:50 AM
There is an ongoing case in San Francisco where a cyclist blew through a red light and struck and killed a elderly man in the crosswalk.  Shortly after the accident, the cyclist dedicated his post on a local cycling group's website to his broken helmet (very self-centered IMO).  The cyclist was charged with felony vehicular manslaughter and is currently awaiting trial.  He could get 16 months in jail if convicted and I hope they throw the book at him.
Yep, he's an asshole. Doesn't mean you should be an asshole to other cyclists.
Are you serious?  How in the hell can you make that type of wild assumption based on a person's post in this forum.  Trust me, that kind of crap is NOT APPRECIATED!  Just because I don't adhere to your philosophy that cyclists can do no wrong doesn't mean you can make comments like that about me.  When you're throwing the word "asshole" around, go look in the mirror... sheesh!  :thumbdown:

Note to Mods:  I've done my best to keep my cool but NE2 really pushed my buttons.  This will be my last post to this discussion thread... IMO, this should be locked because it's turned into a flame war with NE2 right in the middle of it.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 12:46:23 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:42:40 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 12:26:44 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:19:50 AM
There is an ongoing case in San Francisco where a cyclist blew through a red light and struck and killed a elderly man in the crosswalk.  Shortly after the accident, the cyclist dedicated his post on a local cycling group's website to his broken helmet (very self-centered IMO).  The cyclist was charged with felony vehicular manslaughter and is currently awaiting trial.  He could get 16 months in jail if convicted and I hope they throw the book at him.
Yep, he's an asshole. Doesn't mean you should be an asshole to other cyclists.
Are you serious?  How in the hell can you make that type of wild assumption based on a person's post in this forum.  Trust me, that kind of crap is NOT APPRECIATED!  Just because I don't adhere to your philosophy that cyclists can do no wrong doesn't mean you can make comments like that about me.  When you're throwing the word "asshole" around, go look in the mirror... sheesh!  :thumbdown:
The fuck?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Central Avenue on August 13, 2012, 05:00:49 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:42:40 AMAre you serious?  How in the hell can you make that type of wild assumption based on a person's post in this forum.  Trust me, that kind of crap is NOT APPRECIATED!  Just because I don't adhere to your philosophy that cyclists can do no wrong doesn't mean you can make comments like that about me.  When you're throwing the word "asshole" around, go look in the mirror... sheesh!  :thumbdown:

Um...you do realize he's referring to the cyclist you referenced as "asshole", not you, right?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: english si on August 13, 2012, 08:15:49 AM
There seems to be a fallacy at work in this thread where "cyclists can do right" is taken as "cyclists can do no wrong". It's also coupled with a related fallacy "cyclists do wrong, therefore cyclists can't do right". There's also the legal=safe and illegal=dangerous non sequitors.

Maybe logic should be taught at schools as well as proper safe cycling.

NE2 - you are right, the vehicular code has "keep to the curb unless x is the case", but x applies most of the time (though people like hobsini think it's safe to overtake when it's not, just because it might be legal, so get out of these reckless menace's way) - it's basically saying the same thing as the British "keep to the middle of the lane unless y is the case", but backwards, which is misleading drivers - needs to be re-written without changing sentiment. It's a lot stricter on cycle lanes - note how the British regulation recommending their use by cyclists goes out of it's way to say "you don't have to use them, but it might <weasel word> be safer if you do".

myosh_tino - sure a cyclist should pull over to let people overtake if it's possible that an overtake can occur safely (and the cyclist doesn't lose too much momentum, or worse have to stop - a motor vehicle can just put their foot on the gas, a cyclist has to do a lot of work to get back lost speed). It's a courtesy of a nature that most drivers don't extend to cyclists.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2012, 10:11:11 AM
there is a world of difference between not coming to a full stop, because you've ascertained that conditions do not warrant it ...

and blowing through an intersection because ascertaining takes too much effort.

I don't care if you blow through an intersection without thinking.  go right ahead.  but if you obstruct my legally defined right of way, and I cannot evade you in time, I'm just gonna kill you.  tough break, bubbakins.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 13, 2012, 10:50:09 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 02:44:37 PM
It is pretty common in Chicago that I have to yell at a pedestrian who is crossing the street against a don't walk signal when I have the green arrow.

Yeah, pedestrian signals in Chicago are just decoration.  I'm amazed there's actually someone out there who shouts at the pedestrians crossing against the signal, since the whole city operates that way.  I have mixed feelings about it.

Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 05:35:54 PM
NE2, so now you are saying that the Secretary of State's office has no "force of the law"?

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/police/about.html

By your logic, I guess all rules of the road can be thrown out. Run the red lights. Go 80 mph in a school zone. Hell go ahead and drink some vodka while going down the highway. Go ahead everyone. It's ok. NE2 has given his blessing for you to do so.

You see how stupid that sounds?

I don't know how Florida operates but here in Illinois the Secretary of State's office DOES have some enforcement power and does use it. We have the Secretary of State Police. They can (and will) issue tickets just as much as a local police, sheriff's officers, or state troopers.

Before you comment on someone else's state and how it's run, get some facts.

OK, I am from Illinois.  I was born there, lived there until age eight, then lived there again from 1999 to 2008.  While I lived there (and even still), I spent a lot of time reading the exact wording of Illinois law.  And.....

A traffic law is a rule found in the Illinois Vehicle Code (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ChapterID=49&ActID=1815 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ChapterID=49&ActID=1815)).  The link you provided states that the Secretary of State police's job is to enforce the Illinois Vehicle Code.  Its job is not to enforce inaccurate summaries of the actual law found in brochures, websites, and driver's ed literature.  If it's not in the Illinois Vehicle Code, then it's not a traffic law.

I once had a Secretary of State police officer stop and bother me while I was hitchhiking home from work one evening in southern Illinois.  His saying that hitchhiking is illegal even if done from off the pavement does not make it so.  I know the law, and I was obeying it by standing in the grass.  Anyway, after he called his brother to come rescue him because he'd locked his keys in the patrol car, the officer actually gave me a ride home.  On another occasion, I had a local (Wheaton) officer force me to walk out of town because I'd been hitchhiking from a sidewalk along Roosevelt Road.  I had the law on my side, and I knew it, so I emailed the chief of police a few days later; the deputy chief apologized to me for my being harassed.

Just because an officer says something is a law, just because a pamphlet says something is a law–that doesn't mean it is a law.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: J N Winkler on August 13, 2012, 12:02:50 PM
I am wary of intervening in this thread, but as an experienced cycle commuter, I have to point out that NE2 is correct to distinguish between the actual law (as given in the Illinois statutes) and a simplified re-statement of it that is published by the Illinois Secretary of State for educational purposes.  I also have a copy of Cycle-friendly Infrastructure, which is the cycle design book English Si references and is a joint publication of the Department of Transport (as it then was) and the Institute of Highways and Transportation, and his summary of its assumptions about how cyclists use the road and its design advice is essentially correct.  This manual is especially good in explaining how its design criteria relate to the typical cyclist's dynamic envelope.

Addressing a few of Myosh_tino's comments:

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2012, 12:19:50 AMThe way I read this [CVC 21202(a)] is cyclists need to keep as far right as can safely be done.  It doesn't give them carte blanche to ride in the middle of the right lane although subsection (3) is very, very vague (perhaps too vague) and it seems to be an easy out for cyclists... "but officer, there are a couple of pebbles on the right shoulder and it's too dangerous".

"Pebbles on the right shoulder" is clearly meant to be reductio ad absurdum, but it really isn't.  Areas of the paved surface that are not regularly swept by motor vehicles tend to accumulate trash, much of it too small to be seen from cyclist's eye height when the cyclist is stationary, let alone when the cyclist is rolling at a sustained road speed of about 15 to 20 MPH.  The trash can include things like screws and thumbtacks which can cause bicycle tires to deflate abruptly.  In my experience (which, admittedly, does not include built-up urban roads with speed limits higher than 30 MPH), one usually has to go up to high-speed rural highways before the benefits of sticking to the shoulder outweigh the risks.

Also, as I will elaborate below, an expectation that cyclists will stick firmly to the right actually makes them less visible not just to cars approaching them from behind, but also to cars maneuvering out of side streets and driveways perpendicular to the roadway.

QuoteI find subsection (b) [of CVC 21208] the most interesting because if a cyclist needs to move out of the bike lane into a travel lane, he/she needs to do so WHEN IT'S SAFE, not whenever the cyclist feels like it.  Bicycles have brakes too so if they see someone pulling out of a driveway up ahead, use your brakes and slow down instead of swerving right in front of a car and expecting the driver to slam on his/her brakes.

