01-31-2014 12:49 PM
204 ... 34567 ...
tools
  1. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Even the you missed the part that drivers need to understand the responsibility of driving.
    Also if they are paying attention even on those "blind" corners they should of seen the cyclist before they disappear around the turn and adjusted their speed to account for it.
    No one is arguing that cyclist are not assuming some risk. What the argument is the fact motorist are being not being held accountable for their responsibility.
    Your argument fails at they where not paying attention ahead of time. Nor does it address the fact far to may motorist act like they own the road and then risk the lives of the cyclist by trying to pass to closely. They are not being held accountable for their bad action.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    On a curvy road with trees, you can't see until you're up on someone.

    We, as a society, need to take responsibility for our own actions. I had a neighbor that was mad at a motorcyclist for running over his dog and killing it in the highway. Now, if it had been in the mans yard, yes, but it wasn't.

    I've also seen people take their kids to a bar, then get mad when a drunk curses or passes out. The kid shouldn't have been there in the first place.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    11-24-2013 09:37 PM
  2. Timelessblur's Avatar
    On a curvy road with trees, you can't see until you're up on someone.

    We, as a society, need to take responsibility for our own actions. I had a neighbor that was mad at a motorcyclist for running over his dog and killing it in the highway. Now, if it had been in the mans yard, yes, but it wasn't.

    I've also seen people take their kids to a bar, then get mad when a drunk curses or passes out. The kid shouldn't have been there in the first place.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    You are right many people do not. You are proving it right now.
    On a corner if you can not bring your car to a FULL STOP at something that is non moving dead center of the road then you are going way to fast for that turn.
    Simple as that. This made even worse by the fact that a cyclist on said road will be doing at least 15 mph so tit is moving increasing your max stopping distance. You should not be taking a turn or driving faster than what you can see and safely stop.
    Hill climbing does not work as well as you should see a cyclist going up the hill before they hit the top and disappear over the hill so you adjust accordingly.

    So far most of your complaining about cyclist has been making excuses for drivers not willing to responsible and/or compromising the safety of cyclist.
    11-24-2013 09:55 PM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I'm not discounting responsibility on the part of car drivers, but you seem to underestimate just how fast a car can close the distance on a cyclist. A car could be a a half mile away or more (far enough to not see something as small as a cyclist yet) as the cyclist goes around a curve yet unseen by the driver, and then when the driver comes around, boom. I'm referring to rural highways, where there is reasonable expectations that traffic is moving all about the same speed. When the speed limit is 50, 55, 60 mph on those roads, slowing down at every curve enough to be able to stop before hitting a parked or stopped object is not only unreasonable, but now makes the car a safety hazard to other traffic behind them. A 10 mph speed difference is one thing, but 40+ is very dangerous. My point still stands that cyclists need to understand those added risks of being on roads not meant or marked for bikes.
    11-24-2013 10:10 PM
  4. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I'm not discounting responsibility on the part of car drivers, but you seem to underestimate just how fast a car can close the distance on a cyclist. A car could be a a half mile away or more (far enough to not see something as small as a cyclist yet) as the cyclist goes around a curve yet unseen by the driver, and then when the driver comes around, boom. I'm referring to rural highways, where there is reasonable expectations that traffic is moving all about the same speed. When the speed limit is 50, 55, 60 mph on those roads, slowing down at every curve enough to be able to stop before hitting a parked or stopped object is not only unreasonable, but now makes the car a safety hazard to other traffic behind them. A 10 mph speed difference is one thing, but 40+ is very dangerous. My point still stands that cyclists need to understand those added risks of being on roads not meant or marked for bikes.
    And I can tell you that if a car can not come to a dead stop for something in a center of the road they are going way to fast for the turn. THere is not getting around that simple fact.
    Lets go with what we learn in drivers ed. We should be able to see 4 seconds ahead of our car when your eyes are focusing. At 60 that is 352ft. At 45 264ft That is BASIC driver training. You are taught that in drivers ED. Sadly most people forget basic responsibility. Now 200ft would put them in range of maxing out stopping their car if they see something.
    No way around that fact. That is the responsibility of the driver. Cyclist know they have a risk of being hit but if they are hit the stupid motorist should be held fully accountable and yes punished. If they kill a cyclist you are right I will fully support them being sued and paying out for a wrongful death.
    Sadly they are getting off the hook and not being held accountable or responsible for those actions.
    So no it is not unreasonable. This is basic driver safety no matter if it is a cyclist or not.
    A driver is 100% of the time responsible to be able to bring their vehicle to a complete stop for something that is dead center of the road not moving. If they can not see that far ahead THEY NEED TO SLOW DOWN. That is just basic defensive driving and driver responsibility. If one can not understand that fact htey are clearly unqualified to drive a motor vehicle.
    11-24-2013 10:27 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    There's what's taught in drivers ed and then there is the real world. There are going to be times, many times that conditions prevent seeing truly adequate stopping distance ahead (7 seconds for us in a semi to account for reaction time, air break lag time, and then stopping distance once brakes have applied, 510 ft total @ 55 mph on a fully loaded rig and even further if lightly loaded/empty), and it's unavoidable that you will hit something slow or not moving. Just look at how many deer strikes happen around the U.S. While yes you are technically right that there is a safety benefit for slowing down enough to see around every curve for unexpected objects in the way, the negative safety impact in doing so that now makes you a danger to others far outweighs that benefit. And since the government does cost benefit analysis when making new safety regulations, I'll also throw in that slowing down as you say would cost millions in additional fuel use as people accelerate after those curves and accelerated wear and tear on the vehicles from doing so.

