Dreaded cyclists

Ahh the delight I had today when i saw a cyclist pulled over by an unmarked police car. looked like he was getting fined for not wearing a helmet.
 
avanti said:
I'll just put this here. And to the above poster, wtf crawled up you ass?
Click to expand...
Some people just hate other groups of people, generally because they hate one or some of the people in that group.
Essentially its the "I saw some cyclists act like dicks, all cyclists are dicks", mentality. Which really is no different to saying "I saw a black person steal something, all black people are theifs", just more politically correct...

I love the way arguments used against cyclists are also often things that motorists are fighting against themselves. Essentialist its because motorists are butt-hurt because they feel its unfair their mode of transport (that they chose, I might add) is more expensive and more regulated than somebody else's.

"Ugh, cyclists get away with so much, I can't pull off that crap in my car"
"Well if you want to get away with doing that get a bike"
"But I don't want a bike..."
"Well tough shit"

The whole argument is stupid, its like an an amateur pilot saying "God, I wish car drivers had to follow the same rules and pricing as I do in my light aircraft, its so unfair".
 
Tax everything (register) that incorporates a fixed position for an operator of the machine that is propelled by a motor, engine, or self. Fees would be scaled to weight, speed and displacement.

Now no one can complain.
 
captain_70s said:
Some people just hate other groups of people, generally because they hate one or some of the people in that group.
Essentially its the "I saw some cyclists act like dicks, all cyclists are dicks", mentality. Which really is no different to saying "I saw a black person steal something, all black people are theifs", just more politically correct...

I love the way arguments used against cyclists are also often things that motorists are fighting against themselves. Essentialist its because motorists are butt-hurt because they feel its unfair their mode of transport (that they chose, I might add) is more expensive and more regulated than somebody else's.

"Ugh, cyclists get away with so much, I can't pull off that crap in my car"
"Well if you want to get away with doing that get a bike"
"But I don't want a bike..."
"Well tough shit"

The whole argument is stupid, its like an an amateur pilot saying "God, I wish car drivers had to follow the same rules and pricing as I do in my light aircraft, its so unfair".
Click to expand...
If cars were flying then I would agree with you but they don't so your point is moot.
There is one phrase in the video that is the EXACT problem with cyclists "I'm doing the world a favor by riding a bicycle", no you are not, you would do the world a favor by killing yourself, less resources used no CO2 output...

In the video he is seen running red lights without bothering to slow down. Not riding in the bike lane because there was an obstruction would be an equivalent of me driving on the sidewalk because there is traffic. The video doesn't show WHAT he actually did, if he just went around an obstacle and ended up outside of the lane thats fine.
No one except Americans?
Click to expand...
Registration, tax, insurance and the same enforcement as it is for cars and I will not complain about cyclists as a group ever again.
 
Last edited:
captain_70s said:
"Ugh, cyclists get away with so much, I can't pull off that crap in my car"
"Well if you want to get away with doing that get a bike"
"But I don't want a bike..."
"Well tough shit"
Click to expand...

But I don't want to get away with doing that, I'm not envious at all of any ciclyst nor I would want to get away with something they do that I can't do.

I want to know if there is a reason why a behaviour which is deemed dangerous, suddenly stops to be dangerous if a cyclist is involved rather than a motorist.

What defines that running a red light is dangerous in a car but safe in a bike? What defines that riding carelessly is safe? What defines that having no lights on in the night is dangerous for a car but safe for a car?

Red lights are there to allow for multiple directions of traffic to flow without crossing themselves at the wrong moment. Running a red light implies the risk of getting between someone else's wheels and get or cause damages or injuries. This is dangerous (at different scales depending on the vehicle, of course, but dangerous), let alone the fact that a well regulated traffic flow is better and quicker than a badly regulated one. So why should bicycles run red lights freely?

Riding/driving carelessly is dangerous; statistically, carelessness is among the first causes of accidents and injuries all over the world. Bicycles, as anyone else, can cause damages or injuries if used incorrectly and carelessness is one way of using them incorrectly. So, why should they be able to ride without looking around, maybe speaking at a cell phone waving dangerously around?

Lights on vehicles at night are made for two purposes. See other people and being seen by other people. Not having them on is dangerous. Why is this considered fine for bicycles?

These are just three, but may other issues are still there. Speed limits? They depend on the road AND on your vehicle. Maintenance? Is it not dangerous do ride/dirve in a badly maintained vehicle? Still, it seems that a bike misteriously cancel all these dangers. Why?


avanti said:
I'll just put this here. And to the above poster, wtf crawled up you ass?

[video=youtube;bzE-IMaegzQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ[/video]
Click to expand...

I liked this guy so much. He's great in pointing out stupid things that blocks bike lanes unnecessarily.

But he's also very obnoxious when he purposedly crashes into things. Should I do that in a car, I'd get fined, my licence will lose points and my insurance will climb up for the damage caused. And everyone would find this perfectly fair. Now, when the cyclist does the same, is this still wrong, although fun, or does it get miraculously righteous?

Please notice he smashes into roadwork signs, a cab, a trash bin placed there exactly to show cyclists a hole in the pavement...

Now, while I like the fact that he shows how many things block bike lanes around, he's just acting stupidly when he ignores that many of those obstacles couldn't be anywhere else. The cab? Really? Is he really complaining on a cab in front of a hotel? The trash bin? Really? would it be better if the hole weren't marked (clearly by some helping fellows around, not by the police).

Also, Prizrak is right, the guy shows himself running a red light. Why? Is this right when a bike does it? How comes this?

As a final comment, is he doing the world a favour by riding a bike? Is he crazy? By this logic, why isn't he walking? Does he know how high the amount of metal and rubber and plastic and grease necessary to build the bike is in comparison with what is needed to build a pair of shoes? Yes, I'm provoking, but while riding a bike is more eco-friendly than driving a car, it does not means you are doing anyone a favour or the world should bow before you. I hope he's not maybe riding a bike just to feel "on the right side" or to get away with things that would otherwise be punished.

prizrak said:
In the video he is seen running red lights without bothering to slow down. Not riding in the bike lane because there was an obstruction would be an equivalent of me driving on the sidewalk because there is traffic.
Click to expand...

Clear, neat, brief. Outstandingly right. Also, I am not saying bike shouldn't be allowed on motor lanes when their route is blocked, but when it's not, why shouldn't they just stay on bike lanes?
 
Last edited:
Motorcyclist dies from injuries suffered from crash with bicyclist

Motorcyclist dies from injuries suffered from crash with bicyclist

From the Austin (un)American Statesman:

Motorcyclist dies from injuries suffered from crash with bicyclist

By Patrick George | Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 02:36 PM

Police on Wednesday identified a man who died of injuries sustained when his motorcycle crashed into a bicycle over the weekend.

According to police, a man riding a bicycle turned in front of a black Harley Davidson motorcycle operated by 33-year-old William Skelton at the intersection of Arroyo Seco and Romeria Drive on Saturday at 5:15 p.m. Both men were transported to University Medical Center at Brackenridge Hospital, police said.

Skelton died on Tuesday from the injuries he sustained in the crash, police said. He was not wearing a helmet, police said.

Anyone with information regarding this incident is asked to call APD Vehicular Homicide Unit Detectives at (512) 974-4724. This case remains under investigation. This is the 30th fatality of 2011. At this time in 2010, there were 25 traffic fatalities, police said.
Click to expand...

$5 says the bicyclist isn't charged for violating traffic laws. And probably will be right back on his pedal bike soon, doing the exact same crap. No license, no registration, no insurance required.

Meanwhile, were the situation reversed, the motorcyclist would be in jail. How is this fair?

Edit: Yes, the motorcyclist was stupid for not wearing a helmet, but that was his choice and the stupidity has taken care of itself in an appropriate manner. Still doesn't change the fact that the bicyclist was at fault and will probably get away scot-free.
 
Last edited:
Maybe my reading skills fail me, but I can't see any indication of the cyclist violating any traffic law. I wasn't there, so I can only go by what's written there.
 
narf said:
Maybe my reading skills fail me, but I can't see any indication of the cyclist violating any traffic law. I wasn't there, so I can only go by what's written there.
Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot to mention that the local radio news mentioned that the bicyclist turned left in front of oncoming traffic (i.e., the motorcycle). This is illegal, left turning traffic must yield.
 
Spectre said:
Sorry, forgot to mention that the local radio news mentioned that the bicyclist turned left in front of oncoming traffic (i.e., the motorcycle). This is illegal, left turning traffic must yield.
Click to expand...

If true and happening in Germany he'd get an 85? ticket and two points on his driver's license for turning left without yielding to oncoming traffic and causing an accident. Same rate for cars and cyclists.

The motorcyclists would get a 15? ticket, but apparently would get out of it under the circumstances.
 
Last edited:
One the subject of "Bike Lanes"

Last year here in Columbus, City Council had the brilliant idea to take West Broad (State Route 40), which is normally a 6 lane very busy main road...and reduce it to ONE useable lane! For bikes.

http://www.considerbiking.org/bike-lanes-arrive-on-hilltop/

From the article:

"Most importantly, the 6 travel lanes (3 in each direction) were reduced in the heart of this project to 3 travel lanes and 1 center-turn-lane"

But, there isn't 3 'travel' lanes. we have one lane designated for on street parking, which was what people already did, and one lane for bikes only, one lane for all that traffic to squeeze into now, and the center part designated for turning. Even when there's no where to turn to.

Stupidbikelanes.jpg


Also, cars in the bike lane or the 'parking lane' can be stopped for immediate ticketing, but Ohio law states that cyclist are allowed to STILL travel in any lane. (!!?) And guess what...they still do. We have on average four or five accidents involving car vs cyclist in my area every week.

Also from the article:

"During our initial ride through the project zone, we noticed that traffic seemed calmer, and that the heart of the business district felt cleaner and more peaceful."

Which is true, because people got so fed up with being stuck in traffic in one stupid lane, that they now take 70 W or the 270 Outerbelt around our area. Which means a lot of the small businesses in the area are suffering.

Cont from the article:

"In this case?it?s the fresh paint that created fewer lanes of traffic and bike lanes which have been proven to calm traffic across the country and world."

Translation: I am a dipshit and have no idea what I'm talking about.

Cont...:


"We hope the neighborhood residents will find the project transformative."

No, we hate your guts. Really, we do. Ask anyone. They even put these damn paths down my street and all down Steele. Why? Hell...no one knows. I've never seen anyone on a bike there.

Cont..:

"I even found myself glancing at a few of the ?For Sale? signs and wondering what business or investment property I might commit to."

Maybe she should wonder why there are now so many "For sale" signs up on the street. It's because the small mom and pop shops that USED to be there closed after their business was forced to go around the Outer-belt.
 
Meanwhile in NY.... Just got a letter from DMV to renew my registration, its up almost twice from the last time I did it (2 years ago). Yet pedal pushers get to clog up the roads MY registration pays for for free...
 
That American Girl said:
Last year here in Columbus, City Council had the brilliant idea to take West Broad (State Route 40), which is normally a 6 lane very busy main road...and reduce it to ONE useable lane! For bikes.
Click to expand...

Bikes do not take up five lanes. One bike lane on either side is one lane tops. Four of the five lanes you claim to have lost hence are not for bikes.
 
Last edited:
prizrak said:
They take up 2 (one in each direction), when there is a parking lane, bicycle lanes tend to be huge. Look at the below link for an example. There used to be 3 usable lanes there before...
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=neptu...panoid=ME3YcmcpTtK8bnIVVa91Ow&cbp=12,270,,0,0
Click to expand...

Fuck parking lanes then?

In your example it looks like there are two lanes usable, half a lane with weird markings, half a lane for bicycles and almost one lane for parking. At worst you lost one out of three lanes, nothing like five out of six.

If the bike lane was retrofitted then you can't take up half a lane. The should have fitted one on either side and in return scrap the half lane with the weird markings.
 
Last edited:
narf said:
Fuck parking lanes then?

In your example it looks like there are two lanes usable, half a lane with weird markings, half a lane for bicycles and almost one lane for parking. At worst you lost one out of three lanes, nothing like five out of six.

If the bike lane was retrofitted then you can't take up half a lane. The should have fitted one on either side and in return scrap the half lane with the weird markings.
Click to expand...

The weird markings lane is part of bicycle lane, it's a buffer zone between cars and cyclists.

Yes its one of out 3 in this example. The main point is the example of how they do bike lanes in the US, which is to say retardedly. But I think she is talking about both sides.

Here is another example see the little bicycle sign on that lane, it means this is a shared lane for cyclists and cars but its not wide enough for both to be side by side and while cars have to make a left cyclists have to go straight otherwise they will end up on the car part of the bridge (not a good idea for them).

This is not cyclists fault that we have idiotic road design but it doesn't endear them to the driving public any, not to mention that they don't see to be aware of the fact that car > bicycle and ride as if they are protected by more than skintight clothing.
 
Last edited:
narf said:
Bikes do not take up five lanes. One bike lane on either side is one lane tops. Four of the five lanes you claim to have lost hence are not for bikes.
Click to expand...

True. :p I think I worded my post wrong.

What I mean to show was...before the "Bike Lanes" were installed, we had a total of 6 lanes...3 to go east, 3 to head west.

Now, we are down to one lane for 'driving' in either direction. I drew a quick pic to show what I mean...and no laughing at my crap drawing skills:
(I borrowed some of it from the original plan)

Driverslanes.jpg


By designating one full lane just for parking, which what was people did before as normal, and another (mostly) full lane for bikes only...and designating another lane for turning only (which everyone always got in the left lane to turn left since...um...forever)...what used to be 6 lanes of traffic is now squeezed into one.

And it sucks. :p

I just think that instead of using that money for "Bike Boulevard", the city could have fixed the sidewalks, and put in more lighting. Stuff that we've been screaming for for years.

:)
 
Based on that picture, you lost much more space to parking and turning than to bicycles. Without the bicycle lane alone you would not gain one lane per direction, assuming the turning lane serves some purpose. You'd also have to scrap the turning lane to get up to two per direction. Hence the bike lanes stole about half a lane per direction, not two.
 
narf said:
Based on that picture, you lost much more space to parking and turning than to bicycles. Without the bicycle lane alone you would not gain one lane per direction, assuming the turning lane serves some purpose. You'd also have to scrap the turning lane to get up to two per direction. Hence the bike lanes stole about half a lane per direction, not two.
Click to expand...

*laughs*

You know what I mean! I hope...:p

If they hadn't gone with the crazy plan for "Bike Boulevard"...we'd still have all 6 lanes. I sat in on two of the city council meetings that discussed the bike lane plan. And the parking lane part was added at the very end.

Thats why I blame them. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top