tomywishbone
Golden Member
- Oct 24, 2006
- 1,401
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Gibson486
Go tell your local police that. See what they say. The truth is that being a bike rider, a car is a threat to you on the road, but being a pedestrian, a bike would pose a threat for you on the sidewalk.
A car hitting a biker is likely to kill the biker, but a biker hitting a pedestrian is not likely to kill the pedestrian.
As far as safety goes, people on bikes are much more similar to pedestrians than they are to cars.
You are completely wrong about this.Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Gibson486
Go tell your local police that. See what they say. The truth is that being a bike rider, a car is a threat to you on the road, but being a pedestrian, a bike would pose a threat for you on the sidewalk.
A car hitting a biker is likely to kill the biker, but a biker hitting a pedestrian is not likely to kill the pedestrian.
As far as safety goes, people on bikes are much more similar to pedestrians than they are to cars.
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Agreed. Bicycles DO NOT BELONG ON THE SIDEWALK.Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: Ricemarine
:thumbsup:
Bicycles should seriously be on sidewalks or bicycle lanes when provided, definitely not the road meant for cars... Hitting a pedestrian would be much better than getting run over by a car.
They have a right to the road. The sidewalks here are too packed with people.
On the road = obey road rules
/thread
Every near-accident I've had with a bike has been the result of someone riding on the sidewalk, and crossing in the pedestrian crosswalk.
You can try blaming me for this, but if you do the math, you figure out that a 10-20mph bicycle can easily get in your way, even with thorough checking and looking, etc. In fact, if you're turning left from a stopped position, the bike is quite likely travelling faster than you are.
My brother has been hit twice on a bike, both times because of this. After the second time he finally figured out that just because he 'felt safer' on the sidewalk (where he wasn't legally supposed to be), didn't make it true.
While it's not always possible to give a full lane (e.g. double-yellow line), I always try to give at least a yard of clearance between my car and the cyclist. If I can't give that clearance, I'll wait to pass. I've had several occasions where cyclists got severely agitated that I wouldn't pass them (because there was a double-yellow and I couldn't see far enough ahead to safely pass them) which I don't quite understand. They can't have it both ways. I'm not going to put myself in danger by going completely into the opposing lane on a double-yellow and I'm not going to go whizzing by with my mirror inches from the cyclist's head.Originally posted by: mfs378
Or they give me a very wide berth (i.e. the entire lane) when they pass. I always give them a wave afterwards.
Originally posted by: beer
I swear to ****** god, one of my goals in life is to cripple one of these assholes that thinks they don't have any reason to stop at red lights. I live in SF where motorists/bicyclist run-ins are common, but their sense of self-entitlement just really, really pisses me off.
I got into a shouting match at 2nd and Brannon about 30 minutes ago- the light turned green and I took off, and a bicyclist entered the intersection and fell to the ground in an attempt to avoid my car. I had 100% right of way. Somehow it is my fault the mother ****** ran the red light - they just don't feel they need to stop.
The city here does not enforce red light rules against bicyclists at all. Therefore, it seems, they do not think the have any reason to stop. At any red light. Ever. One of them got mowed down by a cement truck onto turning onto 101 last month. What the hell do you expect, you choose to not stop at red lights, you get killed, and it's the city's fault for not protecting your ass? Now we can't turn right at Market and Octavia because your worthless ass thinks you don't need to stop. And it's a perfectly useful intersection - the reason why we can't turn is simply because you complained to the city. And guess what? I think a few more got hit since the cement truck incident - for not stopping.
Examples need to be made of this. If the city won't enforce it, my 3400 lb vehicle will.
/rant
While I do NOT agree with the method siggested, it's really common sense not to go biking on a road where you cannot keep up with traffic speed and where there aren't good sightlines and shoulders. For example, there's no amount of money in the world that could induce me to cycle on CA-1 just south of Leggett. A driver could be doing everything, and I mean everything, right and still run me over because there just isn't enough space on the road to avoid a cyclist given the sightlines. Just because something is legal doesn't make it wise or courteous.Originally posted by: Atheus
Prepare for teh prison-sex, you're going down for manslaughter.Originally posted by: blurredvision
Roads are built for HIGH-SPEED vehicles. Unless you can keep up with the majority of the vehicles on the road, then prepare to get run over. THAT is how it really is.
Originally posted by: Agentbolt
It really seems to be a San Fran issue, mostly. Here in Tucson there's plenty of bikers and they get along pretty well with the motorists on the road. Part of that probably has to do with the fact that cops here will crack skulls if the bikers are caught screwing around on the road. Which is at it should be, a fender-bender with a bike = dead bike rider. They need to be more careful than someone in a car.
You've never been on CA-1, have you. If you followed that rule you'd never go faster than 10mph on CA-1. It's marked at 50mph and the cars go 50mph. If the cars are fully following the posted signs you are still likely to end up dead.Originally posted by: senseamp
If you cannot stop within your sightline, you are driving too fast.
And you pull over all the time to let cars pass on back roads then, right? You're aware that it's illegal to hold up traffic and that if there are 5 or more cars in line behind you and you're going under the speed limit you are required by law to pull over and let them around you, right? (It's common courtesy to do this even for one car.) Since you're so well-versed in the laws of the road I'm assuming that you're doing this.Originally posted by: senseamp
The law allows bicyclists to occupy an entire lane. That's what I do. I am not going to share a lane with a car, anymore than I would if I was driving a car.
Sidewalks are for people.Originally posted by: Ricemarine
:thumbsup:
Bicycles should seriously be on sidewalks or bicycle lanes when provided, definitely not the road meant for cars... Hitting a pedestrian would be much better than getting run over by a car.
Originally posted by: Imdmn04
Bike and pedestrian crash on sidewalk = scratches and bruises.
Bike and car crash = broken bones and death.
The law of Conservation of Energy dictates bikes are safer to ride on the sidewalk than on the road, due to its low mass and velocity. Of course, if there is a bike lane, then it would be the best. But if there is only the road or sidewalk, the sidewalk is safer even though most lawmakers dictates it is illegal for bikes to be on sidewalks.
Only if there is a big gap in the cars parked on the right that I can bike on while they pass.Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
And you pull over all the time to let cars pass on back roads then, right? You're aware that it's illegal to hold up traffic and that if there are 5 or more cars in line behind you and you're going under the speed limit you are required by law to pull over and let them around you, right? (It's common courtesy to do this even for one car.) Since you're so well-versed in the laws of the road I'm assuming that you're doing this.Originally posted by: senseamp
The law allows bicyclists to occupy an entire lane. That's what I do. I am not going to share a lane with a car, anymore than I would if I was driving a car.
ZV
Who wouldn't get out of the way at the first safe opportunity? Anyone who doesn't is an ass.Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
And you pull over all the time to let cars pass on back roads then, right? You're aware that it's illegal to hold up traffic and that if there are 5 or more cars in line behind you and you're going under the speed limit you are required by law to pull over and let them around you, right? (It's common courtesy to do this even for one car.) Since you're so well-versed in the laws of the road I'm assuming that you're doing this.Originally posted by: senseamp
The law allows bicyclists to occupy an entire lane. That's what I do. I am not going to share a lane with a car, anymore than I would if I was driving a car.
ZV
Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
I like to ride my bike a lot. I ride on the road obviously but I try to stay out of the way as much as possible and often do the to turns to make a left instead of crossing over a lane. I do agree tho...when traffic stops i stop acting like a car and go right through traffic. Its hard not to! Come on its what bikes are good at. Also on red lights..I stop at a red light..but if no one is coming I am going to start to go through it...but where the walk way is...not right through the middle of the intersection.
