01-31-2014 12:49 PM
204 123 ...
tools
  1. Timelessblur's Avatar
    New York Times Opinion

    But studies performed in Arizona, Minnesota and Hawaii suggest that drivers are at fault in more than half of cycling fatalities. And there is something undeniably screwy about a justice system that makes it de facto legal to kill people, even when it is clearly your fault, as long youre driving a car and the victim is on a bike and youre not obviously drunk and dont flee the scene. When two cars crash, everybody agrees that one of the two drivers may well be to blame; cops consider it their job to gather evidence toward that determination. But when a car hits a bike, its like theres a collective cultural impulse to say, Oh, well, accidents happen. If your 13-year-old daughter bikes to school tomorrow inside a freshly painted bike lane, and a driver runs a stop sign and kills her and then says to the cop, Gee, I so totally did not mean to do that, that will most likely be good enough.

    We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run, Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told me.
    As a cyclist I find this very said. I have seen this article going around the internet today and the response to it are even sadder.
    I find that many motorist who complain by in larger are uneducated and do not understand the laws. Followed by they can not be bothered to deal with the entire 10-15 secs it MIGHT slow them down. I have had guys try to run me off the road. This is a road with 2 lanes going in each direction. NO OTHER CARS and yet some how because they HAD to change lanes they went nuts tried to almost hit me.

    Also before someone complains about cyclist in the middle the lane. The reason experiences ones do that is we have almost been hit far to many times by idiots tried to pass us in the same lane. Dead center of the lane more often that not forces the issue and removes the option of trying to pass us in the same lane. The motorist does a lane changes and gives us the 3ft min room we need for safety. Oh and the common YOU DO NOT PAY ROAD TAXES counter. Guess what most of us own a car and most of the roads we ride on are not funded by gas tax. They are funded by sales, and property tax which we all do pay.
    11-11-2013 06:59 PM
  2. NoYankees44's Avatar
    If a motorist kills a cyclist and it is deemed the motorist's fault, then the motorist should be punished accordingly.

    That being said, cyclists on roads without a dedicated cycle lane annoy the heck out of me. Neighborhoods is one thing, but cyclist on highways and other high traffic roads is just plane idiotic. If at any point you slow a motorist down, then you deserve all the ill feelings you get. But this goes for any vehicle that consistently goes well under the speed limit for whatever reason, not just cyclists.

    Cyclist also do assume a certain amount of risk on public roads. Sometimes accidents do happen, and if you were the one that chose to be on the road filled with 3000lb+ cars going at excessive speeds riding a bike... well you get the idea.


    On the way to my old job, there was this fat (insert intelligence insulting name here) that chose to ride his bike on a busy high way during morning rush hour while constantly weaving over the shoulder line into direct traffic despite there being a 5 ft+ wide shoulder for him to use. The he would get pissed off when people honked and got close to him. If i ever here about this man getting hit, punishing the motorist will be far from my first thought. "You cant fix stupid"
    11-12-2013 07:17 AM
  3. EvilMonkey's Avatar
    I hit a cyclist a few years ago. I was taking a right, so glanced right, then looked left to make sure there wasn't anyone coming, pulled out and he was on my hood a second later (not sure where he was at when I glanced right, but I'm thinking he might've been blocked by a sign for a business that's right there). He wasn't obeying traffic laws and was biking against traffic instead of with it. Trashed his bike, broke a couple of his ribs, etc. After the cops and ambulance were all done, the cop was like "Ok see you later" and just let me go. Kindof shocked me, but he was at fault.

    Still annoys me how many people (both cyclists and motorists) don't understand what the law is. Not only do I see cyclists on the wrong side of the road (or thinking a red light is a stop sign for them), but I see motorists yelling at cyclists who are obeying the laws. It goes both ways.

    Also, it's rare to see dedicated cyclist lanes outside of cities. Heck, I live around Harrisburg PA (the capital) and I can't even think of a road around here with a cyclist lane. They're more common in bigger cities than the rest of the country.
    Fairclough likes this.
    11-12-2013 07:45 AM
  4. Timelessblur's Avatar
    If a motorist kills a cyclist and it is deemed the motorist's fault, then the motorist should be punished accordingly.

