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.
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?
You sure are blustering on about this entitlement issue, but I'm not sure why - can you show me where people on this thread have been saying "I'm saving the world by riding on 360" or "it's my god-given right", or other entitled-sounding phrases? I haven't seen any.
Also, can you define being "treated as equals"? If you're talking about behavior while on the road, then yes I insist on that, in terms of requirements for safe passing and protection under the law. As you said though, I already have that. (I guess that makes me entitled for pointing it out?) If you're talking about mindset and general paradigm, I really couldn't care less if drivers - particularly ones who dislike seeing cyclists on the road - like me or accept me or my chosen mode of transportation. You all can bemoan the unfairness of it all on internet forums or at home, as long as you follow the rules of the road as they pertain to cars and bicycles. I'll do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro
Pedestrians haven't been declared the equal to motorized vehicles like bikes have.
You were just on your soapbox a few pages back about fairness...what happened? But hey, if you really want to go back to the root of the issue, the problem arises from when automobiles were declared the equal, and then the superior, of bicycles and just plain ol' walking. You can thank that mindset for our lovely Austin traffic and American cities that look like Houston, Phoenix and LA.
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?
There are times when it is not possible to ride in the bike lanes otherwise most cyclists are content to do so. But if there are parked cars, trash cans, broken glass, etc. I will use the regular lane.
A better question is why do we build streets with enough right of way for cars to park for free? Are roads for transportation, including bike lanes, or are they for vehicle storage?
Sorry, but I think the private sector should provide parking and roads should be made to get from point A to point B, whatever your legal vehicle of choice may be.
So in regards to costs for road infrastructure what about other external costs, like health care? What about the medical costs associated with a sedentary lifestyle? Is it a coincidence that the average American who doesn't ride a bike has a lower life expectancy at 78.1 years than the average Dutch person who probably does cycle at 80.5 years?
And from today's Statesman:
"In Hays, the study found higher rates of obesity among African American and Hispanic students, as well as among students living in low-income areas. Researchers also report that 45 percent of Hays elementary school students are overweight or obese, compared with 44 percent of students in middle school and 37 percent of students in high school."
So how many billions, tens of billions, or even hundreds of billions of dollars in lost productivity will this country incur due to lower life expectancy, medical costs, and general decline of quality of life because of the obesity epidemic that is part of our nation's future?
Sorry, if anything we should be promoting cycling and other activities that burn calories, decrease anxiety/stress levels, and lower transportation costs.
You sure are blustering on about this entitlement issue, but I'm not sure why - can you show me where people on this thread have been saying "I'm saving the world by riding on 360" or "it's my god-given right", or other entitled-sounding phrases? I haven't seen any.
Also, can you define being "treated as equals"? If you're talking about behavior while on the road, then yes I insist on that, in terms of requirements for safe passing and protection under the law. As you said though, I already have that. (I guess that makes me entitled for pointing it out?) If you're talking about mindset and general paradigm, I really couldn't care less if drivers - particularly ones who dislike seeing cyclists on the road - like me or accept me or my chosen mode of transportation. You all can bemoan the unfairness of it all on internet forums or at home, as long as you follow the rules of the road as they pertain to cars and bicycles. I'll do the same.
You were just on your soapbox a few pages back about fairness...what happened? But hey, if you really want to go back to the root of the issue, the problem arises from when automobiles were declared the equal, and then the superior, of bicycles and just plain ol' walking. You can thank that mindset for our lovely Austin traffic and American cities that look like Houston, Phoenix and LA.
I didn't bother going through the whole thread yet (just got back from Canada and playing catch-up, will do that a bit later), but see the post below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome
So in regards to costs for road infrastructure what about other external costs, like health care? What about the medical costs associated with a sedentary lifestyle? Is it a coincidence that the average American who doesn't ride a bike has a lower life expectancy at 78.1 years than the average Dutch person who probably does cycle at 80.5 years?
And from today's Statesman:
"In Hays, the study found higher rates of obesity among African American and Hispanic students, as well as among students living in low-income areas. Researchers also report that 45 percent of Hays elementary school students are overweight or obese, compared with 44 percent of students in middle school and 37 percent of students in high school."
So how many billions, tens of billions, or even hundreds of billions of dollars in lost productivity will this country incur due to lower life expectancy, medical costs, and general decline of quality of life because of the obesity epidemic that is part of our nation's future?
