Posted on 07/29/2008 7:55:24 AM PDT by fightinJAG
When gas prices surged above $4 per gallon earlier this year, it didn't take Nostradamus to predict that there would be a resultant rush to carbon-free commuting options—especially in a place like Portland, which is known for its ample network of bike lanes. Cyclists in "Stumptown" are spinning their spokes here in unprecedented numbers, trading in their fuel-guzzling SUVs for stylish 27-speeds.
But the cycling surge has created conflict, as the new breed of commuters bumps up against the old, oil-powered kind.
First came a drunk cyclist repeatedly smacking the driver of a car with his bike July 6, before a passerby stopped the melee by knocking the pedaler to the ground with one punch (the driver happened to be a longtime cycling advocate, who'd kicked off the altercation by chiding the biker for blowing through a red light.)
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
That’s awful. Remember that golfer’s wife who was killed that way? She wasn’t on a bike, she was unloading the trunk of a car and another vehicle backed into her and pinned her between them.
This statement is indisputable. If you understand it.
You have identified one of the problems here: cyclists who want to be considered “real vehicles” only when it suits them.
Thank you.
Since cyclists are supposed to be riding on the right, to get into a left-hand turn lane they would have to cross a lane of moving traffic, which is considered unsafe.
Then, if turning from the left-hand turn lane, they would have to cross a lane of moving traffic again to return to the right-hand side of the road they were entering, which is considered unsafe.
That is why the law in many, if not most jurisdictions, requires cyclists using roadways to cross intersections as pedestrians do-—by using the crosswalks. Many, if not most jurisdictions, require cyclists to dismount to do so.
This is because this really is the generally (and sometimes only) safe way for cyclists and motor vehicles to negotiate an intersection.
No, but it might kill him to maintain his high rate of speed even though it is obvious the vehicle may, in fact, make a right-turn in front of him.
Do you have something substantive to say on the point that bicyclists can jam up traffic?
See, they don’t stop at the stop signs cuz they’d lose their momentum, and it irks me. They also come up behind but then beside you., so right-turning can be a hazard. Plus, around here, there are seldom adequare shoulders on the road.
Your tagline is very fitting.
Simply put: whether you are driving a bike or a car, you are driving too fast if you are unable to slow down at an intersection should one of the events that are predictable at intersections occurs.
Is there any reason not to apply your logic to motor vehicle drivers, then? Should we all just rely on our fellow man to know when it's appropriate to obey the law and when it's not?
Again, why shouldn’t cars also blow through stop signs when they judge it safe to do so?
Not always. Many jurisdictions require bicyclists to negotiate intersections in the same way pedestrians do-—using the crosswalks.
The “it’s okay until I get caught” attitude proves the point here. And presents a larger problem for society, but that’s another story.
I feel compelled to say it again: thank you.
Wow, I can see why you’re so proud of yourself.
Last week I made a right turn out of a shopping plaza and was immediately confronted by a 17-ish cyclist, going the wrong way (IOW, against traffic, headed directly toward me), with a huge slurpee in the hand nominally on his handlebars while talking on the phone with the other hand.
Oh, and he had a girl hanging on his back while all this was going on.
Because of traffic flow, I had to brake completely and let this wreck of human debris pass by (going in the wrong direction, mind you) until continuing. There was a small caravan of vehicles behind me who had to stop as well.
In my area, we see cyclists talking on cell phones as well.
Wrong. The exposure of cyclists is exactly one of the things that the people you describe as “I hate cyclists” are concerned with.
No one wants to splat a human being. Yet many cyclists put motorists in that position all the time.
There is no way to avoid hurting a cyclist if he does something truly dumb, such as speeding up along the right-side of vehicle that is stopped and obviously the driver is looking to turn right, and does turn right as the cyclist continues to try to speed through the intersection.
No one wants to have to choose between making a maneuver to save their own or their family’s life and avoiding a cyclist doing something dumb.
So, you’re wrong if you think most sentient human beings do not understand the extreme vulnerability of cyclists and motorcyclists. That’s why it’s so frustrating to see them take chances with their own lives that, in the end, “cause” other people who don’t want to hurt them, to do so. Maybe even kill them.
Somehow this comment reminds me of that journalist in NYC who said something like, "How in the world did George Bush get elected? No one I know voted for him."
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.