Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / November 2009
Pedalcyclist Fined $400 For Blowing Through a Stop Sign
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Scott in SoCal - 05 Nov 2009 02:54 GMT http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could-cost-santa -ana-student-400/41971/
Bicycle ticket could cost Santa Ana student $400
The new semester had just begun. Oswald Muniz Sanchez was riding his bike to biology class at Santa Ana College, earphones in both ears, listening to the dulcet tones of National Public Radio.
Sanchez saw no cars at the intersection of Washington and Freeman streets, so he buzzed through the stop sign, as cyclists so often do. Thats when he saw the Santa Ana policeman, half-way up the side street.
Moments later, sirens blaring and lights flashing, Sanchez was pulled over. Santa Ana police Officer Berg told him to sit on the curb. How are you going to hear someone honking at you with earphones on? the officer asked. I heard you, Sanchez said. What music were you listening to? the officer asked. It was just the news, Sanchez said. If you were in your car, would you have stopped? Yes, Sanchez said. Are you going to give me a warning? No, the offficer said. Im going to cite you for running a stop sign.
The ticket was yellow, just like youd get while driving a car. Schwinn, it says in the spot for Year of Vehicle and Make. And Sanchez was cited for violating two parts of the California Vehicle Code:
* Section 22450(a): Failure to stop at stop sign; * and Section 27400: Wearing head set or earplugs.
Infraction, the ticket said. So when the courtesy notice landed in his mailbox from the Orange County Superior Court, Sanchez nearly choked: Bail amount: $397.
For riding his bike?! This offended the 26-year-olds sense of fair play. (Sanchez had, after all, once registered to vote as a Libertarian.)
Now, Sanchez is not quite a traffic choir boy. Hes had several violations over the past decade - including a DUI in 2002 and a property damage hit-and-run in 2004, for which he paid restitution and did community service. But he was much younger then. His most recent traffic faux pas was for pulling a U-turn across a double-yellow line: I was on my way from school to work and wanted to get some food, he said somewhat sheepishly. That wound up being a $200 Jamba Juice.
That a bicycle infraction could cost more than a moving-violation-in-a-car ticket seems, well, odd. Were waiting to hear from the Orange County Superior Court on how it arrives at fines for such ticket; the courts 2009 Bail Schedule doesnt shed much light on how the figure could get close to $400.
Bulletin, kids: Bicycles riders on public streets have the same rights and responsibilities as automobile drivers and are subject to the same rules and regulations as any other vehicle on the road, the good California Department of Motor Vehicles reminds us. Each year in California, more than 100 people are killed, and hundreds of thousands more are injured in bicycle collisions.
I suppose going through a stop sign on a bike is something that a lot of people do, and theyre not aware of the violation, said SAPD Commander Doug McGeachy.But stop signs apply to cyclists as well as motorists. Same thing with the earphones. You can have one, but you cant have two.
We do on occasion have serious and fatal traffic collisions involving bicycles. Officers have a lot of discretion in what they choose to enforce and not enforce - if they see something thats particularly unsafe, theyre more likely to enforce. I dont know if this is common, but its a violation.
Sanchez was to appear in court today, but got an extension until Dec. 21 so he can research his situation and figure out how to proceed.
Hes a returning student at Santa Ana College, studying environmental science. He pays his way by working as a teaching assistant when those spots are available, and by installing office furniture. I ride my bike to school whenever I dont have a big load of books, Sanchez said. Im trying to be environmentally friendly.
Well keep you posted. In the meantime, bicyclists, stop for those stop signs - and dont cross any double yellow lines.
Arif Khokar - 05 Nov 2009 03:17 GMT > http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could...
> “I suppose going through a stop sign on a bike is something that a lot > of people do, and they’re not aware of the violation,” said SAPD > Commander Doug McGeachy.“But stop signs apply to cyclists as well as > motorists. A lot of those stop signs could easily be replaced with roundabouts (or yield signs for one street). Coming to a full stop is not necessarily to safely assess whether there's any conflicting traffic prior to proceeding through the intersection (especially if there's no issue with visibility of cross traffic).
> Same thing with the earphones. You can have one, but you > can’t have two. Good! I never understood why people don't realize that they need to hear what's going on around them when riding. It would be like riding with a semi-transparent covering over one's eyes.
Scott in SoCal - 05 Nov 2009 15:25 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Arif Khokar <guyincognito@techemail.com> said:
>> http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >prior to proceeding through the intersection (especially if there's no >issue with visibility of cross traffic). SoCal is the land of the protected left turn with no permissive phase. Many times I've been stuck at a red arrow with no oncoming traffic for half a mile or more and thought about just making the turn anyway. As you point out, stopping in that situation is not necessary for safety. But what would happen if we ALL started doing things like that? In the example above, what if the guy to my left sees that the intersection is clear and decides to run the red light just at the same moment that I decide to make my left turn?
Actually, it would probably look a lot like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM
Do you really want to turn our roads into a Third-World driving environment?
>> Same thing with the earphones. You can have one, but you >> cant have two. > >Good! I never understood why people don't realize that they need to >hear what's going on around them when riding. It would be like riding >with a semi-transparent covering over one's eyes. Or Vaseline smeared on your glasses.
Brent - 05 Nov 2009 16:23 GMT > SoCal is the land of the protected left turn with no permissive phase. > Many times I've been stuck at a red arrow with no oncoming traffic for > half a mile or more and thought about just making the turn anyway. It is stupidity like that, grossly underposted speed limits, and stop signs used as speed control, stop signs where yield signs that should be used, and other similar things that undermine the entire system. It becomes a 'boy who cried wolf' system with force and punishment as all that holds it together. Such a system is a breeding ground for MFFY and 'what-you-can-get-away-with' behavior rather than the self organizing and mutual benefit type system that is far more preferable.
Arif Khokar - 08 Nov 2009 03:36 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Arif Khokar > <guyincognito@techemail.com> said:
>> A lot of those stop signs could easily be replaced with roundabouts >> (or yield signs for one street). Coming to a full stop is not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is clear and decides to run the red light just at the same moment that > I decide to make my left turn? That's why one of two roads have a give way (yield rule). Just as left turning traffic has to yield to oncoming traffic, those entering from minor streets to major streets should yield to through traffic. Besides, if everyone is treating a stop sign like a yield sign, and crashes aren't occuring, then I see nothing wrong with replacing that stop sign with a yield sign.
> Actually, it would probably look a lot like this: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM I doubt it. The driving culture is different there. For instance, if someone is blocking the passing lane, you lay on the horn while tailgating and they actually will move out of the way. Try that here and the idiot ahead will just brake check you instead (though IME, when he did that, I swung around him and cut him off using the newly opened gap in front of him ;)
> Do you really want to turn our roads into a Third-World driving > environment? As I pointed about above, some aspects of the third world driving environment are better compared to here. In general, drivers there don't have a "holier than thou" attitude and actually try to keep out of your way if you give them notice.
Scott in SoCal - 08 Nov 2009 18:27 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Arif Khokar >> <guyincognito@techemail.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >That's why one of two roads have a give way (yield rule). The roads in question already have traffic signals. Are you saying it's OK to violate the laws relating to red lights as long as we follow some other law regarding right-of-way based on which street is more "major?"
>> Actually, it would probably look a lot like this: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >someone is blocking the passing lane, you lay on the horn while >tailgating and they actually will move out of the way. It still looks like complete chaos to me. Nobody respects lanes (if, indeed, there are any), and nobody obeys any organized right-of-way rules; notice how the people from the minor side street just charge out in front of traffic on the main street, forcing it to swerve or stop?
>> Do you really want to turn our roads into a Third-World driving >> environment? > >As I pointed about above, some aspects of the third world driving >environment are better compared to here. Personally, I saw nothing in that video that I prefer.
Arif Khokar - 08 Nov 2009 19:51 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> > said:
>>> SoCal is the land of the protected left turn with no permissive phase. >>> Many times I've been stuck at a red arrow with no oncoming traffic for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> is clear and decides to run the red light just at the same moment that >>> I decide to make my left turn?
>> That's why one of two roads have a give way (yield rule).
> The roads in question already have traffic signals. Are you saying > it's OK to violate the laws relating to red lights as long as we > follow some other law regarding right-of-way based on which street is > more "major?" No, I'm saying that we need to bring back the permissive left turn phase. For traffic entering from a minor street, there's nothing wrong with having a yield sign if there's plenty of visiblity for making a right turn. In fact, left turns could be prohibited from those side streets and entering traffic would need to enter the main street and make a U-turn at the next intersection.
>>> Actually, it would probably look a lot like this: >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM
>> I doubt it. The driving culture is different there. For instance, if >> someone is blocking the passing lane, you lay on the horn while >> tailgating and they actually will move out of the way.
> It still looks like complete chaos to me. Except that there were no crashes. People don't drive that fast in those situations and the way to make a turn is to inch your way into the traffic stream until it stops and lets you through. If you didn't, you'd probably be waiting for at least 15 minutes if not more to make a turn.
> Nobody respects lanes (if, indeed, there are any), Yeah, that is a problem there, but most vehicles there are a bit smaller than they are here. Second, people there have a much better idea regarding the dimensions of their vehicle and how it will fit into tighter spaces.
> and nobody obeys any organized right-of-way rules; They do to some extent. Notice how those waiting to make a right turn (like our left turn) off the main road waited a little while before making the turn.
> notice how the people from the minor side street just charge > out in front of traffic on the main street, forcing it to swerve or > stop? That's practically the only way to make a turn in the amount of traffic there. I've driven in similar situations. If I drive there as I drive here, I wouldn't be going anywhere. Second, traffic is probably going about 30 mph tops, so it's really not that bad. They expect to have to stop. Like I said, it's a different culture there.
>>> Do you really want to turn our roads into a Third-World driving >>> environment?
>> As I pointed about above, some aspects of the third world driving >> environment are better compared to here.
> Personally, I saw nothing in that video that I prefer. Here's an example of passing on the motorway in Pakistan: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3JTvXQR69Y>
Scott in SoCal - 08 Nov 2009 20:49 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said:
>No, I'm saying that we need to bring back the permissive left turn >phase. I agree with you.
One of the few things I liked about driving in Tucson was the "protected-permissive" left turns. Most intersections sloowed permissive lefts during the regular phase, followed by a phase where both directions have protected left turns (if the sensors detected vehicles still waiting to turn left). It truly is the best of both worlds: you get to turn left during the permissive phase if oncoming traffic allows, but because you know that the protected phase is coming up, you don't feel any pressure to try to squeeze through any marginal gaps. I only wish they'd do that here.
>>>> Actually, it would probably look a lot like this: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Except that there were no crashes. Not in that video. But I've seen other videos where there are.
>People don't drive that fast in >those situations and the way to make a turn is to inch your way into the >traffic stream until it stops and lets you through. If you didn't, >you'd probably be waiting for at least 15 minutes if not more to make a >turn. So basically *everybody* is a MFFY. They drive where they want, when they want, and expect everybody else to accommodate their wishes. There's no organization, no concept of taking turns.
Do you honestly prefer this "system?"
>> and nobody obeys any organized right-of-way rules; > >They do to some extent. Notice how those waiting to make a right turn >(like our left turn) off the main road waited a little while before >making the turn. Only out of self-preservation. :)
>Here's an example of passing on the motorway in Pakistan: ><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3JTvXQR69Y> Well, that's definitely an improvement (in America the PLB wouldn't have moved out of the way at all), but the camera car still had to slow down and wait for the PLB to move (slowly) out of the way. I also noticed that the left (slowest) lane was completely clear, so you had a CLB as well as a PLB when both of those cars should have been in the leftmost lane.
N8N - 05 Nov 2009 15:41 GMT > >http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could... > > “I suppose going through a stop sign on a bike is something that a lot [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > prior to proceeding through the intersection (especially if there's no > issue with visibility of cross traffic). Where I live, I see bicyclists regularly riding through stops at speeds that I have a hard time believing allow them to properly assess cross traffic. I have gone through some of those intersections on my own bike and have not felt safe doing so without coming to a full stop, or nearly so. So I'm inclined to give the officer the benefit of the doubt. Besides, it's just dumb to break the law in front of a cop, even if it's completely safe to do so. Let's call this one a stupid tax.
> > Same thing with the earphones. You can have one, but you > > can’t have two. > > Good! I never understood why people don't realize that they need to > hear what's going on around them when riding. It would be like riding > with a semi-transparent covering over one's eyes. Indeed. Even riding with a helmet causes enough wind noise to be mildly distracting; I can't imagine having headphones *in both ears* being safe.
nate
Scott in SoCal - 06 Nov 2009 03:30 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com> said:
>Where I live, I see bicyclists regularly riding through stops at >speeds that I have a hard time believing allow them to properly assess [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >cop, even if it's completely safe to do so. Let's call this one a >stupid tax. Agreed. If nothing else, that pedalcyclist deserves a ticket for lack of situational awareness (not seeing the cop sitting there). Clearly this dreamer was off in his own little world, listening to his earphones and paying only scant attention to his surroundings.
richard - 05 Nov 2009 05:11 GMT > http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could-cost-santa -ana-student-400/41971/ > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bike to biology class at Santa Ana College, earphones in both ears, > listening to the dulcet tones of National Public Radio. Why is that bicycle riders nearly all believe that traffic laws do not apply to them? Well I'm not driving a car.
On foot, you'd stop at that sign, why not on a bike?
But a $400 fine? What is the same fine for a car driver? I think that would fall under the "Excessive fine" category. But hey, california has been known not to play by the rules.
Scott in SoCal - 05 Nov 2009 15:30 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <member@newsguy.com> said:
>> http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could-cost-santa -ana-student-400/41971/ >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Why is that bicycle riders nearly all believe that traffic laws do not >apply to them? Well I'm not driving a car. My favorite part is where Sanchez says his sense of fair play was offended.
Quick, let me call the WAAAAAAAmbulance for Oswald Muniz Sanchez.
>On foot, you'd stop at that sign, why not on a bike? > >But a $400 fine? What is the same fine for a car driver? The fine is the same for any vehicle.
>I think that would fall under the "Excessive fine" category. >But hey, california has been known not to play by the rules. Try running a red light here: you'll pay something like $486 in fines and court costs.
richard - 05 Nov 2009 05:34 GMT > http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could-cost-santa -ana-student-400/41971/ > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > * Section 22450(a): Failure to stop at stop sign; > * and Section 27400: Wearing head set or earplugs. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/05JCBail.pdf
22450(A) >> $134.00 27400 >> $ 99.00 !>>>>>> >> $167.00 because we love you.
Scott in SoCal - 05 Nov 2009 15:36 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <member@newsguy.com> said:
>> http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could-cost-santa -ana-student-400/41971/ >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >27400 >> $ 99.00 >!>>>>>> >> $167.00 because we love you. That data is 4 years out-of-date.
As a reference, in 2005 a carpool lane violation was $281 + $20 in court costs. Now it's nearly double that ($486 is the figure I heard). Also, fines in CA are jurisdictionally determined, and a judge can modify the amounts as he sees fit.
N8N - 05 Nov 2009 15:29 GMT > http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could... > > Bicycle ticket could cost Santa Ana student $400 Good.
nate
Alexander Rogge - 05 Nov 2009 20:57 GMT > http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could-cost-santa -ana-student-400/41971/ > > Bicycle ticket could cost Santa Ana student $400 How about mandatory attendance of a remedial course in traffic rules? I had one such bicyclist that recently zoomed past a Stop sign on my right as I was approaching the intersection, didn't bother to look to see me approaching, forced me to brake, and then slowed down in front of me. MFFY! After noticing that this was not some wayward youth, but instead an older rider with an expensive-looking bike and that was dressed in fancy bicycle-related clothing, I passed very closely. What is it about Stop that confuses these bicycle riders?
Nate Nagel - 05 Nov 2009 23:13 GMT >> http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could-cost-santa -ana-student-400/41971/ >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fancy bicycle-related clothing, I passed very closely. What is it about > Stop that confuses these bicycle riders? I think the carbon fiber has an effect on riders that makes them unable to see traffic control devices. I have no such side effects from my mundane lugged steel ride :)
nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Scott in SoCal - 06 Nov 2009 03:33 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo.com> said:
>> http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/04/bicycle-ticket-could-cost-santa -ana-student-400/41971/ >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >an older rider with an expensive-looking bike and that was dressed in >fancy bicycle-related clothing IME, the cost of the bike, the brightness of the jersey, the tightness of the spandex, and the number of manufacturer logos on the clothing all tend to correlate highly with the arrogance of the pedalcyclist. You *never* see Jose the busboy, who rides his bike to work because he cannot afford a car, riding with his tires straddling the separation line between the bike lane and the rightmost automobile lane; it's always some wannabe Critical Masshole with a point to prove.
Brent - 06 Nov 2009 03:45 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo.com> > said: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > line between the bike lane and the rightmost automobile lane; it's > always some wannabe Critical Masshole with a point to prove. And here we have it. It's that bicycle riders must show their submission to automobile drivers. That's really all "Jose", as you call this particular class of bicycle rider, does differently. However their violations of the vehicle code and dangerous riding are far more numerous. They ride on the wrong side of the road. They use sidewalks. They never have lights at night. They run stop signs and stop lights. What "Jose" does is try his best to stay out of the way of cars. By doing this they end up in the way far more, but it's acceptable because it shows appropiate submissive behavior.
That's the real reason few motorists ever have a problem with "Jose", because he is submissive. His violations of the vehicle code don't matter, that was never the problem most motorists have with bicyclists, it was the lack of submission. After a dozen years riding to the rules of the road it is very clear that obeying these rules to the letter does not, as a group, make motorists more happy. It brings about more anger. The whine from most motorists about vehicle code violations is just a cover for what really upsets them, a lack of submission by some bicyclists.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. - 06 Nov 2009 05:27 GMT >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo.com> >> said: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > doing this they end up in the way far more, but it's acceptable > because it shows appropiate submissive behavior. But you have not denied that is actually *those* bicyclists that interfere with thru traffic flow by forcing thru traffic to do more than share the road--they force thru traffic to have to risk an accident by crossing lane markers or center dividers to give the bicyclists their three feet of space from the location where bicyclist may be hogging the road (often due to them riding as far *left* as they can get away with and blocking thru traffic). Double the thru traffic impact when *those* bicyclists ride double file, but no sir, don't ever honk or tell *those* bicyclists to ride single file--they OWN that road for as long as they are riding on it.
What it also really means is that "Jose", in other words the everyday common bicyclist, actually has more respect for the rules of the road with respect to how bicyclists are supposed to share the road. He isn't riding in right tire zones, he isn't trying to cause traffic jams and inciting road rage, he isn't slapping vehicle sides or fenders because he is too afraid of vehicles that he perceives as brush passing, etc. Plain and simple, he isn't a militant type bicyclist when compared/contrasted to *those* bicyclists. So then if he runs a red light, or rides on the sidewalk or rides in the wrong direction--but still in the bike lane or off to the side of the road--then yes, he is still less of a problem than *those* bicyclists because he is still keeping in a safe enough zone not to risk getting hit, while still sharing the road with thru traffic, even if if riding against the traffic flow. So yes, he can essentially ride however he wants, because he has no impact such that thru traffic can remain thru traffic.
> That's the real reason few motorists ever have a problem with "Jose", > because he is submissive. His violations of the vehicle code don't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cover for what really upsets them, a lack of submission by some > bicyclists. In other words, he's sharing the road, but also out of the way instead of deliberately blocking thru traffic like *those* bicyclists. So it's not a problem dealing with "Jose" on the road, because he isn't directly in the path of the thru traffic flow.
Brent - 06 Nov 2009 05:51 GMT >>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo.com> >>> said: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>> line between the bike lane and the rightmost automobile lane; it's >>> always some wannabe Critical Masshole with a point to prove.
>> And here we have it. It's that bicycle riders must show their submission >> to automobile drivers. That's really all "Jose", as you call this [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > no sir, don't ever honk or tell *those* bicyclists to ride single file--they > OWN that road for as long as they are riding on it. I'm sorry that the task of driving is so so horribly difficult for you. Maybe you should consider taking the bus? What you mention has aproximately zero effect when I'm driving. I time a pass and I pass. It's no big deal to anyone with basic driving skills. However it is a major problem for people who either lack the skills required to drive a motor vehicle or just need to pound their chests and be the alpha of the road.
I've never found a bicyclist who rides vehicularly to be a problem. Never. They are very predictable. Passing them is a non-event. On slower roads and approaching stops they are just as fast if not faster than many motorists I encounter.
> What it also really means is that "Jose", in other words the everyday common > bicyclist, actually has more respect for the rules of the road with respect [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that he perceives as brush passing, etc. Plain and simple, he isn't a > militant type bicyclist when compared/contrasted to *those* bicyclists. Yeah, he's riding the wrong way, towards you, in the gutter, at night, in dark clothing, without lights. And it is that symbolic submission of being in the gutter that many drivers (apparently you included) want.
> So > then if he runs a red light, or rides on the sidewalk or rides in the wrong [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > flow. So yes, he can essentially ride however he wants, because he has no > impact such that thru traffic can remain thru traffic. LOL. Running the red light in the gutter is still running the red light. He's a few feet closer to some of the cross traffic approaching from his right and a few feet further from those approaching from his left. I've seen POB's gutter pass their way to the front of the queue, run the red light, and then motorists sit and wait behind him because they are affraid to pass. And here I am, driving or bicycling, stuck behind the motorist who is affraid to pass the POB at some absurdly slow speed.
>> That's the real reason few motorists ever have a problem with "Jose", >> because he is submissive. His violations of the vehicle code don't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> cover for what really upsets them, a lack of submission by some >> bicyclists.
> In other words, he's sharing the road, but also out of the way instead of > deliberately blocking thru traffic like *those* bicyclists. So it's not a > problem dealing with "Jose" on the road, because he isn't directly in the > path of the thru traffic flow. He's not sharing the road, he's not even using the road. That's the submission desired, in the gutter or on the sidewalk or over in the grass and weeds, puttering at 5mph. You and other drivers don't want to 'share' and that's why 'Jose' is okay, because he doesn't use any road.... well except when you nearly hit him because you didn't seem him crossing against the red light at night in dark clothing with no lights.
Worse yet, I don't even see motorists get angry at these sort of gutter riders:
http://blip.tv/file/2293686
http://blip.tv/file/2293686
Arif Khokar - 06 Nov 2009 06:48 GMT > Worse yet, I don't even see motorists get angry at these sort of gutter > riders: > > http://blip.tv/file/2293686 > > http://blip.tv/file/2293686 You posted the same link twice. Had I been the cyclist, I would have waited behind you at the light (in the lane). Had I been the driver, I would have moved far enough over to the right such that it would have been impossible for the cyclist to pass you on that side (and perhaps given him the bright idea that he should pass someone making a right turn on their left)
Brent - 06 Nov 2009 06:55 GMT >> Worse yet, I don't even see motorists get angry at these sort of gutter >> riders: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You posted the same link twice. opps. http://blip.tv/file/799873
> Had I been the cyclist, I would have > waited behind you at the light (in the lane). Had I been the driver, > I would have moved far enough over to the right such that it would > have been impossible for the cyclist to pass you on that side (and > perhaps given him the bright idea that he should pass someone making a > right turn on their left) I was pretty far to the right as it was, there wasn't much space there, but obviously enough for this guy.
Scott in SoCal - 06 Nov 2009 15:21 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>I'm sorry that the task of driving is so so horribly difficult for you. It isn't - yet. However, Critical Masshole types want to make it more difficult.
>Maybe you should consider taking the bus? What you mention has >aproximately zero effect when I'm driving. What about the 80% of drivers who aren't as skilled at driving as you are? When Sally Soccermom drifts a little too far to the right because she has turned around to scream at her bratty kids, that foot or two between riding in the middle of the bike lane and riding on top of the lane separation stripe could mean the difference between getting swiped by Sally's side mirror or not.
>It's no big deal to anyone with basic driving skills. However it is a >major problem for people who either lack the skills required to drive a >motor vehicle I see my point is made.
>I've never found a bicyclist who rides vehicularly to be a problem. That's not what we're talking about. You never see a motor vehicle driving on top of the lane separation stripe, with half the car in one lane and half in another; if you did, you'd be outraged, too.
>And it is that symbolic submission of being in the gutter that many >drivers (apparently you included) want. You're delusional.
Brent - 06 Nov 2009 15:46 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It isn't - yet. However, Critical Masshole types want to make it more > difficult. POBs and critical massholes are much the same when it comes to not following the vehicle code. Yet there is no anger for the POB (aka 'Jose') and very little for a critical masshole when he's by himself. There's lots of anger for bicyclists who are just using the road legally and following vehicular bicycling.
>>Maybe you should consider taking the bus? What you mention has >>aproximately zero effect when I'm driving.
> What about the 80% of drivers who aren't as skilled at driving as you > are? When Sally Soccermom drifts a little too far to the right because > she has turned around to scream at her bratty kids, that foot or two > between riding in the middle of the bike lane and riding on top of the > lane separation stripe could mean the difference between getting > swiped by Sally's side mirror or not. Ahh, the fear factor argument. I've encountered such idiots many times. When you're riding in the gutter or on the edge of pavement you crash because you've got no where to go when one of these drivers drifts right or decides to brush pass. When you're riding in the correct location, a little further to the left you can move right without leaving the paved surface and without crashing into the ditch or curb.
>>I've never found a bicyclist who rides vehicularly to be a problem.
> That's not what we're talking about. You never see a motor vehicle > driving on top of the lane separation stripe, with half the car in one > lane and half in another; if you did, you'd be outraged, too. It certainly is what is being objected to. It's an objection to bicyclists riding in the 'right tire track'. Did you not read what I was replying to?
>>And it is that symbolic submission of being in the gutter that many >>drivers (apparently you included) want.
> You're delusional. Then why don't I see motorists crossing the center line to give 'wrong way Jose' a good scare? I've seen how motorists treat POBs verus vehicular bicyclists, their anger is towards vehicular bicyclists. Hell, I used to ride in POB fashion and *NEVER* had a motorist angry with me. It was all the near misses that caused me to switch to vehicular bicycling.
I would have at least one every ride because some driver wasn't expecting someone moving at bicycle speeds on the sidewalk. They would even APOLOGIZE! Hell... I even used to ride on gravel shoulders and occasionally a rock would squeeze out and ping someone's car.... no anger, not a peep.
Riding vehicularly? People will go out of their way to harrass me because they are angry someone is using the road with a bicycle. And I mean out of their way... they change lanes, they cross the center line, they'll pass then not move when the light turns green, they will go out of their way and delay themselves to teach a road going bicyclist a lesson not to use their road when they could have just driven on like the bicyclist was never there.
There's no delusion about it. This past summer was real bad. I even did some POB type riding because I just couldn't deal with the hostility any longer. Sure enough... no problems with hostility... just the much greater risk of being hit.
Scott in SoCal - 07 Nov 2009 06:17 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >POBs and critical massholes are much the same when it comes to not >following the vehicle code. Congratulations on knocking doen the strawman you created.
>Yet there is no anger for the POB (aka 'Jose') You're the only one who sees Jose riding on the wrong side of the street. Generally speaking I don't see that around here.
>There's lots of anger for bicyclists who are just using the road legally >and following vehicular bicycling. My anger is directed at the arrogant pedalcyclists who needlessly get in other peoples' way, just as I have anger directed at automobile drivers who needlessly get in other peoples' way.
>> What about the 80% of drivers who aren't as skilled at driving as you >> are? When Sally Soccermom drifts a little too far to the right because [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ahh, the fear factor argument. No, it's the common sense argument.
Common sense says you pilot your vehicle in the center of one lane, not half way between two adjacent lanes.
>I've encountered such idiots many times. >When you're riding in the gutter or on the edge of pavement you crash >because you've got no where to go when one of these drivers drifts right >or decides to brush pass. When you're riding in the correct location The correct location is the center of the bike lane. Your pathological dislike of bike lanes notwithstanding.
>>>I've never found a bicyclist who rides vehicularly to be a problem. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It certainly is what is being objected to. It's what I'm objecting to.
>It's an objection to >bicyclists riding in the 'right tire track'. Did you not read what I was >replying to? You replied to my post, and yes, I know what I wrote. I never wrote anything about any "right tire track."
Brent - 07 Nov 2009 16:13 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Congratulations on knocking doen the strawman you created. So you agree that the it is the 'submissiveness' that drivers want? AKA, what angers you 'arrogance', that is, not being submissive.
>>Yet there is no anger for the POB (aka 'Jose')
> You're the only one who sees Jose riding on the wrong side of the > street. Generally speaking I don't see that around here. No, I'm not the 'only one'.
>>There's lots of anger for bicyclists who are just using the road legally >>and following vehicular bicycling.
> My anger is directed at the arrogant pedalcyclists who needlessly get > in other peoples' way, just as I have anger directed at automobile > drivers who needlessly get in other peoples' way. Needless as defined by driver. I've never been 'needlessly' in the way of drivers, but many drivers have angry at me for using the road or being out of the gutter. 'needless' is often just being on the road.
>>> What about the 80% of drivers who aren't as skilled at driving as you >>> are? When Sally Soccermom drifts a little too far to the right because >>> she has turned around to scream at her bratty kids, that foot or two >>> between riding in the middle of the bike lane and riding on top of the >>> lane separation stripe could mean the difference between getting >>> swiped by Sally's side mirror or not.
>>Ahh, the fear factor argument.
> No, it's the common sense argument. > Common sense says you pilot your vehicle in the center of one lane, > not half way between two adjacent lanes. Again, the rest of the world doesn't have these mythical bike lanes you claim are so f'ing great. Nearly every bike lane I've seen (including several states) has the line painted where one should be riding if you just view the road as if the line had not been painted. Painting the line does not change the safest place to ride. The hazards that were present before the line still exist.
>>I've encountered such idiots many times. >>When you're riding in the gutter or on the edge of pavement you crash >>because you've got no where to go when one of these drivers drifts right >>or decides to brush pass. When you're riding in the correct location
> The correct location is the center of the bike lane. Your pathological > dislike of bike lanes notwithstanding. Your fantasy world bike lanes notwithstanding, the center of the bike lane in NE IL and nearly everywhere I've traveled (except for a couple highways on Maui) is in the middle of the door zone or so far near the edge of pavement as to be a stupid place to ride.
>>>>I've never found a bicyclist who rides vehicularly to be a problem. >> >>> That's not what we're talking about. You never see a motor vehicle >>> driving on top of the lane separation stripe, with half the car in one >>> lane and half in another; if you did, you'd be outraged, too.
>>It certainly is what is being objected to. > > It's what I'm objecting to. So what?
>>It's an objection to >>bicyclists riding in the 'right tire track'. Did you not read what I was >>replying to? > > You replied to my post, and yes, I know what I wrote. I never wrote > anything about any "right tire track." No. I replied to Daniel's post. Please pay attention.
Scott in SoCal - 07 Nov 2009 17:46 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>So you agree that the it is the 'submissiveness' that drivers want? Amazing leap of "logic" there, Brent.
The answer to that is NO, I do not agree. It's certainly not true in my case.
>>>Yet there is no anger for the POB (aka 'Jose') > >> You're the only one who sees Jose riding on the wrong side of the >> street. Generally speaking I don't see that around here. > >No, I'm not the 'only one'. But you are the one who keeps trying to inject this irrelevant information into the conversation when nobody else is talking about it. I guess that's the only way you can "prove" your "point."
>>>There's lots of anger for bicyclists who are just using the road legally >>>and following vehicular bicycling. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Needless as defined by driver. Needless as defined by common sense.
>I've never been 'needlessly' in the way of drivers You don't ride a $3000 bike and wear spandex pants or a bright yellow jersey, either. Bottom line, YOU are not the "arrogant pedalcyclist" I'm talking about.
>> No, it's the common sense argument. >> Common sense says you pilot your vehicle in the center of one lane, >> not half way between two adjacent lanes. > >Again, the rest of the world doesn't have these mythical bike lanes you >claim are so f'ing great. Correction: CHICAGO doesn't have them, because most of the streets in the metro area were laid out in horse-and-buggy days and have horse-and-buggy widths. Naturally when you try to adapt such streets to allow automobiles to use them you're going to have problems.
But enough of your irrelevancies. I'm talking about MODERN streets which have 6 12-foot-wide automobile lanes as well as 2 6-foot-wide bicycle lanes, and posted speed limits of 50 - 65 MPH. There is NO justifiable reason for these pedalcyclists to be riding with half their body hanging out in 65 MPH traffic. I ride in these bike lanes every weekend, and there is never any "debris" in them that has caused me to swerve out into the automobile lanes.
Brent - 07 Nov 2009 18:13 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The answer to that is NO, I do not agree. It's certainly not true in > my case. Yet your problem is with "arrogance". They have the arrogance not to ride out of your way. The "arrogance" not to be in the gutter. The "arrogance" to be on the road. The "arrogance" not be submissive.
>>>>Yet there is no anger for the POB (aka 'Jose') >> >>> You're the only one who sees Jose riding on the wrong side of the >>> street. Generally speaking I don't see that around here.
>>No, I'm not the 'only one'.
> But you are the one who keeps trying to inject this irrelevant > information into the conversation when nobody else is talking about > it. I guess that's the only way you can "prove" your "point." You injected "Jose" into the conversation. "Jose" around here rides against traffic, on sidewalks, in the gutter, at night without lights, and so on. Often on a bike better suited for a 10 year old. That's how "Jose" rides here in IL. I don't believe for a second that the same kind of bike rider is magically transformed into a vehicle code following rider just because he's in CA.
>>>>There's lots of anger for bicyclists who are just using the road legally >>>>and following vehicular bicycling. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>Needless as defined by driver.
> Needless as defined by common sense. The "common sense" of a driver who can't comprehend the common sense of a bicyclist who rides faster than 8mph.
>>I've never been 'needlessly' in the way of drivers
> You don't ride a $3000 bike and wear spandex pants or a bright yellow > jersey, either. Bottom line, YOU are not the "arrogant pedalcyclist" > I'm talking about. I've been called far worse than "arrogant pedalcyclist" by drivers because I was too far left for their liking or riding on the bike lane stripe. (which is the place I'd ride the same road before it was painted)
>>> No, it's the common sense argument. >>> Common sense says you pilot your vehicle in the center of one lane, >>> not half way between two adjacent lanes.
>>Again, the rest of the world doesn't have these mythical bike lanes you >>claim are so f'ing great.
> Correction: CHICAGO doesn't have them, because most of the streets in > the metro area were laid out in horse-and-buggy days and have > horse-and-buggy widths. Naturally when you try to adapt such streets > to allow automobiles to use them you're going to have problems. I've been out in the middle of Iowa corn country and the bike lanes were just as bad. Narrow strips at the edge of the pavement. MN, HI, MI, IN, all the same crap. Almost all of it some kludged in afterthought that was too much trouble to try and ride 'in the center'.
> But enough of your irrelevancies. I'm talking about MODERN streets > which have 6 12-foot-wide automobile lanes as well as 2 6-foot-wide [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > every weekend, and there is never any "debris" in them that has caused > me to swerve out into the automobile lanes. Yeah, which is such an insignificant amount of road that your complaint ranks somewhere below proper dirt road etiquette.
And I'd tell you why a rider might be further left even with your ideal bike lanes. Drivers don't look in the bike lane for someone going between 18 and 35mph. Every driveway, every cross street is a hazard. Riding at the line means much more reaction time. And then there is the intersection issue, where bike lane traffic has to merge into the 'car lane'. This is much easier to do if you're not so damn far to the right that drivers don't even see you 'over there'.
Bicycling is a different game at 20mph than it is a 8mph.
Scott in SoCal - 07 Nov 2009 23:27 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Yet your problem is with "arrogance". They have the arrogance not to >ride out of your way. They have the arrogance not to follow Slower Traffic Keep Right. They have the arrogance not to stay in a single travel lane. They display a distinct lack of respect for the law or for anyone else on the road.
Brent - 07 Nov 2009 23:34 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > They have the arrogance not to follow Slower Traffic Keep Right. Which means 'not in the gutter or very edge of paved surface'. I've been yelled at for being too far left when my right brake handle was over the white line marking the edge of the paved surface.
> They have the arrogance not to stay in a single travel lane. Fine, then with badly located bicycle lane stripes they should move into the right hand 'car lane'. Would that make you feel better?
> They display a distinct lack of respect for the law or for anyone else > on the road. 'respect' = 'submission'. The law is irrelevant for that. I follow the vehicle code to the letter it doesn't result in respect, in fact it's considered 'arrogant' by many motorists. Like the 'drive car' guy. POBs ignore the vehicle code entirely and drivers are more friendly towards them.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. - 08 Nov 2009 00:55 GMT >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > yelled at for being too far left when my right brake handle was over the > white line marking the edge of the paved surface. So in other words, no actual bike lane, just the line marking the shoulder of the road. In that case, you are obviously clear to ride where you are, provided you are keeping speed with thru traffic. Otherwise, pull off the road and wait for thru traffic to pass--that's no different than what slower thru traffic is expected to do. (However, the bicyclist has an advantage, they can still dismount and walk the bike while out of the flow of thru traffic.)
>> They have the arrogance not to stay in a single travel lane. > > Fine, then with badly located bicycle lane stripes they should move into > the right hand 'car lane'. Would that make you feel better? Only in the bike lane actually does not exist, then see the previous paragraph. If the area is marked Bike Lane, they stay there, even if it means riding slower.
>> They display a distinct lack of respect for the law or for anyone else >> on the road. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ignore the vehicle code entirely and drivers are more friendly towards > them. If you are having so many problems on those roads, and claim to follow the vehicle code to the letter, then maybe it's long overdue for a "bicycles prohibited" sign on those roads? But somehow the persons on bike (as opposed to *those* bikers) aren't having the same problems so then I have to wonder--are you really biking as correctly as you think you are?
Brent - 08 Nov 2009 01:12 GMT >>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> yelled at for being too far left when my right brake handle was over the >> white line marking the edge of the paved surface.
> So in other words, no actual bike lane, just the line marking the shoulder > of the road. In that case, you are obviously clear to ride where you are, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they can still dismount and walk the bike while out of the flow of thru > traffic.) I have no obligation to 'pull over' for drivers. Illinois law is as far right as practicable. And drivers certainly don't pull over for me if I am biking or driving.
Are you just becoming a low rate troll? You've been around here long enough that I shouldn't have to repeat this discussion for you.
>>> They have the arrogance not to stay in a single travel lane. >> >> Fine, then with badly located bicycle lane stripes they should move into >> the right hand 'car lane'. Would that make you feel better?
> Only in the bike lane actually does not exist, then see the previous > paragraph. If the area is marked Bike Lane, they stay there, even if it > means riding slower. There is no obligation in any state I know of to ride in a bike lane. Some bicycle lanes are really 'unsafe at any speed'.
>>> They display a distinct lack of respect for the law or for anyone else >>> on the road.
>> 'respect' = 'submission'. The law is irrelevant for that. I follow the >> vehicle code to the letter it doesn't result in respect, in fact it's >> considered 'arrogant' by many motorists. Like the 'drive car' guy. POBs >> ignore the vehicle code entirely and drivers are more friendly towards >> them.
> If you are having so many problems on those roads, and claim to follow the > vehicle code to the letter, then maybe it's long overdue for a "bicycles > prohibited" sign on those roads? But somehow the persons on bike (as opposed > to *those* bikers) aren't having the same problems so then I have to > wonder--are you really biking as correctly as you think you are? Here, mr. 'go slow and be patient' shows his true colors. It's always bicycling that exposes the go-slow crowd for the control freaks they really are. Patience for sloth is a must unless behind a bicycle... then it's 'ban them!'.
I don't ride any roads that would be in anyway unsafe for bicycling. However some drivers like to enforce their own ideas about road use. It's especially apparent on sunday bike rides when there isn't much traffic. It's mostly on sundays where I have drivers approaching from the rear in the LEFT LANE, change lanes to the right and brush pass me before going back to the left lane. We're the only two on the road.
POBs don't have problems because they cower in the gutter or on the sidewalk or over in the weeds and go about 5mph. This shows the submissiveness the alpha-drivers and control freak drivers want to see. If they actually biked on the roadway according to the law they would have far more problems.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. - 08 Nov 2009 01:50 GMT >>>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >>>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Are you just becoming a low rate troll? You've been around here long > enough that I shouldn't have to repeat this discussion for you. No, I'm not trolling. But your Illinois law doesn't apply to other vehicle codes in other states. Please do try to pay attention, this isn't rec.autos.driving.illinois, so the discussion isn't just about Illinois.
>>>> They have the arrogance not to stay in a single travel lane. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There is no obligation in any state I know of to ride in a bike lane. > Some bicycle lanes are really 'unsafe at any speed'. Not what I see. I see marked Bike Lanes at least as wide as half of a car lane, more than enough room to ride in the center. Even the gutters are about 1 foot wide. Therefore, *those* bicyclists that ride to the point of blocking thru traffic are clearly doing so intentionally, especially when riding double file.
On two lane mountain road highways, there is only the shoulder line of the road, but there really should also be a sign indicating "bicycles prohibited" since traffic speeds are 45mph or faster, and the measurement from the shoulder line to the dirt off to the side of the road is less than two feet.
>>>> They display a distinct lack of respect for the law or for anyone else >>>> on the road. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > really are. Patience for sloth is a must unless behind a bicycle... then > it's 'ban them!'. You totally missed where I said go ahead and ride in the thru traffic lane as long as you can keep speed--are YOU just becoming a low rate troll? So then let me say it again--if you can keep speed in the thru traffic lane, then go ahead and take what part of the lane you need to, while still riding as far to the right as practicable. Otherwise, if you cannot keep speed with thru traffic then keep to the right and go slower if you have to. Slower traffic keep right does also apply to bicycles.
> I don't ride any roads that would be in anyway unsafe for bicycling. > However some drivers like to enforce their own ideas about road use. > It's especially apparent on sunday bike rides when there isn't > much traffic. It's mostly on sundays where I have drivers approaching > from the rear in the LEFT LANE, change lanes to the right and brush pass > me before going back to the left lane. We're the only two on the road. It doesn't matter if there is *no* traffic, you should be as far to the right as practicable--period, unless there is a road hazard that requires you to right more to the left. If you are not doing this, then you *are* riding incorrectly. The aggressive drivers changing lanes to the right and brush passing you is certainly a form of road rage, but if they are doing this it is clear you are taking the *whole lane* instead of riding as far to the right as practicable. I don't find anywhere where it says a bicycle can ride all the way centered in the rightmost lane... provide a cite if you can prove otherwise.
> POBs don't have problems because they cower in the gutter or on the > sidewalk or over in the weeds and go about 5mph. This shows the > submissiveness the alpha-drivers and control freak drivers want to see. > If they actually biked on the roadway according to the law they would > have far more problems. Yet somehow those POB's can still avoid impacting thru traffic--they share the road, but don't block thru traffic.
Brent - 08 Nov 2009 02:51 GMT >>>>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >>>>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> right as practicable. And drivers certainly don't pull over for me if I >> am biking or driving.
>> Are you just becoming a low rate troll? You've been around here long >> enough that I shouldn't have to repeat this discussion for you. >> > No, I'm not trolling. But your Illinois law doesn't apply to other vehicle > codes in other states. Please do try to pay attention, this isn't > rec.autos.driving.illinois, so the discussion isn't just about Illinois. First you're talking about MY riding, but fine, show me a state that requires such immidate submission to any driver who happens along. Where a bicyclist must pull over just because some driver comes along. I don't think there is any. I doubt there is such a thing anywhere in the world.
>>>>> They have the arrogance not to stay in a single travel lane. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> paragraph. If the area is marked Bike Lane, they stay there, even if it >>> means riding slower.
>> There is no obligation in any state I know of to ride in a bike lane. >> Some bicycle lanes are really 'unsafe at any speed'.
> Not what I see. I see marked Bike Lanes at least as wide as half of a car > lane, more than enough room to ride in the center. Even the gutters are > about 1 foot wide. How about you get a road bike up to 20mph, then go on to the gutter and hit a sewer grate with the grates parallel with the road? Try it some time. Have your front wheel go into the grate and then slam into the far side of it. Hope you know how not to land on your head.
Yes, sometimes the sewer grates get put back the wrong way, parallel to traffic. Some are even MADE that way.
I had my rear wheel drift over such a sewer grate once in like 1992 or 3. It took a big hunk out of the rim. Was a pain in the a.s to get a tire to seat on the rim after that. Thankfully as the rear wheel that's all it was, it hit and bounced out and I was able to keep control.
> Therefore, *those* bicyclists that ride to the point of > blocking thru traffic are clearly doing so intentionally, especially when > riding double file. I've never seen anyone riding on the line of a bike lane when the bike lane was actually safe to ride and that sort of size. I see lots of substandard bike lanes though and I don't expect anyone to ride in the door zone.
> On two lane mountain road highways, there is only the shoulder line of the > road, but there really should also be a sign indicating "bicycles > prohibited" since traffic speeds are 45mph or faster, and the measurement > from the shoulder line to the dirt off to the side of the road is less than > two feet. What happened to slow and patient for road users who are less capable? You chastise me for my so called lack of patience with drivers who aren't paying attention and don't even use but a tiny fraction of their vehicles' capabilities but then think that bicyclists doing the best they can should be baned from the road?
>>>>> They display a distinct lack of respect for the law or for anyone else >>>>> on the road.
>>>> 'respect' = 'submission'. The law is irrelevant for that. I follow the >>>> vehicle code to the letter it doesn't result in respect, in fact it's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> really are. Patience for sloth is a must unless behind a bicycle... then >> it's 'ban them!'.
> You totally missed where I said go ahead and ride in the thru traffic lane > as long as you can keep speed--are YOU just becoming a low rate troll? Yeah, I saw that. You expect me to patiently wait behind drivers who can't be bothered to pay attention or keep up with traffic. A driver has to flex his foot, a bicyclist has a much more difficult time gaining speed. A bicyclist is easy to pass, the driver is not. You tell me to wait for the driver but as a bicyclist I have to leave the road entirely for drivers who could easily pass? Why can't they just plan a pass properly or wait?
> So > then let me say it again--if you can keep speed in the thru traffic lane, > then go ahead and take what part of the lane you need to, while still riding > as far to the right as practicable. So now you're allowing that... interesting. Because in the post I replied to earlier you saying pull over and stop and let them by.
> Otherwise, if you cannot keep speed with > thru traffic then keep to the right and go slower if you have to. Slower > traffic keep right does also apply to bicycles. This coming from someone who expects left lane traffic to wait for his slow self.
>> I don't ride any roads that would be in anyway unsafe for bicycling. >> However some drivers like to enforce their own ideas about road use. >> It's especially apparent on sunday bike rides when there isn't >> much traffic. It's mostly on sundays where I have drivers approaching >> from the rear in the LEFT LANE, change lanes to the right and brush pass >> me before going back to the left lane. We're the only two on the road.
> It doesn't matter if there is *no* traffic, you should be as far to the > right as practicable--period, unless there is a road hazard that requires > you to right more to the left. What part of how I ride have you missed in the last decade of rad? They still change lanes and come over just to teach a bicyclist a lesson to get off the road because they are a.sholes.
> If you are not doing this, then you *are* > riding incorrectly. The aggressive drivers changing lanes to the right and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ride all the way centered in the rightmost lane... provide a cite if you can > prove otherwise. Clear that I am taking a lane? Your assumptions are trollish to say the least. Why would you think I would be taking the lane in that situation? I am in my nominal riding location with my right brake handle inline with the white edge line from my POV. If not it's because I'm going around a hole in the road. The last a-hole who did this to me did it when there was a big hole in the road two inches to my right. At the next light he purposely wouldn't go on green and intentionally tried to delay me or get me to pass so he could take another run at me with his car... add that to his yelling and screaming when I sounded the horn when he was blocking my progress... so I know it was on purpose.
>> POBs don't have problems because they cower in the gutter or on the >> sidewalk or over in the weeds and go about 5mph. This shows the >> submissiveness the alpha-drivers and control freak drivers want to see. >> If they actually biked on the roadway according to the law they would >> have far more problems.
> Yet somehow those POB's can still avoid impacting thru traffic--they share > the road, but don't block thru traffic. Yeah, they are the ideal bicycle going people to those like you. Perfectly submissive to 'your control' of the road by knowing their place in the gutter. Sorry, I'm not going 5mph because you can't handle simple passing of a vehicular bicyclist. The only reason to dislike a vehicular bicyclist is because of some emotional problem. It's just too easy to pass and go on your way.
Remember, I'm supposed to be this horribly impaitent driver yet I can get around vehicular bicyclists like they didn't even exist. Why can't you, someone who preaches being able to sit and wait for others.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. - 08 Nov 2009 04:44 GMT [snip...]
Okay, whatever. Ride how you want, I simply do not want to waste any more time discussing these bicycle issues with you.
Brent - 08 Nov 2009 05:20 GMT > [snip...] > > Okay, whatever. Ride how you want, I simply do not want to waste any more > time discussing these bicycle issues with you. 'how I want'?
Here is how I ride:
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBikePed.nsf/infoChapterTwo?OpenForm
Arif Khokar - 08 Nov 2009 06:24 GMT > Here is how I ride: > > http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBikePed.nsf/infoChapterTwo?OpenForm
>> On a road with two or more narrow lanes in your direction -- like many city >> streets -- you should ride in the middle of the right lane at all times. >> You need to send the message to drivers to move to the passing lane to pass >> you. If you ride all the way to the right, two cars may pass you at the same >> time, side by side, and squeeze you off the road. This is advice I follow, but I seem to recall that you stated that in certain situations in IL, it's against the law. Given that you mentioned earlier in the thread that, on occasion, people will move over a lane to brush-pass you on purpose, wouldn't it be better just to take the right lane on those streets?
Brent - 09 Nov 2009 02:47 GMT >> Here is how I ride: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a lane to brush-pass you on purpose, wouldn't it be better just to take > the right lane on those streets? The problem is that the right lanes on the four lane roads I ride are not of the narrow variety. Lazy drivers usually stay in the right lane and pass but can manage at least 2.5 feet. Some don't, most do. The ones who move over from the left lane, because it's intentional, it doesn't matter where I am riding on the road they'll go as far right or not as far right as they have to.
Alexander Rogge - 06 Nov 2009 17:58 GMT > When Sally Soccermom drifts a little too far to the right because > she has turned around to scream at her bratty kids, that foot or two > between riding in the middle of the bike lane and riding on top of the > lane separation stripe could mean the difference between getting > swiped by Sally's side mirror or not. There isn't enough room on the road to provide enough safety against these incompetent drivers. I've seen drivers jump onto the sidewalks while driving, and we know about the drivers that crash into houses and buildings owned by the transportation departments. By giving these Sloths more room, you are only allowing them to assume that bicyclists will never be near the side of the road. It's like what happens when too many people "let in" merging drivers. Eventually, you get what is happening now, which is that some mergers assume that everybody will brake to "let them in" at any slow speed that they want.
Scott in SoCal - 07 Nov 2009 06:20 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo.com> said:
>There isn't enough room on the road to provide enough safety against >these incompetent drivers. Is this supposed to justify pedalcyclists who straddle the lane separation stripe and leave parts of themselves sticking out in 65 MPH traffic?
Alexander Rogge - 07 Nov 2009 23:25 GMT >> There isn't enough room on the road to provide enough safety against >> these incompetent drivers. > > Is this supposed to justify pedalcyclists who straddle the lane > separation stripe and leave parts of themselves sticking out in 65 MPH > traffic? That sounds like an example of a limited-access roadway, on which bicycles and other low-speed vehicles would be prohibited. If it isn't, then it sounds like an example of a rural roadway that has sparse traffic conditions. If it's neither of these examples, then there's something wrong with your road system. Slow vehicles should not be mixing with high-speed vehicles in dense traffic conditions.
Jim Yanik - 08 Nov 2009 00:30 GMT >>> There isn't enough room on the road to provide enough safety against >>> these incompetent drivers. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > something wrong with your road system. Slow vehicles should not be > mixing with high-speed vehicles in dense traffic conditions. Heh,I have an urban 50mph 6 lane road(SR436,Orlando) right in front of my apt.complex,and bikes and mopeds are common on it.Traffic is usually 60 mph or more. Me,I try to stay on the sidewalks,much safer.
I could agree that there's something wrong with Orlando's road system...it's more of a matter of piecemeal development,lack of foresight and planning,and parochial townships who want to "keep the small town flavor".
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
Scott in SoCal - 08 Nov 2009 18:58 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo.com> said:
>>> There isn't enough room on the road to provide enough safety against >>> these incompetent drivers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That sounds like an example of a limited-access roadway, on which >bicycles and other low-speed vehicles would be prohibited. These are city streets, not limited-access and not rural. Unless you've lived in SoCal or the Bay Area, it may be difficult to imagine what it's like to drive here. As an example, some of our *surface streets* have higher posted speed limits than the *expressways* do in places like Chicago. Which may be why Brent has such a tough time relating to some of the things I post. I know I was in shock and awe at what I saw when I first came here after living 30+ years in areas of Illinois where many streets are still paved with bricks.
Unlike older areas farther east, the newer cities here on the west coast were designed literally from the ground up to favor the automobile (and, to some extent, the pedalcyclist and the pedestrian). Because they were building everything from scratch, the urban planners didn't have to try to cram all of these different uses together onto streets laid out in the 1850s; they spread everything out and allowed lots of buffer space for different uses to safely coexist.
The typical street has either 4 or 6 through lanes, each 12' wide, plus 2 bike lanes, each 6' wide, plus sidewalks (which are often raised on a small berm to increase pedestrian safety). At intersections there are usually two dedicated left turn lanes plus one or more dedicated right turn lanes. Speed limits are high by eastern standards; 45 - 55 MPH is typical for the smaller 4-lane collector streets, whereas 50 - 65 MPH is typical for the 6-laners. The personal automobile is truly king here in California, and our built environment definitelty reflects that.
>Slow vehicles should not be >mixing with high-speed vehicles in dense traffic conditions. Agreed. That's why the streets have bike lanes, and why pedalcyclists should remain inside them. For whatever reason, some pedalcyclists just can't be happy with that arrangement, and in addition to their own ample bike lane they have to start crowding in on the car lane, too.
This video will give you an idea of what a modern street looks like when the bike lanes are designed in from the outset rather than slapped on as a distant afterthought:
http://blip.tv/file/296048
Notice how there is NO debris in the bike lane, and at no time did I have to swerve out of the bike lane for even a moment, let alone straddle the white stripe for the entire time I was riding.
Brent - 09 Nov 2009 02:54 GMT > at what I saw when I first came here after living 30+ years in areas > of Illinois where many streets are still paved with bricks. Paved with bricks? The only places I've seen bricks as pavement is inside a pothole, when a road is being torn up to be rebuilt, or in the minor underpasses under the tracks along canal street in bridgeport and chinatown. That's it except for a few modern minor decorative uses here and there.
> http://blip.tv/file/296048 > > Notice how there is NO debris in the bike lane, and at no time did I > have to swerve out of the bike lane for even a moment, let alone > straddle the white stripe for the entire time I was riding. What's all that crap to your right?
Scott in SoCal - 09 Nov 2009 03:23 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>> at what I saw when I first came here after living 30+ years in areas >> of Illinois where many streets are still paved with bricks. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >chinatown. That's it except for a few modern minor decorative uses here >and there. I guess you've never been to Wilmette then:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068 &sspn=36.642161,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cook,+Illinois&ll=42.07121,-87.69782 &spn=0.001049,0.002411&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=42.071136,-87.697968&panoid=HtWVa5e atVUWEM5-ezSJ9Q&cbp=12,175.74,,0,5.2
Or Urbana. Or any of a hundred other places where "quaint" brick horse-and-buggy streets still exist.
>> http://blip.tv/file/296048 >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >What's all that crap to your right? You mean the grass?
Brent - 09 Nov 2009 03:55 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068 &sspn=36.642161,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cook,+Illinois&ll=42.07121,-87.69782 &spn=0.001049,0.002411&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=42.071136,-87.697968&panoid=HtWVa5e atVUWEM5-ezSJ9Q&cbp=12,175.74,,0,5.2 Wilmette... that's just the northshore crazy nonsense on limited residential streets. that URL is way to long for me to copy/paste but the first hundred and fifty or so characters were enough to zone in on the few streets you wish to use as an exception to create a rule. I've rarely come across such streets while bicycling in those towns.
> Or Urbana. Or any of a hundred other places where "quaint" brick > horse-and-buggy streets still exist. I was to urbana once on a school field trip. I don't remember much of it.
>>> http://blip.tv/file/296048 >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You mean the grass? No the crap in the gutter. None of it remains in the bike lane? I find that hard to believe.
Scott in SoCal - 09 Nov 2009 05:14 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the first hundred and fifty or so characters were enough to zone in on >the few streets you wish to use as an exception to create a rule. What "rule?" These are the places I lived for over 30 years.
>I've rarely come across such streets while bicycling in those towns. Of course you bike up to Wilmette every weekend, right?
>> Or Urbana. Or any of a hundred other places where "quaint" brick >> horse-and-buggy streets still exist. > >I was to urbana once on a school field trip. I don't remember much of >it. How convenient.
>>>> http://blip.tv/file/296048 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >No the crap in the gutter. None of it remains in the bike lane? I find >that hard to believe. No doubt that's because it disproves your little theory.
As you saw, I was able to ride IN the bike lane the entire time. I didn't have to straddle the lane stripe.
Brent - 09 Nov 2009 05:27 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > What "rule?" These are the places I lived for over 30 years. Pointing to a couple brick streets and making it like the whole chicago area is like that.
>>I've rarely come across such streets while bicycling in those towns.
> Of course you bike up to Wilmette every weekend, right? Rather rarely actually, once or three times a year. from where I leave when I bike in that area it's more like going straight east. Not sure if I've ever been in wilmette itself. I tend to get lost when I bike in that area. I've covered ground between roughly willow road on the south and half day road on the north. More to the north end of that than the south end.
>>> Or Urbana. Or any of a hundred other places where "quaint" brick >>> horse-and-buggy streets still exist. >> >>I was to urbana once on a school field trip. I don't remember much of >>it.
> How convenient. Why should I be hanging out in Urbana?
>>>>> http://blip.tv/file/296048 >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> >>> You mean the grass?
>>No the crap in the gutter. None of it remains in the bike lane? I find >>that hard to believe. > > No doubt that's because it disproves your little theory.
> As you saw, I was able to ride IN the bike lane the entire time. I > didn't have to straddle the lane stripe. I saw the camera didn't have enough resolution to see anything but the large clumps of debris. Unless it has recently rained I find shoulders that have that much crap in the gutter to be strewn with rocks, glass, car parts, and other debris. And in the spring, forget it... it's coating of crap.
Scott in SoCal - 09 Nov 2009 15:47 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>>>>>> at what I saw when I first came here after living 30+ years in areas >>>>>> of Illinois where many streets are still paved with bricks. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Pointing to a couple brick streets and making it like the whole chicago >area is like that. The bricks may be paved over with asphalt, but the narrow horse-and-buggy widths remain.
>Why should I be hanging out in Urbana? No reason unless you went to school there. However, they have a lot of "quaint" brick streets, too, especially in the residential area just to the east of the campus.
>>>No the crap in the gutter. None of it remains in the bike lane? I find >>>that hard to believe. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I saw the camera didn't have enough resolution to see anything but the >large clumps of debris. HAHAHAHAHAHA, now you're imagining things. There is nothing in that bike lane but flat, clean asphalt.
http://i34.tinypic.com/u1yk2.jpg
Is the only way you can "win" an argument by making sh.t up?
Brent - 09 Nov 2009 18:27 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The bricks may be paved over with asphalt, but the narrow > horse-and-buggy widths remain. I didn't object to your width comments only the brick ones. Plus new development (1950s or newer) isn't much wider.
>>Why should I be hanging out in Urbana?
> No reason unless you went to school there. However, they have a lot of > "quaint" brick streets, too, especially in the residential area just > to the east of the campus. exactly, no reason.
>>>>No the crap in the gutter. None of it remains in the bike lane? I find >>>>that hard to believe. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> As you saw, I was able to ride IN the bike lane the entire time. I >>> didn't have to straddle the lane stripe.
>>I saw the camera didn't have enough resolution to see anything but the >>large clumps of debris.
> HAHAHAHAHAHA, now you're imagining things. There is nothing in that > bike lane but flat, clean asphalt. But there are clearly large clumps of debris in the gutter. It gets there by moving through the bike lane. If motor vehicles are not regularly driven in the bike lane it will build up there until significant rain washes it into the gutter.
> http://i34.tinypic.com/u1yk2.jpg
> Is the only way you can "win" an argument by making sh.t up? I see large clumps of debris in the gutter. And from that far away I can't tell if what I see on the asphalt are stains or more debris. In either case it appears that roads in CA work like roads in most places... the debris moves towards the edges.
Alexander Rogge - 06 Nov 2009 18:34 GMT > Yeah, he's riding the wrong way, towards you, in the gutter, at night, > in dark clothing, without lights. And it is that symbolic submission of > being in the gutter that many drivers (apparently you included) want. I actually had one of these bicyclists last night. He was riding in the drainage ditch, going against the direction of traffic, no lights, no reflective clothing, and in the dark. This also happened last month with another bicyclist, with lights but still riding the wrong way and in the ditch. No, no, no! These Sloths on bicycles are infuriating!
I'm not sure how riding the wrong way in the ditch is "submission" to anything. It's blatant stupidity and an easy way to be hit by a car. The same for riding in the ditch with the direction of traffic. I'm looking at the lane ahead of me for vehicles, not in the ditch or on the shoulder. I have no problem with bicycles in the lane where they should be ridden, nor have I been having any problems while I've been riding my bicycle likewise, but to ride improperly causes a serious problem.
Brent - 06 Nov 2009 18:42 GMT >> Yeah, he's riding the wrong way, towards you, in the gutter, at night, >> in dark clothing, without lights. And it is that symbolic submission of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > be ridden, nor have I been having any problems while I've been riding my > bicycle likewise, but to ride improperly causes a serious problem. I figure it's the apparent submission that makes the difference because I've never seen a driver attack or even yell at one of these bicycle riders. It's also what the hostile motorists and cops demand I do instead of behaving in a vehicular fashion.
As far as blatant stupidity, it certainly is.
Scott in SoCal - 06 Nov 2009 15:01 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alexander Rogge <a_rogge@yahoo.com> >> said: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >And here we have it. It's that bicycle riders must show their submission >to automobile drivers. No, they should show their sumbission to the LAW and COMMON SENSE.
That brightly-colored jersey isn't going to protect them from the 2-ton SUV that bumps the lane-stripe-straddling pedalcyclist into the weeds because the blonde soccermom behind the wheel was busy yakking on her cellular phone.
Brent - 06 Nov 2009 15:11 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > No, they should show their sumbission to the LAW and COMMON SENSE. Since when is sidewalk and wrong way riding and riding without lights legal?
> That brightly-colored jersey isn't going to protect them from the > 2-ton SUV that bumps the lane-stripe-straddling pedalcyclist into the > weeds because the blonde soccermom behind the wheel was busy yakking > on her cellular phone. Riding in the ideally magical bike lanes you claim to have isn't going to save you from her either. It's a painted line, not a concrete wall.
Scott in SoCal - 07 Nov 2009 06:24 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>>>> IME, the cost of the bike, the brightness of the jersey, the tightness >>>> of the spandex, and the number of manufacturer logos on the clothing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Since when is sidewalk and wrong way riding and riding without lights >legal? Strawman.
We were talking about the arrogant pedalcyclists who ride with their tires straddling the lane spearation line. You even quoted me saying it.
Brent - 07 Nov 2009 16:25 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Strawman. Why? You and the other bicyclist hating drivers never seem to object to those cowardly and submissive bike riders.
> We were talking about the arrogant pedalcyclists who ride with their > tires straddling the lane spearation line. You even quoted me saying > it. 'arrogant' = 'not sufficently submissive'.
Go ride 20mph in the center of this bike lane:
http://tinyurl.com/yzgage9 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1200+south+wabash,ch icago&sll=41.881432,-87.626202&sspn=0.009442,0.014505&g=12--+south+wabash,chicag o&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1200+S+Wabash+Ave,+Chicago,+Cook,+Illinois+60605&ll=41.86705 8,-87.625798&spn=0.000295,0.000453&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=41.867058,-87.625798&pa noid=gZW6Rng-t2il5XnQFwL0pQ&cbp=12,173.3,,0,39.75
or maybe this one:
http://tinyurl.com/yhplwd7 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=volmer+and+kedize,ol ympia+fields&sll=41.867058,-87.625798&sspn=0.000285,0.000453&ie=UTF8&hq=volmer+a nd+kedize&hnear=Olympia+Fields,+IL&ll=41.527028,-87.693845&spn=0,359.998187&t=h& z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.526948,-87.69388&panoid=mzqTzefmR39wAawIdatzcA&cbp=12,305.5 5,,2,9.09
Those are a couple better ones.
This one looks worse in person:
http://tinyurl.com/y9n4jbh http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1200+south+wabash,ch icago&sll=41.881432,-87.626202&sspn=0.009442,0.014505&g=12--+south+wabash,chicag o&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1200+S+Wabash+Ave,+Chicago,+Cook,+Illinois+60605&ll=41.86705 8,-87.625798&spn=0.000295,0.000453&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=41.867058,-87.625798&pa noid=gZW6Rng-t2il5XnQFwL0pQ&cbp=12,173.3,,0,39.75
Go ahead, ride with your right brake handle 6 inches from parked cars.
Scott in SoCal - 07 Nov 2009 17:55 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>> Strawman.
>> We were talking about the arrogant pedalcyclists who ride with their >> tires straddling the lane spearation line. You even quoted me saying >> it. > >'arrogant' = 'not sufficently submissive'. "Arrogant" == "ignores the rules of the road."
>Go ride 20mph in the center of this bike lane: As I said, those are retrofit bike lanes that are squeezed into already-too-narrow horse-and-buggy streets. Since this entire area was farmland until the late 1960s, we don't have any streets like that around here.
This is what we have:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=33.681309,-117.781178&spn=0.001176, 0.002411&t=k&z=19
Six car lanes, each 12 feet wide. 2 bike lanes, each 6-8 feet wide. No parking allowed. Streets are well swept, no "debris" in the bike lanes. Speed limit: 55 MPH.
Now tell me why any pedalcyclist would risk his a.s by riding on top of the lane separation stripe unless he's a Critical Masshole type who wants to "assert his rights" or something along those lines.
Brent - 07 Nov 2009 18:21 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >"Arrogant" == "ignores the rules of the road." POBs ignore the rules of the road. They don't have problems with hostile drivers. They are submissive.
>>Go ride 20mph in the center of this bike lane:
> As I said, those are retrofit bike lanes that are squeezed into > already-too-narrow horse-and-buggy streets. Since this entire area was > farmland until the late 1960s, we don't have any streets like that > around here. That's what most bike lanes in the nation are Scott. I see you ignore the suburban one I show on a road that was redone less than 5 years ago with NEW development on one side and NONE on the other.
> This is what we have: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of the lane separation stripe unless he's a Critical Masshole type who > wants to "assert his rights" or something along those lines. Gee scott... it took me less time to find a hazard there than it took for the page to load: http://tinyurl.com/yklpw2f http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=33.680046,-117.779306&spn=0,359 .998187&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.680162,-117.77947&panoid=sq5nSVOteuX8wSW3qMaHlQ&cbp =12,16.15,,0,12.32
Nice little drive way coming out eliminating the entire right 4/5ths of the bike lane mid block. Yeah, riding down the center of that bike lane means a sudden dodge to the left for not only traffic but the concrete ribbon between the drive and the road. That is if you're going ~20mph or more on a road bike. If you're doing 5mph it's not an issue.
Look what happens to the bike lane at this intersection: http://tinyurl.com/ygsyozs http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=33.681309,-117.781178&spn=0.001176, 0.002411&t=k&z=19
That's what, 18 inches wide tops?
Scott in SoCal - 07 Nov 2009 23:29 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent >><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >POBs ignore the rules of the road. Only in your Strawman fantasy. The guys I see biking to work are riding on the right side of the road, in the middle of the bike lane, and generally being cooperative with other vehicles. They bother nobody and nobody bothers them.
Brent - 07 Nov 2009 23:41 GMT > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Only in your Strawman fantasy. Fine. I guess I'll just have to post more video. I just encountered a no-light POB a week ago. He was riding vehicularly otherwise, but he lost all points for riding at night without lights and a long coat that blocked any rear reflector that might have been on his bicycle.
> The guys I see biking to work are > riding on the right side of the road, in the middle of the bike lane, > and generally being cooperative with other vehicles. They bother > nobody and nobody bothers them. I see them frequently on the wrong side of the road, no lights, on the sidewalks, or any number of places they shouldn't be. I saw several sidewalk riders when I was out biking today. Gutter passing is also a common POB behavior. I wait in the queue and they ride right by me.
Arif Khokar - 08 Nov 2009 01:07 GMT > Only in your Strawman fantasy. The guys I see biking to work are > riding on the right side of the road, in the middle of the bike lane, > and generally being cooperative with other vehicles. They bother > nobody and nobody bothers them. What I see are cyclists who will pass me while I'm waiting at a red light (on my bike, or in the car). I see plenty of cyclists riding without lights at night. I also occasionally see cyclists riding on the sidewalk or riding the wrong way on one-way or two-way streets. On rare occasions, I'll see cyclists who actually follow the rules of the road.
Scott in SoCal - 08 Nov 2009 19:24 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said:
>What I see are cyclists who will pass me while I'm waiting at a red >light (on my bike, or in the car). I see plenty of cyclists riding >without lights at night. I also occasionally see cyclists riding on the >sidewalk or riding the wrong way on one-way or two-way streets. On rare >occasions, I'll see cyclists who actually follow the rules of the road. I see such anomalies among the "non-professional" pedalcyclist crowd, as well. Running stop signs and red lights is, unfortunately, the rule rather than the exception when it comes to pedalcyclists.
But what I'm talking about specifically is the guys who, despite the presence of a nice wide bike lane, insist upon riding in such a way that their a.s is hanging out in 60 MPH traffic. You simply don't see that crap among the guys who are riding their bikes as transportation, or even among the weekend recreational riders. You only see it from the guys with the spandex pants and the bright yellow jerseys, the guys who are serious and organized about their sport. It's as if they have some sort of "Critical Mass" type point to prove. The bike lane isn't enough, apparently; they want to assert their "rights" over the entire road.
It's bad enough when they're in ones and twos, but when the larger groups get together the behavior can gett really egregious. Take these fine gentlemen, for example:
http://blip.tv/file/695244
Here we have a group which was ready to proceed en masse across the path of a vehicle approaching at 65 MPH. While the first few did make it across, the others (wisely) decided to actually follow the law and yield when they saw that I wasn't intimidated by their tactic.
You'll regularly see large gaggles of these guys conga-lining through an intersection. The lead members of their group enter the intersection legally, but when the light turns red the others keep coming because they don't want the group to be separated. They feel emboldened by numbers, assuming that the cars which now have a green light won't pull forward and blatantly run over a bunch of pedalcyclists. Most of the time they are correct; sometimes they are not. That's when you see one of those "ghost bikes" chained to a lamp post at the intersection where somebody made this kind of gamble and lost.
Once again, you don't typically see this kind arrogant behavior from Jose the Busboy or Joe the Engineer (who's biking to work to save the planet).
John David Galt - 07 Nov 2009 20:05 GMT > Bicycle ticket could cost Santa Ana student $400 Finally!!!
Scott in SoCal - 07 Nov 2009 23:31 GMT Last time on rec.autos.driving, John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> said:
>> Bicycle ticket could cost Santa Ana student $400 > >Finally!!! Heh - it's such a rare event it made the front page of the newspaper.
:) Scott in SoCal - 14 Nov 2009 03:15 GMT BTW, be sure to read the comments after the article:
BikeRacer says: November 4, 2009 at 6:17 am
I received a similar ticket in Irvine for $366. The reason I proceeded thru a red light was the light never would have changed for me because a cyclist does not set off the trigger. That is great to point out that cyclist have the same responsibility as a car, but do cyclists get the same respect on the road as a fellow driver? Hardly. Are the lights timed for a cyclist? Absolutely not. As someone who trains on the bicycle 10+ hours a week it really makes me mad that a cop would give a ticket for listening to headphones. I realize this is the law but a cop has discretion of course and Ive seen so many drivers with their phone to their ear or radio blasting and cops do nothing about it. So why target a cyclist who is maybe 200lbs riding down the street getting exercise and doing no harm to anyone else versus a 2000lb automobile that has the capacity to kill, makes no sense to me. This kid will have little luck defending himself against this ticket, Ive tried myself. This county needs money and the kid was guilty. In some states cyclists are allowed to yield to stop signs and not stop, seems to make sense to me.
FreeWheelingFranklin says: November 4, 2009 at 8:04 am
Typical cyclist, picking and choosing the traffic laws you want to obey.
Do you like to pretend your Lance Armstrong when you are wearing your little spandex outfit?
Brent - 14 Nov 2009 03:47 GMT > BTW, be sure to read the comments after the article: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Do you like to pretend your Lance Armstrong when you are wearing > your little spandex outfit? What's the point of this? He got ticketed for a light where the sensor didn't pick up the bicycle. Some motorist then tries to be insulting with 'pick and choose'. Just about every driver I see picks and chooses which traffic laws he obeys including cops. What's worse they have their own personal vehicle code that they demand everyone else follow. Bicycling is one area that many drivers have totally made up ideas that are entirely wrong.
I run faulty sensors frequently when I ride at lower traffic times and there isn't enough car traffic to trip sensors or some driver won't pull on to the sensor because for some reason they feel they need to stop 50 feet behind me. At times i've done a right on red on to major arterials because I couldn't get the light to change. Also sometimes the only car(s) is turning left from the other side of the intersection so I wait until there's nobody left on the oncoming side turning left and go when that green is still on, because I'll never see a green from my side.
What's worse is that some signals pick up the bicycle for a couple weeks and they won't... after a few months of not picking up the bicycle I'll be able to trigger it again.
BTW, I had one of those dangerous driver shows on the TV as background noise and I looked up and it was the video of some driver getting out of his car and attacking a bicyclist because the bicyclist started stopping on yellow signal and stopped at the line. Guess it doesn't only happen to me.
|
|
|