http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?s=4934228&clienttype=printable
I came across this article and found it interesting, I've never really considered the concept of speed limits for bikers (likely because I rarely ride a bike). What are everyone's opinion of this? I'm not familiar with the types of bikes people use on trails, but don't they lack speedometers? If that's true, how would you know if you're speeding?
A 'your speed is' installation would solve the problem of lack of speedometers (they do work with bikes; I've tested).
Many of the Minneapolis city trails are 10 mph. I get the idea it's more to have something to charge someone with that's riding reckless, although I do know one person that's gotten a ticket. The spandex and helmet types tend to ride on the parkway rather than the trails, which are more casual bicyclers.
Outside of the racing bicyclists, I didn't think they would need speed limits on the bike paths
Quote from: ET21 on June 05, 2013, 08:23:41 PM
Outside of the racing bicyclists, I didn't think they would need speed limits on the bike paths
So only certain people should be regulated?
I think the system of bike trails near Edwardsville, IL has a limit of 20, but it is only mentioned under rules for use or something similar, never on a speed limit sign.
There's no posted speed limit on the forest preserve trails around here, including the I&M Canal Trail. Of course, most folks don't go much faster than 15 mph on bicycle on the trails anyway.
I see the need in a lot of areas, I deal with a lot of bike traffic (as a pedestrian) in college, bikers there are reckless. It's a great way to make bikers be less reckless and be more mindful of their surroundings.
There's a SPEED LIMIT 20 on the trail along SH 26 in Grapevine, Tx
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.926266,-97.10706&spn=0.000018,0.012531&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.92639,-97.106816&panoid=KmIan3GZ2o_Cv57KlhHiSA&cbp=12,25.59,,1,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.926266,-97.10706&spn=0.000018,0.012531&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.92639,-97.106816&panoid=KmIan3GZ2o_Cv57KlhHiSA&cbp=12,25.59,,1,0)
QuoteI see the need in a lot of areas, I deal with a lot of bike traffic (as a pedestrian) in college, bikers there are reckless. It's a great way to make bikers be less reckless and be more mindful of their surroundings.
Just as with vehicles and drivers, an arbitrary speed limit is not going to change this.
I also keep coming back to bikes not having speedometers. Can't get past that, IMO.
Let's say the limit is 15 mph. You cycle past a "your speed is" installation, and it clocks you at 12 mph. You still have no idea at what point, as you speed up, you top 15 mph.
Now let's say the installation clocks you at 16 mph. What are you supposed to do with that information?memorize which gear ratio you have selected and how fast your pedals are rotating, for future reference?
Since cyclists have no good way, without purchasing a bicycle computer, to know their speed, then I say the signs serve no purpose. In fact, if people assume that they'll never top the posted speed limit, then the signs might even encourage them to keep cycling fast.
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2013, 11:02:30 AM
Let's say the limit is 15 mph. You cycle past a "your speed is" installation, and it clocks you at 12 mph. You still have no idea at what point, as you speed up, you top 15 mph.
If they only enforced it at the locations of those signs (and gave you time to slow down after seeing how fast you're going) it would be reasonable.
Of course the real problem here is not speed but recklessness. Going 25 on an empty straightaway is different from weaving at 25 between nuns walking orphans.
Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2013, 11:09:17 AM
Going 25 on an empty straightaway is different from weaving at 25 between nuns walking orphans.
Maybe orphans should be prohibited on hike/bike paths.
Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2013, 11:09:17 AM
....
Of course the real problem here is not speed but recklessness. Going 25 on an empty straightaway is different from weaving at 25 between nuns walking orphans.
When I've used the W&OD Trail in Northern Virginia (which was the site of an incident last weekend where a presumably drunk driver drove five miles along the trail at high speeds), I've observed that the problems seem to stem from a lack of consideration by all types of users:
–Many pedestrians walk on the left instead of on the right. Some of them claim to do this because of the next point.
–Many cyclists don't provide warning when they approach pedestrians (thus causing some pedestrians to walk on the left because they say they can see approaching cyclists).
No doubt the increased use of earphones simply exacerbates both of the foregoing.
–Often cyclists ride two abreast and don't move over for oncoming pedestrians.
