Page 27 of 29 FirstFirst ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast
Results 651 to 675 of 709
  1. #651
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Magically whisked away to...Delaware
    Posts
    3,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    It's mind blowing that they couldn't be bothered to ticket the guy for failure to maintain lane and/or failure to yield. At least make him pay a few hundo in fines and suffer through traffic school, FFS. Even that shitstain DA in South Dakota had to pay $1,000 in fines and plead to some minor misdemeanors.



    Inattention is usually considered to be negligence, while reckless driving requires a higher degree of wanton disregard for traffic laws. However, as noted, a vehicular manslaughter charge in CA only requires basic negligence, not gross negligence or reckless driving.
    Re: inattentive: it is also handy bc I’ve seen plenty of times civil cases resolve when the Plaintiff’s attorney walks in and says: your guy admitted guilt in criminal court….id like the policy limits please.

    Sure it’s only a $25 fine and 2pts in traffic court …but who wants to argue to a civil jury that they’re guy wasn’t at fault when he already admitted to being inattentive?

    Re: reckless: as Dan said: here in DE, Reckless requires a higher mens rea; Inattentive Driving is the lowest driving charge aside from Speeding+5.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    It makes perfect sense...until you think about it.

    I suspect there's logic behind the madness, but I'm too dumb to see it.

  2. #652
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    14,894
    Quote Originally Posted by teledad View Post
    Agreed that the right turn across the bike lane is problematic (but still the driver's responsibility to yield when crossing).
    It still seems safer than keeping the bike lane to the right of the right-turn lane. If you put the bike lane all the way over it's easy to end up stopped at the intersection next to cars that have only been looking left so that they can turn right on the red. They have no idea you've pulled up on their right, cross-traffic to their left clears out, and they turn right into you. This is a very common way to get greased, especially with trucks, trailers and other large vehicles that make wide right turns and have poor visibility on the passenger side.

    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    Inattentive Driving is the lowest driving charge aside from Speeding+5
    Take a minute and think about how insane this is. Even at a modest speed of 40 mph you are traveling 60 feet per second.

  3. #653
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    It still seems safer than keeping the bike lane to the right of the right-turn lane. If you put the bike lane all the way over it's easy to end up stopped at the intersection next to cars that have only been looking left so that they can turn right on the red. They have no idea you've pulled up on their right, cross-traffic to their left clears out, and they turn right into you. This is a very common way to get greased, especially with trucks, trailers and other large vehicles that make wide right turns and have poor visibility on the passenger side.
    Been a while, so I don't ride through intersections like that often but I feel like the last x times I did I always moved left out of the bike lane before that "merge" point. Holding that line just seems suicidal.

  4. #654
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    14,894
    I think the safest move is to claim the turn lane, then move back to the bike lane when you get to the light.

  5. #655
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,733
    Yeah, there's the CA approach, where the right-turn lane crosses the bike lane early, and the OR approach (which I think is typical in most other states too), where the bike lane stays to the right of the turn lane all the way to the intersection. Both have their own dangers, but I do think the CA approach seems like it _should_ have lower potential for issues than the OR approach.

    Having said that, drivers and cyclists in PDX are usually pretty hip to the right hook thing. I'll hang back from a large vehicle that's signaling for a right turn unless there's a bike box. Most drivers in the area seem to have learned they need to check the bike lane before turning. I only remember 2 right hook close calls in 15 years of commuting into downtown Portland.

  6. #656
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    907
    Posts
    13,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    It still seems safer than keeping the bike lane to the right of the right-turn lane. If you put the bike lane all the way over it's easy to end up stopped at the intersection next to cars that have only been looking left so that they can turn right on the red. They have no idea you've pulled up on their right, cross-traffic to their left clears out, and they turn right into you. This is a very common way to get greased, especially with trucks, trailers and other large vehicles that make wide right turns and have poor visibility on the passenger side.


    That's some srsly fuckedup traffic engineering. Prob a retrofit with too many constraints to allow a safer design...
    Bikes need to be on that big wide unoccupied sidewalk in that pic. Mark a bike lane to give bikes right of way over pedestrians within the paint on the sidewalk.