    And we've already went over the flaw in your belief that larger vehicles should be automatically be at fault, so I'm not going to get into that again.
    11-24-2013 11:13 PM
  6. Timelessblur's Avatar
    There's what's taught in drivers ed and then there is the real world. There are going to be times, many times that conditions prevent seeing truly adequate stopping distance ahead (7 seconds for us in a semi to account for reaction time, air break lag time, and then stopping distance once brakes have applied, 510 ft total @ 55 mph on a fully loaded rig and even further if lightly loaded/empty), and it's unavoidable that you will hit something slow or not moving. Just look at how many deer strikes happen around the U.S. While yes you are technically right that there is a safety benefit for slowing down enough to see around every curve for unexpected objects in the way, the negative safety impact in doing so that now makes you a danger to others far outweighs that benefit. And since the government does cost benefit analysis when making new safety regulations, I'll also throw in that slowing down as you say would cost millions in additional fuel use as people accelerate after those curves and accelerated wear and tear on the vehicles from doing so.

    And we've already went over the flaw in your belief that larger vehicles should be automatically be at fault, so I'm not going to get into that again.
    I stand by that orginal argument of larger vehicle is at fault due to the fact that they have a greater responsible.
    It falls in line with the logic if someone a car is hit from the rear it is automatically assumed the guy in the back is at fault unless proven otherwise.
    The reason this law needs to be put in place is because police and jury clearly are not enforcing the laws on the books so a sad as it is something needs to be change to force the laws in place to be enforced.
    It address the fact that motorist who hit cyclist are not getting punished for breaking the law.

    Also slowing down like I said is the current regulation. But as you see from the rigs most people who drive cars are not responsible and think they own the road.

    Somethings I give wide births and play it safe around are cyclist and yes semis.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    11-24-2013 11:23 PM
  7. alexlam24's Avatar
    Stop riding bikes and problem solved.

    Sent from my HTC Xperia S4
    11-24-2013 11:32 PM
  8. llamabreath's Avatar
    And I can tell you that if a car can not come to a dead stop for something in a center of the road they are going way to fast for the turn. THere is not getting around that simple fact.
    Lets go with what we learn in drivers ed. We should be able to see 4 seconds ahead of our car when your eyes are focusing. At 60 that is 352ft. At 45 264ft That is BASIC driver training. You are taught that in drivers ED. Sadly most people forget basic responsibility. Now 200ft would put them in range of maxing out stopping their car if they see something.
    No way around that fact. That is the responsibility of the driver. Cyclist know they have a risk of being hit but if they are hit the stupid motorist should be held fully accountable and yes punished. If they kill a cyclist you are right I will fully support them being sued and paying out for a wrongful death.
    Sadly they are getting off the hook and not being held accountable or responsible for those actions.
    So no it is not unreasonable. This is basic driver safety no matter if it is a cyclist or not.
    A driver is 100% of the time responsible to be able to bring their vehicle to a complete stop for something that is dead center of the road not moving. If they can not see that far ahead THEY NEED TO SLOW DOWN. That is just basic defensive driving and driver responsibility. If one can not understand that fact htey are clearly unqualified to drive a motor vehicle.
    What do you think the reason is for posted minimum speeds on the interstates? I'm not saying bikes ride on interstates, but the point is that the slower vehicles ARE A HAZARD when they are going so slow, it's as if they are not moving, compared to the rest of the traffic flow.



    (⊙_⊙) I think people that take the time out of their day (or night) to think of some clever, memorable or just plain dumb signature probably have way too much time on their collective hands and they should get back to work and earn their paycheck, instead of just expecting their paycheck. People like this make me sick to my stomach.
    11-24-2013 11:35 PM
  9. Timelessblur's Avatar
    What do you think the reason is for posted minimum speeds on the interstates? I'm not saying bikes ride on interstates, but the point is that the slower vehicles ARE A HAZARD when they are going so slow, it's as if they are not moving, compared to the rest of the traffic flow.



    (⊙_⊙) I think people that take the time out of their day (or night) to think of some clever, memorable or just plain dumb signature probably have way too much time on their collective hands and they should get back to work and earn their paycheck, instead of just expecting their paycheck. People like this make me sick to my stomach.
    You know that those roads that have a minimum speed limit cyclist are not allowed on as they can not hit then minimum speed but even on those roads if you can not come to a dead stop with something in the center of the road you are going way to fast. That is basic drivers ed.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    11-25-2013 12:24 AM
  10. llamabreath's Avatar
    You know that those roads that have a minimum speed limit cyclist are not allowed on as they can not hit then minimum speed but even on those roads if you can not come to a dead stop with something in the center of the road you are going way to fast. That is basic drivers ed.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    You can never stop ANY moving vehicle (even a bike) on a dime and you're really not making any sense.
    That's basic physics.
    11-25-2013 12:30 AM
  11. Timelessblur's Avatar
    You can never stop ANY moving vehicle (even a bike) on a dime and you're really not making any sense.
    Ok lets put it this way at what I am trying to explain. THe max safe driving speed is the speed which you can bring your vechicle to a dead stop from when distance you can see an object.

    So lets say your reaction time + stopping distance is 100 ft. That means if you can not see clearly a 100ft you are going way to fast. That means if you are coming around a corner and can not see a 100ft down the road you are going way to fast for that corner. Simple as that. If an unmoving object is in the center of the road and been sitting there for hours no matter what it is you should always be able to come to a dead stop before you hit it. Even if it is on a "blind" corner.

    That is the point I am trying to make. This is no matter what the speed limit is. There are times there are traffic jams at those so called "Blind" corners. Well you should not be slamming into any cars at it. You should and legally are required to be able to come to a complete stop before you hit anything.
    Some example speeds and distances
    60 mph. You need to be able to see 304 ft (foot ball field)
    55 mph min safe visual range 265 ft.

    Vehicle Stopping Distance And Time

    That is basic math. If you can not see clearly the distances on their at a given issue you are going way to fast. Simple as that.
    11-25-2013 12:56 AM
  12. gamefreak715's Avatar
    I admit to not reading the entire thread, but the whole time I was reading what I did, I kept thinking to myself "this is why cyclists belong on sidewalks." We have some bike specific lanes near my house and some where the bike lines ARE the right lane of two going the same direction and share it with cars. I don't ride much anymore, but I wouldn't use the lanes if I did. Just a huge safety factor being that close to cars in this day and age (regardless of fault if there's an incident), and there are sidewalks next to them with little foot traffic and a much larger buffer between it and the cars. one slow in the lane.
    As a transportation engineer, I can tell you that bikes on sidewalks is actually more dangerous because the driver does not anticipate a fast moving bicycle on a sidewalk and collisions occur frequently between people turning right and bicyclists going straight on a sidewalk through an intersection on green. These days, we are designing roads with a process called "complete streets" which takes into account bike lanes, travel lanes, medians, shoulders, and everything utilizing the infrastructure as opposed to designing for vehicles only.

    It would help if everyone was more situationally aware and alert to the road as well. A little caution and common sense go a long way. We try to plan the roads to be forgiving but sometimes you can't prevent all accidents through design.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Fairclough likes this.
    11-25-2013 01:33 AM
  13. NoYankees44's Avatar
    You know that those roads that have a minimum speed limit cyclist are not allowed on as they can not hit then minimum speed but even on those roads if you can not come to a dead stop with something in the center of the road you are going way to fast. That is basic drivers ed.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Then apparently cyclists break the law in in Tennessee every single day, because all highways have a minimum speed of 15mph under posted limit(excluding farm equipment of course). I saw cyclist on those highways every day. Never going the minimum 30, 40, or 50 minimum they should have been.


    And your point about going too fast if you cannot stop for a stationary object is laughable. You would have to lower the speed limit on every corner in the world to accommodate that. Do you even realize how far the average car takes to stop on even the best circumstances? Add in less than perfict brakes, worn tires, variable road surface/debree, elevation change, and Murphy's Law and you have huge distance. Bikers should not be on blind corners without a dedicated lane. Period. If they are stupid enough to ride in the middle of car lanes on blind curves... well natural selection.

    This discussion is really only proving one point. That many cyclists' version of "sharing the roads" is drivers are supposed to always concede to them and that they have more rights to the roads than motorists. You keep talking about divers refusing to compromise, how do cyclist have to compromise for drivers? Allowing motorists on the roads at all?
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    11-25-2013 08:17 AM
  14. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Then apparently cyclists break the law in in Tennessee every single day, because all highways have a minimum speed of 15mph under posted limit(excluding farm equipment of course). I saw cyclist on those highways every day. Never going the minimum 30, 40, or 50 minimum they should have been.


    And your point about going too fast if you cannot stop for a stationary object is laughable. You would have to lower the speed limit on every corner in the world to accommodate that. Do you even realize how far the average car takes to stop on even the best circumstances? Add in less than perfict brakes, worn tires, variable road surface/debree, elevation change, and Murphy's Law and you have huge distance. Bikers should not be on blind corners without a dedicated lane. Period. If they are stupid enough to ride in the middle of car lanes on blind curves... well natural selection.

    This discussion is really only proving one point. That many cyclists' version of "sharing the roads" is drivers are supposed to always concede to them and that they have more rights to the roads than motorists. You keep talking about divers refusing to compromise, how do cyclist have to compromise for drivers? Allowing motorists on the roads at all?

    Really? If anything this thread has confirmed that a lot of motorist are selfish and do not value the lives of others.
    I have stuck to in terms of sharing the road to the safety catigory.

    Dead center of the lane -SAFETY
    riding 2 wide. safety and shorten the number of bikes Better for motorist their.

    You seem to think well I have to slow down and have no issue risking the lives of others and clearly do not understand the responsibly of driving a car. I am willing to bet if you hit a cyclist coming around a corner like that that the cyclist is at fault. Sorry motorist is 100% at fault legally. Sadly they are not ticketed for a long list of violations.

    I have ask you again where have I left the safety issue. So far you have failed to come up with one other than OMG I have to slow down and change lanes.
    11-25-2013 10:26 AM
  15. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Really? If anything this thread has confirmed that a lot of motorist are selfish and do not value the lives of others.
    I have stuck to in terms of sharing the road to the safety catigory.

    Dead center of the lane -SAFETY
    riding 2 wide. safety and shorten the number of bikes Better for motorist their.

    You seem to think well I have to slow down and have no issue risking the lives of others and clearly do not understand the responsibly of driving a car. I am willing to bet if you hit a cyclist coming around a corner like that that the cyclist is at fault. Sorry motorist is 100% at fault legally. Sadly they are not ticketed for a long list of violations.

    I have ask you again where have I left the safety issue. So far you have failed to come up with one other than OMG I have to slow down and change lanes.
    You realize that the vast majority of highways are 2 lain and it is illegal to cross the center line unless it is doted right? If a biker is in the the middle, you are stuck doing 20mph and risking yourself and the biker until a passing lane that is clear of oncoming trafic is availible. That could be miles. Plus crossing into oncoming traffic is never a good idea in any vehicle.

