Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TreeHugger)   Attention bicyclists of New York City: Just because you think a street needs its own bike lane doesn't mean you get to take it upon yourself to paint a fake bike lane. "We're doing something for the public good"   (treehugger.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, New York City, bike lanes, public good, Avenue of the Americas, spray paints, New York Public Library  
•       •       •

8919 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Sep 2013 at 5:38 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



244 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-25 08:56:10 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Likwit: doglover: How is it that millions of people can ride bikes in Tokyo, WITHOUT HELMETS mind you, next to cars on every kind of road imaginable and almost no one gets into fights or run over and yet Americans can't go one minute with a bike and car on the same road without the guy on the bike and the guy on the car splitting into factions and trying to kill the other?

You're on a bike? You're inches from farking death by choice. GROW THE fark UP AND ACT LIKE IT, ASSHOLES. Be cautious and respectful.

I get in fights with cyclists all the time. Probably because I pick them, but that's beside the point.

People ride all over the sidewalk even though you're really not supposed to. Then they have the audacity to ring their farking bell at you. It infuriates me. That crackdown on cyclists in Osaka the other day gave me the most awesomest boner.

Anyways, riding on the sidewalk and a cultural aversion to personal conflict, is why they have fewer cyclist/driver spats.

In many states bicycles are perfectly legal (and often preferred) on the sidewalk. In Michigan anything classified as a bicycle is legally allowed to ride the sidewalk as long as they grant right-of-way to pedestrians. Likewise, the bikes get right-of-way versus cars at crosswalks when the light's on their side or when it's a stop sign for the car.

Certain towns may have ordinances to forbid bikes on sidewalks in areas of high foot traffic (downtown areas, mainly) but in many states it's LEGAL, so people can stop grumping about it.


Right, so because laws are different everywhere, and nobody really knows what the fark the law is anyway, we get people losing limbs. Of course the alternative would be to come up with a simple, uniform rule, like, treat bicycles like scooters, regardless where you go. That way, everyone knows the what the law is, regardless of what town they are in.

I know, madness.
 
2013-09-25 09:00:40 PM  

Luse: a simple, uniform rule, like, treat bicycles like scooters, regardless where you go.


Give bikes lighted turn signals and brake lights, and ticket riders when they disrupt the flow of traffic or otherwise violate traffic laws?

Sounds like a good idea, if you ask me.
 
2013-09-25 09:01:18 PM  
In my perfect world, cities with grid-based street systems would shut down a road every half-mile or so to vehicular traffic during the daytime, and create pedestrian/cyclist lanes in their place.  The best way to keep different transportation modes from colliding is to keep them separated.  Just like The Offspring said to do.

But alas, the businesses along those pedestrian streets would whinge and complain that all their business comes from motorists, and all their supply trucks and garbagemen need 24-hour curbside access, so it will never happen.
 
2013-09-25 09:01:23 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: Taking the lane is the safest option, for the bicyclist and for the driver behind them. Drivers, all you have to do is pass legally, by moving into the other lane when it is safe to do so. If you can't pass safely, then don't pass.


Cool. As a pedestrian I will use the same principle on a shared bike/pedestrian footpath.

Ie, if I walk in the middle of the path it forces the bikes to overtake me properly,
 
2013-09-25 09:15:51 PM  

Luse: ZeroCorpse: Likwit: doglover: How is it that millions of people can ride bikes in Tokyo, WITHOUT HELMETS mind you, next to cars on every kind of road imaginable and almost no one gets into fights or run over and yet Americans can't go one minute with a bike and car on the same road without the guy on the bike and the guy on the car splitting into factions and trying to kill the other?

You're on a bike? You're inches from farking death by choice. GROW THE fark UP AND ACT LIKE IT, ASSHOLES. Be cautious and respectful.

I get in fights with cyclists all the time. Probably because I pick them, but that's beside the point.

People ride all over the sidewalk even though you're really not supposed to. Then they have the audacity to ring their farking bell at you. It infuriates me. That crackdown on cyclists in Osaka the other day gave me the most awesomest boner.

Anyways, riding on the sidewalk and a cultural aversion to personal conflict, is why they have fewer cyclist/driver spats.

In many states bicycles are perfectly legal (and often preferred) on the sidewalk. In Michigan anything classified as a bicycle is legally allowed to ride the sidewalk as long as they grant right-of-way to pedestrians. Likewise, the bikes get right-of-way versus cars at crosswalks when the light's on their side or when it's a stop sign for the car.

Certain towns may have ordinances to forbid bikes on sidewalks in areas of high foot traffic (downtown areas, mainly) but in many states it's LEGAL, so people can stop grumping about it.

Right, so because laws are different everywhere, and nobody really knows what the fark the law is anyway, we get people losing limbs. Of course the alternative would be to come up with a simple, uniform rule, like, treat bicycles like scooters, regardless where you go. That way, everyone knows the what the law is, regardless of what town they are in.

