Dear Austin Bicyclist, (Houston, Howe, Bee Cave: middle school, quality of life, living in)

[love roses]

Originally Posted by mm57553

I personally want to thank all the cyclists who ride three, four, or even more across in the bike lanes our tax dollars paid for, forcing all cars in the right lane to slow down, stop, or get over. So very considerate of you. I'm sure if there were a car driving in the bike lane, you would be livid. Same goes for doing this on the shoulders. I don't mind folks riding down 360 or 620 - the views are great and there is a large shoulder - large enough that you and your friends don't need to take up all of it and the right lane.

This was a ticketable offense in Denver. If there was a bike lane and a cyclist wasn't in it, and instead was riding in car lanes, they got a traffic ticket.

[ATX Wahine]

Originally Posted by mm57553

I also want to add the bikes should be required to have license plates. As of now, there is no way to identify cyclists when they are at fault for an accident. I know of one person (a pedestrian) that was hit by a cyclist at a high rate of speed (it was the cyclists' fault). The cyclist stopped, but then took off when he realized police and ambulance were being called. Because there was no way to identify him, she was out for all the medical bills, time missed from work, etc. I know of another person who had some car damage (again, cyclists' fault). The cyclist flat-out refused to give his name and left.

With this I definitely agree.

My daughter's brand-new car was significantly damaged by a cyclist on South Congress who was zoning out to his iPod and slammed into the passenger side of her car, stoving in her door and damaging the metal above it.

His response? To flee the scene of the accident by running away on foot, carrying his damaged bicycle while several people shouted for him to wait for police to arrive. He left my poor broke 19 year-old college student with a wrecked new car and a $1000 check to write for her insurance co-pay to have the damage repaired and there was nothing anyone could do short of pinning him down. Beyond maddening.

[MtnLion512]

Originally Posted by mm57553

I personally want to thank all the cyclists who ride three, four, or even more across in the bike lanes our tax dollars paid for, forcing all cars in the right lane to slow down, stop, or get over. So very considerate of you. I'm sure if there were a car driving in the bike lane, you would be livid. Same goes for doing this on the shoulders. I don't mind folks riding down 360 or 620 - the views are great and there is a large shoulder - large enough that you and your friends don't need to take up all of it and the right lane.

How horrible for you. From the bottom of my heart I'm sorry that some cyclists caused you to have to slow down, change lanes and pass on the street. Seriously, the nerve! If only they were driving cars, because you never have to slow down, stop or get over when it's only cars on the road in Austin. Oh wait...

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Actually I think we're being a nanny state by declaring bicycles to be equal to cars, trucks, & buses.

Pretty freaking stupid, IMO.

I've seen first hand how smart planning worked, and putting a 10 pound 30mph bike in 30+ mph motorized traffic is not smart.

Even the Chinese/Taiwanese knew that several generations ago.

Looks like Texas and Austin have a long way to go before catching up with that 3rd world era.

Whooo are you out of touch, sir! Most mid-size and large cities in the US have leaders and voters who've figured out that investing in alternative modes of transport, of which the most efficient is bicycles, is good for everyone...the whole country is trending overwhelmingly in that direction, thankfully. Austin is actually behind the curve in this regard, so you should be happy that you live in a city that is still so car-centric. Hell, even here support for responsible bicycling on the roads and the accompanying infrastructure is growing - just look at this thread. most that have posted are in favor of shared streets, and some aren't even cyclists. Most of us that are also own a motorized vehicle, whereas two of the most vocal opponents live way outside of Austin and really don't even have a dog in this 'fight'.

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

I find it interesting that some of the people here think that we should just assume that bicyclists know the rules of the road, with no requirement for education and testing allowed for in their world view. I wonder how many of those same people would advocate that we dispense with the same education and testing for driver's licenses for motorists and motorcyclists?

That's a pretty clear indicator of just where the sense of entitlement lies, I'd think.

You're pretty much just repeating this same thing over and over again, and talking past the multiple cyclists who have given you reasonable explanation as to why we would not be in favor of licensing & registration, as it does not address the perceived issue at hand (that too many cyclists are irresponsible on the road, or something like that). You just don't like the answers you've been given. If you really did just miss it, refer back to the first few new revived pages of this thread.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

So, your theory is that if one has more than one car one should only pay taxed on one of them?

Taxes aside (because everyone's going to scream if they have to shell out money for taxes and insurance just because they are using the roads and incurring risk for themselves and others), let's get back to licensing. I don't think it would create that much more of a bureaucracy, given that we already have one in place for cars and for motorcycles. That particular dog won't hunt.

Should we pay a sidewalk tax for walking? Should we get a pedestrian license?

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by MtnLion512

How horrible for you. From the bottom of my heart I'm sorry that some cyclists caused you to have to slow down, change lanes and pass on the street. Seriously, the nerve! If only they were driving cars, because you never have to slow down, stop or get over when it's only cars on the road in Austin. Oh wait...
.

So why should we bother constructing bike lanes? I don't mind bikes in regular lanes when there's no other option, but when you have bike lanes that's a different story. So if it's OK for bikes in that situation to ride in the regular lanes, is it then OK for cars or motorcycles to ride in the bike lane if they want to be next to and chatting with their friends?

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by love roses

This was a ticketable offense in Denver. If there was a bike lane and a cyclist wasn't in it, and instead was riding in car lanes, they got a traffic ticket.

It may be a ticketable offense here too. But the problem is that ticketing cyclists is a problem for police officers because they can't identify them. There are no license plates and many cyclists don't carry ID (or claim they don't).

[ATX Wahine]

Originally Posted by mm57553

It may be a ticketable offense here too. But the problem is that ticketing cyclists is a problem for police officers because they can't identify them. There are no license plates and many cyclists don't carry ID (or claim they don't).

Exactly. And while a handful of members of the pro-cyclist crowd are mighty quick to villify car drivers as reckless and arrogant, I've yet to participate in a conversation where any of them respond to situations where a cyclist was at fault with anything but excuses.

I lived in SF for 38 years and saw first hand how abusive and destructive some cyclists are during Critical Mass events there. I've had this conversation a hundred times and it always ends the same way, which is why I rarely bother any longer.

I am happy to share the road with bicycles and I've put MYSELF in a dangerous spot more than once to give them extra room out on the road. I just wish they would take the same level of responsibility for their actions as a car driver is expected to if they cause an accident. Sharing the road is not something only car drivers should have to do.

[scm53]

I realize the entitlement mentality must be issued with every bicycle sold. Still haven't seen a compelling reason why State Highway Fund dollars, drawn from fees paid solely by vehicle drivers, should be used to provide places for RECREATIONAL biking - which by my admittedly anecdotal evidence, makes up 80% of the riding in Austin.

Now, for all you literalists, reductio ad absurdum follows - if a bicycle can operate on a state highway, and vehicles be expected to yield, why not a skateboard? Two wheel scooter? You are recreating on your bicycle, just like they are. If you really want to go on, there isn't a good place to play football in my neighborhood. Trees, sidewalks all make it tough to run good routes, hit the open man, etc. So I'm thinking that empty lane on Bee Caves looks good. Drivers can just drive around us, no big deal. I mean, the wear and tear from ten sets of sneakers is negligible. Besides, I pay registration on my car, don't I? I've already paid for that road - I just want to use it to get in shape, get a little fresh air, be with my friends. You will just have to get over it. Besides, I have a camera...

Silly, huh? Well, that is just how silly the entitled cyclist sounds to those of us who pay for every highway mile we AND they drive - for any purpose - through the state and federal gas tax. This can all work, but the self righteous "I'm saving the world by riding up and down 360 with my buds" has to stop. No you're not - you are playing. In the highway.

If you want to be treated as equals, then advocate for licensing (to establish a baseline of shared knowledge of the law) and advocate for some kind of registration fee to enable you to ride on state highways. Until then, you are mooching, while expecting to be treated as an equal.

Now where is that football?

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

Should we pay a sidewalk tax for walking? Should we get a pedestrian license?

Pedestrians haven't been declared the equal to motorized vehicles like bikes have.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by owlman

I'm conflicted about this. I agree that many roads are so dangerous for cyclists. Asking them to share a lane on a 50mph frontage road or ride in a shoulder on a 60mph twisty highway is a recipe for disaster. But we should not wave off driver's responsibility just because of infrastructure... there MUST be personal responsibility on the part of drivers. You don't HAVE to go or exceed the speed limit if there are vulnerable road users around, exit early onto shoulders, or drift into another vehicle/bike/pedestrian you fiddle with the radio. If you cannot operate a vehicle without running over somebody, you probably shouldn't be driving.

We should also not wave off cyclists' responsibility to make decisions based on safety (theirs and that of others') rather than on "it's my GOD-GIVEN RIGHT, damn it!".

If you cannot ride a bicycle without putting yourself in danger, you probably shouldn't be riding.

There MUST be personal responsibility on the part of driver's AND cyclists, in my opinion. "Because I legally can" is no excuse for either party.