    Cyclist on the roads endanger everyone. Not just themselves. If I go around a blind turn and there is an ***** in the middle that I cannot stop for for what ever reason, I am not going to hit him intentionally. I am going to more than likely swerve and hit someone or something else. Endangering myself and others over the ***** that should have been on another road.
    11-25-2013 10:38 AM
  16. Timelessblur's Avatar
    You realize that the vast majority of highways are 2 lain and it is illegal to cross the center line unless it is doted right? If a biker is in the the middle, you are stuck doing 20mph and risking yourself and the biker until a passing lane that is clear of oncoming trafic is availible. That could be miles. Plus crossing into oncoming traffic is never a good idea in any vehicle.

    Cyclist on the roads endanger everyone. Not just themselves. If I go around a blind turn and there is an ***** in the middle that I cannot stop for for what ever reason, I am not going to hit him intentionally. I am going to more than likely swerve and hit someone or something else. Endangering myself and others over the ***** that should have been on another road.
    As already establish multiple times. If the lane is less than 12ft wide it is IMPOSSIBLE to safely pass them in lane. You have done nothing to get around that fact.
    You are required to make a full lane change any how to pass them any how. The dead center removes the option of well frankly idiots trying to pass them in lane and risking the lives of the cyclist.
    As for your corner example. I suggest you take defensive driving and pay attention. If you can not stop you are going way to fast for that turn. Their is no getting around that argument. What would happen if their was a traffic jam that is back up to that point. The car is clearly not moving you are legally required ot be able to bring your car to a full stop with out hitting the other car. That is basic driver training. Or their could be a piece of farm equipment their. It is bigger and larger and you have even less forward sit as you can not see around them.
    11-25-2013 10:50 AM
  17. NoYankees44's Avatar
    As already establish multiple times. If the lane is less than 12ft wide it is IMPOSSIBLE to safely pass them in lane. You have done nothing to get around that fact.
    You are required to make a full lane change any how to pass them any how. The dead center removes the option of well frankly idiots trying to pass them in lane and risking the lives of the cyclist.
    As for your corner example. I suggest you take defensive driving and pay attention. If you can not stop you are going way to fast for that turn. Their is no getting around that argument. What would happen if their was a traffic jam that is back up to that point. The car is clearly not moving you are legally required ot be able to bring your car to a full stop with out hitting the other car. That is basic driver training. Or their could be a piece of farm equipment their. It is bigger and larger and you have even less forward sit as you can not see around them.
    I just said it was impossible to pass them. That was actually my point if you would care to actually read it. That is why they have no business in the lane. They cannot keep up with the flow of traffic and thus a hazard. Not like farm equipment that either stays on the shoulder or is so large that it is forced to be in the middle. And farming equipment usually stays on short stretches of road in between sites. Places where people constantly see and know to expect them. Places that they have to go out of necessity. Not their choice to endanger others.

    Don't lecture me on driving sweetheart. I have taken more than my share of DD courses and regularly compete in road racing events. I know exactly what is taught to do. That is of course to not swerve and kill the biker to avoid involving someone else. Unfortunately, I would rather not kill anyone.

    Anything that does not conform to the flow of traffic endangers everyone. The difference with bikers is that they are in no way broadcasted and, in an accident involving them, someone is probably going to die. Traffic jams, farming equipment, ect all are much more visible and usually broadcasted through lights, sounds, driver reactions, ect. Bikers are just a skinny little slivers riding in the middle of the road. If you rear end them, the chances of serious injury are much higher.
    11-25-2013 11:36 AM
  18. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I just said it was impossible to pass them. That was actually my point if you would care to actually read it. That is why they have no business in the lane. They cannot keep up with the flow of traffic and thus a hazard. Not like farm equipment that either stays on the shoulder or is so large that it is forced to be in the middle. And farming equipment usually stays on short stretches of road in between sites. Places where people constantly see and know to expect them. Places that they have to go out of necessity. Not their choice to endanger others.

    Don't lecture me on driving sweetheart. I have taken more than my share of DD courses and regularly compete in road racing events. I know exactly what is taught to do. That is of course to not swerve and kill the biker to avoid involving someone else. Unfortunately, I would rather not kill anyone.

    Anything that does not conform to the flow of traffic endangers everyone. The difference with bikers is that they are in no way broadcasted and, in an accident involving them, someone is probably going to die. Traffic jams, farming equipment, ect all are much more visible and usually broadcasted through lights, sounds, driver reactions, ect. Bikers are just a skinny little slivers riding in the middle of the road. If you rear end them, the chances of serious injury are much higher.

    Wait you just killed your own argument. If you can not see someone on a bike you clearly are not paying attention. I put in the issue an example that you said you could react to.
    Guess what same distance. If you can not see someone on a bike at 300ft then you should not be on the road or clearly not paying attention.

    So as you said you are taught what to do. Then you know that if you can not bring yourself safely to a complete stop for something around a corner you are going way to fast for that corner. That is basic driving and as I said it sounds like you did not pay attention in DD. If you can not stop at before as far as you can see then you are going way to fast. Simple as that. No getting around that basic fact.

    You already killed you own argument as you can stop for traffic on a blind corner so what is different about a bike. Other than you need to pay attention. It is typic right of entitlement. You want everything now. It like when I hear people complain at work at OMG the fruit is not fresh enough or fact that they had to walk an extra 10 ft because their normal parking stop was taken.
    11-25-2013 11:53 AM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    "Sweetheart"?

    lol lol
    NoYankees44 likes this.
    11-25-2013 12:06 PM
  20. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Wait you just killed your own argument. If you can not see someone on a bike you clearly are not paying attention. I put in the issue an example that you said you could react to.
    Guess what same distance. If you can not see someone on a bike at 300ft then you should not be on the road or clearly not paying attention.

    So as you said you are taught what to do. Then you know that if you can not bring yourself safely to a complete stop for something around a corner you are going way to fast for that corner. That is basic driving and as I said it sounds like you did not pay attention in DD. If you can not stop at before as far as you can see then you are going way to fast. Simple as that. No getting around that basic fact.

    You already killed you own argument as you can stop for traffic on a blind corner so what is different about a bike. Other than you need to pay attention. It is typic right of entitlement. You want everything now. It like when I hear people complain at work at OMG the fruit is not fresh enough or fact that they had to walk an extra 10 ft because their normal parking stop was taken.
    If you actually take the time to read what i wrote, this would be much easier... To use your own example of stupidity and being unreasonable: "OMG i have to read and understand what someone wrote"

    I said that bikes are much harder to see and much less broadcasted. Thus the chances for a delayed reaction and an accident are much higher.
    11-25-2013 12:20 PM
  21. Timelessblur's Avatar
    If you actually take the time to read what i wrote, this would be much easier... To use your own example of stupidity and being unreasonable: "OMG i have to read and understand what someone wrote"

    I said that bikes are much harder to see and much less broadcasted. Thus the chances for a delayed reaction and an accident are much higher.
    Oh I read that. Does not change the fact that if you do not see them you clearly are not paying attention and do not belong behind the wheel of a car as it either you do not understand the responsibility of driving a car or clearly your you can not see well enough to drive a car.
    The fact is you are trying to make up excuses for motorist not willing to handle the responsibility of driving a car.
    11-25-2013 12:32 PM
  22. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Oh I read that. Does not change the fact that if you do not see them you clearly are not paying attention and do not belong behind the wheel of a car as it either you do not understand the responsibility of driving a car or clearly your you can not see well enough to drive a car.
    The fact is you are trying to make up excuses for motorist not willing to handle the responsibility of driving a car.
    No the fact is that 12" wide person on a bike does not have the same visibility as a 6'+ wide vehicle and that there could be any number of reasons that a driver sees them later that they would a 6'+ wide vehicle. I guess the glare is never a factor in your perfect little world. Nor is dirty windshields or trash flying in the wind or any sort of distraction what so ever.

    The fact is you want special privileges for bikers and people to go to jail for accidents that were out of their control and for their lives utterly ruined because of a biker being a jerk and refusing to ride on a safe road.
    11-25-2013 12:46 PM
  23. Timelessblur's Avatar
    No the fact is that 12" wide person on a bike does not have the same visibility as a 6'+ wide vehicle and that there could be any number of reasons that a driver sees them later that they would a 6'+ wide vehicle. I guess the glare is never a factor in your perfect little world. Nor is dirty windshields or trash flying in the wind or any sort of distraction what so ever.

