(And shouldn't bikers be required to pony up the same no-fault insurance as automobile owners have to before placing their cars on public roads?

At that point, if they want to play in the street, it's on them.)

klparrot: Because turning vehicles don't expect things to come out of sidewalks at 15 mph. Turning vehicles are enough of a danger to bikes as is.

A cyclist's situtational awareness is his best friend. Use it. I've seen cyclists do nothing on purpose just because the douches pull the official 'right-of-way' shiat. Newsflash: When it's dark and rainy and you don't have a light on your shiat you cannot be seen. Watch your own ass. I use that philosophy when I ride and have yet to be in an incident (5 years now).

Ablejack: Because while driving you are more likely to hit a cyclist using sidewalks (than roads) while making a right turn.

Codes require 25' of clear view on cycle paths for this reason.

The English Major:

ramen_for_all:

Bikes do not belong on sidewalks. For one thing the rate of speed for a bike is radically different than it is for actual pedestrians, for another thing they are not maneuverable enough to mitigate the danger they pose to pedestrians.

Having bikes on sidewalks makes less sense than having them on streets or to put it another way it makes no more sense to have them on sidewalks than it does to have golf carts on 70mph freeways.

Bike lanes are the answer. Anyone who biatches about bike lanes in an urban setting comes off sounding like a horse-carriage driver biatching about cars 100 years ago.

KOYDETMER: Ablejack: BlippityBleep: I still don't see why bike lanes aren't incorporated with the sidewalks rather than the roads. The speeds are never up to car speed on a bicycle not to mention the lack of a 3000 lb (light models) barrier between you and the other multi-thousand pound vehicles.

Because while driving you are more likely to hit a cyclist using sidewalks (than roads) while making a right turn.

I didn't even think of that. I figured us pedestrians were more likely to throw out a clothes-line than motorists

Yeah, there's that too.
/by the way "KOYDETMER" is now my favorite login

ramen_for_all: its called a sidewalk. get those farkin bikes off the street! and stop letting your kids ride behind you.

/jackholes
//they do it just to give me aneurisms

Ummmm... you're a blithering moran.

A moran that's absolutely right. It is, indeed, called a sideWALK.

You see, its intended function is built right into the name.

Once it's called a sideRIDE, you'll have a point. As it stands right now your only point is roughly synonymous with HUUUUURRRRRDDEEEEEEERRRRRPPP.

cryptozoophiliac: If you can't drive with bicyclists then you are a bad driver.

/try cutting back on the caffeine, road rage.

This.
Is it THAT hard to move your left hand about 3cm to the left, and simply go around the cyclist?

GAS tax.

Crown_of_Shoes:
My favorite ignorance-revealing comment will be, "fark bicyclists, they don't come to complete stops at stop signs! Outrage! Outrage!" while failing to recognize a one-ton steel box is much harder to slow/stop than a person on a bicycle and that the rules of the road should not be identical for both types of transportation, just because you once saw this guy on a bike blow through a red light.

Yea, where I live, I see this once a day(on good days), It had been a long while since I have seen a car do this.

Ablejack: KOYDETMER: Ablejack: BlippityBleep: I still don't see why bike lanes aren't incorporated with the sidewalks rather than the roads. The speeds are never up to car speed on a bicycle not to mention the lack of a 3000 lb (light models) barrier between you and the other multi-thousand pound vehicles.

Because while driving you are more likely to hit a cyclist using sidewalks (than roads) while making a right turn.

Thanks, I made it for a neck beard thread without realizing there was a one day wait before I could post. I was sad.
I didn't even think of that. I figured us pedestrians were more likely to throw out a clothes-line than motorists

Yeah, there's that too.
/by the way "KOYDETMER" is now my favorite login

ZAZ: Did nobody get the sarcasm in the headline? The only unique feature of this street is the bicycle sign. Roundabouts and lack of lane markings are standard features in some places, with or without bicycles, as are the rules that bicycles may use the street and cars must pass safely.

