Dreaded cyclists

[narf]

he never said those two were the same, only in the way that they're both breaking the law. what you cited here is the exact reason there are varying fines for different surroundings...

I even explicitly mentioned larger fines in that post. They're the same in the sense that they're both breaking the same law, but they result in different fines in court. Same thing with Edward's "stealing out of need" case - just as illegal as stealing out of greed, but treated very differently in court. That's why courts exist.

In our speed limit thing: it is probable that speed limits in the US are quite more realistic for residential areas than they are for freeways.

Well, to me a 40km/h speed limit doesn't sound very residential to me. I live in a 30km/h residential zone and rarely touch 30 because that'd be dangerous. However, we don't know what the area in question even looks like

 

[equiraptor]

what you cited here is the exact reason there are varying fines for different surroundings...

Except there aren't, except for school zones and construction zones with fine warnings posted, here. That's it. Ten mph over in a residential area with a 30mph limit gets you the same fine as 10mph over on an 80mph freeway.

 

[eizbaer]

i am not an american, i am a german.

also, exactly the same for me:

Well, to me a 40km/h speed limit doesn't sound very residential to me. I live in a 30km/h residential zone and rarely touch 30 because that'd be dangerous. However, we don't know what the area in question even looks like

had a guy behind me doing about 45 two winters ago, he proceeded to crash into me when i decided to leisurely brake and swing into a parking space to the side (indicating that i wanted to do so for at least 10-15 seconds beforehand).

 

[equiraptor]

i am not an american, i am a german.

Well, good for you? The original situation - a bicyclist speeding - was in the US. I was sharing information about the US to provide more of that perspective.

 

[narf]

Except there aren't, except for school zones and construction zones with fine warnings posted, here. That's it. Ten mph over in a residential area with a 30mph limit gets you the same fine as 10mph over on an 80mph freeway.

So... if 10 over in a residential area is fined as badly as 10 over on an 80mph freeway, why the madness over the bicycle 10mph over? Same fine, be done with it.

 

[eizbaer]

ah, right, there was something that started all this, sorry!
somehow i was under the impression that this whole thing had deteriorated to the philosophies of laws and their shortcomings...

 

[prizrak]

The thing about laws is that it's not for you to pick which to follow and which to break. It really is black and white, legally speaking - speeding in a residential area is just as illegal as speeding out of town. You may get larger fines, sure - but both are just as illegal.

This is exactly the problem with your thinking, laws are NOT black and white if they were we would have no difference between letter of the law and spirit of the law for one, for two we would not have a court system (at least not in the way we do now).

Additionally just because a certain law exists doesn't make it a just one, you can google for "wacky laws" and come up with a million silly laws that are still on the books but no one bothers to enforce anymore because they make no sense. And that's not getting into things like completely unjust laws that I'm sure you can come up with yourself.

This isn't even getting into social acceptability of certain behavior, which many times conflicts with certain laws, speeding on highways is one of those.

 

[narf]

This is exactly the problem with your thinking, laws are NOT black and white if they were we would have no difference between letter of the law and spirit of the law for one, for two we would not have a court system (at least not in the way we do now).

I think I said the very same thing:

That's why courts exist.

Additionally just because a certain law exists doesn't make it a just one, you can google for "wacky laws" and come up with a million silly laws that are still on the books but no one bothers to enforce anymore because they make no sense. And that's not getting into things like completely unjust laws that I'm sure you can come up with yourself.

While obviously true, I don't see how wacky laws relate to speeding. It's obviously illegal, it's obviously enforced, and obviously not completely unjust. You may want or be able to go faster in many places, sure - but the concept of speed limits makes sense outside of well-designed, well-controlled environments like an Autobahn or a race track.

This isn't even getting into social acceptability of certain behavior, which many times conflicts with certain laws, speeding on highways is one of those.

Speeding on a bicycle is socially accepted, speeding in a car is socially accepted. I don't see the problem

 

[SirEdward]

he never said those two were the same, only in the way that they're both breaking the law. what you cited here is the exact reason there are varying fines for different surroundings...

Just as the US, we don't have those.

I even explicitly mentioned larger fines in that post. They're the same in the sense that they're both breaking the same law, but they result in different fines in court. Same thing with Edward's "stealing out of need" case - just as illegal as stealing out of greed, but treated very differently in court. That's why courts exist.

My point was that some times you can have despicable behaviours being legal, while out-of-necessity, harmless or even positive ones being strictly punished. Laws are not necessarily just. The "you are breaking the law anyway" mentality is good for dealing with beureaucracy and lawyers or finding loopholes, but it must go away when speaking of what is right, otherwise you could be too rigid. And the original idea was that bicycles at 35 mph in a 25 mph is quite wrong, not just illegal.

