Results 76 to 100 of 2516
Thread: Fu*king Cyclists
-
08-25-2016, 03:22 PM #76
Fu*king Cyclists
What is the real world opinion on Stop signs and traffic signals for cyclists when clearly there is no traffic coming that will cause an issue?
Two examples: A stop sign with good visibility and no cars: I'll go through.
A red light where the cars with the right of way are all through and there are no more cars coming. Clear line of sight as well. I'll go through.
I do both pretty much on a daily basis, but make sure I'm not impeding another vehicle's right of way.
-
08-25-2016, 03:23 PM #77Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- hell, CA pop 4
- Posts
- 2,398
These road bike threads go over like ton of bricks, no matter what kind of forum.
Not sure how to handle underage riders, but IMHO bikes for 16 years of age and above should be required to have tags and the riders should have to have a license. Take a test and know the laws, and be held to those laws.
So siily I can't legally ride a few miles of pavement connecting trails on my dirt bike that will go the speed limit or faster, yet any assclown can get on the road with a bike.
-
08-25-2016, 03:23 PM #78
I once saw someone doing a crossword puzzle on their steering wheel (paper & pencil!) while making the merge from I-90 west to I-405 North. This is a freeway interchange that has both the east and west bound traffic funneling into one lane. Weeeeeeeeeeeee! Glad I was on the bus!
Another time I was driving into work on 520 around 7am and saw the guy in the lane next to me leaning forward, both arms wrapped around the steering wheel up to his elbows with a crack pipe in one hand and a lighter in the other toking away.“When you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to say something. To do something." Rep. John Lewis
Kindness is a bridge between all people
Dunkin’ Donuts Worker Dances With Customer Who Has Autism
-
08-25-2016, 03:29 PM #79
KQ- you had the ROW, any time you're crossing a lane of travel (like they had to, to get onto new rd) you are the yielding vehicle.
For the cyclists in here, I see some hudge medical bills coming your way. If you want to be douchey bike riders in traffic or on busy roads, you're going to get hit. Even if you're in the "right" when a car hits you, you lose.
-
08-25-2016, 03:29 PM #80Good-lookin' wool
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Posts
- 11,765
-
08-25-2016, 03:37 PM #81
-
08-25-2016, 03:44 PM #82
-
08-25-2016, 03:54 PM #83
If no one sees it, did it happen?
But as both a driver and a sometimes city cyclist as long as you do what's in bold I don't see an issue.
It's when people don't do that it's an obvious issue and fucking insanely selfish and retarded. I almost took out a girl a few months back in what would have been a horrific accident. It was 5:30am on a Saturday morning and I was going 40mph (5mph over SL) north on a one way coming up to a major intersection (my one lane one way to a three lane one way). I had a green light and was cruising along, next thing I know this dumbass was hauling along on her fixie down the three lane one way (which is part of the other complaint I had earlier), plows through her red light at the intersection without even glancing my way or with even a hint of slowing down. I was literally 2 seconds from being in a Faces of Death scene.
That alone gave me nightmares for a day or two. All the while her dumbass had no idea her life was 2 seconds away from being ended.
-
08-25-2016, 03:54 PM #84
clearly, the cyclists were stupid or ignorant or both
its an unmarked intersection
there is no legal right identified
the geometry is such that it acts like a T but isn't really a T
so, while you can argue right of way on the "straightaway", someone else can argue it's an unmarked intersection and all the rights and responsibilities for safe passage through apply
but arguing it doesn't help anyone after an incident, right?
-
08-25-2016, 04:03 PM #85
-
08-25-2016, 04:08 PM #86
Interesting timing of this thread and an email from People for Bikes President, Tim Blumenthal in my inbox this morning:
"I’ve never ridden a high-wheeler. I’ve never played bicycle soccer. I’ve never hucked seaside village rooftops like trials master Danny MacAskill. But I’ve enjoyed countless types of cycling experiences and revered them all. Many of my best rides have been on the road. But today—like so many people who bike—I am seriously concerned about the future of the road riding experience, particularly the challenges of navigating among angry and distracted drivers.
