The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone

Paul Berg wrote:
...
With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
traffic areas....

I don't know if we have discussed helmets thoroughly enough on the other
thread.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Aug 20, 9:31 pm, Paul Berg wrote:
~

BEFORE, I GO ON ANY FURTHER. I WANT IT TO BE KNOWN, THAT I'M ONLY
TALKING ABOUT BICYCLES AND BICYCLISTS IN "HIGH VOLUME TRAFFIC AREAS".

If a bicyclist has a valid drivers or moped license, I see no need for
such an individual to take any further testing. For they have already
demonstrated their knowledge of the rules of the road.

For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would
wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to
pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test.

Bicyclists with a suspended or revoked drivers, moped or bicycle
license would not be allowed to ride a bicycle in "high volume traffic
areas".

As far as defining a "high volume traffic area", I would leave that to
local governments with guidance, by law, from the state legislature. I
would hope that any law would allowed for the highest amount of public
input in designating "high volume traffic areas".

As far helmet, insurance, bicycle equipment and bicyclist safety
requirements, I would leave that for the state legislature to decide.
These are things that should be uniform throughout the state. And,
remember I'm only talking about bicyclists and bicycles in "high
volume traffic areas" here.

To put it charitably, your ideas are totally impractical. (I don't
think you're trolling, BTW. I think you just don't realize how
impractical your ideas are.)

For example: How would you define a "high volume traffic area"? By a
minimum number of cars passing per minute? How would a cyclist judge
that? What would happen when there was a break in traffic? What
would happen at 6 AM, or 11 PM? Traffic volume changes!

Would you define certain zones as requiring a bike license,
irrespective of instantaneous volume? How would you indicate them?
How would you convince any city to waste funds putting signs up around
the perimeter of each such zone?

How would you convince cops to enforce such laws? They presently
ignore almost all cyclists who violate that most fundamental law,
"ride on the right side of the road" (in the US, that is). Why would
they start checking random cyclists to see if they are "qualified"?

Basically, you think you've identified a problem. But nobody agrees
that the problem is of sufficient magnitude to justify any of your
corrective measures. There may be some podunk town where a four-
person town council might be convinced to pass such laws, but even
those laws would never be enforced for long.

Sorry. Bad ideas. You may as well try to license shoes. If you want
to change something, get the cops to enforce the current laws -
including those that motorists consistently violate.

And you're wrong about the value of helmets too.

- Frank Krygowski

The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
vehicles do.

You forgot how congested our inner cities have become. Pedestrians are more
numerous even than cyclists, and have been known to cross streets against
lights, not observe simple rules of flow (walking to the right), among other
things. While some municipalities have taken to at least registering
bicycles, to the best of my knowledge no city has taken on the task of
registering shoes.

I propose that all pedestrians, for ease of identification, have the first
and last four digits of their social security number tattooed upon their
foreheads. In this way we can catch the offenders on security cameras and
shame them on the evening newscasts.

Seriously, since there are so many more pedestrians in many cities than
bicyclists, it's logical that's where we should first apply our "minimum
requirements" efforts.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Paul Berg" wrote in message
...
~

In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of
the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also
required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and
have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and
meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states
have the same or similar requirements.

With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
traffic areas.

The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
vehicles do.

~

On Aug 20, 2:52 pm, (Paul Berg) wrote:

The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
catch up the present situation.

You need to read ORS 811 again, since you're about 40 years behind the
legislature on this matter.

On Aug 20, 3:47 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:

When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles off
the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until then,
incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think darwin's
(maybe stolen) theory)

I'd be happy with California and Arizona actually testing their
drivers and eliminating license expirations longer than 5 years. Or
at least mandating all drivers from those states replace their plates
with something flourescent orange or drive with those student driver
style signs reading "MORON" so we have some warning before we're next
to them and they're swerving dangerously into our lane...

On Aug 20, 3:51 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article , Paul Berg wrote:

~

In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of
the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also
required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and
have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and
meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states
have the same or similar requirements.

With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
traffic areas.

The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
vehicles do.

Basically you want to discourage the use of bicycles by using the weight
of the majority just as has been done with motorcycles.

I find it remarkable that having anything more the ritual of a test for
driving is so fought against, but for smaller lighter vehicles we have to
have real tests of competency and knowledge.

You do understand that somewhere around oh, I'd say roughly 99% of the
adult bicyclists have already passed the 'tests' to drive an automobile,
and thusly should already know the vehicle code. Sure, they might not
know some finer points, but they don't know the finer points for driving
cars and smaller trucks (both skill wise and the vehicle code) either.

When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles off
the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until then,
incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think darwin's
(maybe stolen) theory)

I dunno, the average bicyclist in my area - and there are more here than
anywhere else I've ever lived - is even LESS likely to obey any traffic
laws at all than the average motorist.

There's a difference between bicyclists and morons with bicycles.
Just like there's a difference between motorists and some jackass
driving without a license.

Paul Johnson wrote:

On Aug 20, 3:47 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:

When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles
off the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until
then, incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think
darwin's (maybe stolen) theory)

I'd be happy with California and Arizona actually testing their
drivers and eliminating license expirations longer than 5 years. Or
at least mandating all drivers from those states replace their plates
with something flourescent orange or drive with those student driver
style signs reading "MORON" so we have some warning before we're next
to them and they're swerving dangerously into our lane...



Michigan: First thing they did after buying a new car was rip out the
rear view mirrors and the turn indicator.

New Jersey: You could tell who the pros were. They all had railroad ties
for bumpers.

Rural Oregon: "Everybody knows I turn there."

Paul Johnson wrote:

There's a difference between bicyclists and morons with bicycles.
Just like there's a difference between motorists and some jackass
driving without a license.

The license is proof the licensee passed the test. Whether or not they are
a jackass on the road or off is another matter.

Tom Keats wrote:
In article . com,
Paul Berg writes:

For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who
would wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be
required to pass a written test similar to the instructional permit
test.

**** off.

I'm guessing your dinner was less than pleasing this evening.

In article ,
"Bill Sornson" writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article . com,
Paul Berg writes:

For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who
would wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be
required to pass a written test similar to the instructional permit
test.

**** off.

I'm guessing your dinner was less than pleasing this evening.

No, it was okay.

Anyways, stay outa my hair, 'n I'll
stay outa yours.

Nevertheless, Paul Berg should **** off.

I mean it.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca