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

Lobby Dosser wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote:

Festivus wrote:


The behaviors we all routinely see:

1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs
2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane
Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to
use how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane,
pass us in another lane.

From the Oregon Bicyclist Manual:

"Riding side by side
You and a companion may ride side by side on the road, but only if
you don’t impede other traffic. If traffic doesn’t have enough room to
pass you safely, ride single file."

Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is disallowed,
but the circumstances determine proper behavior.

In article , Festivus wrote:
Brent P wrote:

1) Adult bicyclists already have passed the tests for an automobile in
numbers that make going after the remaining tiny portion, silly.

Perhaps. Yet we still require EVERY motorist to have a valid license.

No, we don't. Government does. And by that government has lowered driving
to an effective government granted privilege. Government for instance has
decided to add all sorts of additional non-driving requirements to have
what it has classified as a privilege. Government has also made different
classes of people, some need to comply while others do not. For instance,
illegal aliens get a slap on the wrist at most for driving without a
license. The government has a interest in making them welcome here and
thusly doesn't stomp on them as it would you or I.

Since the remaining portion is so tiny, the vast majority of the
cyclists are already covered. Those who have not need only pass the
same test required of anyone operating a motorized vehicle. You can
even waive the driving test, putting bicycle riders under even less
obligation to prove competency than the motorists.

To what harm to bicyclists? To get that tiny percentage we will be
subject to government whim. Government may add all sorts of conditions
and taxes to have the license. Police will put up checkpoints where we will
have to produce our papers. We will be stopped and forced to produce
papers. Is this really good for bicycling? Is it really of any benefit to
society?

The point here is to prove some minimal level of education on the rules
of the road you are sharing with automobiles. How this can be construed
as a bad thing is hard to understand.

You need to break your conditioning that is all.

On Aug 21, 11:21 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
Festivus writes:

Tom Keats wrote:
**** off.

Excellent.

I will take that attitude as permission to dispense summary citizen's
justice to bikers displaying said behaviors when I see them.

You no doubt will, with or without my permission.

You're just itchin' to hurt somebody, ain't'cha?

Out where
I live,

Give my regards to Joe Palooka and Mammy Yokum.

Try not to chop your foot off while splitting this
winter's supply of firewood.

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

You forgot to tell him he almost got caught tickling his sister last
time.

On Aug 22, 7:04 am, "John S." wrote:
On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, wrote:

On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." wrote:

Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required.

Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organdlearn a bit about the issue before
posting.

- Frank Krygowski

Ah, yes, another one of those websites.....

They got one for EVERYTHING! They seem to think it's chic and
POLITICAL!

On Aug 22, 8:01 am, wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:04 am, "John S." wrote:

On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, wrote:

On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." wrote:

Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required.

Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organdlearn a bit about the issue before
posting.

- Frank Krygowski

Ah, yes, another one of those websites.....

... that has factual discussion, numbers, references, science, all
those nasty things?

Well, if you can't handle it, that's fine. Not everyone does numbers.

- Frank Krygowski

More than 18 is a good number to do if some boyfriend etc. won't want
to kill you.

You have to gift wrap that one, helmet won't do.

On Aug 22, 9:51 am, Festivus wrote:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article exOyi.3899$wr3.1016@trndny04,
I guess there's no law against fantacizing
about running people down, or hurting/maiming/
killing them in various other ways.

And there's no law against telling someone in a civil conversation to
"**** off", but when you do, are you really surprised to get the
response you got?

But you folks who do, really oughta be
ashamed of yourselves.

As should anyone who behaves like a 6th grader in a public discussion.
Gotta hand it to ya, though, you must have on helluva pair to muster the
chutzpa to post like you do then lecture the rest of us on our attitude
towards the rest of the world.

One should require a license to operate that much hypocrisy.

I respect the cars on the road when I ride becuase to do otherwise is
foolish. I respect the bikes on the road when I drive because it's the
right thing to do. I will respect you when you post when you earn it.

I think they're all CANADIANS/CANADIENS/Smoking will kill you!/We
build America's cars NYAAA NYAH

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S wrote:

You forgot to tell him he almost got caught tickling his sister last
time.

Brother. Sister's too ugly.

On Aug 22, 10:00 am, Wayne Pein wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:35 am, Wayne Pein wrote:

Festivus wrote:

The behaviors we all routinely see:

1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs
2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane

Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use
how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us
in another lane.

Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at
all times, though this is routinely ignored by both.

It ought to be ignored.

Ditto this.

Wayne Pein wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:

Oregon law requires bicycles and motorcycles to ride single file at
all times, though this is routinely ignored by both.

It ought to be ignored.

Of course, you know that isn't really the law, but why let that prevent an
opp to troll?

Wayne Pein wrote:
Bill Shatzer wrote:



With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the
normal and reasonable flow of traffic".

"ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person
commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the
person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed
of
traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing
conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to
the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this
section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as
practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of
the following circumstances:



...

(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other
bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a
single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and
reasonable movement of traffic."


Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists
within-lane position should be ignored.

Attitudes like that will get bikes banned from traffic altogether. Nice
troll!