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.
So you don't even exceed the weight limit and need a 'beefy' rear rim on your bike that likely has a fraction of the use that these bikes will get. So why would you doubt the bikes would be damaged by someone bigger using these more frequently?
I think this program can / may be a success, but I see such a nightmare given the current infrastructure. In densely populated areas, it can be hard to walk. Put people on bicycles, including those totally unfamiliar with riding / nyc, it can cause some very scary situations. But I love the convenience factor.
I absolutely despise the subways and think they are a joke for a world class city like nyc....this will give people (me) the ability to avoid the subway like the plague for anything less than 20 or so blocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GER308
I am 250 and I don´t break bikes. I do have a beefy rear rim on my Road bike after going through a few lighter ones, and a normal but quality rim for the mountain bike. I bike commute about 200Km per week if the weather is ok and sometimes ride on the weekend.
I gusss I am a bit fat, not so tall, only 6´ but very masivly built. When I was really fit, pre injury, and running tons and climbing 3 times a week I was 215-220. Am working to get back there now I still run and climb a bit. I doubt the bikes they are using would be damaged buy a big guy.
The city ahould retro fitted a dedicated bike lane over the Brooklyn Bridge for the safety of bike riders and pedestrians. Imagine bike share riders slamming into people walking over the Brooklyn Bridge?
I notice that you've been very feminine in the way you converse. And people sometimes wonder why men who are self proclaimed liberals get made fun of...
I'm not really against it honestly, or biking in general. My only beef is the powers that be actin as if those of us who like to drive and/or have to are Neanderthals who need to be "taught" or forced to see it their way. It is far more convenient for me to drive to work than to use PT or definitely a bike.
I rode on Queensborough bridge last night, and there were a lot of riders there. Young professionals, restaurant workers, etc. going home. My commuter bike is a "citycized" bike and is always locked outside. It's getting harder to find a pole in the city to tie it to.
That s true, which is why the city is rolling out bike racks like crazy. This may help:
Not everywhere in Manhattan they don't.. They put a least 4-5 of these racks on solidly residential blocks on the LES. There's a rack on Norfolk behind the projects on Essex. Two blocks up is one of Bloomberg's magical pedestrian plazas on Delancey. Why didn't they put it there? Makes no sense. That's only one example but there's plenty more.
FYI, who will be liable when drunks start using these bikes for transportation home and cause accidents? Did the city adequately address liability issues such as that? Can I sue the city when one of these bikes slams into my car?
DUI on bike seems a little harsh. Then you might as well give DUIs for skateboarding and rollerblading drunk. The difference is a couple tons, speed, and the danger posed. The likelyhood of killing a pedestrian on a bike, is very unlikely. I would say a ticket for wreckless riding or something like that, $100 fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborneguy
I'm not really against it honestly, or biking in general. My only beef is the powers that be actin as if those of us who like to drive and/or have to are Neanderthals who need to be "taught" or forced to see it their way. It is far more convenient for me to drive to work than to use PT or definitely a bike.
Well the problem is 15,000 New Yorkers getting injured a year, pollution, road wear, collisions, and congestion. A lot of people who drive to work, don't have to and shouldn't. There's just not enough room on the road for everyone. Traffic also needs some serious taming in NYC. Weak politicians. But it's changing, safe streets are being recognized more rapidly now then ever. The city is transforming and trust me the changes will eventually benefit those people that have to drive in time.
Nobody has answere this question yet -- how will they enforce the 260 lbs rule. Weigh people?
Nothing is perfect. One thing I see a problem with -- many people shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets, let alone ride a bike. Riding safety classes should be provided by the Govt with taxpayer money. And an Agency should be created to oversee the bike safety Schools, and an Agency to oversee the Overseer. Hey, why not?!
^Pretty sure it's more an advisory. They are telling you that if you are over 260 lbs, you can damage the bike. If that's found to be the case when you return it, as reported by the next user, you will most likely get billed for the repairs.
Although Airborneguy has a point about Moshe Rubenstein being willing and ready, fact is that bicycles are classified as vehicles, and basically are under the same statute. Running a red light on a bike, if you're caught, will cost you $ 340, no BS.
Again, I wasn't referring to criminal punishment (ie, DWI). I am talking about civil liabilities arising. As was stated above, traffic laws already apply to bikes and their operators.
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.