Sorry, if anything we should be promoting cycling and other activities that burn calories, decrease anxiety/stress levels, and lower transportation costs.
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.
Sure, personal responsibility applies to all sides. Putting yourself in a dangerous situation like riding on a dangerous road is generally a bad idea.
However, rare is the cyclist who bombs down I-35 yelling "it's my GOD-GIVEN RIGHT!" Cyclists are usually on an unsafe road simply because there are no reasonable alternate routes, and I argue that the most common reason the road is unsafe in the first place is because most drivers do not know how to--or do not care enough to--drive safely around cyclists and pedestrians.
This explains why I think registering bikes may not be the best approach:
"Mayor Bill White breaks this law. Thousands of innocent children could be implicated. You, dear reader, may be in violation and not even know it.
The city finally is cracking down on bicyclists' rampant disregard of the registration law — by getting rid of the law.
City officials and bike enthusiasts all seem to agree that it's a silly, outdated ordinance that is all but impossible to enforce.
The City Council could vote to strike the law from the books on Wednesday.
The law requires owners to register their two-wheelers at a local fire station for $1 and place a little license sticker on the bike."
You sure are blustering on about this entitlement issue, but I'm not sure why - can you show me where people on this thread have been saying "I'm saving the world by riding on 360" or "it's my god-given right", or other entitled-sounding phrases? I haven't seen any.
Also, can you define being "treated as equals"? If you're talking about behavior while on the road, then yes I insist on that, in terms of requirements for safe passing and protection under the law. As you said though, I already have that. (I guess that makes me entitled for pointing it out?) If you're talking about mindset and general paradigm, I really couldn't care less if drivers - particularly ones who dislike seeing cyclists on the road - like me or accept me or my chosen mode of transportation. You all can bemoan the unfairness of it all on internet forums or at home, as long as you follow the rules of the road as they pertain to cars and bicycles. I'll do the same.
You were just on your soapbox a few pages back about fairness...what happened? But hey, if you really want to go back to the root of the issue, the problem arises from when automobiles were declared the equal, and then the superior, of bicycles and just plain ol' walking. You can thank that mindset for our lovely Austin traffic and American cities that look like Houston, Phoenix and LA.
You are just being argumentative.
Bikes should be licensed & taxed like all motorized vehicles. period.
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.
I'm curious as to these situations that have put you in a dangerous spot based on a cyclist's actions. Also keep in mind there is a 3 foot passing law in Austin and in certain situations it is legal for cyclists to take the lane.
"However there are exceptions to this law. Under the following conditions the law allows bicyclists to take the full lane of travel when:
Under the following conditions the law allows bicyclists to take the full lane of travel when:
The person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction.
The person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway.
When there are unsafe conditions on the roadway, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, or surface hazards that prevents the person from safely riding next to the curb or edge of the roadway.
The lane is of substandard width (less than 14 feet in width and not having a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane) making if unsafe for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side."
I'm curious as to these situations that have put you in a dangerous spot based on a cyclist's actions. Also keep in mind there is a 3 foot passing law in Austin and in certain situations it is legal for cyclists to take the lane.
"However there are exceptions to this law. Under the following conditions the law allows bicyclists to take the full lane of travel when:
Under the following conditions the law allows bicyclists to take the full lane of travel when:
The person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction.
The person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway.
When there are unsafe conditions on the roadway, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, or surface hazards that prevents the person from safely riding next to the curb or edge of the roadway.
The lane is of substandard width (less than 14 feet in width and not having a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane) making if unsafe for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side."
And that's why I'm in favor of designated, purpose-built bicycle lanes on all major thoroughfares - always have been since I rode one to school. And to tax bikes to help pay for them.
Haven't read the whole thread but I will add that I have noticed a general attitude amongst the majority of cyclists here that they have the right of way no matter where they are. On the roads this doesn't bother me that much because I agree they need to be somewhat assertive to protect themselves from distracted or hostile drivers, my issue is they seem to carry this over to riding on sidewalks and trails where many pedestrians are present. I have seen cyclists curse at people they feel are taking up too much space on the trail and have been buzzed at close range by them many times when out running or walking, basically doing what they complain that cars do to them. I feel it is an inevitability that I will be hit by a bicycle one day when on foot.
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.
Cyclists are usually on an unsafe road simply because there are no reasonable alternate routes, and I argue that the most common reason the road is unsafe in the first place is because most drivers do not know how to--or do not care enough to--drive safely around cyclists and pedestrians.
