That is what you get when the laws were written to get cyclists off the road.
I love the Idaho stop rules and wish they would get implemented in more states. Of course, people in Idaho complain about the darn bicyclists blowing through stop signs even though it is legal.
I think Cumberdale means doing things like pulling briefly onto the sidewalk, and “corner cutting” an intersection, because cars won’t yield to them at a four-way stop-- or at a two way stop where the bicyclist has the right-of-way.
RE: the article: who modifies a bicycle not to have brakes?
Ah. I was unaware of the precedent.
I agree. Bicycling laws need to be clear and drivers need to be educated that bikes do belong on the road.
No, its more a case that since drivers treat cyclists poorly, have little to no concern for their safety and the law does almost nothing to protect cyclist from bad driver behavior then many a cyclist just decides there is no point in respecting laws that give them no respect.
I don’t like it. I don’t do it. But I can see why it happens.
It might have just been a poor reporting of a ‘Fixie’, which is a bike meant to be used in a Velodrome where brakes are not needed. Sadly this cycle has become popular with couriers (who like the fact that there are fewer parts to worry about) and alleged ‘hipster’ cyclist (who want to look cool or look like the couriers).
I live in SF, and would support the Idaho stop. Seems reasonable, and is basically what I do now; I have no problem with a cyclist slowing at a stop sign and proceeding through it if there are no other vehicles around. Unfortunately, it’s very common for cyclists in this city to blow through stop signs and red lights regardless of right of way, and it makes it very difficult to defend cyclists from bicycle haters, who are essentially right about most cyclists ignoring the traffic rules.
They are going to hate cyclists anyway, FYI.
I would love the “dead red” rule. I hated this one intersection I couldn’t avoid on my way home, where I lived for several years in Indiana, that had a sensor. I used to get off my bike and walk it across on red when there was no traffic, but I still had the red light, so I was technically a pedestrian, and could cross on red.
I got a ticket once for running a red light. I stopped in the left turn lane, the waited about two long minutes for the sensor that never responded to me, finally determined that it was completely clear and proceeded. A cop was sitting somewhere in view and decided he was bored enough to go after me.
And “modified to have no brakes”? That is not a “modification”. I once built a bike up from a frame, it had no brakes until I “modified” it to have them.
I don’t see why brakes wouldn’t be helpful, even in a velodrome; although, I can see where people might prefer ungeared bikes, with pedal brakes instead of hand brakes for them, so a bike with the hand brakes removed would look like a velodrome bike.
It is extra weight on the bike that isn’t needed. Nobody is going to pull out of a parking space in front of you inside the velodrome.
You stop such a bike by jamming your legs to a halt - requires a bit of technique. Because it has no freewheel (the rear cog is fixed) the back wheel will lock-up, skid and the bike will stop. This braking mechanism makes such bikes legal where I am, and I assume California.
Riding a bike this way on the street is, obviously, totally moronic and should be grounds for instant incarceration. The reaction time to skid stop a fixie is far longer than using conventional brakes and crashes are inevitable.
Well, if I was driving my car on a dangerous road, would it then be OK to drive my car on the sidewalk?
Out in SF there’s the Embarcadero, which has bike lanes going both ways. About 1/3 of the bike rides use the sidewalk still.
This very recently led to one of them killing a small dog on a leash.
One post does not a hater make.
You should read the rest of the thread then. I was trying to give an abridged version. Most of his posts are him trying to justify his fantasy of dead cyclists and piling unsubstantiated claim after claim about cyclists (and to be fair, pedestrians).
Yeah, I’ll call hater.
Did you read that part where I said cyclist should not be there?
Yes, that is a lovely strawman you have raped, sir. Lovely indeed.
Yes, and then you went on to justify it due to “driver depraved indifference to cyclists”.
What I actually said:
I did not justify it. I said that is what will happen. It is by no means a justification any more than saying insulting bikers in a biker bar will lead to you getting beaten up is a justification for someone beating someone else up.