I think I understand the roots of angry driving. The U.S. population is growing by more than 2.5 million people per year. More places are getting crowded and, of course, that includes most roads. Crowding increases stress and frustration, and that fuels anger. U.S. car and truck sales hit an all-time high in 2015—a year in which Americans drove more miles than ever before.
News of bike fatalities travels faster and every bulletin is unnerving. Even if bike deaths on the road aren’t significantly increasing (either as a raw number or percentage of trips), riding on the road today feels more dangerous. Forty-six states have passed anti-texting laws that prohibit typing while driving. Nevertheless, I frequently see people breaking this law. Whether I’m on a bike or in a car, at every red light I notice just about everyone behind the wheel looking down. When the light turns green, many don’t put their phones aside.
Ironically, the phone distraction phenomenon seems to be spreading quickly to two wheels. Have you noticed? I’m not sure if these riders are reading texts or playing Pokémon Go (or both), but so many people I encounter on multi-use paths clearly aren’t focused on the pavement ahead.
I doubt distracted, texting and angry driving are going away soon. I have trouble imagining that law enforcement resources will be fundamentally reallocated to monitor and ticket these behaviors.
So what are the solutions? How do we make riding on the road safer? This is a crucial question with no one, easy answer.
PeopleForBikes will continue to focus on improving bike infrastructure and creating safe, seamless networks. In the places where these networks have already been built, more people bike and fewer people are injured or killed in crashes. We will continue to encourage people to bike responsibly and predictably.
Meanwhile, here are six other suggestions:
-The industry focus on improving rider visibility is an important development that will help a lot if people who bike embrace it.
-Speed limits in town need to be lowered. The difference between 20 miles per hour and 35 mph is huge for the safety of kids and adults, on foot, on bike and in cars. Lower speeds make places quieter and more appealing for everyone. We just need to accept that driving inside city limits on most (but not all) roads is going to take a little longer. The tradeoffs are more than worth it.
-Keep pushing car companies to produce technology that makes steering and texting at the same time impossible. This can be done.
-Keep developing autonomous vehicles. Computers that guide cars and trucks will never be impaired, distracted or angry. -Automated cars should also dramatically reduce the need for private vehicle ownership and that could cut our need for on-street parking. Autonomous vehicles should create more space and enhance safety for everyone.
-Root for GoPro and all makers of on-board cameras. When aggressive, reckless driving (or any type of activity) is captured on video, people who are guilty will be found guilty and will go to jail. This can become an effective deterrent. Some people won’t like it: tough.
-Adapt best practices from the nations that do a better job of protecting bike riders and pedestrians. That’s the Netherlands, Denmark and a few other western European nations. Yes, they are smaller, more crowded countries than the U.S., but they have spent the last 40 years developing best practices for moving people and moving goods. We can learn a lot from them.
Americans make close to five billion bike trips per year. That’s an average of 14 million rides per day—many more than that on a warm-weather weekend. We need to eliminate the crashes that can be avoided…and that’s most of them.
We can’t do this alone, but we can do this. All road users are in this together."
-
08-25-2016, 04:19 PM #87
Interesting that the suggested behavioral changes in the cited email all have to do with changing the habits of automobile operators and, outside of what color clothes you wear as a cyclist, none of the behaviors address the cyclists who don't follow good protocol. Good luck with that.
-
08-25-2016, 04:32 PM #88
Any time you leave your lane of traffic, it is your responsibility to yield or make sure it is safe to leave your lane. Her lane continues on and she never leaves her lane... but yeah, when you're frame is broken and your skeleton has many missing parts, it doesn't really matter. On moto's and bikes, I yield to the car.
-
08-25-2016, 04:55 PM #89
Get bent, dickhead.
I do everything I can NOT to get hit. Sometimes that involves riding out in traffic so I can be more easily seen and stupid fucks don't try and take turns in front of me. But I'm not going to stop riding bikes.
