The city I live in has gone a wee bit pedestrian-happy. I guess that's not a bad thing but the wait times at some of the crossings are Way more than excessive.
I would like to see cancel crosswalk buttons for after a pedestrian has crossed. Anyone still waiting to cross can reengage the signal and since drivers are already stopped they will not mow down anyone still in the walkway if the signal shuts off mid-crossing.
Everybody crosses safely and I'm not wasting fuel idling my vehicle for minutes just because some light is telling me I can't move even though the way has been clear for an excruciatingly long time.
On a side note; whomever is responsible for the decision to have cyclists ride with traffic rather than on sidewalks needs a slap upside the head.Here's the rationale; cyclist vs. pedestrian = boo-boos, cyclist vs. thousand-pound-rolling-hammers = severe trauma.
Is it just Darwinism encouragement? Am I the only person who thinks riding in traffic is completely idiotic?-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 26 2014 //Am I the only person who thinks riding in traffic is completely idiotic?//
I doubt it.
However, I loathe cyclists who cycle on what are supposed to be pedestrian-only footpaths. Yes, there should be more dedicated cycle paths. But, in the meantime, cyclists are traffic, and should be with other traffic, and should act appropriately.
Incidentally, I speak as both a driver and a cyclist. Most of my near-misses on two wheels have been through my own stupidity. Most of my near- misses on four wheels have been through other cyclists' stupidity.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 26 2014 As a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver, I appreciate the generous margin of error given by (most, but not all) traffic lights. It (in conjunction with traffic cops) discourages twitchy drivers from jumping the gun and causing an accident.
As an aside, around here people do bike on the sidewalks (and get away with it) quite often, especially during heavy traffic and in spots where bike lanes are narrow, bumpy, poorly visible, or non-existent. Pedestrians don't seem to mind as bikers travel carefully, slowly, and far to the side when on the sidewalk. Bicycling with traffic isn't just scary, it is statistically more dangerous, so I avoid it unless traffic is light.-- Spacecoyote, Apr 26 2014 Nothing against cyclists per se: I used to commute downtown and back (40km) each day to work, using mostly park paths, and all over the place of course when I was a kid. It's the ones that that take illegal and dangerous right-of-way that piss me off.
<rant>
If a cyclist wants to weave his way through stopped traffic at a stoplight, more power to them: that's the advantage of being on a bicycle. If the cyclist wants to extend that so that they blow through a red light, causing an oncoming turning driver to have to slam on the brakes in order to avoid cycle-pizza, not so much.
An oft heard rejoinder from cyclists in regards to complaints about illegal practices is "Hey, do you as a driver come to a complete stop at every stop sign ?". To which the answer is "When there's a 40 tonne tractor trailer crossing the intersection in front of me, you're fucking right I do" (I actually do, but let's keep it simple).
</r>-- FlyingToaster, Apr 26 2014 //Bicycling with traffic isn't just scary, it is statistically more dangerous, so I avoid it unless traffic is light.//
Fair point. Which could also be made with regard to motorcyclists.
In fact, driving a car on the footpath would reduce your risk of colliding with a lorry quite a bit too.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 26 2014 Predictably all cyclists use the pavement in Japan, seems to work ok.-- not_morrison_rm, Apr 26 2014 The way I see it, I had to earn a license to operate a vehicle on the roadways. The distinction needs to be made between motorised vehicle and human powered vehicle.
I can see bicycle delivery guys freaking out over being restricted to sidewalks so the compromise would be to need a valid operators' license in order to take any vehicle out on the streetPedestrians have automatic right-of-way over cyclists off-road, and the consequence of losing one's license for cycling without responsibility on the roads could be enforced.
As for the grass getting a bit chewed up by bicycles veering off the sidewalk around people... I'd just ask how many gardeners could my tax dollars employ for the cost of a single doctor to piece together a mowed-down cyclist?
It's really a no-brainer and I can't help but feel that I should have been consulted.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 26 2014 What [Spacecoyote] said, word for word.-- blissmiss, Apr 26 2014 But parked or stopped cars opening their doors is much more prevalent and dangerous.-- pashute, Apr 26 2014 // Having had my car's front end struck by a speeding cyclist as I exited an alleyway changed my perspective on the issue.//
I get that, but still, the damage to all concerned was cosmetic wasn't it? The vehicle might as well have been near stationary as far as any injuries were concerned, and a wary cyclist will be prepared for, and not speeding past, an alleyway anyhow.