I know, madness.


in a large number of Blue States(Like NJ) A Scooter is in fact a motor vehicle. And requires another test and license. Your Auto License doesn't count. So now we are encumbering those poor "Green" individuals with a test to prove they know how to drive and know the rules of the road. I think even in Cali(based upon a movie with Tom Hanks) they require an additional license for scooters. Could you imagine the outcry from cyclists asked to do what we all do to drive?
 
2013-09-25 09:23:01 PM  

ThisIsntMe: serial_crusher: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Painting DIY bike lanes is technically illegal

I tried to have a conversation with someone who was seriously proposing this on a difficult stretch of road near me. I should have asked him if he would be comfortable when a cyclist, thinking this is a safe legal bike lane, invariably gets hit by a car. At least now the bikers know to take the street at their own peril.

What scenario would lead to a cyclist on an illegal bike lane being hit by a law-abiding motorist though?  Even if you're allowed to drive your car on that part of the road, you're not allowed to rear-end the vehicles in front of you.

It's not a legally registered and licensed vehicle. Make them pay to register the vehicle and get a licence. Then build them lanes. Get them paying a road tax to use the road. Even Horse and Buggy operators pay a tax and have a licence.
Until then they are fair game.

Oh and don't go into the "But, but pedestrians!" mode. Those Farkers have to cross at a crosswalk and watch the signals or they're fair game too.


And why exactly should they have to pay taxes? Would the flood of new bike registration taxes even pay for the engineering required to widen the street for a bike lane, not to mention the construction?
Or did you not consider this basic economic decision in your blind rage to regulate and tax?
 
2013-09-25 09:26:21 PM  

Calmamity: I want to like bicyclists, I really do. I appreciate their commitment to their health, I appreciate that they are using non-polluting transportation.... but... godammit, if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic, then get the fu*k off the road. And what makes you think you're so special that you get to run red lights whenever you feel like it?

"Oooh ooh, Treat me like a vehicle! Follow behind me at 6 miles an hour while I mosey down the center of the lane and back up traffic for miles! I'm a vehicle!...  until it is inconvenient to me. Then I'm a pedestrian. A pedestrian who ignores all traffic laws."


It's New York, someone cut their brake lines.
 
2013-09-25 09:28:30 PM  

Luse: ZeroCorpse: Likwit: doglover: How is it that millions of people can ride bikes in Tokyo, WITHOUT HELMETS mind you, next to cars on every kind of road imaginable and almost no one gets into fights or run over and yet Americans can't go one minute with a bike and car on the same road without the guy on the bike and the guy on the car splitting into factions and trying to kill the other?

You're on a bike? You're inches from farking death by choice. GROW THE fark UP AND ACT LIKE IT, ASSHOLES. Be cautious and respectful.

I get in fights with cyclists all the time. Probably because I pick them, but that's beside the point.

People ride all over the sidewalk even though you're really not supposed to. Then they have the audacity to ring their farking bell at you. It infuriates me. That crackdown on cyclists in Osaka the other day gave me the most awesomest boner.

Anyways, riding on the sidewalk and a cultural aversion to personal conflict, is why they have fewer cyclist/driver spats.

In many states bicycles are perfectly legal (and often preferred) on the sidewalk. In Michigan anything classified as a bicycle is legally allowed to ride the sidewalk as long as they grant right-of-way to pedestrians. Likewise, the bikes get right-of-way versus cars at crosswalks when the light's on their side or when it's a stop sign for the car.

Certain towns may have ordinances to forbid bikes on sidewalks in areas of high foot traffic (downtown areas, mainly) but in many states it's LEGAL, so people can stop grumping about it.

Right, so because laws are different everywhere, and nobody really knows what the fark the law is anyway, we get people losing limbs. Of course the alternative would be to come up with a simple, uniform rule, like, treat bicycles like scooters, regardless where you go. That way, everyone knows the what the law is, regardless of what town they are in.

I know, madness.


No. If something is technically legal, I should be able to do it regardless of whether or not it makes sense, and no one should be allowed to complain about it.

/Sarcasm.
 
2013-09-25 09:32:27 PM  
Oh goodie, a bike thread.

In which plenty of drivers don't see the irony in biatching about how cyclists aren't following the law and then talk about purposely striking cyclists with their vehicle because the cyclist isn't allowing them to do their normal (read: above the speed limit) speed.
 
2013-09-25 09:33:35 PM  

eatin' fetus: ThisIsntMe: serial_crusher: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Painting DIY bike lanes is technically illegal

I tried to have a conversation with someone who was seriously proposing this on a difficult stretch of road near me. I should have asked him if he would be comfortable when a cyclist, thinking this is a safe legal bike lane, invariably gets hit by a car. At least now the bikers know to take the street at their own peril.

What scenario would lead to a cyclist on an illegal bike lane being hit by a law-abiding motorist though?  Even if you're allowed to drive your car on that part of the road, you're not allowed to rear-end the vehicles in front of you.

It's not a legally registered and licensed vehicle. Make them pay to register the vehicle and get a licence. Then build them lanes. Get them paying a road tax to use the road. Even Horse and Buggy operators pay a tax and have a licence.
Until then they are fair game.

Oh and don't go into the "But, but pedestrians!" mode. Those Farkers have to cross at a crosswalk and watch the signals or they're fair game too.

And why exactly should they have to pay taxes? Would the flood of new bike registration taxes even pay for the engineering required to widen the street for a bike lane, not to mention the construction?
Or did you not consider this basic economic decision in your blind rage to regulate and tax?


Actually I did. In NJ fully 23% of adults own and use bicycles. This could actually fund Townships and Burroughs'' street plans and future Municipal plans. Or they can keep pedantically moving around lawfully registered traffic and sometimes die. Me, I'd get a license.
 
2013-09-25 09:38:21 PM  

Calmamity: I want to like bicyclists, I really do. I appreciate their commitment to their health, I appreciate that they are using non-polluting transportation.... but... godammit, if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic, then get the fu*k off the road. And what makes you think you're so special that you get to run red lights whenever you feel like it?

"Oooh ooh, Treat me like a vehicle! Follow behind me at 6 miles an hour while I mosey down the center of the lane and back up traffic for miles! I'm a vehicle!...  until it is inconvenient to me. Then I'm a pedestrian. A pedestrian who ignores all traffic laws."


The Quantum Cyclist. It is both a vehicle and a pedestrian at any given time however the act of observing it forces it to be in one state or the other. Being in the wrong quantum state at the wrong time can lead to them ending up like a certain cat that exhibits a similar uncertainty of it's state until observed.
 
2013-09-25 09:41:00 PM  

serial_crusher: comhcinc: I am completely okay with this as long as I am allowed to make up my lanes as well.

Yeah, kind of this.  How long until some chucklehead makes his own "no bikes" signs?


You wouldn't happen to know where to get some reflective paint would you?
 
2013-09-25 09:41:03 PM  
Having said all this, I dislike government regulation strongly. But the fact is that the streets and highways are in fact a government provided method of travel. It has to be paid for and serviced. Otherwise we would all just be biking through peoples backyards.

But, if we use the taxpayer paid for roads, we should pay for it in some manner.
 
2013-09-25 09:42:27 PM  

Likwit: Luse: ZeroCorpse: Likwit: doglover: How is it that millions of people can ride bikes in Tokyo, WITHOUT HELMETS mind you, next to cars on every kind of road imaginable and almost no one gets into fights or run over and yet Americans can't go one minute with a bike and car on the same road without the guy on the bike and the guy on the car splitting into factions and trying to kill the other?

You're on a bike? You're inches from farking death by choice. GROW THE fark UP AND ACT LIKE IT, ASSHOLES. Be cautious and respectful.

I get in fights with cyclists all the time. Probably because I pick them, but that's beside the point.

People ride all over the sidewalk even though you're really not supposed to. Then they have the audacity to ring their farking bell at you. It infuriates me. That crackdown on cyclists in Osaka the other day gave me the most awesomest boner.

Anyways, riding on the sidewalk and a cultural aversion to personal conflict, is why they have fewer cyclist/driver spats.

In many states bicycles are perfectly legal (and often preferred) on the sidewalk. In Michigan anything classified as a bicycle is legally allowed to ride the sidewalk as long as they grant right-of-way to pedestrians. Likewise, the bikes get right-of-way versus cars at crosswalks when the light's on their side or when it's a stop sign for the car.

Certain towns may have ordinances to forbid bikes on sidewalks in areas of high foot traffic (downtown areas, mainly) but in many states it's LEGAL, so people can stop grumping about it.

Right, so because laws are different everywhere, and nobody really knows what the fark the law is anyway, we get people losing limbs. Of course the alternative would be to come up with a simple, uniform rule, like, treat bicycles like scooters, regardless where you go. That way, everyone knows the what the law is, regardless of what town they are in.

I know, madness.

No. If something is technically legal, I should be able to do it regardless of whether ...


Your appeal to logic is pathetic. Especially considering the fact that you make it, in defense of an inherently emotional plea. This has, of course, already been pointed out in the thread.

Are you trolling or merely stupid? Before you go on about it not making sense, please explain how it doesn't. Anyone who has ever been a kid knows it's not very difficult to both, ride a bicycle, and comply with the local traffic laws. We get to ride these as kids. No license. This is not a very difficult concept.
First decide if a bicycle is a vehicle, or pedestrian. If it is a pedestrian, it belongs on a sidewalk, obeying all pedestrian laws, crossing traffic only at crosswalks.
If it is a vehicle, it belongs in the roadway, and behave in a matter similar to all other vehicles. All vehicles, trucks, cars, motorcycles, scooters and drawn carriages play by this set of rules. If you wish to join this group, you must behave as a member of said group.
I don't like the fact that the sensor doesn't recognize my motorcycle, and the red light takes 3 times as long. It is illegal in my state to run the red, so I don't do it. Does it make sense? Some states say it does, simply not mine. Since I'm not an entitled little, special farking snowflake, I wait till it turns green.

Of course, all of this presumes that I have enough personal accountability to realize that I chose that method of transport in the first place.
 
2013-09-25 09:43:19 PM  

ThisIsntMe: eatin' fetus: ThisIsntMe: serial_crusher: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Painting DIY bike lanes is technically illegal

I tried to have a conversation with someone who was seriously proposing this on a difficult stretch of road near me. I should have asked him if he would be comfortable when a cyclist, thinking this is a safe legal bike lane, invariably gets hit by a car. At least now the bikers know to take the street at their own peril.

What scenario would lead to a cyclist on an illegal bike lane being hit by a law-abiding motorist though?  Even if you're allowed to drive your car on that part of the road, you're not allowed to rear-end the vehicles in front of you.

It's not a legally registered and licensed vehicle. Make them pay to register the vehicle and get a licence. Then build them lanes. Get them paying a road tax to use the road. Even Horse and Buggy operators pay a tax and have a licence.
Until then they are fair game.

Oh and don't go into the "But, but pedestrians!" mode. Those Farkers have to cross at a crosswalk and watch the signals or they're fair game too.

And why exactly should they have to pay taxes? Would the flood of new bike registration taxes even pay for the engineering required to widen the street for a bike lane, not to mention the construction?
Or did you not consider this basic economic decision in your blind rage to regulate and tax?

Actually I did. In NJ fully 23% of adults own and use bicycles. This could actually fund Townships and Burroughs'' street plans and future Municipal plans. Or they can keep pedantically moving around lawfully registered traffic and sometimes die. Me, I'd get a license.


Ok, so because some people own bicycles, everyone should have to pay to own a bicycle?
 
2013-09-25 09:45:34 PM  

ThisIsntMe: Having said all this, I dislike government regulation strongly. But the fact is that the streets and highways are in fact a government provided method of travel. It has to be paid for and serviced. Otherwise we would all just be biking through peoples backyards.

But, if we use the taxpayer paid for roads, we should pay for it in some manner.


You do pay for it, through regular taxes.
 
2013-09-25 09:45:44 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cyclists should just wait til the weekend to go on their joyrides. I'd be fine with bicyclists getting their own lane on weekends. But during the week, when actual adults are commuting to work, and these wanna-be Lance Armstrongs are clogging the lanes? Stay home and update your urban lifestyle blog, go harvest some organic kale at the local co-op, or go vintage loafer shopping with your life partner Seth. Leave the roads to the adults who actually work for a living.

 
2013-09-25 09:45:53 PM  
I recently got a job in the middle of bike-lane New York, and I've decided that I'm broad enough and big enough that I am simply going to stand in the way of any cyclists trying to plow through my crosswalk against the light. Try to plow into me and I get to 'stand my ground'

Yeah, Fark you all.
 
2013-09-25 09:46:25 PM  

eatin' fetus: ThisIsntMe: eatin' fetus: ThisIsntMe: serial_crusher: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Painting DIY bike lanes is technically illegal

I tried to have a conversation with someone who was seriously proposing this on a difficult stretch of road near me. I should have asked him if he would be comfortable when a cyclist, thinking this is a safe legal bike lane, invariably gets hit by a car. At least now the bikers know to take the street at their own peril.

What scenario would lead to a cyclist on an illegal bike lane being hit by a law-abiding motorist though?  Even if you're allowed to drive your car on that part of the road, you're not allowed to rear-end the vehicles in front of you.

It's not a legally registered and licensed vehicle. Make them pay to register the vehicle and get a licence. Then build them lanes. Get them paying a road tax to use the road. Even Horse and Buggy operators pay a tax and have a licence.
Until then they are fair game.

Oh and don't go into the "But, but pedestrians!" mode. Those Farkers have to cross at a crosswalk and watch the signals or they're fair game too.

And why exactly should they have to pay taxes? Would the flood of new bike registration taxes even pay for the engineering required to widen the street for a bike lane, not to mention the construction?
Or did you not consider this basic economic decision in your blind rage to regulate and tax?

Actually I did. In NJ fully 23% of adults own and use bicycles. This could actually fund Townships and Burroughs'' street plans and future Municipal plans. Or they can keep pedantically moving around lawfully registered traffic and sometimes die. Me, I'd get a license.

Ok, so because some people own bicycles, everyone should have to pay to own a bicycle?


If you want right of the way on the roads which are paid by that very thing, in a farking word, YES.
 
2013-09-25 09:48:22 PM  

ThisIsntMe: But, if we use the taxpayer paid for roads, we should pay for it in some manner.


We do. Roads are paid for from general tax revenues, not some magical tax that only motorists pay.
 
2013-09-25 09:49:23 PM  

whatshisname: ThisIsntMe: But, if we use the taxpayer paid for roads, we should pay for it in some manner.

We do. Roads are paid for from general tax revenues, not some magical tax that only motorists pay.


yeah. not to mention that many many cyclists own a car as well. stupid argument.
 
2013-09-25 09:51:21 PM  

whatshisname: ThisIsntMe: But, if we use the taxpayer paid for roads, we should pay for it in some manner.

We do. Roads are paid for from general tax revenues, not some magical tax that only motorists pay.


Driver's License, Emissions testing, registration, insurance, gasoline taxes from all levels of government, am I missing anything?
 
2013-09-25 09:53:44 PM  

Luse: whatshisname: ThisIsntMe: But, if we use the taxpayer paid for roads, we should pay for it in some manner.

We do. Roads are paid for from general tax revenues, not some magical tax that only motorists pay.

Driver's License, Emissions testing, registration, insurance, gasoline taxes from all levels of government, am I missing anything?


Yes, the fact that most of the fees you mention only pay for their own administration.
 
2013-09-25 09:53:46 PM  

Mellotiger: Drivers aren't the problem.
Cyclists aren't the problem.
Arseholes are the problem. And it's a big problem.


I agree. Cyclists (the assholes) are the problem.
 
2013-09-25 09:56:01 PM  

whatshisname: Luse: whatshisname: ThisIsntMe: But, if we use the taxpayer paid for roads, we should pay for it in some manner.

We do. Roads are paid for from general tax revenues, not some magical tax that only motorists pay.

Driver's License, Emissions testing, registration, insurance, gasoline taxes from all levels of government, am I missing anything?

Yes, the fact that most of the fees you mention only pay for their own administration.


Oh goodie, you want to play. Let's start with the first one. If you are to be on a state or federally regulated roadway you would need a license to do so. We can call it a Driver's License. It could be something that proves that you have the basic understandings of the rules of the road, and how to navigate on said road. You can also prove your ability to perform all of the required maneuvers. Then, and only then you would be allowed on the road, BUT, not before you pay the fee for "their own administration".
 
2013-09-25 09:59:26 PM  

Luse: whatshisname: Luse: whatshisname: ThisIsntMe: But, if we use the taxpayer paid for roads, we should pay for it in some manner.

We do. Roads are paid for from general tax revenues, not some magical tax that only motorists pay.

Driver's License, Emissions testing, registration, insurance, gasoline taxes from all levels of government, am I missing anything?

Yes, the fact that most of the fees you mention only pay for their own administration.

Oh goodie, you want to play. Let's start with the first one. If you are to be on a state or federally regulated roadway you would need a license to do so. We can call it a Driver's License. It could be something that proves that you have the basic understandings of the rules of the road, and how to navigate on said road. You can also prove your ability to perform all of the required maneuvers. Then, and only then you would be allowed on the road, BUT, not before you pay the fee for "their own administration".


Yes and the fees you pay to get and renew that driver's license pay for the program that administers the licenses, not for the construction and maintenance of roads. That's the argument, right? What pays for roads?
 
2013-09-25 10:01:41 PM  

Luse: whatshisname: Luse: whatshisname: ThisIsntMe: But, if we use the taxpayer paid for roads, we should pay for it in some manner.

We do. Roads are paid for from general tax revenues, not some magical tax that only motorists pay.

Driver's License, Emissions testing, registration, insurance, gasoline taxes from all levels of government, am I missing anything?

Yes, the fact that most of the fees you mention only pay for their own administration.

Oh goodie, you want to play. Let's start with the first one. If you are to be on a state or federally regulated roadway you would need a license to do so. We can call it a Driver's License. It could be something that proves that you have the basic understandings of the rules of the road, and how to navigate on said road. You can also prove your ability to perform all of the required maneuvers. Then, and only then you would be allowed on the road, BUT, not before you pay the fee for "their own administration".


What in the fark...
 
2013-09-25 10:04:10 PM  
Ah, tomorrow will be a fine day to avoid biking on bike paths, burning red lights and weaving in traffic.

Wish me luck!

i.ebayimg.com
 
2013-09-25 10:05:01 PM  

whatshisname: Luse: whatshisname: Luse: whatshisname: ThisIsntMe: But, if we use the taxpayer paid for roads, we should pay for it in some manner.

We do. Roads are paid for from general tax revenues, not some magical tax that only motorists pay.

Driver's License, Emissions testing, registration, insurance, gasoline taxes from all levels of government, am I missing anything?

Yes, the fact that most of the fees you mention only pay for their own administration.

Oh goodie, you want to play. Let's start with the first one. If you are to be on a state or federally regulated roadway you would need a license to do so. We can call it a Driver's License. It could be something that proves that you have the basic understandings of the rules of the road, and how to navigate on said road. You can also prove your ability to perform all of the required maneuvers. Then, and only then you would be allowed on the road, BUT, not before you pay the fee for "their own administration".

Yes and the fees you pay to get and renew that driver's license pay for the program that administers the licenses, not for the construction and maintenance of roads. That's the argument, right? What pays for roads?


I'm sorry but we don't live in a socialist country. Nothing here runs for "their own administration". Everything I mentioned is a taxed item that is paid by every single motor vehicle owner, and therefore part of the "general tax". The other thing that every item I named has in common is that not a single cyclist pays them. Therefore, the cyclist contributes nothing, or drastically less than the motor vehicle owner.

If we are to talk about right of way, then the person who pays more is the person with the right of way. You gotta pay to ride first class, baby.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice your dodge. You still haven't explained why a cyclist should be exempt from a Driver's License requirement if they want to share public roads. Every single other vehicle that uses them needs it, so should a cyclist.
 
2013-09-25 10:05:51 PM  
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:

Oh goodie, you want to play. Let's start with the first one. If you are to be on a state or federally regulated roadway you would need a license to do so. We can call it a Driver's License. It could be something that proves that you have the basic understandings of the rules of the road, and how to navigate on said road. You can also prove your ability to perform all of the required maneuvers. Then, and only then you would be allowed on the road, BUT, not before you pay the fee for "their own administration".

What in the fark...


I enjoy debate, do you mind?
 
2013-09-25 10:06:37 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Ah, tomorrow will be a fine day to avoid biking on bike paths, burning red lights and weaving in traffic.

Wish me luck!


Damn, nice wheels. Don't forget the lid!
 
2013-09-25 10:07:48 PM  

whatshisname: Yes and the fees you pay to get and renew that driver's license pay for the program that administers the licenses, not for the construction and maintenance of roads. That's the argument, right? What pays for roads?


While I admire your desire to match inputs and outputs ... money doesn't work that way.

The Roads in NY are paid for by local income taxes, state income taxes, road tolls, gas taxes, hackney carriage fees, federal income taxes, federal capital gains taxes ... in addition to the sales taxes on cars, the registration fees and inspection fees. I am sure that the DMV more than pays for itself. Add to that all the fines issued by courts to motorists breaking every kind of law, sales of towed vehicles, parking meter rates, parking ticket fines ....

In short ... EVERYTHING ... If you tried to trace the money from inputs to outputs, the outgoing bills for road crews and asphalt would look like sausage.
 
2013-09-25 10:08:44 PM  

meyerkev: Luse: No, you don't get to chose which laws to obey. If you demand a full lane, like you claim you are entitled to, because you are a vehicle, then you must obey all laws, including stop signs, like a vehicle.
Perhaps stopping at stop signs instead of rolling through them will help you enhance your fitness level.

That was meant for meyerkev


/selfpwned

So the problem with stopping is that Stopping is a multi-step process.

1) Come to a mostly complete stop.  Your right foot should be slightly in front of the bottom of the rotation.
2) As you finish coming to a complete stop, dismount from the bike by slipping off the front of your seat and planting your left foot against the ground.  If you do this WRONG, expect to get a crotch full of middle bar or fall off the bike since you should be AT LEAST 6 inches off the ground when sitting on your bike seat.  If you can be on the bike seat AND touch the ground with your tiptoes, you're doing it wrong.
2a) There are also creepy people who are probably aliens who dismount by swinging over the back of the bike while it's in motion and standing on one pedal until it stops.  I've tried this and never been able to pull it off (because I'm not that flexible and I have bike racks with baskets which I ram with my foot).
3) If you're going straight or right, you're on the right side of the lane.  If you're going left, you're in the left third of the lane.
4) God forbid you have to make a left turn because you just got rear-ended by the car behind you which wasn't expecting you to stop.   In fact, god forbid you have to make any turn because you are LEGALLY REQUIRED to be signalling this entire time which means that you only have one hand and one brake.

Now that you're stopped, to start again:
1) Kick your pedals backwards until they bounce off your right shin.  This will probably cause significant numbers of open sores since the little prongs on your pedal WILL pierce the skin.
2) Put your right foot on the pedal
3) Push off the ...


Obviously you are not a cyclist - we don't have prongs on our pedals and our shoes are rarely unclipped.
 
2013-09-25 10:09:56 PM  

rubi_con_man: whatshisname: Yes and the fees you pay to get and renew that driver's license pay for the program that administers the licenses, not for the construction and maintenance of roads. That's the argument, right? What pays for roads?

While I admire your desire to match inputs and outputs ... money doesn't work that way.

The Roads in NY are paid for by local income taxes, state income taxes, road tolls, gas taxes, hackney carriage fees, federal income taxes, federal capital gains taxes ... in addition to the sales taxes on cars, the registration fees and inspection fees. I am sure that the DMV more than pays for itself. Add to that all the fines issued by courts to motorists breaking every kind of law, sales of towed vehicles, parking meter rates, parking ticket fines ....

In short ... EVERYTHING ... If you tried to trace the money from inputs to outputs, the outgoing bills for road crews and asphalt would look like sausage.


Thanks. Seems I was missing alot.
 
2013-09-25 10:10:19 PM  
Worst. Generation. Ever.
 
2013-09-25 10:10:52 PM  

rubi_con_man: whatshisname: Yes and the fees you pay to get and renew that driver's license pay for the program that administers the licenses, not for the construction and maintenance of roads. That's the argument, right? What pays for roads?

While I admire your desire to match inputs and outputs ... money doesn't work that way.

The Roads in NY are paid for by local income taxes, state income taxes, road tolls, gas taxes, hackney carriage fees, federal income taxes, federal capital gains taxes ... in addition to the sales taxes on cars, the registration fees and inspection fees. I am sure that the DMV more than pays for itself. Add to that all the fines issued by courts to motorists breaking every kind of law, sales of towed vehicles, parking meter rates, parking ticket fines ....

In short ... EVERYTHING ... If you tried to trace the money from inputs to outputs, the outgoing bills for road crews and asphalt would look like sausage.


Oh, and I want to put in that if you claim that cyclists don't pay the large portion of those above fees, fines and taxes, let me remind you that almost everything that your haughty cyclist might buy in the City - from Power fuel to tinned beans has to come into the city by truck - the ports in NY are largely in Newark, and come through the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, so those costs are 'built into' the price of the goods....

Like I said ... EVERYTHING.
 
2013-09-25 10:10:55 PM  
All the traffic signals around here have magnetic loop detectors that are set to recognize cars, but not smaller objects like bicycles. Sometimes there's a specific, marked bike detector, but about 10% of the time they don't work, either. After a dozen or more of these traffic signalized intersections designed for cars, cyclists tend to slow, look, and go when they think it's safe.

So even the stop signs have magnetic loop detectors?
 
2013-09-25 10:13:23 PM  

rubi_con_man: If you tried to trace the money from inputs to outputs, the outgoing bills for road crews and asphalt would look like sausage.


Exactly, which is why it's silly to claim that roads are paid for exclusively from fees paid by motorists. I think I read that the income from gas taxes accounts for about 15%, and it's probably the largest single contribution extracted solely from motorists. But hey, cyclists eat lots of organic veggies trucked up from California so they are indirectly contributing, too, right  etc.  etc.
 
2013-09-25 10:13:59 PM  

Luse: If we are to talk about right of way, then the person who pays more is the person with the right of way. You gotta pay to ride first class, baby.


lol that is not how right-of-way works.
 
2013-09-25 10:16:47 PM  

whatshisname: rubi_con_man: If you tried to trace the money from inputs to outputs, the outgoing bills for road crews and asphalt would look like sausage.

Exactly, which is why it's silly to claim that roads are paid for exclusively from fees paid by motorists. I think I read that the income from gas taxes accounts for about 15%, and it's probably the largest single contribution extracted solely from motorists. But hey, cyclists eat lots of organic veggies trucked up from California so they are indirectly contributing, too, right  etc.  etc.


Then why should motorists pay an extra tax, have to get licensed, have to pay a registration fee and bicyclists shouldn't? All of those are excuses, the government uses for road usage. Why shouldn't you have to prove your knowledge of road rules of ability to ride?
 
2013-09-25 10:22:29 PM  

Insurgent: Luse: If we are to talk about right of way, then the person who pays more is the person with the right of way. You gotta pay to ride first class, baby.

lol that is not how right-of-way works.


Not entirely, but my point was, roads were designed for motor vehicles, not bicycles, and the infrastructure was designed, and taxed in such a way as to support it.

The point is, bicyclists want to have right of way on public roads without meeting even the bare requirements, or most of the costs associated with them. Entitlement culture at it's finest.
Please, tell my why a cyclist is so special that they get all of the rights, right of way, and don't have to meet even the bare requirements of the road.
 
2013-09-25 10:23:23 PM  

Luse: whatshisname: rubi_con_man: If you tried to trace the money from inputs to outputs, the outgoing bills for road crews and asphalt would look like sausage.

Exactly, which is why it's silly to claim that roads are paid for exclusively from fees paid by motorists. I think I read that the income from gas taxes accounts for about 15%, and it's probably the largest single contribution extracted solely from motorists. But hey, cyclists eat lots of organic veggies trucked up from California so they are indirectly contributing, too, right  etc.  etc.

Then why should motorists pay an extra tax, have to get licensed, have to pay a registration fee and bicyclists shouldn't? All of those are excuses, the government uses for road usage. Why shouldn't you have to prove your knowledge of road rules of ability to ride?


I would ask if you're really this obtuse but I'm assuming you're just bored and argumentative.
 
2013-09-25 10:24:43 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: whatshisname: rubi_con_man: If you tried to trace the money from inputs to outputs, the outgoing bills for road crews and asphalt would look like sausage.

Exactly, which is why it's silly to claim that roads are paid for exclusively from fees paid by motorists. I think I read that the income from gas taxes accounts for about 15%, and it's probably the largest single contribution extracted solely from motorists. But hey, cyclists eat lots of organic veggies trucked up from California so they are indirectly contributing, too, right  etc.  etc.

Then why should motorists pay an extra tax, have to get licensed, have to pay a registration fee and bicyclists shouldn't? All of those are excuses, the government uses for road usage. Why shouldn't you have to prove your knowledge of road rules of ability to ride?

I would ask if you're really this obtuse but I'm assuming you're just bored and argumentative.


"I want all of the rights but don't want any of the responsibilities." Does this sound right to you?
 
2013-09-25 10:25:24 PM  

Luse: Then why should motorists pay an extra tax, have to get licensed, have to pay a registration fee and bicyclists shouldn't?


Because a bike isn't a potential lethal weapon. Use that argument and you'll also want to tax and test pedestrians using those expensive concrete sidewalks.
 
2013-09-25 10:26:25 PM  

Luse: Then why should motorists pay an extra tax, have to get licensed, have to pay a registration fee and bicyclists shouldn't? All of those are excuses, the government uses for road usage. Why shouldn't you have to prove your knowledge of road rules of ability to ride?


I also agree that cyclists should be licensed

Drivers are licensed so that their licenses can be revoked

Registration is empowered so that violators can be identified ticketed and punished for violations.

Inspections and insurance are put forward to make the road safer and less traumatically expensive.

Gas taxes are an attempt to both trim excess driving and draw some kinds of road tax funds in somewhat proportion to vehicle weight and use.

While I agree that bicyclists should be licensed, their ability to do damage to others is greatly diminished, and so the pursuit of their regulation is de-prioritized.
 
2013-09-25 10:27:41 PM  
way too late to this discussion, but here it is
i havent had the luxury of a vehicle for over nine years, i didnt quit drinking, but i did quit driving.
riding on the sidewalks in denver is illegal, ive got a ticket by the capital trying to be nice and stay out of traffic.  i stick far right at all times or stick to roads that have proper bike lanes, wait out all stop lights [i dont want to die running a red down broadway or lincoln] and generally am extremely cautious.  i know i am a pain in the ass for drivers and do my best to minimize the impact of me being on the road, but unfortunately the laws make it so that I am technically a vehicle on a public road and not a pedestrian on the sidewalk.  just one that cant go very fast and has no armor.
im just trying to get to work too.  getting buzzed by busses on broadway is scary as hell.  i always listen to silversun pickups 'very carefully look over your shoulder...' first song on the way to work downtown is always the royal we.
i never bike after a drink btw, cabs are cheap.
a ton of hipsters on fixies in this town give responsible bicyclists a shiat name around here.
 
2013-09-25 10:28:44 PM  
At least 1 pedestrian and a helmet would like to disagree with you. At least the helmet got an Ode to it.
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/07/23/san-francisco-cyclist-pedes tr ian-death/
 
2013-09-25 10:29:32 PM  
i hear pedestrians cross public roads in between sidewalks at intersections. regulation for everyone yay!
 
2013-09-25 10:34:26 PM  

Luse: Insurgent: Luse: If we are to talk about right of way, then the person who pays more is the person with the right of way. You gotta pay to ride first class, baby.

lol that is not how right-of-way works.

Not entirely, but my point was, roads were designed for motor vehicles, not bicycles, and the infrastructure was designed, and taxed in such a way as to support it.

The point is, bicyclists want to have right of way on public roads without meeting even the bare requirements, or most of the costs associated with them. Entitlement culture at it's finest.
Please, tell my why a cyclist is so special that they get all of the rights, right of way, and don't have to meet even the bare requirements of the road.


because lawmakers need to designate bikes as a vehicle so they can prosecute DUIs on bikes for people so farking stupid they lose their license and choose to continue to cruise around drunk but on a bike.  Seriously.  the laws make it a catch 22.  you are basically on a motorcycle with no motor and HAVE to ride on the street or face a ticket from a cop having a bad day.

many people on bikes are either doing it for health and recreation or necessity.  one of the necessities being that they lost their license for one reason or another.  this doesnt make things better, but that is how it is.  in ski resort towns cops specifically look for recent DUI arrests on bikes to get them their second OUI and get them back in scummit county jail for a few months.

its the drunkards fault for falling for it even after hearing dozens of tales of this sort of thing in their alcohol class.
 
2013-09-25 10:43:30 PM  

Markoff_Cheney: Luse: Insurgent: Luse: If we are to talk about right of way, then the person who pays more is the person with the right of way. You gotta pay to ride first class, baby.

lol that is not how right-of-way works.

Not entirely, but my point was, roads were designed for motor vehicles, not bicycles, and the infrastructure was designed, and taxed in such a way as to support it.

The point is, bicyclists want to have right of way on public roads without meeting even the bare requirements, or most of the costs associated with them. Entitlement culture at it's finest.
Please, tell my why a cyclist is so special that they get all of the rights, right of way, and don't have to meet even the bare requirements of the road.

because lawmakers need to designate bikes as a vehicle so they can prosecute DUIs on bikes for people so farking stupid they lose their license and choose to continue to cruise around drunk but on a bike.  Seriously.  the laws make it a catch 22.  you are basically on a motorcycle with no motor and HAVE to ride on the street or face a ticket from a cop having a bad day.

many people on bikes are either doing it for health and recreation or necessity.  one of the necessities being that they lost their license for one reason or another.  this doesnt make things better, but that is how it is.  in ski resort towns cops specifically look for recent DUI arrests on bikes to get them their second OUI and get them back in scummit county jail for a few months.

its the drunkards fault for falling for it even after hearing dozens of tales of this sort of thing in their alcohol class.


So instead of fixing a corrupt system we should encourage it by making "special" classes of citizens? I don't disagree that a bicycle is less dangerous than a car. However my car veering to avoid your drunk ass is quite lethal.
So decide,

You are either a pedestrian, on a sidewalk, following all pedestrian on a sidewalk rules.
OR
You are a vehicle, on a public road way, following all vehicle on a roadway rules.

It really is that simple.
 
Displayed 50 of 244 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report