    I understand sidewalks are sacrosanct pedestrian country in some places, but in other places it's entirely apropos for non-TdF wannabes to ride on the sidewalks.


  7. #657
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,301
    You guys might be interested in protected intersections, which strive to address some of these issues.

    https://nacto.org/publication/dont-g...intersections/

    I agree with those that point out there is a simple kinetic energy problem when mixing vehicles and bike/pedestrians. The Dutch in particular look at our unprotected bike lanes on streets with vehicle speeds over 30 mph as being crazy. People think the Dutch just smartly built a pedestrian and bike centric system, when the reality is that they discovered that they had a lot of bike/ped fatalities and decided to do something about it.

    Enforcement is one piece of the puzzle, but we really need to build complete streets that recognize the ROW doesnít belong exclusively to vehicles.

    Edit - The NACTO bikeway design guide and the NACTO website in general have a lot of really accessible design guidance if you are looking at something your local agency has done and are wondering why they did it. Itís not the sole guidance out there, but is really accessible to the non-engineer IMO.
    Last edited by old_newguy; 09-30-2021 at 12:13 PM.

  8. #658
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    14,894
    Quote Originally Posted by highangle View Post
    I understand sidewalks are sacrosanct pedestrian country in some places, but in other places it's entirely apropos for non-TdF wannabes to ride on the sidewalks.
    Sidewalks are for small children and morons riding full-suspension Huffys because they got too many DUIs. Studies consistently show that sidewalks are the most dangerous place to ride: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...the_literature

    Anyone who suggests riding on the sidewalk has clearly never done it. It's immediately obvious that it's sketchy AF. Visibility is often terrible. Every single side-street becomes an intersection. Cars are parked across them all the time. Curbs are often not ramped. I could go on. I suppose it's fine if you don't need to ride faster than 5 mph.

    Quote Originally Posted by old_newguy View Post
    You guys might be interested in protected intersections, which strive to address some of these issues.

    https://nacto.org/publication/dont-g...intersections/
    Good luck getting those built anywhere outside of a handful of major cities.

  9. #659
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by highangle View Post
    Bikes need to be on that big wide unoccupied sidewalk in that pic.
    I knew highangle would say that. I agree that bikes shouldn't have to ride on the sidewalks, and lots of situations where sidewalks are impractical, but on a road like in the photo, I would have been up on that sidewalk. And I consider myself fairly high risk tolerance. But nothing terrifies me more than being on a bike on a multi-lane suburban road with a "bike lane" not removed from traffic. Just too many idiots out there. If I die, I want it to be for my fuck up like in an avy or an act of God like a great white comes and chomps me. Not some dipshit checking their instagram.

    Funny thing is that true urban riding seems much less risky to me than suburban. I much rather ride around downtown Seattle in rush hour traffic (where cars are forced to drive slow by congestion) than that intersection where Knapp was killed.

  10. #660
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    4,037
    Bike riding on sidewalks legality varies by jurisdiction; in some jurisdictions like Seattle itís legal but you are supposed to yield to pedestriansÖ which makes riding one impractical.

  11. #661
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,699
    This was on a route of mine in Seattle. Guerrilla group of bicicle advocates installed their own illegal "buffer." City initially took it town but then the city changed their mind and reconstructed the buffer themselves.

    Seattle’s Transportation Department didn’t have immediate plans to install any kind of buffer between car and bicycle lanes on Cherry Street when a guerrilla group of bicycle advocates decided in April to do it themselves. There should be more of these type of pylon buffers out there.

    Under the cloak of anonymity, a group calling itself “Reasonably Polite Seattleites” used temporary adhesive to place flexible plastic pylons between the busy, steep lanes on Cherry Street underneath Interstate 5.

    “We wish we didn’t have to spend our own money on common-sense, unobtrusive traffic calming treatments, and risk arrest installing them, in order to feel safe riding in this city,” one of the advocates wrote to the city.