The thousand-pound-hammers are momentum-less.Still dangerous, but not inherently suicidal over a long period of time.This law can only have been designed by committee...-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 27 2014 That doesn't fly with me.Human life can not be weighed against an insurance deductible when law 'forces' cyclists to ride in traffic whether they choose to or not.The same damage can be done to your vehicle by any regular-old-asshole in any given parking lot...same deductible.
It's just wrong.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 27 2014 Regards the cyclist rant - it has been noticed. Bike lanes are a thing. Widely known to exist, one might imagine.-- tatterdemalion, Apr 27 2014 The road is much safer for a motorcycle than it is for a bicycle because the motorcycle can easily keep up with traffic.
I'd prefer if cyclists were given the option, but if they want to ride on the sidewalk, they must do so safely. That means going slower in any situations where there are other pedestrians, cross paths with poor visibility, etc.-- scad mientist, Apr 27 2014 Lets sew them onto people's trousers while we're at it.-- Spacecoyote, Apr 27 2014 I see the point of riding on the sidewalk: riding on the side of the outer lane with traffic zooming by scares the crap out of me (downtown doesn't bother me much - the traffic isn't moving all that fast - except for the constant fear of car doors).
My actual concern is suburbia, where cyclists don't dismount, which is the law, when crossing an appropriately marked intersection. One of these times I'm gonna be making a turn while scratching my nuts, or putting out a smoke, or changing the channel on the radio, or simply having concentrated on some other traffic concern while coming up to the corner, and some nitwit is going to splatter themselves across the side of my truck... I sincerely hope they don't break my radio aerial on the way: that would take all of 20 minutes to replace.-- FlyingToaster, Apr 27 2014 // Bicycling with traffic isn't just scary, it is statistically more dangerous,//
Citation needed, since my understanding is that the reverse is true.
And most roads cyclist ride on are 30-40mph posted. Most cyclists travel 15-20 mph. Therefore, they are doing about half the posted speed. That is plenty of time for an over taking driver to see and respond to the cyclist.
Most pedestrians do 2-3mph, and are on a narrow little path with nowhere for the much faster cyclist to go.
The closest I've ever been to being killed was before I learned why sidewalks are bad ideas and I pulled up onto one to avoid a construction site.
And I'll get a bicycle drivers license as soon as you can explain to me how the bicycle is going to be responsible for causing the damage. Drivers licenses are not permission to use the roads (in the US at least, that's guaranteed in the constitution), they're permission to pilot a multi- thousand pound weapon on the roads.
Yes, more bicycle safety training would be good, but so would more training for drivers on the fact that they don't have exclusive rights to the road.
And yes, I agree that cyclists who blow right through lights and stop signs are idiots. Yes there are idiots out there, but I've seen many drivers decide to blow right through a red light, that's the equivalent, not a rolling stop, which both also do (and the cyclist can usually justify better, both from a physics standpoint and a better view of oncoming traffic).-- MechE, Apr 27 2014 All excellent points. I don't have any stats on whether they have determined riding on the road or the sidewalk to be safer, I just don't think any human has the right to force me to do so if I don't friggin want to.
Motorcyclists have drivers licenses and agree to the risk of driving a 'motorised' vehicle on a roadway.
As for bike-lanes, they are just great except;When a driver is turning right or left and a cyclist zooms along side,or when it's raining and the lanes become rivers, (guess I'll just have to edge into traffic since I'm not allowed to ride that nice elevated dry strip off to the side there...),or on garbage, yard waste, and recycling pick-up days when the lanes are blocked, forcing riders even farther into traffic,or the fact that you must pass through bike lanes to either park or enter most turning lanes around here, (that blind spot gets a whole lot bigger when it isn't a vehicle you're shoulder-checking for).
//The law is what it is. //
No.The law is what we allow it to be.
// And I'll get a bicycle drivers license as soon as you can explain to me how the bicycle is going to be responsible for causing the damage. Drivers licenses are not permission to use the roads (in the US at least, that's guaranteed in the constitution), they're permission to pilot a multi- thousand pound weapon on the roads. //
You already possess a drivers license and so when I encounter you in a vehicle on the road I can assume that you've at least passed rudimentary training in its rules and code of conduct. They are forcing kids not even of driving age to use those same roadways with those multi-thousand-pound-weapons.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 27 2014 // Let's put the kind of injuries a bicycle can inflict into perspective: the total mass of a rider + backpack+ bicycle on a very narrow, very hard striking surface moving faster than an NFL player going in for a brutal tackle on someone who isn't wearing any protective armor. If I found out Richie Incognito was going to be sprinting up and down the sidewalk in downtown Spokane, I'd expect someone to go ahead of him and warn people about it.//
Exactlly why I'm advocating being on the road, not the sidewalk. The only one of that list that is not easily repairable (and thus a civil, not criminal issue) is the damage to pedestrians.-- MechE, Apr 27 2014 I'm with [21Q] on everything apart from the car door business. A motorist should never open their door on the road-side without checking in their mirrors, whether for cyclists or other cars; and injuries caused by a cyclist hitting the end of an opening door can be pretty horrific.
Passengers should also check before opening the kerb-side door, although in those cases the cyclist bears a lot of the responsibility for passing on the inside.
Bicycles and motorcycles are wheeled vehicles. In general, both groups should behave responsibly in traffic, and realize that they're not the only road users. They don't belong on pavements. But only the motorcyclists seem to understand these points.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 27 2014 // Let's put the kind of injuries a bicycle can inflict into perspective: the total mass of a rider + backpack+ bicycle on a very narrow, very hard striking surface moving faster than an NFL player going in for a brutal tackle on someone who isn't wearing any protective armor. If I found out Richie Incognito was going to be sprinting up and down the sidewalk in downtown Spokane, I'd expect someone to go ahead of him and warn people about it.//
See I don't get this reasoning at all. I'll just rewrite that sentence and see if it makes more sense;
Let's put the kind of injuries a vehicle can inflict into perspective: the total mass of an operator + cargo + vehicle on a very narrow, very hard striking surface moving faster and with more force than any NFL player going in for a brutal tackle on someone who isn't wearing any protective armor could ever dream of. If I found out Richie Incognito was going to be sprinting up and down the sidewalk in downtown Spokane, I'd expect someone to go ahead of him and warn people about it.
I'll take my chances with the football tackle any day. You can keep the Mack truck tackle all for yourself.
This is why I am advocating riding on the walks rather than the roads.
//It's tough to bring a cyclist *to* civil court, however, without a license to track down.//
Which is why I think one is needed before being allowed to ride in traffic.
This argument is getting rather cyclic and your points just reinforce my position.Making people bike in traffic is a stupid law without regard for consequences.
I do not obey such laws, as they take away the right to think for myself and decide what "I" think is best for "my" own safety.
They have not the right, as I have not given it away.I've ridden on sidewalks for close to forty years now without accident and will continue to do so. You may take your chances with the several-thousand-pound-weapons if you wish, but you can not force me to do the same without my consent.
If everyone suddenly began to cycle on the sidewalks en-masse they would really have no alternative but to repeal this victimless "law" now would they?
Power to the sheeple!-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 27 2014 So, [2fries], can you explain how your argument doesn't also apply to motocyclists?-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 27 2014 Simples.
Motorcycles are motorised vehicles, hence the moto part in their description, operators of motorcycles are required to possess a valid license, display a license plate and make their own choice to ride in traffic.Bicycles are not motorised, require no license or plate, can not keep up with traffic and are yet forced to do so.
Motorcycles should not be on side-walks for the same reason that cyclists shouldn't be in traffic.
// I know a guy who got a $75 citation for doing that//
See what I mean?By what right was this citizen punished?Was there a victim of his "crime"?Even so, 75 bucks is a lot cheaper than an ambulance ride, hospitalization, and potential paralysis, brain damage or funeral expenses.
Police are to catch criminals and maintain the peace, not harass the innocent with money-grabbing restrictions to their personal choices.
I am moral-abiding not law-abiding, unless those laws happen to overlap with my own moral judgement.Laws change and many of them are outright jokes. Morals on the other hand seem to endure quite well with or without a nanny-state enforcing them.Go figure...-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 27 2014 //Bicycles are not motorised, require no license or plate, can not keep up with traffic and are yet forced to do so.//
That's a good point. It's time to introduce licences and plates for cycling. I'd happily (well, not cheerfully, but I'd do it) take a test if it meant that all other cyclists had to similarly prove their competence.
Cyclists should not have to pay road tax, however.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 27 2014 //Cyclists should not have to pay road tax...// sp. "near as much road tax".-- FlyingToaster, Apr 27 2014 // Whoever said you had a 'right' to bike on the sidewalks?//
I do.
// You can't give away something you never had to begin with.//
I have whatever rights I choose to resist being taken from me. Always have.That includes the right to tell others trying to force me to ride in traffic, if and when "I" don't feel it safe, to fuck right off. It really doesn't matter to me what their tile may be, or how many strings of letters they have after their name, or how swanky their uniforms and guns are.They can rough me up, or incarcerate me, or fine me, or shoot me... but they can't take away my right to protect myself from their stupidity.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 27 2014 //I thought the road tax was that extra few cents per gallon we pay for fuel.//
Ah, OK, in the UK drivers also pay an annual road tax, just to make sure they're properly screwed.
//They can rough me up, or incarcerate me, or fine me, or shoot me... but they can't take away my right to protect myself from their stupidity.// There speaks an upstanding citizen with a short life expectancy. Still, if everyone had the bollocks to decide that they have the right to do whatever they like, the world would be a more fun place for everyone. It's values like that that make a society worth being shot for.
Incidentally, you know what would be really cool? Some means to cancel crosswalk lights after people have crossed, to avoid delaying road users unnecessarily.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 27 2014 Heh.
Seriously though, I don't feel I have any right to do anything I want.I just don't listen when other people tell me I have to put myself in harms way because they say so.Have you given this right away?-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 27 2014 No, not really. I just learned to cycle properly. People trying to cycle on the pavements in Cambridge tend to get umbrellas unexpectedly stuck in their spokes.
On the other hand, I drive on the pavement if I feel safer there.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 27 2014 Same... but I decide.
I dunno, maybe it's just because we've got enough personal space to be able to swing a dead cat without hitting each other here, but people, (I'm far from the only one), are getting a little fed up with the barrage of money grubbing rules and regs from those who are supposed to serve us.The Canadian gun registry debacle is a good example of the feedback people are starting to display towards actions we know are really not in our best interests.
It sounds vain but true nonetheless, if everyone shared my morals we wouldn't need laws.
I'll give you an example, (Yes, I know you don't really want an example but if you would please indulge me).
As a sub contractor, whichever company I am currently working for is required by law to pay fees for me to the Workers Compensation Board, (WCB) if I have not obtained my own number.None of them pay this fee. The loop-hole they've found around this cost is to charge an administration fee equal to what they are required to cough up.One shop I worked for charged an enormous nine percent WCB fee and for the three years I worked for them their bookkeeper erroneously tagged it this nine percent of my wages as WCB withdrawal on my pay-stubs.
Now "legally" I need do nothing more than send a letter asking WCB to explain this discrepancy to me and the cheque this company would have to cut me for nine percent of three years of my wages comes to the tidy sum of twenty seven thousand dollars.
I could really use twenty seven thousand dollars, and legally I can claim it... morally on the other hand, I can not.Laws have no soul, and change at the whim of whoever is lining pockets nowadays.
I'll just keep sticking to my morals thanks, and time will tell which of us has the shorter life expectancy.
Aw crap, I just went full-on self righteous twat again didn't I?<heavy sigh>-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 27 2014 //bicycles can (and frequently do) keep up with the stop-and-go traffic in crowded downtown areas//
I was riding along on my slow bike this morning, contemplating the wisdom of putting buses and bikes in the same lane. On average, they are about the same speed, the busses stopping every block or so and the bikes having a slower peak speed. However, the bikes kind of ruin it for the buses, because when driving behind a couple of bikes, the bus is limited to bike speed AND they have to stop more often.-- bs0u0155, Apr 28 2014 //people, (I'm far from the only one), are getting a little fed up with the barrage of money grubbing rules and regs from those who are supposed to serve us.// Same here.
//Aw crap, I just went full-on self righteous twat again didn't I?// That's OK. I believe it's permitted (in fact, encouraged) on posts dealing with guns, cycling or taxes.
It may be worth starting a thread proposing a tax on bicycle-mounted gun racks, just to see what happens.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 28 2014 OK, I have not read through all the personal stories here, but I bun the idea. Where I drive (as opposed to where I live) motor cyclists have far more respect for vehicle drivers than do bicycle people. The people on pedal bikes seem to have some arrogant notion that they are more important and that YOU must watch out for them! Bikers here all follow a code of conduct which states not to follow too closely (be it a car or another bike); to always signal turns; and to basically obey all traffic laws. Of course there will always be one who might not adhere to all these.-- xandram, Apr 28 2014 [-] back to the idea: I can't see how this could be safe.
I mean, if a little old lady sees she has 14 seconds left, & just starts off the curb, someone might not see, & press the cancel button. The cars won't necessarily see her, esp. if she's in that dead-zone of the wide radius for turns.-- sophocles, Apr 28 2014 The cross button would face the curb, same as now, and the stop-cross button would face the street. Anyone about to cross could cancel the stop-cross button before crossing. The little old lady will be seen the same as she would be at un-lit crosswalks.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 28 2014 You could always recruit Boy Scouts to walk the old ladies across!-- xandram, May 01 2014 random, halfbakery