I'm a sales rep, I spend most days driving between accounts all over the Wasatch Front and the amount of utterly terrible, inept, dangerous, selfish, entitled driving I see all day every day would boggle your mind - or maybe not - we're all getting disturbingly conditioned to shitty driving - I'm not reading comment sections in every article about a fatal auto wreck full of victim blaming, all encompassing hyperbole and proposals for more driver education or increased enforcement. Its difficult for me to sympathize with drivers bitching about cyclists "in the way". We're talking about seconds of delay out of lifetimes increasingly flooded with worthless distractions and we're talking about human lives. I understand there are some bad apples and people riding in stupid spots like that busy shoulderless canyon road described earlier, but the antagonism and hyperbole used against cyclists in comments sections and the shit like you wrote above is horrifying and only further poisons the well.
I'm very picky about where and when I ride on the road, I try to pick signed bike routes, bike lanes, wide shoulders and quiet roads but I sure as shit will take the lane when I feel necessary for safety and visibility. The vast majority of cyclists I see, both recreational and transportation-minded, are riding safely and well within the rules of the road.
-
08-25-2016, 04:56 PM #90
KQ on your hypo:
1. What a disaster of an intersection. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody is killed there, or has been killed.
2. It should be a roundabout, as has been said.
3. I was just chatting with the sheriff lieutenant I work with and showed it to him. He said that, even without signage, the SB traffic on Sweagle Road should be yielding to crosstraffic and if he had been investigating a hypothetical accident in your scenario, he would've found the cyclists at fault.
4. We looked at it in Google Streetview and there actually is a yield sign for SB traffic turning WB. There should also be one for SB traffic heading EB at the bottom right corner of the island.
So, yes, you likely had the right of way and would not have been at fault in an accident. As a county dentist though, if that was my county, I'd be concerned about liability for the lack of signage. (Seriously.) A disaster waiting to happen.
Also, what JoeTron said. I recently picked up road biking after resisting for years for safety reasons. Of mountain biking, BC skiing, rock climbing, etc., road biking is easily the most dangerous thing I do. And I like to think I'm a courteous cyclist.
-
08-25-2016, 05:00 PM #91
-
08-25-2016, 05:05 PM #92
pdx is a combo idiot entitled drivers and bigger idiot entitled cyclists. they would be equal idiots but one is encased in steel.
-
08-25-2016, 05:06 PM #93
-
08-25-2016, 05:07 PM #94
-
08-25-2016, 05:11 PM #95
Seriously, no beef, I was just clarifying that they had a duty to make sure they could leave they're lane safely, the whole T intersection thing doesn't really matter in this instance because they're turning from one road to another. I shoulda included something cool like this
-
08-25-2016, 05:14 PM #96
-
08-25-2016, 05:19 PM #97
-
08-25-2016, 05:22 PM #98
-
08-25-2016, 05:26 PM #99
I wouldn't say the vast majority of cyclists are following good protocol, considering poor protocol is what sparked this thread. In reading many of the comments, claiming that the vast majority follow good protocol is a stretch. Clearly, though, the author of the referenced emails feels as you do and that the blame is entirely on those driving cars. I don't agree and I'm a cyclist so my bias isn't to the opposite, just educated observation. Regardless, that wasn't my point. The issue is that any politicians, in most cities, that would pursue some of the fixes noted would have the automotive public to deal with. That's a much larger voting block. A prime example is the 20 mph speed limit in lieu of 35 mph, all to protect the few riders on streets where bikes really shouldn't be. The example I'm thinking of is my daily commute. There are 2 or 3 bike commuters I see pretty regularly going to work. They're riding on a 4 lane (2 each direction) street without a bike lane, 35 mph. Is the suggestion that the street should be 20 mph to accommodate those riders? If such a suggestion were to be implemented, the drivers in this city would revolt, big time. It's simply a matter of numbers. I don't see getting critical mass to implement the suggestions of the writer of the email and, hence, my 'good luck with that' comment.
-
08-25-2016, 05:34 PM #100
we live in our own bubble in portland...I know that
but the needle does move occasionally in favor of protecting pedestrians and cyclists as the at-risk population
http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/...nd-pedestrians
Bookmarks