these special interest groups kill me...

[Special K]

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.

Why would we take a car to the other side of the street when there's already a Starbucks on *both* sides?

[hobsini2]

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.

[Scott5114]

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".

[english si]

Why 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!

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.

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.

[agentsteel53]

you'd take the car to the other side of the street

of course we would.  that's the side we drive on.

[NE2]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[kphoger]

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.........

[agentsteel53]

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.

who 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.

[NE2]

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.

[english si]

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 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.

[vdeane]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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.

[NE2]

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).

[vdeane]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.