This analysis focuses solely on what happens when the car pulls out of the driveway unexpectedly, presumably without the driver first checking--as I am sure he is legally obliged to do--to ensure that he can make the maneuver without interfering with the speed and direction of traffic already in the road.  (This is the legal standard for maneuvers out of side streets and driveways in the UK--I am sure English Si can supply chapter and verse from the Highway Code.  I haven't checked to see if this is also the case in California, but I am pretty sure there is an analogous provision in the CVC.)  Remember that it is not just cars already in the road whose speed and direction must not be interfered with; cyclists are also covered.

Let's move further up the chain of events and ask what happens when the driver backing out of the driveway checks, as he is legally obliged to do, that he can complete the maneuver without interfering with other traffic.  If the cyclist is riding close to the middle of the lane, instead of hugging the curb, then he is more visible to following car traffic which would otherwise have to brake abruptly if the cyclist were hugging the curb and had to move left abruptly to avoid an ill-timed (and illegal) backing-up maneuver.  In the middle of the lane the viewing angle he presents to the driver backing up (and checking to see that the way is clear, as he is legally obliged to do) is very slightly worse, but this is more than counterbalanced by the fact that he is less likely to be obscured by cars parked at the curb, or by trees and other plantings in the area between the curb and the sidewalk.

QuoteOf interest is Section 21656 which states that on a two-lane highway, a slow moving vehicle must pull off into a designated turnout *OR* wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists to allow vehicles to pass.  This part of the CVC also applies to cyclists.  I find it highly annoying when I and other motorists get stuck behind a slow-moving cyclist on a two-lane highway with no way to pass and the cyclist doesn't pull off the road per section 21656 of the CVC.

It is necessary to pay careful attention to what exactly it is that this section of CVC requires cyclists to do.  It requires them to turn out when it is safe to do so, e.g. when a shoulder is provided.  (In fact, in a rural context, the vast majority of cyclists would already be on the shoulder.)  It does not require them to turn out when no turnouts are provided and a ditch slope begins immediately at the edge of the traveled way.  It also does not require them to exit the paved surface at high speed onto gravel or other unconsolidated material.  In California a turnout is a paved area of roadway one lane width wide that is separated from the through lane by a solid white stripe:  it is not a short-lived lateral bulge in the structural pavement section.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 01:25:37 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 08:16:53 PM
Quote from: english si on August 12, 2012, 07:56:21 PM
Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?
The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.
So now you are an expert when it comes to Illinois law. Ok then give me the specific statute in the Illinois code that gives cyclists the right to obstruct vehicle traffic by riding down the middle of the street.  That is what you are advocating and saying it is legal for them to do so with no limit in the amount of distance that they can proceed that way.

This on top of you saying that a ticket issued by the Secretary of State Police is to be disregarded.

Have some common sense please.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 01:34:42 PM
Quote from: english si on August 12, 2012, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2012, 05:22:00 PMI don't care what other traffic does as long as they are obeying the signs and signals and the rules of the road when sharing the road. How many times do I have to say that before you guys figure it out?
I know you say that, it is irrelevant for the discussion we're having.

I'm saying that both the treatment that cyclists get from both the government and other road users encourage them to break the rules, especially the rules that create a safe/legal dichotomy, and that needs to be changed - in part by changing the bad rules, in part by changing the culture on the road - both of cyclists and of motorists.
QuoteIf a cyclist wants to ride in the road, by all means do so as long as that cyclist obeys the rules. It is the disregard of such signals and signs I do object to.
Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?

How long do I have to keep saying it, some laws are dangerous for cyclists to follow, in which case why should a cyclist follow such a law? Certainly if I got ticketed for that in IL, I'd counter-sue the state for reckless endangerment, because that's what having to obey that law would be doing - endangering my life.

It seems to me that either you feel that projecting an image of being a gestapo-loving legalist, who is no doubt an unlikeable jobsworth, is better than someone who cares about the lives of cyclists, or your hogging the lane comment when talking about taking primary position is a showing of your true colours - a Mr Toad who doesn't like people getting in the way of his driving fun. Poop! Poop!

I think you would have a tough time proving reckless endangerment by the state.   In any case, if the law is a bad law, don't you think that prior to the bill becoming law there would have been some input from the cycling community? It is very rare that a law is made that affect a certain group without having that group have some input.

Secondly, that kid cyclist that I had mentioned before was not trying to get around parked vehicles, broken glass, a sewer grate, etc.  There was no trees or other obstructions in my view of him.  He was riding in the middle of the lane and weaving in the lane because he felt like doing so.  And you think that he was being safe and responsible?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 01:58:27 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 01:25:37 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 08:16:53 PM
Quote from: english si on August 12, 2012, 07:56:21 PM
Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?
The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.
So now you are an expert when it comes to Illinois law. Ok then give me the specific statute in the Illinois code that gives cyclists the right to obstruct vehicle traffic by riding down the middle of the street.  That is what you are advocating and saying it is legal for them to do so with no limit in the amount of distance that they can proceed that way.

This on top of you saying that a ticket issued by the Secretary of State Police is to be disregarded.

Have some common sense please.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 02:05:33 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 01:58:27 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 01:25:37 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 12, 2012, 08:16:53 PM
Quote from: english si on August 12, 2012, 07:56:21 PM
Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?
The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.
So now you are an expert when it comes to Illinois law. Ok then give me the specific statute in the Illinois code that gives cyclists the right to obstruct vehicle traffic by riding down the middle of the street.  That is what you are advocating and saying it is legal for them to do so with no limit in the amount of distance that they can proceed that way.

This on top of you saying that a ticket issued by the Secretary of State Police is to be disregarded.

Have some common sense please.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You said you know the Illinois code better than what the Secretary of State issues out so I say to you prove it. Give me the statute code number that makes it legal for a cyclists to go down the highway in the middle of the lane without any restrictions of distance in that travel lane. That is what you are saying. If you can't prove it, then you really should not try and comment on Illinois law.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 02:09:15 PM
625 ILCS 5/11-1505 (a) 3. Read it and weep.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 02:13:01 PM
Oh wait I found what the Illinois code says from http://www.activetrans.org/bicyclists-and-law/illinois-statutes and I quote:

Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on roadways–Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle 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 close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following situations: 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.

So there is the law. Now you may question if it is a good or bad law. That's your right. But until that law is changed, that is the law in Illinois.

Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 02:15:43 PM
Using #3 as you point out, operative words are REASONABLY NECESSARY to AVOID conditions.

If the condition is not there, they do not have the right to the entire lane.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2012, 02:17:55 PM
this is the stupidest fucking argument I've ever seen.   :ded:

btw, to introduce an alternate perspective: Sec. 11-1505. BOOYA MOTHERFUCKER! TEN BOOYAS IN A PLASTIC SACK!  AND A FREE GOAT!
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 02:18:11 PM
And BTW, the Secretary of State's pamphlet, the one I have sourced before, does agree with the actual code.

Post Merge: August 13, 2012, 11:29:02 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2012, 02:17:55 PM
this is the stupidest fucking argument I've ever seen.   :ded:

btw, to introduce an alternate perspective: Sec. 11-1505. BOOYA MOTHERFUCKER! TEN BOOYAS IN A PLASTIC SACK!  AND A FREE GOAT!

11-1505 backs up my argument.  It does not entitle a cyclist to remain in a lane of traffic when there is no condition impeding them stay as close to the right. 3 feet from the white line is the amount of room that a cyclist has unless there is something the impedes their movement that would require them to move farther into the lane.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2012, 02:25:16 PM
has anyone considered quoting 11-1505?  I don't believe this has happened yet.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 02:26:47 PM
And btw if you don't accept that, then answer me this. Why when a road has a bike lane on the road marked, is it 1) next to the white line along the right shoulder and 2) it is 3 feet wide when it is marked off?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 02:27:30 PM
As requested.

Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on roadways–Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle 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 close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following situations: 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.

Post Merge: August 13, 2012, 11:29:25 PM

BTW agent, I did post the code in post 179 earlier.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2012, 02:30:42 PM
the point I am trying to make is that you're both referring to the exact same law to argue opposite sides.

what is this, Leviticus??
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 13, 2012, 02:34:01 PM
Quoteor substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Yeah. Dubmass.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 13, 2012, 02:34:54 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 02:23:03 PM
11-1505 backs up my argument.  It does not entitle a cyclist to remain in a lane of traffic when there is no condition impeding them stay as close to the right. 3 feet from the white line is the amount of room that a cyclist has unless there is something the impedes their movement that would require them to move farther into the lane.

3 feet from the white line is within the lane of traffic, by the way.  Just saying...
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on August 13, 2012, 03:04:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2012, 10:11:11 AM
if you obstruct my legally defined right of way, and I cannot evade you in time, I'm just gonna kill you.  tough break, bubbakins.

Sounds like you're just waiting for an opportunity.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: J N Winkler on August 13, 2012, 04:07:14 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2012, 02:30:42 PMthe point I am trying to make is that you're both referring to the exact same law to argue opposite sides.

Yup.  The disagreement is about what the phrase "reasonably necessary" means.  The next step is to look up a court decision (if one exists) which lays down an interpretation of "reasonably necessary" in this context that has value as precedent.

My suspicion is that such a ruling, if it exists, is unlikely to favor Hobsini's position.  A judge will almost certainly proceed from the premise that a reasonable person on a cycle will choose the approach to lane positioning that minimizes his overall risk of injury.  Studies which show that the lane positioning NE2 favors is safer will therefore be given considerable deference.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 13, 2012, 04:11:46 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2012, 02:23:03 PM
3 feet from the white line is the amount of room that a cyclist has unless there is something the impedes their movement that would require them to move farther into the lane.

Where are you getting the 3 foot rule?  I'm reading and re-reading the laws, and all I can find is that cars are required to pass cyclists at a distance of no less than 3 feet.  I'm not finding anything in the law that says as close as practicable = three feet.  Honestly, on many roads, three feet is not enough to avoid potholes.  Moreover, let's say I ride three feet from the edge line.  Let's assume that my bike and I are 2½ feet wide.  Any motorist must give me at least three feet clearance to pass me.  That's a total of at least 8½ feet, at which point any reasonable driver would simply change lanes and allow the cyclist the full lane.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2012, 04:26:08 PM
Quote from: Special K on August 13, 2012, 03:04:00 PM

Sounds like you're just waiting for an opportunity.

of course.  firearms are too difficult to acquire in this country, so that is how I must satisfy my urges.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2012, 04:27:07 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 13, 2012, 04:07:14 PMStudies which show that the lane positioning NE2 favors is safer will therefore be given considerable deference.

it's probably not a coincidence, then, that this exact thing has been written into law in other states.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Scott5114 on August 13, 2012, 09:26:11 PM
All I know is that I will probably never ride a bicycle in a public street again. Riding down the middle of a lane is beyond my risk tolerance level.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Alps on August 13, 2012, 11:30:52 PM
FWIW, I have never ridden down the middle of a lane, even in 10-foot wide lanes with no shoulders. I keep to the right, leaving a foot or two of escape room, and monitor traffic coming behind me. If a car looks unsure to slow down and avoid me, I prepare to evade if necessary. So far, never had a problem.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Takumi on August 13, 2012, 11:49:17 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 13, 2012, 09:26:11 PM
All I know is that I will probably never ride a bicycle in a public street again. Riding down the middle of a lane is beyond my risk tolerance level.

I pretty much stay on residential side streets as much as possible on my normal riding route for the same reason. I'm fine riding in the middle of the street when it gets 50 vehicles per day.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 11:29:41 AM
Thought:
Riding as close as possible to the edge line, then moving up to three feet from the edge at every obstacle (such as parked vehicles, debris, storm drains, potholes)–––sounds like weaving to me.  I try to avoid weaving.   :)

So yesterday, I posted on this forum, then had to run a couple of errands.  One block from my house, I encountered kids playing basketball in the street.  Instead of shouting at them or calling the police, I slowed down and drove cautiously.  And, you know what?  It worked!  Coming back home, the same thing happened.  It was sooooo cool!  :crazy:
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2012, 11:47:53 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 11:29:41 AM

So yesterday, I posted on this forum, then had to run a couple of errands.  One block from my house, I encountered kids playing basketball in the street.  Instead of shouting at them or calling the police, I slowed down and drove cautiously.  And, you know what?  It worked!  Coming back home, the same thing happened.  It was sooooo cool!  :crazy:

well now that's just cruel.  if you slow down, you'll just injure them instead of achieving a clean kill.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 11:55:59 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2012, 11:47:53 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 11:29:41 AM

So yesterday, I posted on this forum, then had to run a couple of errands.  One block from my house, I encountered kids playing basketball in the street.  Instead of shouting at them or calling the police, I slowed down and drove cautiously.  And, you know what?  It worked!  Coming back home, the same thing happened.  It was sooooo cool!  :crazy:

well now that's just cruel.  if you slow down, you'll just injure them instead of achieving a clean kill.

No, that's just it:  Amazingly, I didn't even run them over!  I couldn't believe it!  I, as a motorist, was able to share the road with children playing!  And they weren't even within three feet of the curb!  And they were going back and forth all over the place!  Exclamation point!  Wow!

I just thought I needed to share my experience.  It was enlightening.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: J N Winkler on August 14, 2012, 12:15:19 PM
I was a cycle commuter for years in Britain, never in the United States.  There are cultural differences between the two countries in terms of how roadspace is used that are especially obvious to a cycle commuter.  I generally used a cycle lane whenever one was provided, but when one was absent or was off-road in an area with blind junctions or easy access for pedestrians, I stayed in the road and moved to the center of the lane (or even closer to the centerline) if I anticipated obstructions like taxis stopped on double yellow to drop off passengers.  If a cycle lane was present, I generally stayed as close to the stripe as I needed to in order to avoid dealing with drain grates, but if it was not, I typically ran along the left third of the lane.

The key to good lane positioning is not to stay a fixed distance away from the curb no matter what, but rather to choose a path around obstacles that keeps you visible to cars while minimizing the flex in your forward path (in other words, you have to avoid abrupt lateral movements, "weaving," etc.).

In a major Midwestern city like Wichita I would feel uncomfortable cycling down undivided four-lane arterials, simply because there is an expectation that they will function as cars-only clearways regardless of any parking restrictions that may be in effect.  This type of arterial cross-section is very uncommon in Britain, where it is much more normal for through arterials to have just two lanes plus cycle lanes, or for two out of four lanes to be curbside bus lanes (which cyclists can use).  Drivers are also far more habituated to expect vehicles to stop and not to expect lane continuity.

Roads are also built differently.  In Britain paving is brought up all the way to the curb face, so there is no gutter distinct from the rest of the paved surface.  In the US this pavement cross-section is (in my experience) almost unknown outside the New England states.  It is much more the norm for curbs to be cast as a combination of curb face and gutter slab, which means that there is typically a longitudinal joint running one foot in front of the curb face, and frequently also a camber change and a dropoff if the traveled way has been chip-sealed.  This limits maneuverability since cyclists will avoid crossing the joint at road speed on an extreme skew path.  (Roads which have been adapted for cyclist use tend either to omit curbs in favor of open drainage or to continue the paving all the way to the curb face.)

For these two reasons, my usual practice when cycling on the street in Wichita (something I have not done for over 20 years now) was to choose collectors (which in most parts of the city run through subdivisions loosely parallel to the arterials) for covering distance, and stay generally clear of arterials except for short connections.  All of the cyclist fatalities I have seen reported in the Eagle in the past few years have involved cycle travel on an arterial, frequently at a time of day when at least one party to the accident would have had the sun in his or her eyes.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 02:02:37 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2012, 12:15:19 PM
In a major Midwestern city like Wichita I would feel uncomfortable cycling down undivided four-lane arterials, simply because there is an expectation that they will function as cars-only clearways regardless of any parking restrictions that may be in effect.

Not to mention that many of Wichita's arterials have both (a) no shoulder and (b) no median space, which means there is little "give"–cyclists have nowhere to go to avoid the traffic stream, and the traffic stream has nowhere to go to avoid cyclists.  Fortunately, few arterials have speed limits of more than 40 mph.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 12:49:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 14, 2012, 11:29:41 AM
Thought:
Riding as close as possible to the edge line, then moving up to three feet from the edge at every obstacle (such as parked vehicles, debris, storm drains, potholes)–––sounds like weaving to me.  I try to avoid weaving.   :)

So yesterday, I posted on this forum, then had to run a couple of errands.  One block from my house, I encountered kids playing basketball in the street.  Instead of shouting at them or calling the police, I slowed down and drove cautiously.  And, you know what?  It worked!  Coming back home, the same thing happened.  It was sooooo cool!  :crazy:

And I am sure that the vehicle traffic on that street where they were playing basketball was very minimal. You can stop being so snarky. You know damn well that I was talking about a main road that had a lot of traffic and not some side street.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 01:07:34 PM
Winkler, that's a good point about sun blindness. It's tough enough seeing a driver in front of you on the highway if the angle of the sun is practically just above the horizon.

Let me ask you this though getting back to how you cycled when you were in England. If you were in an area that was flat with little to no trees around where they would impede your vision or other traffic's vision, and there were no obstructions in your way using the lane, you would still be as close to the center line when riding down the street with traffic?  I can see where one would think that would be the safest spot for a cyclist but at the same time it would be upsetting vehicles behind you that if there was solid oncoming traffic, they could not pass you.
I look at it as a function of speed too. A cyclist will most likely have a top maintain speed of what? 35 mph or so? If you are out on a rural road that has a lot of traffic, the vehicle speed would be expected to be 55 or 65 depending on where you were.  Think of it like being on an expressway. You have signs posted for a speed limit of 65 with a minimum of 45. That driver who is doing 45 in a 65 would be more of a hazard if he was in the left lane as opposed to the right lane.  Wouldn't that be a similar function for a cyclist who is riding down the middle of the lane?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 15, 2012, 01:36:55 PM
I guess your post three pages up-thread about the child riding his bike does allude to moderate traffic, in that you had to wait a little bit before going around him.  And I'm sorry for the snarkiness.

But you have also stated on this thread that no children should be allowed to cycle off the sidewalk, if provided, until age 13 (8th grade for me), or allowed to cycle on "busy" streets [amgibuous term] until age 10 (5th grade).  And you make it sound like this is common sense, and that people who don't agree are irresponsible.  So, basically, you're saying that my parents, all of my friends' parents growing up, all of the parents in my current neighborhood, and anyone else out there who might let their children bike in the street–are irresponsible parents, and really ought to know better.  Please don't tell me how to be a good parent; consider that your opinion might be the minority, and that you don't have a monopoly on common sense.  I can't imagine anyone I know supporting the idea of requiring bicycle licenses, for example.

You claim not to have a problem with cyclists who obey the rules of the road.  Yet you do have a problem with children cycling on "busy" streets, even though they are permitted by law to do so.  You also claim that there is a rule compelling cyclists to keep within three feet of the curb, yet have still failed to produce a reference code; you have conflated the terms "as close as possible" and "as close as practicable", and decided for yourself what is "practicable".  The fact is that children are allowed by law and by their parents to ride their bikes on the street, and they do.  The fact is that children tend to weave more than adults, and even adults stray from keeping a straight-line course–sometimes as an avoidance maneuver, and sometimes just because it's hard to keep a straight line.  There's a whole world of motorists out there who expect to encounter cyclists of all ages and abilities, and to accommodate them in their driving.  It's been my experience that most drivers are like that.

Having said all of that, I do agree that cyclists should, by and large, keep to the right.  I certainly do when I ride.  But I often have to ride in the center of the lane just to avoid potholes and the like.  I also must say I find that cyclists who keep toward the middle of the lane are less likely to be cut off or cut close by drivers, so I am quite forgiving of those who choose to ride there.  And you must admit that children have a learning curve; you can't keep them off the street until a certain age and then expect perfection out of them right afterwards.  I was taught by my father how to ride responsibly; I didn't always follow the rules as a kid, but I've learned over time how to be a safe cyclist, to the point where our cycling habits are very similar.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 02:14:01 PM
KP, i don't expect perfection from everyone. No one is perfect. I know that I certainly am not. You may be right that I am in the minority on this issue. And I am certainly not telling you how to raise a child. That's your responsibility. That being said, what is to deter someone who is learning how to be responsible traffic for their actions if there is not a consequence for a poor judgement or decision? For vehicles, you get tickets and higher insurance costs. Some never become responsible parts of traffic and have to continue to pay the consequences. For a cyclist, as far as I know because I sure have never witnessed it, cyclists do not get tickets if they are the cause of an accident. Responsibility is not just on a driver but also pedestrians and cyclists.

That kid that I had referred to, in my eyes, was acting irresponsibly. If i can receive a ticket for not obeying speed limits or signals, then I see no reason why if a cyclist is acting irresponsibly on the road that they do not get a ticket too.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: J N Winkler on August 15, 2012, 03:17:13 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 01:07:34 PMLet me ask you this though getting back to how you cycled when you were in England. If you were in an area that was flat with little to no trees around where they would impede your vision or other traffic's vision, and there were no obstructions in your way using the lane, you would still be as close to the center line when riding down the street with traffic?

The vast majority of mileage I did as a cyclist was in densely built-up urban areas, so the scenario you describe never occurred very often.  Also, not all rural roads are created equal.  I will provide some examples of rural roads I used (normally only for weekend recreation) and describe the strategy I followed for dealing with them.

*  Bicester Road, between the Headington roundabout and the Gosford junction:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.811643,-1.275313&spn=0.003363,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.811643,-1.275313&panoid=GJmD_i87DX1tdnNhPZG_jA&cbp=12,23.95,,0,-0.87

In the time I was living in Oxford, the signing and marking of this road changed, but my strategy for dealing with it as a cyclist did not.  StreetView shows it after the speed limit, originally NSL (which in Britain is 60 MPH for rural dual carriageways), was cut to 40 MPH, and a single hazard stripe (which in Britain is distinguished from the ordinary lane stripe by a very short gap between each dash) was replaced with a cross-hatched marking which is designed to discourage (but not to forbid) overtaking.

You will notice that there is a dual-use cyclist/pedestrian path to the left.  I generally did not use it, and instead cycled in the road proper.  There were two reasons for this:  (1) pedestrians occasionally used the path, and cyclists and pedestrians do not mix; and (2) the connections at the two ends (Headington roundabout and Gosford junction) were very awkward.

When cycling in the road, I usually stayed between two and three feet in front of the curb.  There is no reason for cars to stop aside from an emergency--no properties front directly on this road, although it runs past a housing estate--so my main concern was to stay clear of drain grates.  (In Britain, the norm is to drain down from the gutter, rather than from the side through the curb face.)  Lanes are wide (probably 11' to 12'), so cars could get around me without crowding too far into the oncoming lane.  Since the alignment is straight and level, I had very good visibility to traffic following me.  Even when the speed limit was still NSL, it was uncommon for cars to cruise at 60 MPH because the distance between the junctions is so short.

*  Bicester Road, between the Gosford junction and the Islip/A34 junction roundabout:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.821741,-1.268127&spn=0.003362,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.821679,-1.268198&panoid=nJJwJunkcFjQmaMcWCvr9g&cbp=12,35.43,,0,-0.33

At this location, which is probably slightly less than a mile north of the previous one, the speed limit is NSL but there is an approach treatment for the 40 limit (you will see 40 roundels against yellow backing boards if you pan 180°).  There is a footpath, but only on the left side as you go north, and I think cyclists are banned from using it.  (In Britain, unlike the US where attitudes toward cyclist use of sidewalks are far more permissive, cyclists are banned by law from using footpaths unless there are signs and signals indicating that cyclists are permitted specifically.)  In any case, the signs are too low for cyclists to use the footpath in safety--signs in Britain are positioned very close to the traveled way (or, in the case of roads with open drainage, to the back of the shoulder or hard strip) because rights of way are typically too narrow to allow signs to be positioned outside the clear zone but still within the right of way.

I followed the same rule for positioning myself that I did further south, but I was very aware that I was more of an obstacle to following traffic because traffic volumes are heavier and the unit lane width is probably a foot less.

*  Kidlington Road, midway between Islip and the A34 interchange:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.823433,-1.255306&spn=0.003362,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.823433,-1.255306&panoid=XguQF3zcZ7HsZKKYaXeLVA&cbp=12,142.02,,0,8.95

This road is subject to a 60 MPH NSL but has no striping and very little of the traffic actually goes anywhere close to 60, because (1) there are bends, (2) there is no delineation, (3) bends in Britain are not always signed, and (4) use of advisory speed limits on bends in Britain is very much the exception rather than the norm as in the USA.  Unit lane width is also fairly low.  Most drivers on a road like this will probably choose a speed between 30 and 40 MPH (the precise speed depends on how far into a bend the driver can see and the driver's personal tolerance of side friction demand).

This road, like most low-volume rural roads in England which are not single-lane roads (called "country lanes," more as specific code for a one-lane cross section rather than as a general term for roads which happen to be in the countryside), has turf curbs and grate-covered gutter drains which feed into deep and narrow ditches which begin two to three feet behind the curb on either side.  You don't want to try to pull off onto the verge on this type of road--if one of your wheels winds up overhanging the ditch, you will be beached like a whale, and will need serious help getting back onto the paved road surface.  For this reason, drivers will expect any car that has to stop for an emergency to actually stop within the road, blocking one of the traffic lanes, and will therefore avoid choosing speeds too high to allow them to stop within the length of road that is actually visible to them.

As a cyclist I generally cycled one-third to one-half of the way into the lane on roads like this.  Speeds were low enough overall that there was not a large speed differential between the cars and me, and lane positioning relatively far from the curb made me more visible to traffic following me into a left-hand bend.

*  The A34 between Islip and the M40 interchange:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.84571,-1.235146&spn=0.013442,0.038581&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.84571,-1.235146&panoid=QttopSxBJxprAacTFj8CnQ&cbp=12,49.27,,0,5.61

StreetView shows the A34 after the application of a noise-suppressing asphalt overlay.  Previously, the running surface of this length of the A34 (completed in 1991 as part of the M40 construction program) was continuously reinforced Portland cement concrete.  There was a shoulder stripe but no chevron markings on the shoulder; previously it was possible to cycle down the A34 on the shoulder, without influencing vehicle position in the left-hand lane provided you stayed within a foot or so of the edge drain, as I did.  I suspect the chevron markings have been applied to discourage shoulder cycling, since the only area of the shoulder that is free from these markings is far too close to the traffic lane, while in Britain thermoplastic markings are laid down thickly enough that it is impossible to cycle on them without an annoying clip-clop-clip-clop sensation.

Shoulder cycling, as well as cyclist use of rural dual carriageways in general, is technically legal in Britain, though there are differences of opinion as to whether to encourage it by providing facilitated crossings of slip roads for cyclists, as has been done on (e.g.) the Newbury Bypass length of A34:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.413514,-1.351608&spn=0.003393,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.413376,-1.351785&panoid=3pFDSmGz1yBz_WkYC5PqaA&cbp=12,194.75,,0,16.29

The NSL for rural dual carriageways--which applies to the A34--is 70 MPH.  Most traffic moving on the A34 is doing at least 70.  (On motorways, for which the NSL is also 70 MPH but which are not open to cyclists, 19% of traffic is going faster than 80.)  However, on dual carriageways which are not motorways, drivers are expected to be prepared for slow-moving vehicles that can legally use all-purpose roads.  This includes not just cyclists but also slow-moving powered vehicles such as farm machinery, and even horse-drawn vehicles (which can be, but usually are not, prohibited by making the appropriate orders and erecting signs).

*  The A34 between Abingdon and Oxford:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Islip,+Oxfordshire&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Islip,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.712017,-1.255073&spn=0.013482,0.038581&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.712017,-1.255073&panoid=nh3FWz2uU53N9aV0huQszQ&cbp=12,359.73,,0,1.94

The one time I cycled on this portion of the A34, which is a much older length of dual carriageway that opened in the mid- to late 1960's at a time when the norm was for interurban dual carriageways to have hard strips instead of full hard shoulders, I had to stick to the asphalt-paved hard strip in order to stay clear of the concrete drainage channel, which was unsuitable for cycling.  It is an experience I have never been keen to repeat.

QuoteI can see where one would think that would be the safest spot for a cyclist but at the same time it would be upsetting vehicles behind you that if there was solid oncoming traffic, they could not pass you.

There is some risk of upset but, on the other hand, drivers have to be prepared to accommodate other road users' legal use of the road.  You could make a similar argument about horse-drawn vehicles, for example, which are even slower and more difficult to pass than cyclists, but they have just as much right to be on the road as cyclists and cars.  And, as the examples I have provided show, drivers are not delayed by cyclists that much unless there are deficiencies in alignment and width which limit capacity and can easily force drivers to slow down for other reasons.

QuoteI look at it as a function of speed too. A cyclist will most likely have a top maintain speed of what? 35 mph or so? If you are out on a rural road that has a lot of traffic, the vehicle speed would be expected to be 55 or 65 depending on where you were.  Think of it like being on an expressway. You have signs posted for a speed limit of 65 with a minimum of 45. That driver who is doing 45 in a 65 would be more of a hazard if he was in the left lane as opposed to the right lane.  Wouldn't that be a similar function for a cyclist who is riding down the middle of the lane?

I think for most cyclists the maximum speed they can sustain in level terrain with no headwinds is about 20 MPH--and this assumes correct sizing of the bicycle frame and correct adjustment of seat height.  (This is not always easy to do.  In Oxford "off the rack" frame size at the bicycle shops was 21" and I always had to special-order a 23" frame.)  I was a fairly fast cyclist and I don't think I ever got much above 20 on a regular basis.

But no cyclist I know ever goes straight down the middle of the lane everywhere.  Cyclists have to read the road and choose their strategies for lane positioning accordingly, just as drivers do, though naturally cyclists and drivers apply somewhat different rules because the spatial envelopes and dynamic characteristics of their respective vehicles are somewhat different.

By the way, minimum speed limits of the kind encountered on US freeways are almost unknown in Britain.  There is a standard sign for a minimum speed limit but it is hardly ever used.  In Britain the culture has traditionally been very much against putting numbers on signs where drivers can misinterpret them as an implicit guarantee that a given numerical speed is safe, necessary, or proper.  This is why speed zoning in rural areas has been very rare (until recently), and also why you are expected to read curves for yourself rather than being nursemaided by advisory speed signs.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 04:02:27 PM
BTW, as I was reading this, I was having a visual hearing of Jeremy Clarkson reading it. Anyway...

Winkler, that was quite enlightening. I had some ideas of what roadways looked like in England from watching programs like Top Gear, but it certainly puts a better prospective on what road conditions look safe and not safe.

The image of A34 between Islip and M40, on the shoulder lane between the chevron marked lane and the vehicle traffic lane, are those rumble stripes in there? I also wonder why does the A34 have a mix of a gravel and paved shoulder? Is that for water run off for a rainstorm? Or is that pretty standard for a Carriageway that starts A-XX? Are the Motorways similar in their standards as well?

I can also understand why there is no minimum speed limit sign for the reason you provided. It makes sense. The minimum speed limit signs, at least in Illinois, are mainly in urban areas and on the tollways. The free interstates in the rural areas rarely have them posted.

The 2nd image of Bicester Rd reminds me much of the stories my grandfather would tell me about him learning how to drive around the rural parts of Beverly (north of Hull).

Anyway, thank you for the British insight.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on August 15, 2012, 04:08:34 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 02:14:01 PM
KP, i don't expect perfection from everyone. No one is perfect. I know that I certainly am not. You may be right that I am in the minority on this issue. And I am certainly not telling you how to raise a child. That's your responsibility. That being said, what is to deter someone who is learning how to be responsible traffic for their actions if there is not a consequence for a poor judgement or decision? For vehicles, you get tickets and higher insurance costs. Some never become responsible parts of traffic and have to continue to pay the consequences. For a cyclist, as far as I know because I sure have never witnessed it, cyclists do not get tickets if they are the cause of an accident. Responsibility is not just on a driver but also pedestrians and cyclists.

That kid that I had referred to, in my eyes, was acting irresponsibly. If i can receive a ticket for not obeying speed limits or signals, then I see no reason why if a cyclist is acting irresponsibly on the road that they do not get a ticket too.

Cyclists will (and have) most certainly be ticketed for traffic violations.  It's all in the enforcement. 

Of all the violations perpetrated by motorists, what percentage would you estimate are actually are punished.  Hell, how many times have *you* broken a traffic law in a car and gotten away with it?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
Special K, i know what the consequences are for my actions when I drive. Do I speed? If I am on a freeway and I am going with the flow of traffic that is also speeding, then yes I am guilty of that. But maintaining a speed with the rest of the traffic is a heck of a lot safer than driving 50 when everyone else is doing 65.

When it comes to a stop sign or a signal, i do not break that law.

Post Merge: August 15, 2012, 06:51:24 PM

And like I said, I have never seen a cyclist get a ticket for running a red light. But it happens a hell of a lot of times in Chicago.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: US71 on August 15, 2012, 04:23:51 PM
I'm wondering how many communities treat cyclists as second class citizens?  I've been involved in 2 cycle-auto accidents in my life and both times, the auto driver was not charged.

The first time was a deliberate hit and run, but the schoolyard bully. I reported it to the police along with a vehicle description & tag number and was told "If we didn't see it, it didn't happen".

The second time was someone going the wrong way on a One Way Street: the person hitting me claimed she didn't know it was One Way (despite all the One Way and Do Not Enter at the intersection), so she was not ticketed.





Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 15, 2012, 05:14:43 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 02:14:01 PM
KP, i don't expect perfection from everyone. No one is perfect. I know that I certainly am not. You may be right that I am in the minority on this issue. And I am certainly not telling you how to raise a child. That's your responsibility. That being said, what is to deter someone who is learning how to be responsible traffic for their actions if there is not a consequence for a poor judgement or decision? For vehicles, you get tickets and higher insurance costs. Some never become responsible parts of traffic and have to continue to pay the consequences. For a cyclist, as far as I know because I sure have never witnessed it, cyclists do not get tickets if they are the cause of an accident. Responsibility is not just on a driver but also pedestrians and cyclists.

That kid that I had referred to, in my eyes, was acting irresponsibly. If i can receive a ticket for not obeying speed limits or signals, then I see no reason why if a cyclist is acting irresponsibly on the road that they do not get a ticket too.

I think it is implicit in the system that motorists have a greater responsibility than do cyclists and pedestrians.  It's understood that cars can do a lot more damage than bicycles, and it is for this reason that one must wait until a certain age and pass various tests in order to get a driver's license whereas no such criteria are in force to ride a bicycle.  I'm not suggesting that cyclists and pedestrians (or someone riding a horse, etc.) should be oblivious to their surroundings.  But I am suggesting that the level of responsibility is not equal between different modes of transportation, and that it should be fairly commonsense (perhaps even intuitive) that this is the case.

On your second point:  I know a man who received a DUI less than three weeks ago–for drinking and cycling.  I once knew a man who was pulled over on his bicycle for going 31 mph in a 30 mph zone–but that was because the officer wanted to know how he could ride that fast, not because he wanted to issue a speeding ticket.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 05:42:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 15, 2012, 05:14:43 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 02:14:01 PM
KP, i don't expect perfection from everyone. No one is perfect. I know that I certainly am not. You may be right that I am in the minority on this issue. And I am certainly not telling you how to raise a child. That's your responsibility. That being said, what is to deter someone who is learning how to be responsible traffic for their actions if there is not a consequence for a poor judgement or decision? For vehicles, you get tickets and higher insurance costs. Some never become responsible parts of traffic and have to continue to pay the consequences. For a cyclist, as far as I know because I sure have never witnessed it, cyclists do not get tickets if they are the cause of an accident. Responsibility is not just on a driver but also pedestrians and cyclists.

That kid that I had referred to, in my eyes, was acting irresponsibly. If i can receive a ticket for not obeying speed limits or signals, then I see no reason why if a cyclist is acting irresponsibly on the road that they do not get a ticket too.

I think it is implicit in the system that motorists have a greater responsibility than do cyclists and pedestrians.  It's understood that cars can do a lot more damage than bicycles, and it is for this reason that one must wait until a certain age and pass various tests in order to get a driver's license whereas no such criteria are in force to ride a bicycle.  I'm not suggesting that cyclists and pedestrians (or someone riding a horse, etc.) should be oblivious to their surroundings.  But I am suggesting that the level of responsibility is not equal between different modes of transportation, and that it should be fairly commonsense (perhaps even intuitive) that this is the case.

On your second point:  I know a man who received a DUI less than three weeks ago–for drinking and cycling.  I once knew a man who was pulled over on his bicycle for going 31 mph in a 30 mph zone–but that was because the officer wanted to know how he could ride that fast, not because he wanted to issue a speeding ticket.
On your first point, i can see that being the mentality since cars can do more damage than a bicycle. However, if you compare that frame of mind with a car vs a train, the car is always held more responsible because they can manuver better. Trains, unless there is like a derailment or negligence on the part of the engineer, never have that responsibility despite the fact that trains vs vehicle crashes more times than not has the car driver killed and not the engineer.  And yes over 90% of train vs car crashes as because the driver ignored the warning signals and gates. But I see your point.
Secondly, a DUI on a bicycle could also be under the statutes about public intoxication. I once saw on Police Videos a guy down in Georgia who was riding his John Deere lawnmower down the street while he was drunk. He was also given a DUI ticket.

But I have never seen a cyclist get a ticket for running a red light or not stopping for a stop sign.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Zmapper on August 15, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
I recall stating that the Fort Collins police have only issued two "BUI" summons within the last five years, yet easily 100 DUI summons. Generally while a drunk person on a bicycle is not considered ideal, it is considered better than having them behind the wheel where he could cause more damage. The last thing they want is someone who gets a BUI thinking that they would be safer and less likely to detect behind the wheel of a car.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Alps on August 15, 2012, 06:52:48 PM
Drunken bicycling is dangerous for the cyclist. While it's a lesser danger than driving a car, it's still a danger and ought to be discouraged. Drunks should *walk, *take a taxi/bus, or *get picked up/driven.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Zmapper on August 15, 2012, 07:01:20 PM
Ideally they should do that Steve, but oftentimes transit is non-existent, few of their friends drive, and it is too far to walk. In the end, it ends up being a choice between the lesser of two evils: do you bike home drunk or drive home drunk? Having them bike is far from ideal, but it is miles better than having them drive.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Alps on August 16, 2012, 08:33:41 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on August 15, 2012, 07:01:20 PM
Ideally they should do that Steve, but oftentimes transit is non-existent, few of their friends drive, and it is too far to walk. In the end, it ends up being a choice between the lesser of two evils: do you bike home drunk or drive home drunk? Having them bike is far from ideal, but it is miles better than having them drive.
The nearest good bar is 4.5 miles. I've thought of biking, but decided that having to negotiate any type of hill on a bike while drunk may not be the best idea. (Also, the back roads can get kinda dark.) I drunk biked once - in NYC, no less - and had a few close calls with falling down. And that was far from smashed.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on August 16, 2012, 11:31:56 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 15, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
Special K, i know what the consequences are for my actions when I drive. Do I speed? If I am on a freeway and I am going with the flow of traffic that is also speeding, then yes I am guilty of that. But maintaining a speed with the rest of the traffic is a heck of a lot safer than driving 50 when everyone else is doing 65.

When it comes to a stop sign or a signal, i do not break that law.

Post Merge: August 15, 2012, 06:51:24 PM

And like I said, I have never seen a cyclist get a ticket for running a red light. But it happens a hell of a lot of times in Chicago.

I've never seen a motorist ticketed for running a red, either.  So, what does that tell you?

Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Scott5114 on August 17, 2012, 12:23:38 AM
Motorists and cyclists tend to run reds in different ways, though. A motorist usually runs the red by passing through the intersection at the end of yellow or the first few seconds of red. Seldom have I seen someone just blow through a red light that has been displaying that aspect for longer than that. When I have seen cyclists run a red, it was two minutes or so into the red cycle; they passed by all the cars sitting at the light and just went through the intersection.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: J N Winkler on August 17, 2012, 01:56:52 PM
Running a red light is a strict-liability offense:  it is against the law, no matter when it happens and no matter what the circumstances are.  However, it is possible to distinguish between irresponsible and responsible law-breaking.  A cyclist running a red light in a responsible fashion will, before he or she enters the intersection, check that there is no conflicting traffic and that his running the red light will not inconvenience any other road users by forcing them to change speed or direction.

Here are a couple of scenarios in which cyclists running red lights (in, it must be stressed, a responsible fashion) is relatively benign:

*  All-red pedestrian crossing phase where the pedestrian call is wasted (i.e., the pedestrian crossed without waiting for the walk signal) and there is no foot traffic in the cyclist's path that seeks to take advantage of the red phase to cross away from the crosswalk

*  Traffic coming out of the cross road has a protected left turn and the cyclist wishes to turn right without stopping

I think that while there are a few bad-apple cyclists whose approach to lawbreaking is irresponsible to the point of being suicidal or deathly dangerous to pedestrians, motorists in general tend to underestimate the extent to which cyclists' lawbreaking is, in fact, responsible.  Much responsible lawbreaking, though not all of it, results from a failure to adapt either the infrastructure or the rules of the road to the needs and abilities of cyclists.  In regard to illegal turns on red, for example, the Dutch have experimented with intersection designs which give cyclists a free right turn on red, which is otherwise illegal in the Netherlands since there is no provision for RTOR after full stop.

This is not to say, however, that there are not potentially serious problems even with responsible lawbreaking.  First, because running a red light is a strict-liability offense, you can be ticketed even if the officer accepts your argument that you were doing it in a relatively safe way.  Second, if you try to carry out a maneuver responsibly and get caught out because of a circumstance you failed to anticipate, the fact that you were breaking the law means you cannot escape civil liability by claiming you were exercising due care.  (One possible example of this is deciding to run a red light at a pedestrian crossing where a car is already waiting at the stop line, not realizing that the car prevents you from seeing a baby in a stroller until you have run over the baby.)  Third, when you choose to break the law, even if you are determined to do so responsibly, you put yourself on a collision course with other road users who themselves choose to break the law on the assumption that you will comply with it.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: wphiii on August 17, 2012, 02:10:02 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2012, 12:15:19 PM

For these two reasons, my usual practice when cycling on the street in Wichita (something I have not done for over 20 years now) was to choose collectors (which in most parts of the city run through subdivisions loosely parallel to the arterials) for covering distance, and stay generally clear of arterials except for short connections.  All of the cyclist fatalities I have seen reported in the Eagle in the past few years have involved cycle travel on an arterial,

Someone gets it!

Here in Pittsburgh, there's been a rash of serious accidents involving cyclists on, you guessed it, a 4-lane, 35mph major artery. There are multiple alternative options on parallel side streets, which are 25 mph and largely residential, either wide two-lane or no center line at all. Yet the bicycling community shrilly insists it's going to keep biking on this major artery because WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO, GOD DAMMIT.

It's really a shame, this bicycle vs. car dichotomy has gotten so polarized that cyclists are refusing to even consider that there's a perfectly viable common sense solution right under their nose that requires no adding of infrastructure. Instead, it's all about this misplaced sense of entitlement, or pride, or whatever it is.

Of course you have a RIGHT to bike wherever you want. That doesn't make it the most intelligent course of action.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 17, 2012, 02:16:02 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 17, 2012, 01:56:52 PM
*  Traffic coming out of the cross road has a protected left turn and the cyclist wishes to turn right without stopping

that could be dangerous.  a U-turning driver has the right of way in that situation.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 17, 2012, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 17, 2012, 12:23:38 AM
Motorists and cyclists tend to run reds in different ways, though. A motorist usually runs the red by passing through the intersection at the end of yellow or the first few seconds of red. Seldom have I seen someone just blow through a red light that has been displaying that aspect for longer than that.
I see this all the time with a right on red.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Scott5114 on August 17, 2012, 08:18:26 PM
I didn't mention right on red. I think the issue there is that most people seem to feel coming to a complete stop on red is unnecessary, as at most intersections sight lines are good enough that you can ascertain whether conflicting traffic exists before reaching the stop bar.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hobsini2 on August 17, 2012, 08:22:51 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 17, 2012, 12:23:38 AM
Motorists and cyclists tend to run reds in different ways, though. A motorist usually runs the red by passing through the intersection at the end of yellow or the first few seconds of red. Seldom have I seen someone just blow through a red light that has been displaying that aspect for longer than that. When I have seen cyclists run a red, it was two minutes or so into the red cycle; they passed by all the cars sitting at the light and just went through the intersection.
In my experience here in Chicago, it's worse than that. I have seen cyclists hit pedestrians walking across the street when the pedestrian had the walk signal.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: citrus on August 17, 2012, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 17, 2012, 08:18:26 PM
I didn't mention right on red. I think the issue there is that most people seem to feel coming to a complete stop on red is unnecessary, as at most intersections sight lines are good enough that you can ascertain whether conflicting traffic exists before reaching the stop bar.

Most people would probably be wrong. I've been hit, as a pedestrian, twice at an intersection near UCSD in San Diego where a car turning right on red did not notice me, and I had a walk signal.

Now that I moved to San Francisco, it seems like bikes, pedestrians, taxis, and buses (and to a lesser extent, cars) generally do whatever they want, and aside from a few incidents (like the bicyclist hitting and killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk mentioned further upthread), most of us have reached a tacit agreement not to complain about it very much.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Brandon on August 18, 2012, 07:43:41 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 17, 2012, 08:22:51 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 17, 2012, 12:23:38 AM
Motorists and cyclists tend to run reds in different ways, though. A motorist usually runs the red by passing through the intersection at the end of yellow or the first few seconds of red. Seldom have I seen someone just blow through a red light that has been displaying that aspect for longer than that. When I have seen cyclists run a red, it was two minutes or so into the red cycle; they passed by all the cars sitting at the light and just went through the intersection.
In my experience here in Chicago, it's worse than that. I have seen cyclists hit pedestrians walking across the street when the pedestrian had the walk signal.

Yep.  I've had to dodge them just as much as the cars, but I've never had to dodge a car on the sidewalk.  Had to dodge bicyclists though, not the run of the mill out-for-a-ride type, but the fully dressed in spandex type.  Some of the nuts ride anywhere and however they please.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 18, 2012, 10:33:08 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 17, 2012, 02:16:02 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 17, 2012, 01:56:52 PM
*  Traffic coming out of the cross road has a protected left turn and the cyclist wishes to turn right without stopping

that could be dangerous.  a U-turning driver has the right of way in that situation.

How many places allow U turns everywhere?  In NY at least, they're illegal except on certain divided highways (generally those constructed in the last 10-15 years).
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 18, 2012, 12:30:00 PM
Quote from: wphiii on August 17, 2012, 02:10:02 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2012, 12:15:19 PM

For these two reasons, my usual practice when cycling on the street in Wichita (something I have not done for over 20 years now) was to choose collectors (which in most parts of the city run through subdivisions loosely parallel to the arterials) for covering distance, and stay generally clear of arterials except for short connections.  All of the cyclist fatalities I have seen reported in the Eagle in the past few years have involved cycle travel on an arterial,

Someone gets it!

Here in Pittsburgh, there's been a rash of serious accidents involving cyclists on, you guessed it, a 4-lane, 35mph major artery. There are multiple alternative options on parallel side streets, which are 25 mph and largely residential, either wide two-lane or no center line at all. Yet the bicycling community shrilly insists it's going to keep biking on this major artery because WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO, GOD DAMMIT.

It's really a shame, this bicycle vs. car dichotomy has gotten so polarized that cyclists are refusing to even consider that there's a perfectly viable common sense solution right under their nose that requires no adding of infrastructure. Instead, it's all about this misplaced sense of entitlement, or pride, or whatever it is.

Of course you have a RIGHT to bike wherever you want. That doesn't make it the most intelligent course of action.

While it is possible to use minor streets to get from A to B in many cities (Wichita included), I should point out a few things about it:

1. It is usually impossible or very impractical to completely avoid arterials, because minor streets tend to dead-end at rivers, canals, railroads, large industrial buildings, and the like.  At some point, you're still probably going to end up on an arterial for a short while anyway.

2. To avoid arterials for more than about two miles or so requires an extensive knowledge of the street grid, unless you're able to stay on just one or two streets the whole way.  A cyclist may therefore have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of (a) having to remember five or six turns while avoiding traffic and (b) having a simple route that involves traffic.

3. Some streets blur the line between minor and arterial.  One block from my house is Edgemoor, which ranges from wide two lanes to four lanes with no shoulder.  Closest to my house, it is four lanes with no shoulder, yet keeps a 30 mph limit.  Until very recently, it had terrible potholes in the right lane in both directions, and cyclists commonly rode in the middle of the lane.  Traffic was light enough, though, that it never really caused any problems.  (They have now paved over the potholes, so it's practicable to ride closer to the curb.)

Quote from: hobsini2 on August 17, 2012, 08:22:51 PM
In my experience here in Chicago, it's worse than that. I have seen cyclists hit pedestrians walking across the street when the pedestrian had the walk signal.

My experience in the Chicago area has shown me that motorists ignore pedestrians just as much (or more) than cyclists do.  I can remember more than one time that I nearly got run down by a car when I was crossing the street legally.  Whenever possible, I rap my knuckles one time against the fender to say "Hey, look, a pedestrian you just cut off".  Once, a driver drove around the block to make sure they didn't injure me.  Another time, the driver got out of the car, swore at me, and attempted to pick a fight.

Quote from: deanej on August 18, 2012, 10:33:08 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 17, 2012, 02:16:02 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 17, 2012, 01:56:52 PM
*  Traffic coming out of the cross road has a protected left turn and the cyclist wishes to turn right without stopping

that could be dangerous.  a U-turning driver has the right of way in that situation.

How many places allow U turns everywhere?  In NY at least, they're illegal except on certain divided highways (generally those constructed in the last 10-15 years).

I think it's fairly common to allow U turns at least at signalized intersections.  However, I suspect that, in the situarion described, U-turning drivers would be required to yield to all other traffic, while cyclists would also be required to yield to all other traffic.  Not sure about who would most commonly have the right of way there.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 19, 2012, 10:51:03 AM
Aren't cyclists almost always local, and would therefore have knowledge of the streets?

And to those who defend jaywalking, my family just had a bad experience with a couple people who did the "responsible" jaywalking you say is OK: we were turning left from Elmwood Ave to Winton Road in Twelve Corners, which is a pretty busy area with lots of lights and traffic, so it's nearly impossible to make a left turn outside of the protected phase.  After the light for Winton went red, the pedestrians start jaywalking across (very slowly, I might add; it probably took them a whole minute to cross), probably assuming that Elmwood go green right after.  Of course, as anyone who actually knows the area can tell you, it didn't; it entered the protected left phase for both directions.  We had to sit there in the intersection, even though we had the right of way, for a VERY long time waiting for them to cross.  By the time there was just barely enough room to make the turn, the protected phase was very nearly over.  Thankfully there weren't any cars behind us, because they would have had to wait five minutes for the next protected phase to make a turn (it was still early enough for there to be a ton of traffic).  Thank god that protected phase is so long.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 19, 2012, 11:57:59 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 19, 2012, 10:51:03 AM
Aren't cyclists almost always local, and would therefore have knowledge of the streets?
I couldn't tell you which residential streets on the other side of Orlando go through and which dead end.

Quote from: deanej on August 19, 2012, 10:51:03 AM
And to those who defend jaywalking, my family just had a bad experience with a couple people who did the "responsible" jaywalking you say is OK [...]

First, when I jaywalk I cross quickly. If I'm unfamiliar with the intersection, I wait a bit to discern the traffic light phases. And if I'm wrong and a protected phase comes on, I'll wait in the middle for the queue to clear. If you'd ticket me for this, you're a douchebag.

Second, you got delayed a bit. That's part of driving. You'd rather have peds wait for what is most of the time an unnecessary walk signal rather than risk delaying a motorist. Sounds like a pro-car nazi to me.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Riverside Frwy on August 19, 2012, 12:41:33 PM
Reading this thread was hilarious. NE2 and agentsteel made the thread.  :-D
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 19, 2012, 01:51:30 PM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on August 19, 2012, 12:41:33 PM
NE2 and agentsteel made the thread.  :-D
Hell naw. I'd never make such a shitty thread.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 19, 2012, 10:36:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 19, 2012, 11:57:59 AM

First, when I jaywalk I cross quickly. If I'm unfamiliar with the intersection, I wait a bit to discern the traffic light phases. And if I'm wrong and a protected phase comes on, I'll wait in the middle for the queue to clear. If you'd ticket me for this, you're a douchebag.
Well, these guys didn't do that.
Quote
Second, you got delayed a bit. That's part of driving. You'd rather have peds wait for what is most of the time an unnecessary walk signal rather than risk delaying a motorist. Sounds like a pro-car nazi to me.
What if someone had been behind us?  They would have been delayed a lot more than a bit!

Why do peds get magical priority in your mind when it comes to who gets delayed?  You keep saying that peds should never have to wait, but if I say that peds shouldn't impede traffic, I'm a pro-car nazi apparently.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on August 20, 2012, 07:22:12 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 19, 2012, 10:36:50 PM
You keep saying that peds should never have to wait
Nope.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on August 20, 2012, 09:04:22 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 19, 2012, 10:36:50 PM
Well, these guys didn't do that.

You know, these things happen on occasion.  A rare incident shouldn't ruin a perfectly logical practice for the rest of us.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 20, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 19, 2012, 10:51:03 AM
Aren't cyclists almost always local, and would therefore have knowledge of the streets?

I don't know what streets dead-end and which ones go through on just the other side of Kellogg, one mile from my house.  Being a local doesn't mean you know every street in a five-mile radius.  It would also require you to know the quality of the pavement of said side streets, to know if they're even worth riding on.  Choosing between patchwork and potholes on the minor streets and a fairly smooth surface on the arterial streets is something I do regularly; especially when carrying groceries or a child in back of me, both options have their pros and cons.

I should also point out that many people cycle for exercise, for their own physical well being.  Many own cars yet choose to cycle to work in order to live a healthier lifestyle.  Taking side streets to avoid traffic usually (though not always) means cycling at a slower speed, and thus reduces the benefit to this type of cyclist.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 20, 2012, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Special K on August 20, 2012, 09:04:22 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 19, 2012, 10:36:50 PM
Well, these guys didn't do that.

You know, these things happen on occasion.  A rare incident shouldn't ruin a perfectly logical practice for the rest of us.
Tell that to all the politicians who make laws over one incident.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Special K on August 20, 2012, 01:04:53 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 20, 2012, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Special K on August 20, 2012, 09:04:22 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 19, 2012, 10:36:50 PM
Well, these guys didn't do that.

You know, these things happen on occasion.  A rare incident shouldn't ruin a perfectly logical practice for the rest of us.
Tell that to all the politicians who make laws over one incident.

Well, I... wut?
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 20, 2012, 01:31:11 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 18, 2012, 10:33:08 AM
How many places allow U turns everywhere?  In NY at least, they're illegal except on certain divided highways (generally those constructed in the last 10-15 years).

in most states, they are allowed unless explicitly forbidden by a sign at a given intersection.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 21, 2012, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: Special K on August 20, 2012, 01:04:53 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 20, 2012, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Special K on August 20, 2012, 09:04:22 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 19, 2012, 10:36:50 PM
Well, these guys didn't do that.

You know, these things happen on occasion.  A rare incident shouldn't ruin a perfectly logical practice for the rest of us.
Tell that to all the politicians who make laws over one incident.

Well, I... wut?
You see it everywhere!  Some examples:
-Some people aren't responsible about swimming; therefore, all swimming outside of home pools is banned unless a lifegaurd is present
-Sometimes you need to stop at residential intersections, and some motorists aren't responsible enough to stop; therefore, a 4-way stop gets put in where all motorists need to stop all the time no matter what
-This one is only based on a false theory: The road is safe for speed X, but if we set the speed to X, motorists will drive speed X + 20; therefore, the speed limit will be X - 30.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 11:38:31 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 21, 2012, 11:22:18 AM
-Some people aren't responsible about swimming; therefore, all swimming outside of home pools is banned unless a lifegaurd is present

Say what?  Ummm.... Neighborhood pools, hotel pools, lakes, rivers,,,,,,,
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Kacie Jane on August 21, 2012, 11:52:36 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 11:38:31 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 21, 2012, 11:22:18 AM
-Some people aren't responsible about swimming; therefore, all swimming outside of home pools is banned unless a lifegaurd is present

Say what?  Ummm.... Neighborhood pools, hotel pools, lakes, rivers,,,,,,,

And in many locales, you can't swim in any of the above unless a lifeguard is present.  (Except perhaps the hotel, being private property.)
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on August 21, 2012, 01:44:54 PM
Oh, for crying out loud....  I'd say it was time for a great uprising in this country, except everybody has already been docified to point that we no longer mind not being allowed to be [the home of the] brave or [the land of the] free.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: vdeane on August 21, 2012, 03:06:33 PM
Don't move to NY then.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on January 14, 2013, 06:20:39 PM
NECROPOST!!!!   AAAAAGGGHHHH!!!!!!

But I just knew y'all would want to see this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.amuniversal.com%2Fd2c73fc02b5f01300649001dd8b71c47&hash=fb96c23581451aff97b6a5a0de7c2fc9c682d754)
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 06:38:18 PM
We've already discussed this ad nauseam and there's no point in going through the motions again.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on January 14, 2013, 08:36:15 PM
Yes, I would actually be quite happy if nobody picked up the conversation again.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Brandon on January 14, 2013, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2013, 06:20:39 PM
NECROPOST!!!!   AAAAAGGGHHHH!!!!!!

But I just knew y'all would want to see this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.amuniversal.com%2Fd2c73fc02b5f01300649001dd8b71c47&hash=fb96c23581451aff97b6a5a0de7c2fc9c682d754)

Yeah, I had a great laugh at this one this weekend.  It's so true to life with the Critical Mass Dipshits.

Quote from: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 06:38:18 PM
We've already discussed this ad nauseam and there's no point in going through the motions again.

Whatever, Mr. Yawn.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 09:26:52 PM
Yawn yourself.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: hbelkins on January 14, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
So, since we're discussing cyclists, anyone want to talk about Lance Armstrong?  :-D
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 09:35:18 PM
Nah. Bike racing is almost as boring as NASCAR.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2013, 08:13:19 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 14, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
So, since we're discussing cyclists, anyone want to talk about Lance Armstrong?  :-D
I think he finally admitted last night to going thru a stop sign...or something like that!
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: US71 on January 15, 2013, 09:06:41 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2013, 08:13:19 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 14, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
So, since we're discussing cyclists, anyone want to talk about Lance Armstrong?  :-D
I think he finally admitted last night to going thru a stop sign...or something like that!

meh :|
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: Brandon on January 15, 2013, 10:56:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2013, 08:13:19 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 14, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
So, since we're discussing cyclists, anyone want to talk about Lance Armstrong?  :-D
I think he finally admitted last night to going thru a stop sign...or something like that!

He's admitted to doping traffic signals to enhance their green performance?  :spin:
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 12:36:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 14, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
So, since we're discussing cyclists, anyone want to talk about Lance Armstrong?  :-D

I'm okay with him being a dope fiend.  I wish he weren't such a self-absorbed asshole.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: wphiii on January 15, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 12:36:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 14, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
So, since we're discussing cyclists, anyone want to talk about Lance Armstrong?  :-D

I'm okay with him being a dope fiend.  I wish he weren't such a self-absorbed asshole.

Yeah, it's the facade of self-righteousness that has always gotten me.
Title: Re: these special interest groups kill me...
Post by: kphoger on January 15, 2013, 04:31:40 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 12:36:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 14, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
So, since we're discussing cyclists, anyone want to talk about Lance Armstrong?  :-D

I'm okay with him being a dope fiend.  I wish he weren't such a self-absorbed asshole.

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000