    Though the city initially removed the posts, it has now spent about $20,000 to make the group’s wishes a reality.
    Name:  seattle.jpg
Views: 189
Size:  37.3 KB

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...e-lane-buffer/

  12. #662
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    14,894
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    If I die, I want it to be for my fuck up like in an avy or an act of God like a great white comes and chomps me. Not some dipshit checking their instagram.
    Historically, the overwhelming majority of bike fatalities are due to failure-to-yield situations, mostly at intersections. Being hit from behind is actually pretty uncommon, but most of that data is pre-smartphone so the current risk is probably higher.

    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    Funny thing is that true urban riding seems much less risky to me than suburban. I much rather ride around downtown Seattle in rush hour traffic (where cars are forced to drive slow by congestion) than that intersection where Knapp was killed.
    Traffic moving at bike speed changes the game completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    This was on a route of mine in Seattle. Guerrilla group of bicicle advocates installed their own illegal "buffer." City initially took it town but then the city changed their mind and reconstructed the buffer themselves.
    That's pretty awesome. Bollards like that might be problematic in cities where it snows regularly in winter.

  13. #663
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Flavor Country
    Posts
    2,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    Traffic moving at bike speed changes the game completely.
    We went to Jazz Fest in New Orleans a few years ago and rode bikes everywhere and it was awesome because of this ^^. The French Quarter is always so packed with people and cars we were faster on bikes most of the time.
    "They don't think it be like it is, but it do."

  14. #664
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,301
    I assume everyone has heard of VisionZero?

    Managing the kinetic energy and momentum transfer between bike/ped and vehicles is the trend right now and many other countries are ahead of us in this regard.

    Itís behind the push for 20 mph speed limits in urban areas for example.

    Joey, one of the things you experienced is that the context of the place is telling drivers they are not the #1 priority and that other users have similar or higher priority than they do. So they slow down, chill out, pay attention, give way.

    Itís why bikers like Alta feel out of place in a 4 lane arterial with 30 mph speed limits and unprotected bike lanes. The environment is telling you itís dangerous, because it is. You arenít the priority there.

    The goal with a lot of this stuff currently is to realize that you can write any law you want about who has right of way or priority, but people make mistakes and we shouldnít have a system where when someone has a momentary lapse they or someone else dies or is seriously hurt. The system needs to be redesigned and reconstructed with more than vehicles in mind. Sometimes itís expensive. Sometimes itís cheap.

  15. #665
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by old_newguy View Post
    It’s behind the push for 20 mph speed limits in urban areas for example.
    Do speed limits even matter in urban areas? I have never seen an officer patrolling for speed in my 16 years living in Seattle/Tacoma. I represent people on DUIs (and speeding tickets) in the area and most of my clients get caught by the Seattle/Tacoma PD because they crash their car into something, not because a cop caught them speeding. I think congestion, and tight streets, and general morals, is the only thing that keeps people from driving balls to the wall around town.

    Totally different story on the freeways through Tacoma and Seattle. The State Patrol is out to get you. Go a few miles over, or swerve out of your lane, and they will nab you, at least after the sun sets. During the day, they just want to keep traffic moving.

  16. #666
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    Do speed limits even matter in urban areas? I have never seen an officer patrolling for speed in my 16 years living in Seattle/Tacoma. I represent people on DUIs (and speeding tickets) in the area and most of my clients get caught by the Seattle/Tacoma PD because they crash their car into something, not because a cop caught them speeding. I think congestion, and tight streets, and general morals, is the only thing that keeps people from driving balls to the wall around town.

    Totally different story on the freeways through Tacoma and Seattle. The State Patrol is out to get you. Go a few miles over, or swerve out of your lane, and they will nab you, at least after the sun sets. During the day, they just want to keep traffic moving.
    I think you are probably right, but is a relatively cheap thing to do to change the climate around speed in residential areas.

    On collectors and arterials I am starting to see more speed cameras to address the lack of resources to enforce.

    It also allows agencies to say ďour target speed is 20 mph, the 85th percentile as measured speed is 30, therefore we have justification to implement traffic calming to reduce the 85th percentile speedĒ.

  17. #667
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    907
    Posts
    13,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    Sidewalks are for small children and morons riding full-suspension Huffys because they got too many DUIs. Studies consistently show that sidewalks are the most dangerous place to ride: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...the_literature

    Anyone who suggests riding on the sidewalk has clearly never done it. It's immediately obvious that it's sketchy AF. Visibility is often terrible. Every single side-street becomes an intersection. Cars are parked across them all the time. Curbs are often not ramped. I could go on. I suppose it's fine if you don't need to ride faster than 5 mph.

    "And those awful expansion joints! Having to stop for lights and avoid pedestrians every quarter mile...might as well leave my $2000 aero helmet at home! Does no one care about my dreams to make myself more beautiful and fit?"


    Tough shit. Until you ban automobiles and reimagine Contra Costa with discrete bike roads for your privileged little hobby, that sidewalk is intuitively safer than crossing the turn lane under a green light or arrow.
    Different story if the bike lane has its own light, or crosses on the sidewalk at the ped xing. Orders of magnitude safer. Fuck your aerobic zone, you self-centered son of a bitch.

  18. #668
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    14,894
    Show me on the doll where the cyclist touched you.

  19. #669
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by highangle View Post
    Tough shit. Until you ban automobiles and reimagine Contra Costa with discrete bike roads for your privileged little hobby, that sidewalk is intuitively safer than crossing the turn lane under a green light or arrow.
    Different story if the bike lane has its own light, or crosses on the sidewalk at the ped xing. Orders of magnitude safer. Fuck your aerobic zone, you self-centered son of a bitch.

    Don't want to interrupt this well meaning/reasoned argument, but only 2 out of 19 cities that make up Contra Costa county allow riding on sidewalks*.

    So, for the other 17 cities, should drivers keep a look out for these self-centered bicyclists trying to manage their aerobic zones on the way to school, work, etc.? Is this too much for a driver to do?


    * A few others allow minors only, and some of those even prohibit minors from riding on sidewalks in specified business areas.

  20. #670
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,724
    As a pedestrian sidewalk Nazi, I'd take 3 extra steps to grab and fling a minor cyclist into oncoming traffic.



    Not really.

    Unless they hit me first.

  21. #671
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    4,037
    Facts? A real welfare queen Alaskan like higehanger all sternoed up cares not about facts

  22. #672
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    18,764
    Quote Originally Posted by PB View Post
    Toss the bikes out of the equation, any dillweed rolling coal has had a lobotomy.
    fify

  23. #673
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    closer
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by PB View Post
    Toss the bikes out of the equation, any dillweed rolling coal deserves a lobotomy.
    In this case: A teenage lobotomy?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6ssoBUb2cJk
    It's a war of the mind and we're armed to the teeth.

  24. #674
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    18,764
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    Yeah, there's the CA approach, where the right-turn lane crosses the bike lane early, and the OR approach (which I think is typical in most other states too), where the bike lane stays to the right of the turn lane all the way to the intersection. Both have their own dangers, but I do think the CA approach seems like it _should_ have lower potential for issues than the OR approach.

    Having said that, drivers and cyclists in PDX are usually pretty hip to the right hook thing. I'll hang back from a large vehicle that's signaling for a right turn unless there's a bike box. Most drivers in the area seem to have learned they need to check the bike lane before turning. I only remember 2 right hook close calls in 15 years of commuting into downtown Portland.
    In Sacramento in busy spots it's common to have the bike lane painted green and located between the right turn lane and the thru lane. Seems to work well, except in that one spot I mentioned earlier. The most common mistake I see where there isn't a marked right turn lane is for cars to turn right without first pulling as close to the curb as possible - so that bikes can't pull up next to them on the right. The bikes can pass them on the left or wait for them to turn. If the bike gets there first they should claim the space so that the right turning car can't pass them on the left before turning

  25. #675
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    907
    Posts
    13,493
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    Facts? A real welfare queen Alaskan like higehanger all sternoed up cares not about facts
    I think you have me confused with your father?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •