Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't forget to include the weight of the rider on the frame of that bicycle. Democrats
I must say, it would be very difficult to have a rational discussion that would call a group of people "democrats", because they ride a bike or like to ride bicycles? Is that what you are trying to convey? Do you know how dim minded you sound? Apparently not. I truly would be about impossible to discuss this issue with you. Maybe it is best you don't post and just read for a while to learn something. I don't think you will, but you could try and catch up to the cash strapped young people with their MASSIVE debts from college. You know, that little 1 trillion dollar problem that is growing so fast that the 1 trillion number will look pleasing in a couple years. Young people CAN'T afford cars due to massive debt! Don't you get that?
I cycle for sport not for transportation and when I ride, I always follow the rules of the road. It's a few bad apples that give cyclists a bad image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by volosong
David910, your title is a gross generalization, misleading, and inaccurate. It should read:
Why Can't All Cyclists Adhere to Road Rules?
Many, if not most do follow traffic laws. It is the small percentage of a-holes who give all cyclist a bad name, and they have convinced you that all cyclists are inconsiderate scofflaws. This is not true. It is frustrating and I have scolded more than one cyclist for flaunting the rules-of-the-road. They just don't care. Realistically, there is not much that can be done about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bummer
I agree with most posts / comments on this subject, however . . .
Sadly, a few "Bad Apples" spoil the entire bunch.
So, the justification for crappy cyclists who don't follow the rules is "give cyclists a break! Just because a few of them are bad doesn't mean that they all are! We must try to deal with those people, since cyclists should be respected!"
But when it comes to gun control, it's more like "DON'T give gun owners a break! Just because a few of them are bad DOES mean that they all are! We must try to deal with those people by assuming that all gun owners are bad people who should have their property confiscated!"
Riding a bicycle is analogous to walking, which is our inherent right of movement (dubbed "freedom of movement"). Cars would have the same right if they weren't a hindrance to public safety. If cars were made of styrofoam.. they would have a more compelling case.
So how come cyclists aren't allowed to ride on sidewalks? Why are they only allowed to ride on the shoulder of roads, sharing it with vehicles.
You don't see pedestrians legally walking on the shoulder along side vehicles on public roadways
It's either one or the other. You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth when it's convenient to you.
Sounds like you are expecting all the car drivers to obey all the rules of the road but these rules dont seem to apply to bicyclists. Also people dont go out of their way to yell and scream at bicyclists for no reason at all.
Couple of my pet peeves is bicyclists insisting on driving on the road and taking up a whole lane when there is a bike path not 10ft from the road.
Me having to jam on my brakes as i go through a green light because some bicyclist is coming through the intersection on the red light..and i get flipped the middle finger.
Why do i have to spend big bucks with insurance,tags to drive my car on the road yet bikers pay nothing and dont have to follow any rules of the road.
I absolutely don't. I have an expectation that a car follows rules that put me in danger. Not a big deal if they break a rule that doesn't endanger me. California stops, going 60 in a 55 while traveling safely...not a big deal. Let's still not forget that there's a massive asymmetry in the danger posed by a cyclist vs a driver.
As for the bolded, I guess we'll agree to disagree, based on my experience. Because there's a (small) minority of drivers who feel empowered by the faux-cyclist vs driver controversy, that they think they should yell at me for minor infractions. And "yell" is not the right term--more like lectured. Case in point, I was "lectured" because I rolled a 4-way stop sign that was completely clear of an traffic and I had the right-of-way. Someone from behind, traveling parallel decided that telling me I was a bad person made them a good citizen.
In that case, I don't need car insurance. If I hit anyone, it's their fault.
I'm sure that I'm the only driver on the road that feels this way.
False equivalency.
A bicycle collision is not analogous to a car collision. 175 lb particle traveling at 15 mph vs. 4,000 lb particle traveling at 40 mph. Insurance is there to protect you from paying someone elses million dollar medical bills when you hit them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IShootNikon
So how come cyclists aren't allowed to ride on sidewalks? Why are they only allowed to ride on the shoulder of roads, sharing it with vehicles.
You don't see pedestrians legally walking on the shoulder along side vehicles on public roadways
It's either one or the other. You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth when it's convenient to you.
Riding a bicycle is legal on a sidewalk unless specifically outlawed by the municipality. It is discouraged due to pedestrian traffic.
Riding a bicycle is legal on a sidewalk unless specifically outlawed by the municipality. It is discouraged due to pedestrian traffic.
So is a bicycle a vehicle or how you put it "analogous to walking". Can't be both. If it's a vehicle than it needs to be regulated and licensed just like other vehicles, thus sharing the road with them. If it is analogous to walking, than they should only be allowed on sidewalks.
A bicycle collision is not analogous to a car collision. 175 lb particle traveling at 15 mph vs. 4,000 lb particle traveling at 40 mph. Insurance is there to protect you from paying someone elses million dollar medical bills when you hit them.
.
Clearly there's a case to be made for mandatory liability coverage for cyclists. People have died from injuries sustained from a collision from a bicycle, and based on miles driven, pedestrian danger of collision from bicycles and automobiles are nearly the same.
Last edited by tigerphan; 09-23-2014 at 04:19 PM..
You have about 35,000 more links to articles to post. That is about how many traffic fatalities due to cars we have each year. Good luck.
Yes, bicycles are permitted to claim the entire right most lane all roads except limited access roads (highways / freeways).
So let me ask you a question?
If there is 1 lane, I am making a right hand turn with my BLINKER on, why did 2 cyclist on separate occasions, just fly past me on the right?
Do they feel they do not have to stop for the car in front of them who has had their blinker on for a half of a block?
By the way, they both flew into a children's crossing zone with out even slowing down.
Of course if they would have crashed into me as I was turning, I guess I would be sitting in jail right now.
If they would have hit one of the children, hopefully, they would be sitting in jail and all future earnings, going to the child they hit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't forget to include the weight of the rider on the frame of that bicycle. 
