Ben_Lexcen
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 17
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.
Some people just hate other groups of people, generally because they hate one or some of the people in that group.I'll just put this here. And to the above poster, wtf crawled up you ass?
Fees would be scaled to displacement.
Now no one can complain.
If cars were flying then I would agree with you but they don't so your point is moot.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".
Registration, tax, insurance and the same enforcement as it is for cars and I will not complain about cyclists as a group ever again.No one except Americans?
"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"
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...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.
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
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.
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.
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.