Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Solodays, May 8, 2005.
I've been wondering that as well.
Because he's a troll.
You know these guys are 14 years old and just trying to stir up sh!t because they think it's amusing. You people are all feeding the trolls.
yea i hate bike lanes. basically the biker is daring u to hit em. if pedestians shouldn't be walking on the road, neither should bicyclists. its very easy to hit a rut or rock and wipe out on a bike, then get splattered. dragging a poor car driver into an investigation where they will be assumed the guilty party. its just too dangerous.. a little drift and bump and splat.
if you were really wondering you could have done a quick search in google. hell ask jeeves
i see bike lanes but hardly any bikers anyway
share the road!
:roll: I guess we should ban motorcycles too, then. Actually, I know a lot more people who've been injured riding motorcycles on the street than bicycles.
Actually, why not jsut ban every vehicle smaller than a semi truck, since they'd all easily be crushed in a collision with one.
Why do joggers run on the street instead of on the sidewalk? :Q
actually, it seems to me that having bikes on the sidewalk WOULD be safer, all things considered.
This is a better question.
Yes, people riding bikes in the road is annoying, but it's the best solution outside of grass-separated bike lanes.
I know bike riders don't ride as fast as cars, but they sure ride a hell of a lot faster then people walk... oh why am i even bothering, the op doesn't even care probally.
it is against the law in california for someone over 12 to ride on the sidewalk due to safety risk i believe. And by driving in california you agree to adhere to all her laws.. including the fact that we share the roa- damn i'm trying again. heh i'm going to bed.
you stroll on the sidewalk, i'll run you over with a motorcycle
This is a great invention (It's called a bicycle lane)
They do because they're required to by law, unless they want to walk their bikes on the sidewalk. (IIRC)
it's because you live in the USA
here in some European countries (at least in Belgium, and the Netherlands) they have seperate tracks for bicyclists that are on the sidewalk (usually in red or green). sometimes these paths may come onto the road, and the cyclists have to drive on those, unless there are none of those. If there are none of those, then they drive on the road because if they drove on the footpath there would be too many peds, and they would be too slow to react if anything happened.
I kind of agree with the OP, a biker sould use the bike path instead of the road if there is one, which they very seldom do. However, if there is only sidewalk, they must pedal away on the road and piss us drivers off when they decide that they deserve more than the side of the road, but a whole lane.
A quick archived thread search reveals the OP might be retarded. As such, I'm not bothering with this one.
I ride my bike to work periodically and the I ride bikepaths and sidewalks the entire way. Riding in a city at rush our on a bike around here would be idiotic. There is no shoulder, and most drivers get pissed and drive more aggressivley if some idiot cloggs up traffic with a bike at rush hour. There are too many poor/aggressive drivers out there to risk riding on the roads.
Did you know that the first paved roads in the USA where built FOR BICYCLES?
And in a lot of places you will / can get a ticket for riding on the sidewalk....
And again, the idiocy of ATOT teenagers shows it's ugly head.
I normally ride too fast to be on a sidewalk with pedestrians. I don't think you want vehicles riding 30-70kph (oops... maybe 20-40mph) on the sidewalk.
But that most important reason your statement is flawed is intersections. It's very hard for car drivers to pay attention to crosswalk sections of intersections far enough behind them to pick up a cyclist. A turning car may become a dnager to a cyclist who is 100ft or more behind the car, in their blindspot when they begin slowing to turn.
Riding on the road, turning cars and that sort of thing are my responsibility if I'm behind them. It's myjob to not hit them; put bicycles on the sidewalk, and it becomes the driver's job to make sure there are no bikes coming through the intersection. In terms of oncomingtraffic, the driver has to look well up the road anyway, so looking a little more closely to pick up a potential bicycle isn't overly onerous, but having to check the sidewalk for a few hundred feet ahead of them is a much bigger 'extra' task. A much harder job for the driver, and a much more dangerous situation overall.
Everyone I know who has been in a bicycle/car accident, was riding on the sidewalk because it made them 'feel safer' and got hit in an intersection.
I think he is protesting how some bike riders treat themselves as pedestrians on the road. As a bike rider, you have lots of the same laws as vehicles. You have to signal your turn...blah blah blah....If you live in the city, you see that lots of bike riders ignore these laws.
motorbikes go with the flow of traffic. bikes tend to be MUCH slower. having such a difference in speed is dangerous.
I second that motion.
Um, a bicycle is a vehicle. Therefore, the operator abides to the same laws as a driver of a car or a truck.
The only kind of ticket I've ever gotten
20m on the sidewalk because the bicycle lane was blocked by roadwork.
Yeah the sidewalk is for 12 and under.A bike path is the safest,tho.
Wear a helmet,and be careful.Drive your car on the road,or a motorcycle.
A neighbors daughter got run into,while biking last year.Dead on arrival at the hospital.
No helmet.32 years old,very nice,pretty woman.
Brain trauma killed her.