–Mothers with baby strollers like to walk two abreast and often don't move over for anyone.
–Dog-walkers can be unpredictable, as can little kids.
–Cyclists blow through stop signs as though they expect cars to come to a stop (despite not having a stop sign) just because a cyclist is approaching a crossing.
It's always seemed to me that courtesy shouldn't be all that difficult. If you're what a friend of mine calls a "Lance wannabe," maybe you should find a route other than what's promoted as a multi-use trail instead of expecting everyone else to stay out of your way.
But I think froggie is right–an arbitrary speed limit is not a solution to a general lack of regard for other people. It's a general lack of courtesy, or a lack of caring about anyone other than yourself (also a common problem on our roads), that is the real problem. My brother just moved from Fairfax City to Falls Church and he says he's commuted by bike a few times and he finds that the "fuck-you attitude" of the hard-core bike commuters is extremely off-putting. Reminds me of a ski accident Ms1995hoo had a few years back–some punk kid on a snowboard saw her below him but ran into her anyway and then tried to say she should have gotten out of his way (the Skier Responsibility Code at just about every resort puts the onus on the guy further up the hill to avoid people below). He wasn't happy when we flagged down the Ski Patrol and got his lift ticket revoked! His attitude was "I'm on a snowboard and you should hear me coming and get out of the way." BS.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 06, 2013, 12:38:25 PM
(thus causing some pedestrians to walk on the left because they say they can see approaching cyclists).
this does not make sense to me. if a bike is coming up behind me on the path, I will not see it any better regardless of where I am walking.
No, it's that–assuming cyclists are keeping to the right–they're now in the path of oncoming (visible) cyclists instead of overtaking (invisible) cyclists.
My family and I just went jogging on a multi-use path for the first time yesterday evening. I was pushing a stroller with our youngest in it. Our five-year-old sometimes ran and sometimes rode in the stroller too. My wife was jogging. I (with much longer legs) generally just walked very fast to keep up with her. All of us were guilty of walking/jogging two abreast sometimes (it's hard not to want to walk next to your spouse). And yes, my wife had earphones in, because she was following a workout regimen on her phone which told her when to walk and when to jog and played music in between.
I had to remind my son to keep to the right, and he did fairly well (OK, he actually preferred being in the dirt instead of on the pavement). But I wasn't about to chew my wife out. Instead, I just kept looking back to see if any cyclists were approaching.
I think a simple solution is to paint a stripe down the middle, and arrows every so often in the lanes. Most people will abide by that. Much harder to remember to keep right when the path looks basically like a plain old sidewalk.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 05, 2013, 11:41:46 PM
I see the need in a lot of areas, I deal with a lot of bike traffic (as a pedestrian) in college, bikers there are reckless. It's a great way to make bikers be less reckless and be more mindful of their surroundings.
bicyclists need to be issued citations just like motor vehicles.
blow through a stop sign while salmoning up the sidewalk? reckless endangerment; have fun with your newly stamped misdemeanor, asshole.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 06, 2013, 12:38:25 PM
–Many pedestrians walk on the left instead of on the right. Some of them claim to do this because of the next point.
–Many cyclists don't provide warning when they approach pedestrians (thus causing some pedestrians to walk on the left because they say they can see approaching cyclists).
I can see the argument that it's a road for vehicular traffic so you should walk on the left.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 06, 2013, 12:38:25 PM
–Cyclists blow through stop signs as though they expect cars to come to a stop (despite not having a stop sign) just because a cyclist is approaching a crossing.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommuteorlando.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2FSlide18.jpg&hash=005f778a74da67c3c4689cf0bb5942e1c9f8161b)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommuteorlando.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2FSlide26.jpg&hash=69ae191f6ac489a17a12f4291be5a08efc9b3cb9)
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2013/03/31/i-am-traffic-even-on-the-path/
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 12:52:55 PM
bicyclists need to be issued citations just like motor vehicles.
blow through a stop sign while salmoning up the sidewalk? reckless endangerment; have fun with your newly stamped misdemeanor, asshole.
Pedestrians, too.
Cross the street in the left half of the crosswalk? Ticket!
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2013, 01:15:10 PM
Pedestrians, too.
Cross the street in the left half of the crosswalk? Ticket!
they are much more easily avoided, due to their low speed and generally more predictable behavior. furthermore, they are unlikely to be endangering other pedestrians.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2013, 01:15:10 PM
Pedestrians, too.
Cross the street in the left half of the crosswalk? Ticket!
they are much more easily avoided, due to their low speed and generally more predictable behavior. furthermore, they are unlikely to be endangering other pedestrians.
They endanger law-abiding cyclists by their reckless behavior. And some of them have
very unpredictable dogs on leashes. It's anarchy!
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2013, 12:51:10 PM
.... All of us were guilty of walking/jogging two abreast sometimes (it's hard not to want to walk next to your spouse). ...
Agreed, it's usually much more pleasant, and I routinely walk two abreast with my wife–but if I hear a cyclist coming up behind me or if the path is only wide enough for two people and there's someone coming the other way, I move in behind her so the other person need not step off into the dirt. This happens all the time on the path around the lake near our house, for example. Conversely, though, if we encounter people walking two abreast and we've moved into single file and they fail to do so, we usually won't step off into the dirt/mud/goose shit and we'll usually say "excuse me" in a very slightly pointed way.
I have not walked on the W&OD Trail I mentioned earlier in at least 23 years (we walked almost all over it in stages in our teens when we were pursuing the Hiking merit badge as Boy Scouts).
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 06, 2013, 02:14:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2013, 12:51:10 PM
.... All of us were guilty of walking/jogging two abreast sometimes (it's hard not to want to walk next to your spouse). ...
Agreed, it's usually much more pleasant, and I routinely walk two abreast with my wife–but if I hear a cyclist coming up behind me or if the path is only wide enough for two people and there's someone coming the other way, I move in behind her so the other person need not step off into the dirt. This happens all the time on the path around the lake near our house, for example. Conversely, though, if we encounter people walking two abreast and we've moved into single file and they fail to do so, we usually won't step off into the dirt/mud/goose shit and we'll usually say "excuse me" in a very slightly pointed way.
I have not walked on the W&OD Trail I mentioned earlier in at least 23 years (we walked almost all over it in stages in our teens when we were pursuing the Hiking merit badge as Boy Scouts).
Same here. We fall into single file for someone else approaching from either direction. Amusingly, the other person still goes off the pavement for us, even though we've made room. And I do the same thing as you when others don't fall into single file. I've been known to even bump shoulders with the other person as we pass.
the worst is when people walk three abreast. I will not step off the sidewalk for your oh-so-important conversation.
I totally agree (referring to the bikers that have the fuck you attitude) that needs to stop, bikes are considered motor vehicles almost everywhere, and it's about time they start acting like it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 04:00:58 PM
the worst is when people walk three abreast. I will not step off the sidewalk for your oh-so-important conversation.
Amen! And that goes for malls, too!
(is it just me, or is it always slow-moving, heavyset people who insist on walking three abreast?)
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2013, 04:50:23 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 04:00:58 PM
the worst is when people walk three abreast. I will not step off the sidewalk for your oh-so-important conversation.
Amen! And that goes for malls, too!
(is it just me, or is it always slow-moving, heavyset people who insist on walking three abreast?)
I usually find that it's a gaggle of girls that insist on walking three abreast or more.
Quote from: kphoger on June 05, 2013, 10:02:47 PM
Quote from: ET21 on June 05, 2013, 08:23:41 PM
Outside of the racing bicyclists, I didn't think they would need speed limits on the bike paths
So only certain people should be regulated?
That's not what I meant. I just find it interesting that there are actual speed limits set for bicycles.
My bicycle has a speedometer/odometer. I regularly go anywhere from 15-20mph, sometimes keeping a bit higher than 20mph under certain conditions. In California, bicyclists can receive citations, but they don't go onto your record. How could they? You don't need a license to ride. Also don't start the "make them get a license" crap. Licensing hasn't really solved our traffic woes.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 06, 2013, 04:38:11 PM
I totally agree (referring to the bikers that have the fuck you attitude) that needs to stop
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 12:52:55 PM
have fun with your newly stamped misdemeanor, asshole.