Well, to me a 40km/h speed limit doesn't sound very residential to me. I live in a 30km/h residential zone and rarely touch 30 because that'd be dangerous. However, we don't know what the area in question even looks like

I am always happy to hear that Germany treats speed limit in what seems to be a sensible way, and I know for experience that they do. But that is not necessarily what happens around the world. Here, for example, you can find 30 kph on a 4-lanes, trafficated road receiving daily cross-town traffic just because city planning in the last decades was dodgy or because that road falls into a certain area of the city, regardless of what kind of road is. The same 30 kph you can find in an alley large enough for one car to pass, with house doors opening right onto it. And after all... come on... Sweden has deathly-boring 110 kph motorways which are straight, leveled, wide and empty, but allows you 70 kph on bendy, narrow, gravel backroads bordered by trees! I think silliness is the norm, not perfect organization.

Good for Germany if the speed limits make sense. I'm serious. But to my experience, flexibility and reasoning are invaluable assets to deal with matters of social rules.

Speeding on a bicycle is socially accepted, speeding in a car is socially accepted. I don't see the problem

The problem, I think, is that speeding in car is just socially tolerated if done when the speed limit is ridiculously low (which might happen fairly often, considering the technological advancement or the idiot-proof-wannabe rules being adopted lately), while bicycle speeding is considered perfetly fine, nothing strange with it; so much so that I think bicycles have no speed limit anywhere. The only limitations they have to follow on speed are built for cars. Bicycles lack a serious thought in terms of social and legislative definition of what they are.

 

[eizbaer]

Just as the US, we don't have those.

that explains the different point of view on such laws in here, to a degree. of course, if you don't incorporate the surroundings into something like that, laws tend to be "stupid" in their black&white-ness.

 

[equiraptor]

so much so that I think bicycles have no speed limit anywhere.

It's not entirely cut-and-dry. In at least some states of the US, bicycles are classified as vehicles, with provision allowing an exception to speed limit laws. As a result, when on a roadway with a speed limit, that limit applies to bicycles. I even found this story on it when I googled.

 

[DanRoM]

bicycle speeding is considered perfetly fine

Speeding on a bicycle is hard to accomplish. If you speed on a bicycle, the speed limit is very likely "ridiculously low". Except downhill in residential areas, granted. But then again, 35 in a 30 zone is also considered fairly normal for a car, too, so...

so much so that I think bicycles have no speed limit anywhere. The only limitations they have to follow on speed are built for cars

Posted speed limits are usually meant for all vehicles, and that includes bicycles of course. Are you suggesting the limits for bicycles should be lower? And then you would complain about the cyclists holding you up?

In Germany, only the blanket 50 kph limit within city limits is not valid for cyclists. But that's only because at the time that law was written, cyclists going faster than 50 were unthinkable, and even today going faster requires very downhilly circumstances. And then there's of course the "you must not go faster than your vehicle and your capabilities allow to do safely" rule anyway.

 

[prizrak]

While obviously true, I don't see how wacky laws relate to speeding. It's obviously illegal, it's obviously enforced, and obviously not completely unjust. You may want or be able to go faster in many places, sure - but the concept of speed limits makes sense outside of well-designed, well-controlled environments like an Autobahn or a race track.

This goes to the basic point that not everything that is codified makes sense or is in fact followed.

If you wanna stick to speed limits, there is a section of I-95 called the NJ turnpike, it has a variable speed limit usually 65 but can be lowered if needed (electronic signage). Last time I drove on it the limit went from 65 to 45 (because of road works that were NOT actually there), the speed of traffic stayed at a steady 85 the entire time. Trying to stick to the 45mph speed limit can easily get you killed in those circumstances and 65 will get many people very angry at you.

Speeding on a bicycle is socially accepted, speeding in a car is socially accepted. I don't see the problem

Actually bicycles existing on roads is still quite controversial, and I would say at this point not socially acceptable so speeding on one is also not socially acceptable.

 

[Strelok16]

Oi, look what I started

One reason I got so angry at seeing bicyclists speeding is not so much legal reasons, but that the attitude that might drive a bicyclist to speed is maybe just as juvenile, or more so, than the attitude that makes a driver speed. Those guys I saw probably could hardly wait to go brag to people about how they were riding around on their bikes passing cars. And if you challenged them, I would bet money that they would argue that if you speed on a bicycle, you're only endangering yourself, which we know isn't true. Especially since bicycles are a lot quieter and harder to see than cars, and people aren't as likely to have an eye out for them as they are for cars. Basically, my problem is the general attitude of a lot of bicyclists that they don't have to follow the same laws drivers have to follow while using roads, which is a thing we've already had various battles over

The thing is, it actually isn't that hard to speed on a bicycle. Anyone in decent shape can do it with either a hill or enough distance to get up to speed. And once up to speed, a bicycle going over the speed limit gets a lot harder to control than a car going over the speed limit. (unless the car is going waaaay over the speed limit) which leads to breaking more laws, like running stop signs, and not stopping for pedestrians, which I'm pretty sure bicyclists are supposed to do too.

