Way to ignore all of my points. I guess you were lying when you said you would support the bicyclists when they paid for their share of the roads. I just proved they did…and them some, and now you completely reverse your position.
As for your bit of hand-waving regard my ‘biking legally’. The answer is I don’t know and I don’t care. I’ve biked for ages and gone past scores of police, state and local, none of whom have so much as inquired about the registration of my bike. In the past, I was informed that registration of bikes was purely so it could be tracked more easily in case it was stolen and recovered. If that’s changed I was unaware of it.
A. As far as I can find, I am riding legally. There may be some hidden law in Boston requiring bicycle registration, but it is not enforced, or even publicized. Being that Boston was founded in 1630, I doubt anyone actually follows every law that’s on the books, so I really don’t think you can get too indignant about those that don’t research the possibility of unknown laws before they act.
B. Since roads are funded by far more than what motorists put in to use them, and since motorists contribute virtually all the congestion, and trucks most of the wear and tear, the average bicyclist pays more of their share than the average driver.
C. The roads here were originally built for horses, cows, and pedestrians.
D. The roads are essentially a government handout to people who drive cars. The taxes all of us pay are used for roads. Many of those roads cannot be used by bicycles. This is rather unfair to bicyclists.
E. Bicycles are considered vehicles in most states, and have the rights and privileges thereof in all (more or less). Bicycles have as much right to use the street as cars do.
Too many bike riders think being on two wheels makes them inherently better than everyone else, and therefore they can pick and choose when they want to obey the laws. And like most of America, they want ALL the rights but will fight you tooth and nail if you suggest that they come with some responsibilities. (Just look at the messages here for proof.)
Look, you don’t like cars and I don’t like bikes on roads designed for cars. But hey, we can all be friends here. You obey the traffic rules with the same consistency as motorists (no more, no less) and I’ll do my best to accept the fact that you’re pedaling at 15 mph on a 50 mph road and wobbling out toward the center of the lane every time I think I might pass you.
– Greg, Atlanta
(But I’ll never accept the pretentious fuck who bikes on a notoriously narrow road with traffic whizzing by at 60 mph – DRAGGING HIS KID IN ONE OF THOSE LITTLE ORANGE TRAILERS BEHIND HIM! Here’s a clue, buddy: The kid will be the first to go when some big mean SUV runs you over and that six-foot flag on his trailer won’t help.)
Right. As long as they follow all the traffic laws. And I don’t know anyplace where cars would be allowed to travel on the berm or drive really slowly in comparison to other traffic on the freeways – which are exactly the roads that bicyclists are prohibited from using. Along with farm machinery and animals, for the same reasons.
But, hey, I say if you’re a bicyclist and you regularly cruise along at 55-75 miles per hour, you should be allowed on the freeways. If you can keep up and ride safely, more power to you.
The roads are essentially a government handout to people who drive cars. The taxes all of us pay are used for roads. Many of those roads cannot be used by bicycles. This is rather unfair to bicyclists.
In Minnesota, roads are funded completely by taxes on cars. In fact, the amount of money from car taxes greatly exceeds what is spent on roads.
I think that there should be many more bike paths. I would love to be able to ride my bike to work and would if there was a clear bike path that went over or under major roads. However, I value my life. Traffic is so bad here that the roads cannot handle the congestion caused by slow moving bikes. I don’t understand why when they build new subdivisions, they are still so bike unfriendly.
Well, as a four time a week bike commuter, I tend to take umbrage at being painted with a derogatory brush. I myself have yelled at a few idiots who’ve ran lights, etc. But it’s precisely because we STAND OUT. Phil almost smacked that idiot, and it’s sticks in his mind. But Phil commutes in the Northern VA area, and I know (used to live there) that there’s not a week goes by when he’s almost creamed or almost gotten creamed by some idiot in a Mercedes or BMW (stereotype alert), yakking on a cell phone while bogarting across three lanes of 495 trying to get to the head of the line at the Springfield exit.
My commute is fairly benign, but I think it’s only because I have been doing it for over three years over the same route. The first six months was quite the adventure, but the last couple of years have really been a pleasure. 98% of the traffic that passes me gives me at least a half a lane, if not the whole lane when passing. BTW, as it is my responsibility to not impede the flow of traffic, it is your responsibility to ensure that it is safe to pass slower traffic.
As for the behavior of bike messengers, well, that’s another critter
If I obeyed the traffic rules as much as motorists do, I would have been killed ages ago while commiting an unlawful manuever or slamming into a car I pretended not to see when making a turn. I (for one) do not ‘pick and choose’ which laws I decide to obey.
Until you actually experience what its like to be on a bike and see how car drivers treat you before any malice comes into play, you really can’t comment. As for “not liking bikes on roads designed for cars”, well, unless your talking about superhighways, your arguement is invalid. Bike and pedestrians have the right to be on any road that they are not specifically forbidden to be on. I expect to be treated like a human being, not an obsticle. I don’t want extra rights, in fact I don’t ask for a fraction of the rights that many drivers arrogantly expect to be given.
By the way, the action you describe above about “wobbling out towards the center of the lane”, sounds like you are about to perform an act called ‘lane splitting’, which is illegal in many states.
DO you have a cite supporting this? Because it is contrary to everything I’ve ever read, and would make Minnesota unique not only among its neighboring states, but in the US.
Now Miskatronic, do you really mean that I can’t comment until I’ve done it myself? Are we reducing the argument to that level? That eliminates most debates from the beginning.
And when you just repeat the fact (I’ll assume it’s a fact) that you have the “right” to be on whatever road you want unless its specifically prohibited, you prove my point. You have the right, by golly, and so you’ll pedal out there no matter what the reality of the situation is. To hell with whether the road was actually designed to accommodate bicycles and whether you’re creating a hazard and whether you’re causing traffic to slow to a crawl. It’s your right, so you’re going to do it and that’s that.
I don’t know what lane splitting is, but I was referring to being trapped behind a bike on a busy road, going up a hill very slowly (ever seen North Georgia?)and looking for an opportunity to pass. I don’t think that’s illegal. Please don’t tell me we all have to form a single file line behind you like a parade and just stay there.
And by the way, when traffic stops I rarely see the biker stay in line and wait for us to move. He zips up the side, in and out, moving ahead because he CAN. Maybe that would be lane splitting.)
Um, gee, I bike to work every morning and home again every afternoon. I could have sworn I propel my bike over a bike path. Damn I must live in some strange alternate universe when contrasted with Gargoyle’s Seattle.
Bike paths are all over town, dimwit. Call up the transportation offices and ask for a ma…oh never mind.
I see plenty of cyclists and drivers break the law every day. I don’t think cyclists have any less or more regard for the law than drivers of motorized vehicles. The number of jerks in each group is proportionate. I signal, obey traffic laws and still some motorist’s have demonstrated hostility towards my presence on the road. There are also many polite, courteous drivers who are mistreated by cyclists. What the OP described was just stupidity and thank goodness there was a responsible driver at the intersection.
I’ve met SO many cyclists that think they’re better than motorists.:rolleyes:
As far as this matter is concerned, no, you can’t. You don’t know the shit that motorist give bicyclists. You see bikes in your way and AFAICT that’s all that they seem to be to you.
My bicycle is considered a vehicle in all staes in the union. Just because you are occassionally inconvenienced by a cyclist who is in your way does not change that fact.
For your information: I live in the city, I have lost time behind cars than they have ever lost behind me. Multiple stops will do that.
Then the individual operating said vehicle really should be obeying the vehicle codes in said states, correct?
Nor does the bicycle (vehicle) operator being inconvenienced by the vehicle code change the fact that the code is as it is to protect everyone’s safety, which includes the safety of the bicycle (vehicle) operator.
I heard about Minnesota roads being funded completely from car taxes and left over taxes used for other purposes from radio stations – not a cite. It is quoted often on radio stations here, especially during rush hour.
However, I’m trying to find some cites. Here’s one:
And this justifies your flouting the laws exactly how? I didn’t realize “Monty does a different crime” was a valid defense. Have to update my California Driver’s Handbook. Evidently, the DMV screwed up and didn’t tell me that little tidbit.
Hey, I don’t see what the big deal is. I would rather get out of the way of an annoying bike rider than to clean one off the front of my car.
:rolleyes:
Twit?! I’m sorry, did I make a valid point that you missed? Was there a post I made that indicated I violate traffic laws on a whim, or support those who do? I understand that this is the pit, but it seems this thread has turned into a debate. I would like a retraction on your part. Thank you.