    That being said, cyclists on roads without a dedicated cycle lane annoy the heck out of me. Neighborhoods is one thing, but cyclist on highways and other high traffic roads is just plane idiotic. If at any point you slow a motorist down, then you deserve all the ill feelings you get. But this goes for any vehicle that consistently goes well under the speed limit for whatever reason, not just cyclists.

    Cyclist also do assume a certain amount of risk on public roads. Sometimes accidents do happen, and if you were the one that chose to be on the road filled with 3000lb+ cars going at excessive speeds riding a bike... well you get the idea.


    On the way to my old job, there was this fat (insert intelligence insulting name here) that chose to ride his bike on a busy high way during morning rush hour while constantly weaving over the shoulder line into direct traffic despite there being a 5 ft+ wide shoulder for him to use. The he would get pissed off when people honked and got close to him. If i ever here about this man getting hit, punishing the motorist will be far from my first thought. "You cant fix stupid"
    Now chances are he was not riding safely but something that you should know is often time shoulders of roads have a lot of junk in them that is not safe for cyclist to hit.
    The bike lanes same issue but even worse. In Houston they have bike lanes but a majority of them are unrideable due to things like storm drains being in them, water being completely over them on top of well garbage that gets washed there.

    I will say you have the normal response from a motorist. That is OMG I had to slow down for 10 sec.
    Remember you own a car not the road. You are legally required to share the road.

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-12-2013 08:32 AM
  5. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Now chances are he was not riding safely but something that you should know is often time shoulders of roads have a lot of junk in them that is not safe for cyclist to hit.
    The bike lanes same issue but even worse. In Houston they have bike lanes but a majority of them are unrideable due to things like storm drains being in them, water being completely over them on top of well garbage that gets washed there.

    I will say you have the normal response from a motorist. That is OMG I had to slow down for 10 sec.
    Remember you own a car not the road. You are legally required to share the road.

    Posted via Android Central App
    And this is the typical cyclist response... There is just as much stubbornness on both sides...

    Cyclists are in the vast minority or public road users as well as being laughably disadvantaged from a safety stand point. Yes everyone is legally obligated to share the roads, but my experience with cyclists is that they enjoy forcing their "rights" to the roads in bait attempts to make motorists angry and then complain when people get angry. A cyclist can easily inconvenience a motorist, but a motorist can rarely if ever inconvenience a cyclist minus choosing to hit/threaten them. That is not really sharing, that is forced dominance. When a community as small as the cyclist community chooses to force dominance on busy roads, they had better be prepared for the hate. Whether you believe the hate is right or wrong is irrelevant, because as long as you inconvenience others, it is never going away.
    STARGATE likes this.
    11-12-2013 09:23 AM
  6. Timelessblur's Avatar
    And this is the typical cyclist response... There is just as much stubbornness on both sides...

    Cyclists are in the vast minority or public road users as well as being laughably disadvantaged from a safety stand point. Yes everyone is legally obligated to share the roads, but my experience with cyclists is that they enjoy forcing their "rights" to the roads in bait attempts to make motorists angry and then complain when people get angry. A cyclist can easily inconvenience a motorist, but a motorist can rarely if ever inconvenience a cyclist minus choosing to hit/threaten them. That is not really sharing, that is forced dominance. When a community as small as the cyclist community chooses to force dominance on busy roads, they had better be prepared for the hate. Whether you believe the hate is right or wrong is irrelevant, because as long as you inconvenience others, it is never going away.
    Read my first post. It explains why cyclist ride dead center of a lane and take up the entire lane it is for safety.
    Mix this with we pay taxes for those roads as well.
    Mix this with cities refusing to build streets with safe clean bike lanes.
    It is sad but as a vast majority of the problem is the ignorant motorist who do not understand the laws or the concept of sharing.
    The road does not even have to be busy. I have almost been hit and harass because OMG they had to change lanes. That was it. Favorite time was when a guy in a truck did that and the I watch a guy on a motorcycle looking like a guy in a biker gang pass me and start yelling at the guy and giving him a finger. It was a response to clearly his unsafe riding.
    Go ride a bike on a road and your view will quickly change. It is the motorist by in large are the problem.

