Posted on 05/11/2010 10:41:01 AM PDT by End Times Sentinel
Professor Peter Furth has ridden his bicycle to work at Northeastern University each day for the past six years. The two-mile trip through the Boston suburb of Brookline, Massachusetts, is usually without incident.
Furth's journey is worlds apart from his former Boston commute, which for 13 years was a battle with drivers who wanted him on the sidewalk.
"I've had motorists that drive a couple of inches from my elbow, trying to scare me," he said.
Furth would catch up with drivers at stoplights and ask them whether they knew how close they'd come to hitting him. Invariably, they would say, "Yes, move over."
It's a cultural thing, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Does this really need an explanation? I would guarantee that if you required licensure and insurance, the only effect would be that you'd successfully tax an industry out of existence. The hit that bicycle retailers, distributors, and manufacturers would take would simply be overwhelming. No adult would buy a bike if they couldn't take it for a spin outside of their front door. And what are you going to do with children who are too young to license for a vehicle? Tell them they can ride in the yard, and not to their friends houses because that would mean riding on the road? Forget it, you wouldn't be able to sell those either.
Yea. Did you know that there were cars and trucks a hundred years ago? And even pavement?
Understand about the sensors but if a driver did that he’d get a ticket. Or can we do that too “if there’s nothing coming”? And I don’t mean in the middle of the night I’m talking like 2 in the afternoon when I see bike riders cruise right through.
A Cul-de-sac is not a public road, where cars drive on their daily commute to work. It is also a very poor place to have your kids playing, hardly a weekend goes by that the local papers don't have a story about some kid getting killed playing in the road. Where do you get the idea that a road is any place other than a place that big, heavy, hard, fast and danerous machinery abounds? A cul-de-sac is not a playground, it is not a basketball court, it is not a skating rink.
And if you are allowing a 5 yr old to play in the street - I'd question your parenting ability - or how much you love your child. Either way, I would think that a call to Child Protecive Services should be made.
WE have regulations, because there are too many people who insist on abusing others, so the regulation becomes necessary for the greater good of society.
Next question?
No, because the sensor can see your car, and you will get your turn when you should. I didn't write the law, but that's the way it is in most states, or so I've been told.
Unfair comparison because a driver WILL trip the sensor. All he has to do is wait for it. My motorcycle will sometimes trip the sensor, and my bicycle never trips the sensor. I can't very well wait for a light that's not ever going to change for me.
In most states, it is ILLEGAL for bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk. They have a legal right to a safe lane on the right hand side of the road. In my state, that lane is alleged to be four feet from the curb or the driver’s side of parked cars.
It was all those things when I was growing up. Still is from the looks of things outside my window. Sort of an uptight ninny, aren't you?
And if you are allowing a 5 yr old to play in the street - I'd question your parenting ability - or how much you love your child. Either way, I would think that a call to Child Protecive Services should be made.
If you really think allowing a child to ride his bike on the neighborhood road is justification for calling the authorities due to endangerment, there's no reasoning with you. But guess what? I do it. And I don't even make them wear helmets! Quick, get your phone.
Certainly dead is dead, but how many pedestrians are killed by cyclists compared to cyclists killed by motorists? A bike can stop faster than a car, can dodge (or walk their bikes around) animals and children better than a car can and is less likely to kill the weaker party in a collision.
Not a lot of cars on the road 100 years ago. Times change and so should motorized/non-motorized rules. BTW, I’m all for bike paths that aren’t part of the road.
Good grief ...
The Thirteenth United States Census, conducted by the Census Bureau on April 15, 1910, determined the resident population of the United States to be 92,228,496
Source
305,529,237: U.S. population estimate for Jan. 1, 2009
Source
So, there are a little more than 3.3x as many people today, than there were 100 yrs ago. Also the population has shifted from being primarily agricultural to being urban. Also, the traffic congestion on most roads in the 1900's were not only significantly slower, but far less dense. And does this surprise you?
The Boston Globe had an article recently about the cycle-krishnas. One pedal-pusher actually said that the reason he doesn’t wear a helmet when he rides is that he thinks it signals motorists to drive more carefully. I almost fell out of my chair! We motorists need to mindful that the world revolves around them.
So take it up with your legislator. And good luck with that.
I sincerely hope you remember this conversation, when the inevitable happens. if you are lucky, you will have the priviledge of being a first responder. You were warned in simple terms, I pity your children - for they don't know better, and they will bear the cost of your neglicence.
You on the other hand - will blame the driver for being distracted. It happens every single day. Spend some time in the ER, and listen to the distraught parents babble about how it wasn't their fault - when it absolutely was.
Perhaps there's a point in there somewhere about why bikes don't belong on the road, or maybe something about how roads in 1910 were designed with bikes in mind, but aren't today. Perhaps some statistic about accident or fatality rates then and now. Damned if I can find it. All I can see is some total non sequitur about how more people should mean more useless laws and regulations. Makes me think I should go find some conservative site to post on.
Duh!
You mean the inevitable thing that never happened from the time my kids were little to the time now when they are teenagers? Seriously, if you believe letting little kids ride bikes (and where would they ride them, if not the road outside the house?) is some sort of neglect or endangerment, you are a loon.
My comparison was intended to draw consideration to the relationship of “pay to play” that you drew by demanding taxes from bicyclists, not to compare the value of being allowed to ride a bike to the value of life saving services.
You seem to be very comfortable with regulating, in great detail, my ability to freely move between point A and point B. Maybe we need to have more governmental control on anything with wheels? And insurance? Some states don’t even require insurance for motorcycles (WA is one). Should that be mandated as well? Next will we establish the acceptable biking attire and saftey gear? Where will it end? I am tired of the State telling me what I am priviledged to do. Butt out already.
I’ll tell you, they do. The motorcyclists are nuts here. What are they thinking?
Yes, and bicyclists ride with the angels...
Thanks for the laugh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.