these special interest groups kill me...

[agentsteel53]

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!

[doorknob60]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.

[hobsini2]

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

[kphoger]

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.

[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".

[kphoger]

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).

[kphoger]

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?

[hobsini2]

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.

[silverback1065]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.

[NE2]

All you're saying is that you want to run our lives according to your car-centric views.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[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.

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?

[NE2]

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?

[kphoger]

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.

"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.

[Alps]

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.

[vdeane]

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...

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 thought that was about TV and media and censorship rather than cars?  At least wikipedia made no mention of a car-centric culture...

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.

[NE2]

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 ...

[Special K]

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.

[Special K]

I 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?

[vdeane]

...

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.

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.

I 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.

[NE2]

...

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.

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?

[english si]

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.

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.