    The normal OMG I have to wait 10 extra seconds is well beyond sad. It is pathetic. Lets face it. It is just another area the US is behind the rest of the world. I am all for the laws that go for the larger vehicle is assumed at fault unless proven otherwise. Reason being the bigger vehicle you drive the greater your responsibilities. Many people in cars forget the fact they are driving a 3000+lb hunk of metal and as such it comes with a lot of responsibility. Bike 20lb object.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    11-12-2013 09:33 AM
  7. Mooncatt'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. Generally speaking, I don't hate bikers, just hate having them so close to motoring traffic that could be going a vastly different speed.

    That's just at home. When I'm driving my semi down some of these back road highways with no real shoulder, I occasionally come upon bikers, and Amish buggies alike. That's a whole other issue because trucks can't stop near as quick. Such as coming around a corner to find someone slow in the lane. Throw in another vehicle coming the other way, preventing me from going around and you have a bad situation indeed. Mind you, regardless of what I think of the situation, it's not something I'd kill over. I'd rather go the other way and put my rig in the ditch than run over a cyclist or oncoming car. Most truckers would do the same, some even died doing that to save the life of others.
    11-12-2013 10:54 AM
  8. Timelessblur'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. Generally speaking, I don't hate bikers, just hate having them so close to motoring traffic that could be going a vastly different speed.

    That's just at home. When I'm driving my semi down some of these back road highways with no real shoulder, I occasionally come upon bikers, and Amish buggies alike. That's a whole other issue because trucks can't stop near as quick. Such as coming around a corner to find someone slow in the lane. Throw in another vehicle coming the other way, preventing me from going around and you have a bad situation indeed. Mind you, regardless of what I think of the situation, it's not something I'd kill over. I'd rather go the other way and put my rig in the ditch than run over a cyclist or oncoming car. Most truckers would do the same, some even died doing that to save the life of others.

    I might like to point out it is illegal is most of the country for bikes to ride on sidewalks. On top of that it is not exactly safe for people walking or biker. The sidewalks are not smooth enough, or straight enough. Plus they often get blocked. Cars are even less likely to notice them so at interstion where they need to cross bike should have the right away but cars will not see them and boom crash. That is just part of the safety issues. Now we can look at the safety issue walkers/runners vs bike. Side walk is not wide enough for bike + walker. Plus the damage from a bike hitting a walker is pretty bad. 15 mph 200+lb vs a walker is very ugly. btw 15mph is low. Road bikes move at closer to 20mph.

    Either way they do not belong on sidewalks. Road bikes can not handle the sidewalks at all. Mountain bikes on the other had can handle the uneven part of the side walk but can not address the issue of walkers/runner problem or parked cars over them, tight turns at not being watch.
    The laws that cyclist are required to follow the the same laws as cars. Cars can not go on the sidewalks.
    11-12-2013 11:14 AM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    And that's part of why I don't ride anymore. Laws being passed keeping bikes off sidewalks, and I won't ride in the street if I can keep from it. I agree about sharing room with walkers, but an accident between them and a biker compared to what a car can do to a biker is nothing. As for crossing streets, the car driver should be looking for pedestrians any way and should have no problem spotting the biker, and the biker should also be watching and mindful of right of ways.
    11-12-2013 12:04 PM
  10. Timelessblur's Avatar
    And that's part of why I don't ride anymore. Laws being passed keeping bikes off sidewalks, and I won't ride in the street if I can keep from it. I agree about sharing room with walkers, but an accident between them and a biker compared to what a car can do to a biker is nothing. As for crossing streets, the car driver should be looking for pedestrians any way and should have no problem spotting the biker, and the biker should also be watching and mindful of right of ways.
    that is the sad part they do not look. Also as I pointed out sidewalks regardless of laws are not safe to ride a bike on due to harder turns, being uneven, cracks and so on.
    As I said before I find most of the problem generally lies with ignorances on the motorist part. It the issue of OMG you made me a entire 10 secs slower. If 10 secs makes you late you have bigger issues. Hell if an entire 1 minute makes you late same answer. Learn to build padding in travel time to account issues like that.

    I know for my bike at night I have rather bright lights front and rear along with some reflective tap on the side. Yeah I ride dead center and take up the entire lane but that is more for my safety (aka make the car change lanes like they should any how).
    I will state in terms of the jerks I have noticed a trend. They drive the biggest POS cars or are clearly teenagers. The people who generally drive nicer cars that look better taken car of tend to repect cyclist more. Heck those people at lights will more shot the breeze with me asking me how far I/We are going. How has the ride been ect. If they have kids in the car the kids are generally pretty cool as well. Now if they drive a POS or are teenagers different story.