    The fact is you want special privileges for bikers and people to go to jail for accidents that were out of their control and for their lives utterly ruined because of a biker being a jerk and refusing to ride on a safe road.
    No one said they did not have the same visibility. You are the one doing that.
    But in your examples to counter guess what they either fall under going to fast, not maintaining equipment or not paying attention.

    300 ft if you can not see a person at that distance you are going to fast.

    But fact is more than a slap on the wrist. Often times they are getting zero punishment. No ticket nothing.

    Kill someone on a bike. I am in full support of you being sued for wrongful death just like if you kill someone in an auto accident. Sadly no one is even getting to that level of punishment. It needs to be driven up and enforce at the same level as a car vs car.
    Until drivers start learning to drove correctly it is sad but some need to be punished with assumed at a fault until proven other wise.
    You have the typical I am inconvenience so I hate them all.
    Also not following the fact that driving a 3k plus lb car come with a lot of responsibility. Something that is sadly typical of most drivers is they do not understand or accept the responsibility of driving a car.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    11-25-2013 12:54 PM
  24. NoYankees44's Avatar
    No one said they did not have the same visibility. You are the one doing that.
    But in your examples to counter guess what they either fall under going to fast, not maintaining equipment or not paying attention.

    300 ft if you can not see a person at that distance you are going to fast.

    But fact is more than a slap on the wrist. Often times they are getting zero punishment. No ticket nothing.

    Kill someone on a bike. I am in full support of you being sued for wrongful death just like if you kill someone in an auto accident. Sadly no one is even getting to that level of punishment. It needs to be driven up and enforce at the same level as a car vs car.
    Until drivers start learning to drove correctly it is sad but some need to be punished with assumed at a fault until proven other wise.
    You have the typical I am inconvenience so I hate them all.
    Also not following the fact that driving a 3k plus lb car come with a lot of responsibility. Something that is sadly typical of most drivers is they do not understand or accept the responsibility of driving a car.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    No i dislike the ones that have your arrogant, motorists are always wrong and bikers are perfect attitude. Bikers in general i have no issues with. There is a time and place for everything. In the middle of the road on busy highways, roads with blind curves, or rush hour in general is not the place or time for bikers to be on the road. They endanger themselves and everyone else knowingly.

    I actually biked myself quite a bit in high school, but it was always in low speed, high visibility neighborhoods or on highways that i could be completely on the shoulder. Never in places that endangered my self or others.
    11-25-2013 01:08 PM
  25. rrspikes's Avatar
    Really? If anything this thread has confirmed that a lot of motorist are selfish and do not value the lives of others.
    I have stuck to in terms of sharing the road to the safety catigory.

    Dead center of the lane -SAFETY
    riding 2 wide. safety and shorten the number of bikes Better for motorist their.

    You seem to think well I have to slow down and have no issue risking the lives of others and clearly do not understand the responsibly of driving a car. I am willing to bet if you hit a cyclist coming around a corner like that that the cyclist is at fault. Sorry motorist is 100% at fault legally. Sadly they are not ticketed for a long list of violations.

    I have ask you again where have I left the safety issue. So far you have failed to come up with one other than OMG I have to slow down and change lanes.
    I am curious as to what state you reside in?

    In FL, where I currently reside, a bicyclist is not allowed to take the center of a lane and stay there. FL state

    In WA, where I'll be moving to in April, the law is the same. WA state

    As an avid rider myself, I find more riders that haven't a clue than motorists. At one time, I was one of 'those riders'. 2 pins in each ankle, a right knee and hip replacement and a fused neck from C3-C7 has taught me just how stupid I was back then - both on my bikes and in my cars.

    Sent from my SM-N900T using AC Forums mobile app
    11-25-2013 04:08 PM
204 ... 34567 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Why is my Camera screen so blurry???!
    By xzShootZx in forum AT&T Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-16-2018, 06:37 PM
  2. Clearing suggestive text in email to field on Samsung Galaxy S3.
    By Jmr674 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-13-2013, 07:07 PM
  3. Where to get this weather widget?
    By neolistic in forum Google Nexus 5
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-11-2013, 08:32 PM
  4. Any way to get 4.2 on razor M
    By Mark Mahffey in forum Android 4.4 KitKat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2013, 05:28 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2013, 04:50 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD