Ian F wrote:JoeyM wrote: Thanks. Now I have another reason to hate cyclists.Seriously? Berk you then. This thread should be locked.
Hi Lance, my name is Floyd. Wanna roid up and go ride our bikes on the street all the while not adhering to traffic laws? Cool! Spandex up, cowboy, let's ride.
I hope it doesn't get locked – it's a discussion worth having. It would be great if we could find a way to co-exist. I love riding my bike, but I cringe at sharing the road with cars and feel much safer while on the trails. If I could, I'd ride it a lot more.
I'd like to see that happen as well, but I'm not real hopeful, the different groups have different aims and ideals. Doesn't mean any of them are wrong, just different.
In a past life I did a lot of OHV trail political work and the big deal with the various state/federal agencies was multi use trails, i.e. hikers, bicyclists, equestrian and motorized all on the same trail. It was amazing to see what each group had to say about the other. The hikers were particularly obnoxious; to them horses stunk and left road apples, dirt bikes were too fast and too noisy but bicycles were too fast and, get this, too quiet. This group just plain refused to share with any of the others. The obnoxious road bike types are a lot like the hikers.
Sometimes it really gets out of hand. A guy here who was way high in the bicycling community was killed in a traffic accident a couple of years ago, the bicycling community rose in outrage but completely ignored the fact reported by police in the accident investigation that he was at fault. There were outraged letters to the editor of the 'how dare you call a dead man a liar?' type and there were reports that some bicycle people purposely stalled/blocked traffic as a way to, for lack of a better term, get even with the motorists.
I will say that 90% of road bicycle accidents are the rider's fault either directly (he did something stupid and/or broke the law) or indirectly (wasn't paying attention and put himself in a bad position). Road riding is like motorcycling x10. You have to ride like you're invisible and everyone is trying to kill you. Assume that car is going to pull out in front of you. Assume the doors of those parked cars could open at any time (if you wonder why riders tend to move away from parked cars - that's why). I suppose I'm fortunate. I live in an area where drivers are generally used to seeing bikes on the road and tolerate them. Few roads around here have an appreciable shoulder and there are no paved bike paths anywhere. The non-paved paths are along canals and don't go anywhere and/or are poorly maintained. Plus, they're typically covered with walkers and joggers. While you may complain about bikes and cars sharing the road, bikes and pedestrians are even more dangerous together. If you don't understand why, then you'll have to try it to see how scary it is for everyone involved - try getting passed by someone on a bike doing 20 mph - this is why cyclists ride with traffic and pedestrians walk against it.
I really can't comment on big groups who clog the roads and break traffic laws. I always ride solo and make a point of obeying traffic laws - to the same extent I do when driving. I also do most of my road rides on the weekends where drivers tend to be in less of a hurry and/or stressed from working and just want to get home, so any delay will set them off, no matter how minor or irrelevant (does it really matter if you have to slow for a cyclist so you get to the next traffic jam a few seconds later?). Yes, I'll ride up the shoulder along a long line of cars stopped at a light if I'm going straight. Lane splitting is legal in PA.
Again, my complaint about this thread is it accomplishes nothing. Cyclists will never convince those who vehemently believe bikes have no place on the road - and obviously a good number of users on this forum believe this.
Personally, I've never cared about the passing distance or paid much attention to that law. I've been riding on the road for over 30 years. Nothing phases me anymore. As long as you don't hit me, I really don't care how close you are. I've been passed by trucks that have missed me by inches. I stay as far to the right as I physically can. If there's a clean shoulder, I'll use it, but often what little shoulder there is can't be safely ridden on due to debris.
Life is risk. Many of us on this forum participate in a high risk activity - racing cars. I hope to do that some day. Right now, I can't, so I ride bikes. I have pretty much accepted I will likely meet my end on the hood of some SUV driver who wasn't paying attention and didn't see me. This doesn't bother me. We all have to die sometime and I've already lived far longer than I ever wanted to anyway.
What about licensing bicycles?
Joey
joey48442 wrote: What about licensing bicycles? Joey
One of those ideas that sounds great in principle, but not so easy in practice: Make cyclists pay road tax like everyone else. However, since the majority of bicycle buyers are not nut-jobs like me who don't blink at spending over $3K on a bike (and that's on the cheap-side these days), the idea of adding a registration fee - say $25 so the state isn't losing money on the deal - to a $200 dept store bike would be a bit more than the average Joe would want to deal with. Plus, there would be the added level of crap the dealers would have to endure on a sale that already has a surprisingly low profit margin. Could you imagine the typical Wally-world worker filling out those forms?
registration wouldn't work. I can still remember the uproar about kids being forced to wear helmets....
I was flipping through a bicycle magazine the other day, the high end is astronomical. I'm talking $10-$15k and there were hints of even more expensive ones. 
Paved trails sounds like a good idea and it is. However, it's expensive meaning shared trails to spread the cost around and that brings all the problems of different groups with different aims trying to use them. Also the greenie groups don't like them, they claim the runoff is contaminated with oil from the asphalt and rubber dust from bike tires.
I looked into Rails to Trails, the railroad rights of way quite often pass near residential developments and the residents are afraid the trails will bring crime noise etc into their lives so they do everything they can to shut them down. RtT also strictly forbids motorized use of any type, they even specify there must be barriers to block easy access by vehicles.
Just can't win, no one wants to compromise.
turbojunker wrote: So all these people know how these threads end already, yet still come into them and get their panties in a bunch. Seems logical.
FTFY. I will just say that there are indeed thousands of idiot and shiny happy person car drivers, but the cyclists seem to win in the fanatics department.
Curmudgeon wrote: I looked into Rails to Trails, the railroad rights of way quite often pass near residential developments and the residents are afraid the trails will bring crime noise etc into their lives so they do everything they can to shut them down.
yes. because people walking, jogging, and riding their bikes for healthy reasons are such low life scumbags. 
mad_machine wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: I looked into Rails to Trails, the railroad rights of way quite often pass near residential developments and the residents are afraid the trails will bring crime noise etc into their lives so they do everything they can to shut them down.yes. because people walking, jogging, and riding their bikes for healthy reasons are such low life scumbags.
Never underestimate the obstinant stupidity of the average NIMBY.
mad_machine wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: I looked into Rails to Trails, the railroad rights of way quite often pass near residential developments and the residents are afraid the trails will bring crime noise etc into their lives so they do everything they can to shut them down.yes. because people walking, jogging, and riding their bikes for healthy reasons are such low life scumbags.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed the irony.
In NY they have started up commuter bike rentals around Manhattan. On paper it sounds like a great idea to go with the bike lanes they have been putting everywhere. In reality I see some frightening displays of stupidity. NY has always been clogged with maniacs on bikes, and they are generally pretty good at staying out from under vehicles and off pedestrians. Since they had to own a bike they generally serious and got good at what they were doing. Now anyone can grab a bike off the street and leave it at there destination and most have no idea that there are rules or that they apply to them. The pedal out into traffic without looking, ride on crowded sidewalks, and many can't go in a straight line. Last week I got a good laugh as two girls texting rode head on into each other on an empty street.
I have tried these bikes a few times, but since I haven't been on a bike in 10+ years I stick to quiet areas and nights or weekends. It's a nice way to get around but before you go out into heavy traffic you should have to watch a truck run something over so you get a health fear of what can go wrong when you aren't paying attention.
mad_machine wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: I looked into Rails to Trails, the railroad rights of way quite often pass near residential developments and the residents are afraid the trails will bring crime noise etc into their lives so they do everything they can to shut them down.yes. because people walking, jogging, and riding their bikes for healthy reasons are such low life scumbags.
Unfortunately, being familiar with the rails to trails paths in Philly and DC, crime is a problem. Generally because there are usually plenty of hiding areas with easy escape routes (nearby parking) with a steady stream of "victims" on the path. Whether it's a valid argument against rails to trails is debatable. I know I stay the hell away from the paved trails in Philly at night unless I'm with a group or it's the middle of winter. Much, much safer on the street, believe it or not.
Since I haven't seen it mentioned. Those that ride recumbents seem to be a pita, they just don't seem as stable and wobble a bit down the road.
I see quite a few of these around and while not wobbly it seems like a good way to get run over by pretty much anything.
In reply to Wally:
Yeah... I see a few around NJ. Most use some sort of flag to be seen, but a few nuts don't. Typically, they're ridden by guys with back issues who can't handle sitting in a saddle hunched over. Personally, I don't care for them. They really suck for climbing.
In reply to Wally:
I have heard about the commuter bike lanes and rentals working in other places. Maybe it's just needs time for things to get better. That and enforcement of laws actually being enforced by police, learned by the riders/drivers. Even if the people on the bikes were all dim wits at least I wouldn't have to be dodging them driving an SUV, and they could dodge my car for a change 
Personally I would love to see bike lanes around here (and maybe better public transportation systems). A lot of health, economic, environmental benefits could be had from a working system like this.
In reply to Wally:
I agree, City riding is whole different ball game. You have to ride with s certain level of aggression. No place for the timid... or erratic texters...
Nothing to add other than this:
3-way street
vwcorvette wrote: Nothing to add other than this: 3-way street
That's an old video. But notice how hardly anyone flinches? Looks insane to a suburban driver. Perfectly normal day on the streets to a New Yorker: "It was good day - I almost died only 3 times crossing the street today and only yelled Berk You! to 12 couriers, 10 cabbies and 3 bus drivers."
Hell.. that video would be an example of being courteous and leaving too much space in India... It's a matter of perspective.
Ian F wrote:joey48442 wrote: What about licensing bicycles? JoeyOne of those ideas that sounds great in principle, but not so easy in practice: Make cyclists pay road tax like everyone else. However, since the majority of bicycle buyers are not nut-jobs like me who don't blink at spending over $3K on a bike (and that's on the cheap-side these days), the idea of adding a registration fee - say $25 so the state isn't losing money on the deal - to a $200 dept store bike would be a bit more than the average Joe would want to deal with. Plus, there would be the added level of crap the dealers would have to endure on a sale that already has a surprisingly low profit margin. Could you imagine the typical Wally-world worker filling out those forms?
Good point, but I was thinking more along the lines of licensing if the owner wanted to ride on a road, say, with a speed limit greater than 35. If you ride trails or at the park or on residential streets to license plate required.
Joey
You'll need to log in to post.
