these special interest groups kill me...

[agentsteel53]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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. 

[Special K]

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.

[Special K]

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.

[NE2]

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?

[Alps]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

[NE2]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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".

Is 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.

[agentsteel53]

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. 

next 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. 

[NE2]

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/

[vdeane]

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).

[NE2]

The politically correct consensus. Keep digging.

[route56]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

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:

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.

[NE2]

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.

[Zmapper]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[english si]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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!)

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[D-Dey65]

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.