141–150 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, the last time I saw it was so long ago I can't remember when it was. The phrase "I can't remember the last time..." is idiomatic usage in my dialect of English for: "This has occurred to me in the very distant past."
How odd. When I use that phrase, I mean it literally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've answered your own question. Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane? Certainly, it's unfortunate that the bike lane is poorly maintained, but to wholly place the blame on the drivers strikes me as questionable.
FreakyT, if I ever see you in the street, I'm going to run you over for getting in my way. And it will be called an accident. I do not understand why it is so hard for people to understand this problem, but I've given up hope ever describing it in Internet comments. In the interim, if you ever want to get away with murder, use a car.
You must now be very, very careful for the rest of your life so as not to injure or kill a cyclist because of your post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. I agree with your point, but to be fair, you could make a similar point about cyclists pulling over to let traffic pass. There are cases where overtaking is difficult for long distances, and in practice it's not realistic for a car to go at 10-15 mph behind a bike for miles at a time. For one thing, you risk drivers behind trying to overtake multiple vehicles at once…
The accommodation is called the lane to your left. Switch over and pass me, just as you would a slower motorcycle or lorry. That said, noone guaranteed you could drive the speed limit. You will be surprised what is possible in practice if your considerations don't include to blatantly disregard other peoples safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Helmets protect you. I slid down a street and my head bounced on the pavement - without a helmet I would have been much worse off. The road rash was enough. Another incident was a truck mirror that grazed my helmet. Nothing major, but in all, the helmet does its job.
> Another incident was a truck mirror that grazed my helmet. Of course, if you weren't wearing the helmet, the truck mirror may or may not have touched you at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Another incident was a truck mirror that grazed my helmet. Of course, if you weren't wearing the helmet, the truck mirror may or may not have touched you at all.
This. I saw a bus mirror actually catch a guy's helmet and pick him up off his bike by his head, hauling him down the street. Had he not been wearing a helmet, that never would have happened.
No, it is not. But it is also not OK to prevent cyclists to kill themselves by car. I've witnessed an accident recently when the car in front of me hit a cyclist. He was: a) riding at night without lights b) running red light c) against the traffic d) without a helmet I'd say this guy (Stanford student, which IMHO implies some intellect) could serve as an encyclopedic definition of our Bay Area cyclist. Cyclists who…
You ever seen Amsterdam traffic? Lots of cyclists ignore red lights etc, etc, etc, and yet for some odd reason that's not considered an excuse for just running them over with your car. I totally get the American argument in favor of the right to bear arms, but at least that's based on the assumption of responsible gun ownership. When it comes to cars however, any sense of responsibility seems to go out of the window.…
Cars and bikes are not equal, that's right, as well as small sedans and large pickup trucks are not equal, motorcycles and cars are not equal, semis and pickups are not equal, etc, etc, etc. So what? There're rules of the road, California Vehicle Code in my case, and everyone using a public road should obey one, period. Having a car driver more responsible for safety of those around him doesn't mean that bicyclist can cut in front of this driver while running a red light against the traffic and consider himself to have a right of way just because he's a weakest player on the road.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. I agree with your point, but to be fair, you could make a similar point about cyclists pulling over to let traffic pass. There are cases where overtaking is difficult for long distances, and in practice it's not realistic for a car to go at 10-15 mph behind a bike for miles at a time. For one thing, you risk drivers behind trying to overtake multiple vehicles at once…
The accommodation is called the lane to your left. Switch over and pass me, just as you would a slower motorcycle or lorry. That said, noone guaranteed you could drive the speed limit. You will be surprised what is possible in practice if your considerations don't include to blatantly disregard other peoples safety.
Things are definitely far more difficult to balance, simply because there are also many places where the road conditions don't allow a cyclist to exist safely (no shoulder, high speed limit, and less than 300ft visibility).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must speak some mythical human language that makes sense :P
No way! Honestly, I'd be interested in knowing which of us is using it in the "normal" fashion. I really don't know. Or perhaps we both are and it depends on the region.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
some of them just speed through the intersection if they consider it safe, I've heard screeching tires a few times, which means they misjudged. Stopping at every stop sign is a financial pain for a motorist, because MPG drops considerably. So what? Stop sign is a stop sign, it means "stop". The solution to this is not ignoring signs because it's a "pain" but to replace stop signs with roundabouts, like in Europe.
Relevant to this discussion: Roundabouts do cyclists no favors whatsoever. This article cites a number of others on the subject: http://www.cascade.org/2010/11/circular-logic/
>So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere... Hahahahaha. I see a flaw in this plan. I don't see why the author views a lack of criminal charges as evidence of some kind of travesty of justice. If a cyclist gets run down by someone who didn't see him, that's an accident, not a crime.
Well, theres a problem here, no? Even if we assume these are legitimate accidents, then there still has to be a reaction, or they will just happen again. The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on. Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over you…
I don't think a "reaction" will have any effect at all. People genuinely don't want to run over cyclists already.
>The buck has to stop with someone, the person who planned the street in the first place, the project manager at Toyota responsible for the software that caused the unstoppable acceleration, and so on.
I disagree. Sometimes things happen that are simply nobody's fault. There's no "buck". And seriously? Street design? Good luck going after the guy who laid out the streets in 1801.
>Can't just ignore the problem. If you pour your wine all over your shirt, thats an accident, if someone is critically injured or killed, that warrants an investigation.
... And it's still usually an accident. Where I live (and can you really name a place where this isn't true?) when someone is injured seriously or dies there's always an investigation. But what you're looking for isn't an investigation. You're looking for criminal charges and jail time.