Sounds like they have made some changes to the road:

the 1.5-mile stretch of Humboldt from Fifth Street to Lewis Road has been, at least temporarily, converted into an experimental bike boulevard where stop signs at several intersections have been removed and replaced with traffic roundabouts along with other changes

BlippityBleep: I still don't see why bike lanes aren't incorporated with the sidewalks rather than the roads. The speeds are never up to car speed on a bicycle not to mention the lack of a 3000 lb (light models) barrier between you and the other multi-thousand pound vehicles.

They are here. The pavement (sidewalk) is widened and a bike lane is built on it.

At first I thought this would be dangerous for the pedestrians, but it's also the law here that you have to have a bell (or horn) on your bike to warn pedestrians that you're coming.

ZAZ: They did that when rebuilding Vassar Street through MIT -- standard width bike lane next to sidewalk instead of next to car lane. Bicyclists complained and got the MIT campus police to agree that bicyclists should not have to use bike lanes.

I'll have to look up that case study. Heh, did the motorists complain that they shouldn't have to use the car lanes? How about the pedestrians complaining that they should not have to use the sidewalk? Whiny bicyclists crack me up.

perigee: And shouldn't bikers be required to pony up the same no-fault insurance as automobile owners have to before placing their cars on public roads?

When a 30 lb bike + 150 lb rider can cause the same damage as 3000 lb car + 150 lb driver, then yes.

logruszed:
Bike lanes are the answer. Anyone who biatches about bike lanes in an urban setting comes off sounding like a horse-carriage driver biatching about cars 100 years ago.


Yup. But in the article, they said that the street was not wide enough for a bike lane. That's why they're trying this solution.

I reiterate: Why didn't cities in the U.S. simply build bike lanes next to roads and/or sidewalks like countless other countries have done for decades?

Glasgowsfinest: They are here. The pavement (sidewalk) is widened and a bike lane is built on it.

At first I thought this would be dangerous for the pedestrians, but it's also the law here that you have to have a bell (or horn) on your bike to warn pedestrians that you're coming.

See, that makes sense. Bicyclists are much closer to pedestrians than they are to automobiles. It's also really easy to look out for pedestrians on a bicycle.

Aren't most roads already subject to these laws?

I am confused at to what makes this different.

When a 30 lb bicycle cuts in front of a 3000 lb car, then they should be prepared to pay for their own medical expenses.YouPeopleAreCrazy: perigee: And shouldn't bikers be required to pony up the same no-fault insurance as automobile owners have to before placing their cars on public roads?

When a 30 lb bike + 150 lb rider can cause the same damage as 3000 lb car + 150 lb driver, then yes.

luckyeddie: whatshisname: luckyeddie: I saw a roundabout that had cars, motor cycles, chariots, horses, panda bears, a fire engine, tea pots, a bus and large ducks on it.

Didn't look that dangerous.

Nobody will get that. Round these here parts them thar's called Merry-Go-Rounds.

We're not allowed 'Merry' here in the Nanny State, and 'Go Round' implies the possibility of motion sickness. So we don't get it either.

I'm sure those Panda Bears have seat belts, too.

The English Major: logruszed: The English Major:

ramen_for_all:

Bikes do not belong on sidewalks. For one thing the rate of speed for a bike is radically different than it is for actual pedestrians, for another thing they are not maneuverable enough to mitigate the danger they pose to pedestrians.

Having bikes on sidewalks makes less sense than having them on streets or to put it another way it makes no more sense to have them on sidewalks than it does to have golf carts on 70mph freeways.

Bike lanes are the answer. Anyone who biatches about bike lanes in an urban setting comes off sounding like a horse-carriage driver biatching about cars 100 years ago.

Wouldn't banning bicycles be, I don't know, cheaper? And ticketing bicyclists would generate revenue too...hmm.

You should check out recent Philadelphia bike laws. I don't know much about them because I walk everywhere, but from the biatching ive heard they are coming close to this. I've heard (anectdotally) that it is illegal to site on your bike on a sidewalk now and ticketable. No one will enforce it but still.

theres 2 types of cyclists i hate.

1. stop blocking traffic by riding in the middle of the damn road. move the fark over.

2. we just installed miles upon miles of new bike trails. BIKE TRAILS, not side walks. get off the damn street and use them. they were put in so it was safer for you to ride, and to stop you from pissing off the drivers.

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: I reiterate: Why didn't cities in the U.S. simply build bike lanes next to roads and/or sidewalks like countless other countries have done for decades?

A lot do, or are in the process of doing so. I have one of the longest bike lanes in Philly in front of my apartment and haven't seen a problem since the first week it was painted (which was only a month or so ago but still...).

I'm fully OK with bikers using most roads and think people who fight over bikes vs. cars are generally hot-tempered clods. The one thing that cracks me up is when I see bikers on any road that's more than 35 MPH, pedaling their ass off and looking scared to death. Can it really be that much fun?

perigee: (And shouldn't bikers be required to pony up the same no-fault insurance as automobile owners have to before placing their cars on public roads?

At that point, if they want to play in the street, it's on them.)

As soon as commuter cycling become popular enough to make such regulation and inspection profitable to municipalities then it will. How long did it take for motorized vehicles to become common enough for this to become necessary?

It will probably be something more akin to a plate/tag with an annual fee that allows a commuter to ride in an urban area; this would allow the casual weekend cyclist who does not use streets to still enjoy the hobby but provide an easily identifiable visual cue for police patrolling the city streets to spot people lacking the tags (like vehicle registration markings). It would be like people who own an off-road dune buggy Vs. people who drive a car to work. One does not usually have to insure or register strictly recreational off road vehicles (my state does require a tag for using it in some areas, like the beach).

This would also allow for police to track and suspend some cyclists who are dangerous to pedestrians and motor vehicles, but because the damage a cycle is likely to cause is very minor the fee would probably only have to be a small amount and not variable like the fees for cars/trucks/motorcycles, etc.

reverbblue: Aren't most roads already subject to these laws?

I am confused at to what makes this different.

It's true, that was my initial reaction. But I think the signs posted are to ease the mind of a car driver feeling stuck in traffic behind a bicycle.

as usual... the self entitled elitists douchbags are in full force because they feel wronged by all those non fat-asses riding their bicycles telling people to ride their bikes on the sidewalks. Pedestrians are suppose to walk in the grass. Motorcycles are hood ornaments in waiting.

Most American cities have roads that are waaaay too big. Seriously, make 'em small and you can cram in more houses. There's no reason for a car to drive around a neighborhood at anything more than 15 mph anyway. Leave the speeding for the highway.

As for biking on the sidewalk? That's completely dangerous and illegal.

How would you classify these?

The English Major: logruszed: The English Major:

ramen_for_all:

Bikes do not belong on sidewalks. For one thing the rate of speed for a bike is radically different than it is for actual pedestrians, for another thing they are not maneuverable enough to mitigate the danger they pose to pedestrians.

Having bikes on sidewalks makes less sense than having them on streets or to put it another way it makes no more sense to have them on sidewalks than it does to have golf carts on 70mph freeways.

Bike lanes are the answer. Anyone who biatches about bike lanes in an urban setting comes off sounding like a horse-carriage driver biatching about cars 100 years ago.

Wouldn't banning bicycles be, I don't know, cheaper? And ticketing bicyclists would generate revenue too...hmm.

So it's a cost argument? Well paved roads are often what put state budgets into the red, so you're obviously for banning motor vehicles. Ok, good to know.

And actually if you read my second comment in the thread I think I've presented a fairly reasonable and non-snarky answer to the thought of regulation.

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: I reiterate: Why didn't cities in the U.S. simply build bike lanes next to roads and/or sidewalks like countless other countries have done for decades?

At this point most of our infrastructure is already built. We are unable to widen most roads in cities, and are left trying to retrofit solutions to correct the poor urban planning decisions made in the past.

More accommodations will have to be made for cyclists in the future, as commuter/city bike sales have increased 12%-20% every year for the last seven years, while the total number of cars sold in the US has declined every year since 1999.

We are going to have to find ways to increase the efficiency and safety of true multi-modal transportation systems in the next twenty years. As part of this, the days of being able to blast down city streets at 50 - 60 mph are ending.

Here in Charlotte, for example, twenty roads are slated to have their speed limits reduced, lanes removed, or other traffic calming measure implemented. As much as the people on here may not like it, more people are going to be using the roads in different ways than ever before. They are going to have to adjust.

another-farker: theres 2 types of cyclists i hate.