The street this happened on is actually pretty wide for a two-lane residential street, but still narrow enough that it starts becoming close quarters when there are cars parked on both sides. And it's a residential street, so cars parked on both sides is pretty much a given. And there are lots of winding curves, and as I think I mentioned, some very steep parts. My friends and I used to ride various things down it when we were younger, but we were young, stupid kids back then. These are full grown adults I'm talking about.

 

[narf]

My point was that some times you can have despicable behaviours being legal, while out-of-necessity, harmless or even positive ones being strictly punished. Laws are not necessarily just. The "you are breaking the law anyway" mentality is good for dealing with beureaucracy and lawyers or finding loopholes, but it must go away when speaking of what is right, otherwise you could be too rigid. And the original idea was that bicycles at 35 mph in a 25 mph is quite wrong, not just illegal.

Well, we don't actually know that. Without having been there, how can you tell it wasn't safe enough to do 35mph? Maybe he had phenomenal brakes, superior skills, yada yada - all the arguments people make towards higher car speed limits.

Another point, was he really doing 35mph? that's quite fast indeed.

 

[Strelok16]

Probably not actually, all I know is I was keeping my speed between 20 and 25 or so, and they passed me going quite a bit faster. Might not have been 35, but it was almost definitely over the limit. In an area where sometimes, as you and others have mentioned, even driving at the limit can seems too fast.

 

[narf]

Probably not actually, all I know is I was keeping my speed between 20 and 25 or so, and they passed me going quite a bit faster. Might not have been 35, but it was almost definitely over the limit. In an area where sometimes, as you and others have mentioned, even driving at the limit can seems too fast.

So in other words, he may also have been doing 26-30?

As for areas I've mentioned, I'm going to guess you've never seen roads like this in your neighbourhood. How wide is a "pretty wide two-lane residential street" over there? Based on Google Maps, the two-way street feeding into my one-way street that I rarely touch 30 on is about 4.2-4.5m wide. Yes, you do need to slow to a crawl to pass oncoming traffic wider than a Polo.

 

[Strelok16]

Probably a lot faster than 26... and I didn't mean the speed limit feels too fast because of street width alone, but also because of a lot of people being around. people who probably have other things on their mind than watching out for bike or car traffic, due to being on their own street, and the sense of security that comes with that and all.

There are places in the U.S, believe it or not, that like Europe have streets that have been around since long before cars, my town has streets like that, so I'm used to scary-narrow streets. as in "holy shitballs surely you can't mean this is actually supposed to be a two way street!" narrow. This was definitely not one of those streets if that helps.

 

[narf]

There are places in the U.S, believe it or not, that like Europe have streets that have been around since long before cars, my town has streets like that, so I'm used to scary-narrow streets. as in "holy shitballs surely you can't mean this is actually supposed to be a two way street!" narrow. This was definitely not one of those streets if that helps.

What's all this fuss about then?

 

[equiraptor]

The thing is, it actually isn't that hard to speed on a bicycle. Anyone in decent shape can do it with either a hill or enough distance to get up to speed. And once up to speed, a bicycle going over the speed limit gets a lot harder to control than a car going over the speed limit. (unless the car is going waaaay over the speed limit) which leads to breaking more laws, like running stop signs, and not stopping for pedestrians, which I'm pretty sure bicyclists are supposed to do too.

It's harder to speed on a bicycle than you seem to think. Distance doesn't help without the right set up on the bicycle and fitness from the rider. The fastest my comfort bike can get on a flat, with me pedaling as fast as I can make my feet turn, is 15 mph. The fastest my mountain bike can get on a flat is 17 mph. My tribike, on the other hand, is geared (significantly) higher, is lighter weight (noticeably so), and has very good aero. The fastest I've had that thing on a flat is about 26 mph, and that was with a significant (25mph) tailwind (I went about 13 mph going into that wind). I'm definitely in "decent shape" - I can complete an olympic distance triathlon or run a half marathon without issues. It would take a significantly fit person and some equipment changes to pedal that tribike up to 30mph. It's easy to get a bike moving quickly with the help of hills, but distance? Not so much.