Chicago - The Most Bike Friendly City In The U.S. (Worth: insurance, property taxes)

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

There is no way that you don't break the law routinely while driving or really just living your life. For centuries we have had scores of elected lawmakers many of them lawyers passing laws covering everything from driving to adultery to food storage to lawn care.

I also seriously doubt your contention that you always follow the rules of the road especially driving at or under the speed limit. My argument is that if drivers can take some liberties with the rules of the road such as driving more than the speed limit than so can bikes in the form of treating stop signs as yields or as I said the other option is to have cyclists start cycling on the main arterial roadways designed for thru traffic and they can clog up traffic there. Your call. Do you want cyclists routinely riding east/west on 38 and 64 or north/south on 41 or 59 and taking a full lane?

The simple fact is many of the rules of the road that are reasonable and designed for cars are not so for bikes. Most cars only spend a mile or two on residential streets and stopping is not big deal for them. They take a foot off the gas put it on the brakes and then put it back on the gas. For a cyclist spending 100 miles on residential streets that is not so. I already described the effort it takes for a cyclist to come to a complete stop at a stop sign and on a 100 miles we can easily be talking about several hundred stop signs.

Take your liberties, but don't turnaround and be pissed when CPD starts slapping you all with rightfully deserved tickets.

Every summer I see multiple cyclists a week nearly hit pedestrians who had the right of way, or themselves nearly get hit by a car. All because they thought stop signs and lights didn't apply to them. Just because you have to deal with issues while riding doesn't mean you get to create brand new issues scot-free.

[MSchemist80]

Originally Posted by xsboost

That's the same argument a five year old would make: "But Timmy's doing it, so why can't I?"

Which is a gross simplification of a complex issue and argument which is also something a five year old would do.

So when drivers drive 5 miles over the limit with little concrete reason it is just a generally accepted practice but when cyclists treat stop signs like yield with good reasons outlined above it is too bad the law is the law is the law.

[xsboost]

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

Take your liberties, but don't turnaround and be pissed when CPD starts slapping you all with rightfully deserved tickets.

Every summer I see multiple cyclists a week nearly hit pedestrians who had the right of way, or themselves nearly get hit by a car. All because they thought stop signs and lights didn't apply to them. Just because you have to deal with issues while riding doesn't mean you get to create brand new issues scot-free.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

Which is a gross simplification of a complex issue and argument which is also something a five year old would do.

So when drivers drive 5 miles over the limit with little concrete reason it is just a generally accepted practice but when cyclists treat stop signs like yield with good reasons outlined above it is too bad the law is the law is the law.

I simplified it because you don't seem to get the point. Drivers will continue to break the law and they will continue to get tickets because the police seem to enforce the laws only against *drivers*. Like I said before:

Originally Posted by xsboost

If you're going to ride on the road like a car, then obey the laws like cars have to. I will stop complaining the day I see a cyclist pulled over for breaking the law. It just doesn't happen.

I will shut-up the day I see a cyclist pulled over for rolling a stop or blowing a red. Your arguments are to justify why you're breaking the law.

[MSchemist80]

Originally Posted by xsboost

I simplified it because you don't seem to get the point. Drivers will continue to break the law and they will continue to get tickets because the police seem to enforce the laws only against *drivers*. Like I said before:

Drivers very rarely get tickets for simply going 5-10 mph over the limit unless it is a near a school, construction zone, or the govt just is just using law enforcement to extort money from drivers (which is another related issue that many laws are made to be broken for govt revenue purposes Look up New Rome, OH). In cases where the police do get overzealous with traffic enforcement there is an uproar by citizens to the point where they are accused or racism in some areas.

The real five year old mentality is that drivers simply don't want to share the road with cyclists, don't like cyclists because they have to slow down and harassing them with strict traffic enforcement of laws that really aren't designed with them in mind is a convenient means to attack them.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by xsboost

I will shut-up the day I see a cyclist pulled over for rolling a stop or blowing a red. Your arguments are to justify why you're breaking the law.

You're ignoring my previous point regarding your refusal to support bike infrastructure that would increase safety for both drivers and cyclists (and pedestrians) as well as motivate both cyclists and drivers to obey speed and traffic laws.... lets face it...people who don't support bike infrastructure do it because they want to drive as fast as they possibly can and not have to deal with pedestrians, bikes, or anything else that impedes their traffic flow (though they fail to see the big picture that more bikes on the road = less cars = less traffic). Stop pretending this issue is about cyclists not obeying laws when you don't support infrastructure that would induce both drivers and cyclists to do just that.

Something like this wouldn't get support from anti-cyclists..they would complain about losing a lane of traffic. Yet this type of infrastructure keeps cars and bikes separate while they both use the roadways. Turning "boxes" for cyclists allow drivers to easily see that a cyclist needs to make a left turn at a light..a cycling stop light that changes just before the car traffic signal allows for better visibility and cues the cyclist to follow traffic laws. Gee...all these great solutions to problems that anti-cyclists moan about, yet they don't support the infrastructure "becuz traffic"
http://reno-rambler.blogspot.com/201...out-added.html

[MSchemist80]

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

Take your liberties, but don't turnaround and be pissed when CPD starts slapping you all with rightfully deserved tickets.

Good then We'll start complaining and have the police slap you with tickets for going above the speed limit and making improper turns. Like I said hypocrites using traffic enforcement to harass people they don't like.

[MSchemist80]

Besides CPD has more pressing concerns than acting as pawns in a petty dispute between drivers and bikes.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

Good then We'll start complaining and have the police slap you with tickets for going above the speed limit and making improper turns. Like I said hypocrites using traffic enforcement to harass people they don't like.

1) I don't have a car in Chicago.
2) Speeding is not comparable to blowing a traffic stop. At all.

Pedestrians in particular get pissed at cyclists because you do not have the right of way at a stop sign or stop light just because stopping would allegedly be too difficult for you. That's your problem.

[MSchemist80]

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

2) Speeding is not comparable to blowing a traffic stop. At all.

Pedestrians in particular get pissed at cyclists because you do not have the right of way at a stop sign or stop light just because stopping would allegedly be too difficult for you. That's your problem.

Actually it is very comparable and we are not talking about blowing stop signs. Both speeding and blowing a stop sign make you less likely to be able to stop in time. Second a car blowing a stop sign at 30 mph does not have enough time to observe if there is a potential conflict necessitating a stop. a cyclist approaching at 10 mph or so does.

And yes a cyclist not stopping and usurping the right of way from a pedestrian or vehicle is something we both disagree with. A cyclist proceeding through a stop sign at an empty intersection after observing it is so is fine with me. Hence why I said treating it as a yield sign.

[MSchemist80]

Originally Posted by chet everett

I ride my bike quite a bit. The point is not that "everybody bends some rules". The fact is you misrepresented current Illinois law.

I didn't misrepresent the law I said proceed cautiously through. I should have mentioned the 2 minute rule though the stop first was sort of implicit in the proceed cautiously through.