1. stop blocking traffic by riding in the middle of the damn road. move the fark over.

2. we just installed miles upon miles of new bike trails. BIKE TRAILS, not side walks. get off the damn street and use them. they were put in so it was safer for you to ride, and to stop you from pissing off the drivers.

3. Fixie riders.

ZAZ: Also, the resident who said "Stop signs were invented to control car speeds" is wrong.

I don't think so. Why else are there 4-way stop signs all over residential neighborhoods? If they were strictly to assign right of way they'd be 2 way signs on the least busy street.

otterly_delicious: How would you classify these?

Incredibly lame?

otterly_delicious: How would you classify these?

In California I believe it would qualify as "other", exempting it from some emissions and safety regulations and allowing it to use HOV lanes.

otterly_delicious: How would you classify these?

I would classify that as awesome, scientifically speaking of course.

MrEricSir: Most American cities have roads that are waaaay too big. Seriously, make 'em small and you can cram in more houses. There's no reason for a car to drive around a neighborhood at anything more than 15 mph anyway. Leave the speeding for the highway.

As for biking on the sidewalk? That's completely dangerous and illegal.

I see what you did there.

logruszed: Bike lanes are the answer. Anyone who biatches about bike lanes in an urban setting comes off sounding like a horse-carriage driver biatching about cars 100 years ago.

Not necessarily.
1. Bike lanes (can) create a dead one, that gathers road debris. Not swept by car tires or sweepers.
2. You need a VERY educated motorist population, so they don't park in the bike lane.
3. You need an educated pedestrian population, so they don't use it a a jogging lane.
4. You need an educated motorist population, so they realize that the bike lane is not the only place bikes should be. Left turns, object avoidance, etc, etc...all require that bikes move out of the paint line.
5. You need an educated cyclist population, so that they know how to manage a left turn, or a right turn only lane.

The 'paint stripe' is a ghetto builder.

Wide outside lanes.
If the space is wide enough for a car lane + bike lane, it is also wide enough just to be wide. Bikes will still be in the exact same place (a couple feet from the curb), but without the stigmata of the 'never to be crossed' paint stripe.

Prank Call of Cthulhu: another-farker: theres 2 types of cyclists i hate.

1. stop blocking traffic by riding in the middle of the damn road. move the fark over.

2. we just installed miles upon miles of new bike trails. BIKE TRAILS, not side walks. get off the damn street and use them. they were put in so it was safer for you to ride, and to stop you from pissing off the drivers.

3. Fixie riders.

Oh God THIS

MrEricSir: As for biking on the sidewalk? That's completely dangerous and illegal.

No it isn't. I've been biking on sidewalks for years. The only crap I have to watch out for is fat people who take up half the sidewalk when wobbling around.

I guess it's okay to bike on suburban sidewalks, but not in tose dense urban areas.

another-farker: theres 2 types of cyclists i hate.

1. stop blocking traffic by riding in the middle of the damn road. move the fark over.

2. we just installed miles upon miles of new bike trails. BIKE TRAILS, not side walks. get off the damn street and use them. they were put in so it was safer for you to ride, and to stop you from pissing off the drivers.

1. No. I'm not blocking traffic: I AM TRAFFIC. I'm not riding through loose gravel and broken glass simply for you to take up half of MY LANE as you try to run me off the road, dick.
2. Fine... all the way up to the point that the trails are going, and when they don't... deal with it.

Also, I think alot of the anger of road users could be helped by a more aggressive policing of motorists and cyclists alike.

If motorists were actually forced to obey red light, speed limits, and passing/following distances the roads would be safer and more pleasant for cyclists. If cyclists were forced to obey stop signs, signal lane changes and stops, and had to ride with proper lights motorists would be less angry, and the roads would be a safer and more pleasant place for motorists.

I ride a bike.

On the sidewalk.

If there is a pedestrian up ahead, I bounce out to the road to avoid him/her.

Then, I bounce back up to the sidewalk and carry on.

Call the press - no one hates my guts.

Imagine that.