    Either way,I am all for laws that states larger vehicle is assumed at fault unless proven another wise. Bigger vehicle= bigger responsibility. Sadly that is just not going to happen.
    11-12-2013 01:42 PM
  11. llamabreath's Avatar
    How about THIS law, proposed in Georgia just last month? Do you think it would help, or is it just crazy?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...-bill/2935865/



    Signatures, shmignatures...
    11-12-2013 01:51 PM
  12. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Either way,I am all for laws that states larger vehicle is assumed at fault unless proven another wise. Bigger vehicle= bigger responsibility. Sadly that is just not going to happen.
    I'm adamantly opposed to those kinds of laws. I agree the bigger vehicle driver has more responsibility, but that's not a reason to automatically assume fault in the absence of evidence. Many times it's the smaller guy that doesn't understand how to share the road properly causing accidents too. Going back to my trucking experience, I hear time and time again where fault is automatically assigned in some way to a trucker in accidents, even if the car is the one that caused it. When you look at the available statistics, cars are actually responsible 70-75% of the time. Yet truckers still get tickets for what amounts to being in the wrong place at the wrong time and then trial lawyers get hold of it and sue the driver and company for big bucks.

    I'm not saying because riders are smaller that they are more likely at fault. I am saying don't automatically assume. I think we should only assign fault status when there is evidence to support it. Especially when it can affect such a large part of someone's life as driving. Not just because it's how I make my living, but how others get to work, go shopping, get kids to school, etc.

    And let's not forget your idea would fly in the face of our "innocent until proven guilty" justice system, so laws to that respect would be struck down on that basis alone.
    11-12-2013 02:54 PM
  13. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I'm adamantly opposed to those kinds of laws. I agree the bigger vehicle driver has more responsibility, but that's not a reason to automatically assume fault in the absence of evidence. Many times it's the smaller guy that doesn't understand how to share the road properly causing accidents too. Going back to my trucking experience, I hear time and time again where fault is automatically assigned in some way to a trucker in accidents, even if the car is the one that caused it. When you look at the available statistics, cars are actually responsible 70-75% of the time. Yet truckers still get tickets for what amounts to being in the wrong place at the wrong time and then trial lawyers get hold of it and sue the driver and company for big bucks.

    I'm not saying because riders are smaller that they are more likely at fault. I am saying don't automatically assume. I think we should only assign fault status when there is evidence to support it. Especially when it can affect such a large part of someone's life as driving. Not just because it's how I make my living, but how others get to work, go shopping, get kids to school, etc.

    And let's not forget your idea would fly in the face of our "innocent until proven guilty" justice system, so laws to that respect would be struck down on that basis alone.
    But the law would not effect that out come. If you can show that it was a no fault or other person at fault then their you go. It just you starting point is the larger vehicle is at fault. Far to often with cars in general it is always assumed the car is not at fault unless proven otherwise. This makes it hard to get insurance money for damages cause by the car. It really bad for cyclist vs car. Police do not really even investigate unless their is a massive our cry which is sad. I still say you start with the assumption that the largest vehicle is at fault. I already know a lot of trucks put a dash camera on that rules on a loop so if something happens they have video proof showing hey look it is a car. Kills the lawyers in the their tracks. I do not see it effecting trucks in any way since they are already assumed at fault.
    All it really effects is cars as they more often than not get away with to much ****.
    11-12-2013 03:20 PM
  14. Timelessblur's Avatar
    How about THIS law, proposed in Georgia just last month? Do you think it would help, or is it just crazy?

    Georgia bill would require bicycles to be licensed



    •• Signatures, shmignatures...
    That bill is a 100% pure money grab by the state. Unless the money gain from it goes 100% to improving cycling. Sadly not one cent of that money will go towards that. It is a 100% money grab. License plate is another auto hell no. No good place to mount them on a bike, 2 causes a lot of wind resistance. They want nothing more than to cause issues.
    It does not take much to see that is a 100% money grab on a group that is not big enough to fight it. It is a crap bill. If anything it would make things worse and hurt cycling big time. I am strongly against that.

    It clearly a 100% pure money grab.
    11-12-2013 03:22 PM
  15. Fairclough's Avatar
    I am not a serious rider but will log about 90km (60 Miles) on one ride each weekend for cross training (for rowing) and about 20 milies each day on my casual bike for university. I am fortunate for university there is a solid dedicated bike path following the river/railway line from my house to the campus. Unfortunately were not so much for the group rides, it can be dangerous for 15 bikes to be on a path sometimes - we do hope on slowly passes through the CBD as even though there is a walking path, people tend to choose to walk on cycling path which going ride pace would easy cause damage to them. We avoid them when there is a lot of corners, pedestrians and the path breaks up every few hundred metres. Than don't get me started on the paths were idiots think its funny to smash beer glasses across the whole thing. I haven't got around to getting my license (mainly due to parents being protective of their cars) however I am planning to cram it to, but there is a few things both parties need to learn. First where I live it is illegal for anyone above the age of 12 to cycle on a footpath - as for the reasons stated in a previous post. Secondly, its legal for cyclings to cycle to a breast on a road shoulder.

    Now, by no means cyclists are perfect. I must admit there are some beginning with the letter W---er's around, however it is a two way street (no pun intended). My pet peeve is the abuse which is hurled for cycling - even if were not holding up traffic and there is a spare lane next to us. I find it quiet ironic that they are they type who would cheer when watching the olympics or worlds (there are 3 national representatives in my group but not for cycling their cross training) but hurl abuse at them when they are training. Remind's me of a documentary of a guy who road a unicycle around Australia for his sister dying from cancer (3rd time she got it) and he was abused - than he said he was fund raising for his sister and the guy said Ok that will do it. Its ironic when they see why they take it back - I think both parties need to show a little understanding. I cannot understand the thrill people get from doing this - it happens in spots I am doing the speed limit (about 30 miles an hour - we have points where is picks up than goes back to 20).

    The people who generally drive nicer cars that look better taken car of tend to repect cyclist more. Heck those people at lights will more shot the breeze with me asking me how far I/We are going. How has the ride been ect.
    I Have a different observation from where I live. I have had typical looking bogans (with a Holden Commador - Chev in America, tats etc) come up next to me, wind down the window and have a chat at the lights at 5am on my way to training. I was shocked, while other times I have had in a group BMW's - always the convertible drivers, hell stuff out - drive slow next to us, doing actions trying to taking the ****. Then they wonder why someone sticks their finger up at them.

    One peeve is when someone over takes you (in a car) than literally a second later goes to turn off and cuts you off. They fail to realise bikes slow down slower, I have seen this countless times with cyclists just going straight into a car side door, even when there is a bike lane people do it. The driver's excuse is 'oh I went faster I thought I could over take and turn'. In reality if was in a car, if i over took you, cut you off to turn all in the space of 5 seconds the other driver would be nuts but because its to a cyclists - people view it differently.

    I think it has to do with the reputation of cyclists - our head police commissioner talks on the radio each week and someone quizzed him on cyclists. He stated the laws I said above, that often people get fed up because they might be a bit slower - but if a GM car club was doing the same going the same speeds. I bet most would be more tolerant, he even stated this. We often say we don't pay road tax, funny here there is none - there is registration for cars to pay for the ware and tare they do to roads due to weight - my response would be most of us do pay it. Its sitting in our drive ways and the cost of the roads come out of our tax's.

    I just find some things ironic that they can support them on the field or their respective sports but abuse them when they train. Even not at the elite level, or simply commuting to work for good health. One funny thing was last year a professional AFL (football in australia) player got hit by a car training... the car got had to get towed away... he walked away.
    11-12-2013 03:45 PM
  16. Mooncatt's Avatar
    But the law would not effect that out come. If you can show that it was a no fault or other person at fault then their you go. It just you starting point is the larger vehicle is at fault. Far to often with cars in general it is always assumed the car is not at fault unless proven otherwise. This makes it hard to get insurance money for damages cause by the car. It really bad for cyclist vs car. Police do not really even investigate unless their is a massive our cry which is sad. I still say you start with the assumption that the largest vehicle is at fault. I already know a lot of trucks put a dash camera on that rules on a loop so if something happens they have video proof showing hey look it is a car. Kills the lawyers in the their tracks. I do not see it effecting trucks in any way since they are already assumed at fault.
    All it really effects is cars as they more often than not get away with to much ****.
    So you're willing to assign fault where fault doesn't exist and potentially let someone else at fault off the hook for no other reason than a lack of evidence? And when you take that approach of automatically assuming someone at fault, the tendency is to find a way to prove that assumption, rather than follow the evidence impartially. So yes, it can affect the outcome legally.
    Aquila likes this.
    11-12-2013 03:53 PM
  17. Fairclough's Avatar
    Few things about that article - on the front a plate would be dangerous (this was found with motorbikes). On the back it would seriously wreck the bike - many don't realize that in common bike ride groups its not uncommon to see someone with a $13,000 bike. The resistance on it - would make it increasingly difficult to ride, little bits of metal coming out can make cross winds dangerous (gusts can blow you into traffic - hence why on windy days people use low dish rims).

    "single-file lines, no more than four cyclists per line, with 4 feet between each bike. Fifty feet of space would have to separate each group of four riders. Georgia law now allows two bicyclists to travel side by side." This would kill all group rides - I bet your state development and national teams would love this. It would force people who are trying to loose weight not to cycle, now is that good? not really.
    11-12-2013 03:53 PM
  18. NoYankees44's Avatar
    But the law would not effect that out come. If you can show that it was a no fault or other person at fault then their you go. It just you starting point is the larger vehicle is at fault. Far to often with cars in general it is always assumed the car is not at fault unless proven otherwise. This makes it hard to get insurance money for damages cause by the car. It really bad for cyclist vs car. Police do not really even investigate unless their is a massive our cry which is sad. I still say you start with the assumption that the largest vehicle is at fault. I already know a lot of trucks put a dash camera on that rules on a loop so if something happens they have video proof showing hey look it is a car. Kills the lawyers in the their tracks. I do not see it effecting trucks in any way since they are already assumed at fault.
    All it really effects is cars as they more often than not get away with to much ****.
    Lol you do not automatically assume fault on the car. That is an incredibly stupid idea. Assume fault on both sides and work from there. There are vastly more motorists. You say that you want sharing and understanding, but then you suggest policies like this that will foster nothing but hate and possibly start a movement to remove cyclists from the roads entirely.

    Your comparison to large vs small vehicle is interesting. Boating/maritime rules dictate the opposite. The smaller craft is always assumed at fault in an accident.

    There are instances, such as a cyclist is in the middle of a lane on blind curve, when natural selection takes over. If a cyclist is stupid enough to do it, then eventually the gene pool gets purified. A little common sense to stay completely away from such situations goes a long way.
    11-12-2013 03:56 PM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    About that article, I'm not really for that kind of legislation, but I find it interesting about the anti-license plate argument. This isn't a race out on the public streets, so big deal if it takes a few extra calories to peddle. Plus you could easily make them small enough to mount on the seat post, which would be no less secure from theft/removal than one mounted to a car with regular screws. Wind resistance would be minimal and the air in that area is already highly disturbed by your body.

    No, I'm not for them, but you guys make it sound like they want full sized auto plates on them.
    11-12-2013 04:10 PM
  20. Timelessblur's Avatar
    About that article, I'm not really for that kind of legislation, but I find it interesting about the anti-license plate argument. This isn't a race out on the public streets, so big deal if it takes a few extra calories to peddle. Plus you could easily make them small enough to mount on the seat post, which would be no less secure from theft/removal than one mounted to a car with regular screws. Wind resistance would be minimal and the air in that area is already highly disturbed by your body.

    No, I'm not for them, but you guys make it sound like they want full sized auto plates on them.
    Motorcyling plates are wide enough to cost an issue. it wider than a bike sit. You have to make it less than 2 in wide. Mounting on a sit for a road bike means my legs would hit it. 7 inchs wide is over 2 times the max size that could be used. 4 inchs tall again way to tall.

    They are a lot bigger than you think. I was thinking about that size. My road bike you have less than 3 inch wide and MAYBE 2 inchs tall that would fit. Wider or taller their are issues. That is a fairly standard road bike frame. 7 inches you have wind issues and leg hitting it issues.
    Lets face it that is a 100% money grab law.
    11-12-2013 04:25 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Mount it vertically, or make it smaller. Wouldn't have to be motorcycle size. Still, the wind resistance issue is laughable for regular riding/commuting. If you were racing, then yeah, but on road biking isn't that serious of business.
    11-12-2013 04:53 PM
  22. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Mount it vertically, or make it smaller. Wouldn't have to be motorcycle size. Still, the wind resistance issue is laughable for regular riding/commuting. If you were racing, then yeah, but on road biking isn't that serious of business.
    Many of the group rides I do yes it would be an issue. Once you cross 20mph wind becomes a rather larger issue and generally the limiting factor. That plate is just asking for trouble even out side of wind it has issues.
    You have at most a 3"x2" area to put a plate on my bike. The bill would require a 7x4 plate. See that is a lot larger than the max size my bike could handle no matter how you turned it.

    Like many of the comment that would be a widely ignored law. You can bet money that Walmart and other department stories will fight it as it hurts them more than the bike shops who yes would be fighting as well. It hurts cycling big time in general.
    11-12-2013 05:23 PM
  23. revinger's Avatar

    Still annoys me how many people (both cyclists and motorists) don't understand what the law is. Not only do I see cyclists on the wrong side of the road (or thinking a red light is a stop sign for them), but I see motorists yelling at cyclists who are obeying the laws. It goes both ways.
    There are situations where a red stoplight can legally be treated as a stop sign. It is called malfunctioning traffic light. The embedded pavement traffic sensors don't pickup Bicycles and a lot of smaller motorcycles. Pretty sure a majority of States have laws covering that. You come up to a light and it doesn't trigger a cycle of the light within a reasonable time the vehicle whether it is a bicycle. Motorcycle, car even can proceed through the light if the cross traffic is clear.
    I live in a small town, we have 6 stop light, only one is on an old style timer the rest have sensors. Sheriff is a motorcyclist also and one of the light is notorious for not tripping for anything on two wheel. He gave me a hard time for waiting as long as I did once, telling me about the ability.

    Now if you are talking about a bicycle pulling up next to you at a red and then rolling on through that is a totally different thing.

    I drive, and ride big motorcycles and bicycles. It's transportation I use which ever is convenient for the task. Added plus of the pedals is it is exercise.

    Live in Illinois and we have had a law on the books for several years now that cars are supposed leave a 3 foot buffer zone on bicycle when passing. The Illinois drivers are much better at that the Indiana neighbors but I still suspect very few know about that one.
    11-12-2013 06:48 PM
  24. phatdonkey's Avatar
    What i dont like about cyclists is that they ***** and moan about not being able to use roadways then run red lights and stop signs.

    I have almost hit countless cyclists that have run lights and stop signs in the philly area.

    If you wanna use the road, follow the rules of the road!

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-13-2013 04:30 PM
  25. Timelessblur's Avatar
    What i dont like about cyclists is that they ***** and moan about not being able to use roadways then run red lights and stop signs.

    I have almost hit countless cyclists that have run lights and stop signs in the philly area.

    If you wanna use the road, follow the rules of the road!

    Posted via Android Central App
    By your logic I have almost hit countless cars who have run lights/ stop signs. If they want to use the road they should follow the rules.
    Give you a hit most bike riders do follow the rules. YOu remember the ones who do not. Blantantly running a stop sign or red light bad.
    Now hitting a red light stopping no traffic then ruling threw is another matter. Remember most stop lights have sensors. Bikes lack enough metal to trip said sensors to change the lights color. It is very annoying depending on the intersections. Lightly used one it is easy enough to role threw it. Heavily used one yeah issue trying to get the light to change.

    As for stop signs yeah I can tell you as a cyclist I check stop, then role and most I find do that. Now in a group ride the lead rider or 2 will stop then the group moves threw as a single unit so that might mean the righers farther than 2 or 3 riders bike never come to a full stop. Now the roll threw is done for the groups safety and yes the cars conveyances. It keeps the group together when means one one group of cyclist to past and the difference between 1 cyclist clearing the intersection and 10-15 moves as a group is well less than 5 sec difference but I find most drivers tend to view a group of riders as a single unit.

    You views of a group based on a few.

    I like what one city did. They over double the fines for motorist harrassing cyclist and passing laws and did heavy enforcement but at the same time they crack down on cyclists and doubled their fine. Biggest one being dooring which well that fine starts at 1k plus some other rather painful stuff as that is a very huge danger to cyclists as it has killed people all because the ***** did not check before opening the door.
    11-13-2013 11:36 PM
204 123 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Why is my Camera screen so blurry???!
    By xzShootZx in forum AT&T Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-25-2015, 11:57 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