Yikes. If we could only prohibit automobile drivers from doing a lazy stop at a stop-sign, or speeding on a residential street, or disregarding other traffic laws. No need to be dicks about it.
That said, the bike paths that I have been on tend to be capped at 15 to 20 MPH, depending on its use. If a path becomes so congested that pedestrians crowd out any free flowing cyclists, then a secondary path should be constructed just for pedestrians - such as what New York City has done with its West Side Highway. But even when I biked on that path in New York City, I was constantly having to shout "BIKE LEFT" (etc.) to the pedestrians who were walking in the marked and signed bike-only lane.
Over on the Little Miami Trail in Ohio, the pavement is about 10' and it can get congested near Loveland and in other small towns. I tend to go about 10-15 MPH, and when I pass pedestrians - usually one or two wide, I shout "BIKE LEFT" as required and necessary. The only time I had any trouble in the years I've biked it is when a group of Amish were blocking the *entire* bike path four wide walking and had no idea what to do when a cyclist approached. People were yelling and shouting since no one could walk through, much less bike through. I had to motion them off into the right side and explain to them the laws and rules. Just be nice and it'll be fine.
I do understand the frustrations with some of the faster cyclists. I (used) to race, so I could easily get my speed on a straight stretch up to 25 MPH easy, but when you have pedestrians and other cyclists to deal with, many of whom just don't have the skill set as a racer, then you create a dangerous situation. Much like dealing with speeding drivers on a freeway - 80 MPH drivers in a 55 MPH zone, it can cause serious issues and injuries. No one wants that. I don't go fast on those bike paths for that reason alone - and reserve my speeds for roadways.
Some of the comments I've seen here are nothing new..."cyclists do this" or "pedestrians do that" and "drivers do all the the above"...etc etc. The bottom line is that EACH mode (driving, cycling, pedestrian) has more than its fair share of users that break the law. You can't say one mode needs to do this or that without including the other two modes.
Another factor is the relative severity of crashes involving the modes. In this aspect, the pedestrian is the most vulnerable, the car driver least vulnerable.
Thirdly, for those states I'm familiar with, laws governing cyclists depend on whether the cyclist is riding in the street/road or on the sidewalk/off-street-path. If the cyclist is in the street, he/she is considered a "motor vehicle" regarding traffic laws. However, if he/she is on the sidewalk, an off-street path, or in a crosswalk, they're considered a "pedestrian" as far as the law is concerned.
What muddies the waters in the specific case of the W&OD is that, while there are stop signs on the trail where it crosses streets that the cyclists are by law supposed to stop at, cyclists who are in the crosswalk are legally considered pedestrians, where they legally have right-of-way over approaching vehicles (a fact often lost on drivers, including and in particular the Loudoun County police)...the exceptions to this being the few places (Lee Hwy in Falls Church, Gallows Rd and I think one or two crossings in Vienna) where the crossing is signal-controlled.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 07, 2013, 12:48:03 AM
Yikes. If we could only prohibit automobile drivers from doing a lazy stop at a stop-sign, or speeding on a residential street, or disregarding other traffic laws. No need to be dicks about it.
fair enough.
but I do maintain that the proportion of bicycle assholes who engage in truly unpredictable behavior (completely blowing a stop sign at 20-30mph, riding opposite the flow of traffic, etc) is much higher than that of motor vehicle assholes.
QuoteI do understand the frustrations with some of the faster cyclists. I (used) to race, so I could easily get my speed on a straight stretch up to 25 MPH easy, but when you have pedestrians and other cyclists to deal with, many of whom just don't have the skill set as a racer, then you create a dangerous situation. Much like dealing with speeding drivers on a freeway - 80 MPH drivers in a 55 MPH zone, it can cause serious issues and injuries. No one wants that. I don't go fast on those bike paths for that reason alone - and reserve my speeds for roadways.
80 in a 55 is much, much,
much less dangerous than 25 through a stop sign. I cannot stress this enough.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 12:01:09 PM
80 in a 55 is much, much, much less dangerous than 25 through a stop sign. I cannot stress this enough.
Depends. Does someone crossing your path think there's enough time because you should be going 55, but you end up having to slam on the brakes?
Quote from: NE2 on June 07, 2013, 03:19:31 PM
Depends. Does someone crossing your path think there's enough time because you should be going 55, but you end up having to slam on the brakes?
normalized as a fraction of total number of encounters... I've had a lot more bikes blatantly run a stop and veer into my path than I've had vehicles cut me off to the point where I've had to react instantly.
Quote from: Brandon on June 06, 2013, 04:56:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2013, 04:50:23 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 04:00:58 PM
the worst is when people walk three abreast. I will not step off the sidewalk for your oh-so-important conversation.
Amen! And that goes for malls, too!
(is it just me, or is it always slow-moving, heavyset people who insist on walking three abreast?)
I usually find that it's a gaggle of girls that insist on walking three abreast or more.
isn't that 6-a-breast? :P
(sorry - had to say it)
Quote
I think a simple solution is to paint a stripe down the middle, and arrows every so often in the lanes. Most people will abide by that. Much harder to remember to keep right when the path looks basically like a plain old sidewalk.
Users of these trails are far to complacent about basic safety. They feel a false sense of safety due to the lack of motor vehicles. Both cyclists and peds need to treat these trails as if they were roads.
Where I live , peds are rather good about getting out of the way of cyclists, once they are aware of their persence.
The biggest safety gripe I have is trail users (both bike and ped) not having lights at night. I ride my bike on these trails at night (with head and tail light, of course) I have nearly hit several peds because they are so stupid that thay think that people can see them walking in pitch dark with no lights whatsoever.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 07, 2013, 03:19:31 PM
Depends. Does someone crossing your path think there's enough time because you should be going 55, but you end up having to slam on the brakes?
normalized as a fraction of total number of encounters... I've had a lot more bikes blatantly run a stop and veer into my path than I've had vehicles cut me off to the point where I've had to react instantly.
Just so we're clear on this... Jake's looking at both situations from his perspective, though he's on opposite sides of each. I assume this is a deliberate attempt to confuse us.
Quote from: froggie on June 07, 2013, 06:21:01 AM
Some of the comments I've seen here are nothing new..."cyclists do this" or "pedestrians do that" and "drivers do all the the above"...etc etc. The bottom line is that EACH mode (driving, cycling, pedestrian) has more than its fair share of users that break the law. You can't say one mode needs to do this or that without including the other two modes.
Another false assumption is that
breaking a law always equals
dangerous; likewise, that all infractions by all persons in all situations on all mode of transportation are equally dangerous.
Quote from: froggie on June 07, 2013, 06:21:01 AM
If the cyclist is in the street, he/she is considered a "motor vehicle" regarding traffic laws. However, if he/she is on the sidewalk, an off-street path, or in a crosswalk, they're considered a "pedestrian" as far as the law is concerned.
AFAIK, a cyclist is only considered a pedestrian in a crosswalk if he's dismounted and is actually walking his bicycle across the street–in which case he is simply a pedestrian who happens to be wheeling a bicycle along with him. Driving on a sidewalk doesn't make a motorist a pedestrian; bicycling on a sidewalk doesn't make a cyclist a pedestrian. Correct me if I'm wrong; your state might have wacky laws about this that I'm not taking into account.
Quote from: froggie on June 07, 2013, 06:21:01 AM
What muddies the waters in the specific case of the W&OD is that, while there are stop signs on the trail where it crosses streets that the cyclists are by law supposed to stop at, cyclists who are in the crosswalk are legally considered pedestrians, where they legally have right-of-way over approaching vehicles (a fact often lost on drivers, including and in particular the Loudoun County police)...the exceptions to this being the few places (Lee Hwy in Falls Church, Gallows Rd and I think one or two crossings in Vienna) where the crossing is signal-controlled.
Again, a cyclist does
not have the right of way facing a STOP sign unless he has dismounted and become a pedestrian. If still on his bicycle, he is obliged to come to a full stop just like any motorized vehicle.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 07, 2013, 03:19:31 PM
Depends. Does someone crossing your path think there's enough time because you should be going 55, but you end up having to slam on the brakes?
normalized as a fraction of total number of encounters... I've had a lot more bikes blatantly run a stop and veer into my path than I've had vehicles cut me off to the point where I've had to react instantly.
I can't think of a single time when a cyclist or pedestrian has caused imminent danger to me, no matter how bad the behavior. As I said up-post, the danger inherent in an infraction by a cyclist is not necessarily equal to the danger inherent in a similar infraction by a motorist.
QuoteAFAIK, a cyclist is only considered a pedestrian in a crosswalk if he's dismounted and is actually walking his bicycle across the street
A misconception of your own. They may do things differently in Kansas, but in the states I'm familiar with, cyclists may ride across the crosswalk and are still legally considered pedestrians regarding traffic laws. That is why I mentioned the specific case of the W&OD and the conflicting situation there.
That said, the National Park Service tends to take the same viewpoint as you: that cyclists must dismount to cross a crosswalk, even if said crosswalk is across a ramp that has been blocked off for years...
Reference to any applicable laws?
Can't get to them while I'm out at sea. Yes, I tried...it's a wonder I can even get to this forum (have to turn off a lot of stuff to do so).
Florida law (probably UVC):
QuoteA person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/316.2065
Quote from: froggie on June 07, 2013, 06:21:01 AM
....
What muddies the waters in the specific case of the W&OD is that, while there are stop signs on the trail where it crosses streets that the cyclists are by law supposed to stop at, cyclists who are in the crosswalk are legally considered pedestrians, where they legally have right-of-way over approaching vehicles (a fact often lost on drivers, including and in particular the Loudoun County police)...the exceptions to this being the few places (Lee Hwy in Falls Church, Gallows Rd and I think one or two crossings in Vienna) where the crossing is signal-controlled.
Let me give an example of one of the places I was thinking of. Here is a Street View image: http://goo.gl/maps/N9gNR This is the corner of Virginia Lane and Shreve Road in Falls Church, Virginia. I work with a guy who lives around the corner from there. Notice the two stop signs on the trail (the one on the far side as seen in this image has a "REQUIRED BY LAW" placard underneath in the place where an "ALL-WAY" placard or the like might appear if the stop sign were on a road). If I come up Shreve Road and I'm preparing to turn right, and I see a cyclist coming down the hill in the distance, I don't necessarily plan to stop for him if I see I should beat him there. The onus is on him to stop. Yet many cyclists fly into an absolute RAGE if a motorist doesn't stop when they're coming down the hill. My colleague has noted that many cyclists go fairly fast down that hill, too.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not about to hit the cyclist if I can avoid it, both because it's wrong to do that and because I don't want to damage my car. I broadsided a car on my bike when I was in college (the driver pulled something akin to the "right hook" when turning into a parking space on McCormick Road at UVA); it was no fun for me and it left a scratch on her door. Cyclists coming down that hill in the Street View are often going a lot faster than I was on McCormick Road, so a collision would be bad news all around. But at the same time, the cyclist has to take some responsibility for his own safety and obey the applicable rules.
My point in my prior comment was simply this: If you're on a bike and you're approaching a stop sign (I emphasize the word "approaching"), and an approaching car is not subject to a stop sign, you have no business blowing through the stop sign on your bike and expecting the car driver to stop for you. When I ride a bike, I stop at red lights and at stop signs. People look at me like I'm a freak for doing it. But wouldn't it be more than a bit hypocritical for me to ignore them when I chastise others for that sort of thing?
Now, to relate this back to the original point of the thread, what I was saying before is that setting speed limits for cyclists isn't really the solution when the problem on many multi-use trails stems from a mutual lack of courtesy and common sense among trail users. In fact I think generalized speed limits for cyclists would probably cause the same problem of overall disregard of such things that we already see on the highways due to generalized under-posting of speed limits. If, on the other hand, either a speed limit or a "SLOW–CONGESTED AREA" type of sign were posted for cyclists in an area where it's truly appropriate, I think it might be more likely to catch cyclists' eye–in other words, keep it RARE and post it only where it's truly an issue instead of trying to make it a blanket rule. (Similar, I suppose, to when you go skiing and the big orange "SLOW" (or "LENTEMENT" in Quebec) signs are normally posted only near the base area or areas where the ski school conducts beginner lessons."
Quote from: NE2 on June 10, 2013, 01:25:48 AM
Florida law (probably UVC):
QuoteA person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/316.2065
Wow, that's incredible! So, since the continuation of the curb line at an intersection with no sidewalks is condsidered an unmarked crosswalk, then the following hypothetcial situation arises:
* A cyclist is riding along a street with no sidewalks;
* He approaches an intersection with STOP signs for the street he's on, but not the cross street;
* He keeps as far right as possible;
* Cross traffic is obligated to yield to
him, even though he has a STOP sign and they don't.
What kind of crazy world is this?
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2013, 01:17:04 PM
I can't think of a single time when a cyclist or pedestrian has caused imminent danger to me, no matter how bad the behavior. As I said up-post, the danger inherent in an infraction by a cyclist is not necessarily equal to the danger inherent in a similar infraction by a motorist.
You've never had a pedestrian or cyclist cut out right in front of you, causing you to brake hard, with a car behind you that might rear end you? Bikes and pedestrians can give you just as many reasons to swerve or brake as other vehicles can. Maybe it's because I've been rear-ended (though because the car approaching behind me failed to notice that I was stopped at a red light, not because of a pedestrian or cyclist), but I'm constantly concerned about the possibility of another car hitting me because I have to avoid someone.
On another note, a few years ago I actually hit a cyclist with my car (he was fine, it was slow speed, walked away after I made sure he was okay) because he blasted out into a street from a mixed-use path right in front of me. It was a similar setup to what 1995hoo describes, but there was a tall (at least 8 ft) row of boxwoods that ran along the path right up to the intersection. I was on the side street, making a right turn after having stopped when the cyclist came barreling out from behind the hedge and right into my front bumper.
The threat of rear-ending is not imminent danger if you're in a car. It's imminent annoyance.
Quote from: NE2 on June 10, 2013, 05:41:00 PM
The threat of rear-ending is not imminent danger if you're in a car. It's imminent annoyance.
the cyclist is in imminent danger
to himself if he bolts out in front of a car which is expecting him to stop at the stop sign.
you're right, to me it is imminent annoyance, having to scrape the fucker off my grille. cyclist lives are worthless.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 10, 2013, 05:27:40 PM
You've never had a pedestrian or cyclist cut out right in front of you, causing you to brake hard, with a car behind you that might rear end you?
Nope.
Quote from: NE2 on June 10, 2013, 05:41:00 PM
The threat of rear-ending is not imminent danger if you're in a car. It's imminent annoyance.
Yep.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2013, 05:46:56 PM
cyclist lives are worthless.
Nope.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2013, 05:46:56 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 10, 2013, 05:41:00 PM
The threat of rear-ending is not imminent danger if you're in a car. It's imminent annoyance.
the cyclist is in imminent danger to himself if he bolts out in front of a car which is expecting him to stop at the stop sign.
you're right, to me it is imminent annoyance, having to scrape the fucker off my grille. cyclist lives are worthless.
I'm a cyclist. You still sure about that statement?
Quote from: sdmichael on June 10, 2013, 06:22:16 PM
I'm a cyclist. You still sure about that statement?
oh, right. second Monday of the month. internet sarcasm propagation turned off.
I was attempting to counter those that were splitting hairs between "danger" and "annoyance". I'm firmly in the camp of wanting to avoid
all accidents.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2013, 06:40:12 PM
I'm firmly in the camp of wanting to avoid all accidents.
liberty vs. security blah blah poolitics
As a cyclist that has been in three collisions - all through the stupidity of other motorists (pulled out in front of, ran into from behind, and a u-turn done in front of), I don't find any humor in the statement. I'm still missing 15 minutes from the evening of December 6, 2011. I find no humor in it, even remotely.
Quote from: NE2 on June 10, 2013, 06:48:29 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2013, 06:40:12 PM
I'm firmly in the camp of wanting to avoid all accidents.
liberty vs. security blah blah poolitics
And where did you read that into Jake's comment, SPUI? I agree that avoiding all accidents is a very good idea.
Quote from: Brandon on June 10, 2013, 07:09:42 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 10, 2013, 06:48:29 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2013, 06:40:12 PM
I'm firmly in the camp of wanting to avoid all accidents.
liberty vs. security blah blah poolitics
And where did you read that into Jake's comment, SPUI? I agree that avoiding all accidents is a very good idea.
Yeah I dunno about political implications, but it's inherently a dumb statement. No one ENJOYS accidents, except lawyers.
Er... he's saying that he wants to decrease accidents by putting more restrictions on people who aren't like him. That's poolitics any hole it comes out.
Quote from: NE2 on June 10, 2013, 07:22:51 PM
Er... he's saying that he wants to decrease accidents by putting more restrictions on people who aren't like him. That's poolitics any hole it comes out.
I'm all in favor of replacing about 90% of stop signs in the US with yields.
I am not in favor of replacing any stop signs with "barge on through at 25mph, paying no attention whatsoever to other traffic".
QuoteI'm firmly in the camp of wanting to avoid all accidents.
I agree with this, in no small part because the cyclist almost always gets the raw end of the deal (I was hit by a car once while biking...lady didn't even see me and kept going, and she had the stop sign). I'd also like to point out that, like with most large "groups", it's a small subset of cyclists, certainly not a majority, that are the type to "blow through" stop signs and red signals without even bothering to look.
Quote from: froggie on June 11, 2013, 02:08:59 PMI'd also like to point out that, like with most large "groups", it's a small subset of cyclists, certainly not a majority, that are the type to "blow through" stop signs and red signals without even bothering to look.
note that there is no corresponding faction* of motor vehicle users with a similar attitude. that is the point I am trying to make.
* okay, fine, there is... luckily, the "meth and drive" crowd is exceedingly rare to the point of being statistically irrelevant.
Quotenote that there is no corresponding faction* of motor vehicle users with a similar attitude.
I understand your point, but I wasn't referring to a specific "faction" either. Perhaps I should have used "percentage" instead of "subset". Yes, the cyclist blow-hards tend to be specific groups (bike orderlies, hard-core commuters, MAMILs), but in my experience the poor behavior isn't limited just to those groups. Likewise, one could argue that there's a "faction" of motor vehicle users, especially regarding driver inattention due to cell phones and text messages.
...or the faction of drivers who believe they are in no way obligated to watch out for cyclists...
Quote from: froggie on June 12, 2013, 05:17:03 AMLikewise, one could argue that there's a "faction" of motor vehicle users, especially regarding driver inattention due to cell phones and text messages.
motor vehicle users seem to exhibit poor driving as a result of inattention. the relevant subset/percentage/faction/etc of bicyclists seem to have a
willful and deliberate attitude towards blowing through intersections. they know exactly what they are doing.
I think faction is a pretty damn accurate descriptor in this case.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 12, 2013, 03:19:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 12, 2013, 05:17:03 AMLikewise, one could argue that there's a "faction" of motor vehicle users, especially regarding driver inattention due to cell phones and text messages.
motor vehicle users seem to exhibit poor driving as a result of inattention. the relevant subset/percentage/faction/etc of bicyclists seem to have a willful and deliberate attitude towards blowing through intersections. they know exactly what they are doing.
I think faction is a pretty damn accurate descriptor in this case.
I'll agree. There's no comparable motorists organization or pedestrian organization to the bicyclists' Critical Mass organization.
Black Panthers.
Oh wait.
QuoteI'll agree. There's no comparable motorists organization or pedestrian organization to the bicyclists' Critical Mass organization.
Critical Mass isn't an organization. It's more of a concept...groups of cyclists getting together to ride through the streets to demonstrate that they can. Really no different in concept than roadgeek meets.
Quote from: froggie on June 13, 2013, 09:11:16 AM
QuoteI'll agree. There's no comparable motorists organization or pedestrian organization to the bicyclists' Critical Mass organization.
Critical Mass isn't an organization. It's more of a concept...groups of cyclists getting together to ride through the streets to demonstrate that they can. Really no different in concept than roadgeek meets.
I'm sure the ones in Chicago would love to hear that, NOT! They act a lot more like an organization, even creating illegal road races along the streets of Chicago, than we do.