|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at leastthreefeet a good idea?
CJ wrote:
Did you think about what you wrote? Probably not. What part of "auto infrastructure" do you not understand? Tax bicycles and their riders to create a "bicycle infrastructure" with seperate bicycle roadways, then you won't have to worry about car/bicycle interference. There's no need for a separate infrastructure. There's a common infrastructure which is neither car nor bike. Cars cause an exceptional amount of wear and tear, as well as other public damage, and therefore partially compensate the system for this, and are regulated. Cyclists generally cause no wear and tear, nor do they cause measurable public damage, and therefore pay less into the system (it's already been pointed out funding through non-vehicular-related revenue streams implies cyclists contribute plenty). If there's any problem, it's that fees on cars are too low. This is evident by the fact that there's so many of them, way more than an efficient transportation system requires. Dan |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at least three feet a good idea?
"CJ" enscribed:
Could that be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah... couldn't be. Perhaps before posting in ba.general you could first acquaint yourself with taxes like Santa Clara County's various Measure A sales taxes. -- Feh. Mad as heck. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at leastthree feet a good idea?
"CJ" enscribed:
Did you think about what you wrote? Probably not. What part of "auto infrastructure" do you not understand? Tax bicycles and their riders to create a "bicycle infrastructure" with seperate bicycle roadways, then you won't have to worry about car/bicycle interference. See also various failed attempts to close San Francisco Market Street to cars. -- Feh. Mad as heck. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at leastthreefeet a good idea?
Dan Connelly wrote:
CJ wrote: Did you think about what you wrote? Probably not. What part of "auto infrastructure" do you not understand? Tax bicycles and their riders to create a "bicycle infrastructure" with seperate bicycle roadways, then you won't have to worry about car/bicycle interference. There's no need for a separate infrastructure. There's a common infrastructure which is neither car nor bike. Cars cause an exceptional amount of wear and tear, as well as other public damage, and therefore partially compensate the system for this, and are regulated. Cyclists generally cause no wear and tear, nor do they cause measurable public damage, and therefore pay less into the system (it's already been pointed out funding through non-vehicular-related revenue streams implies cyclists contribute plenty). Apples and oranges. The original thrust of this thread was about the newly proposed three foot buffer that motor vechicles must maintain when overtaking a bicyclist. You have morphed this into a discussion of relative amount of damage caused by bicyclists and motorists. Tax bicyclists and bicycles to create a seperate "bicycle infrastructure" and you eliminate interference between the two types of transportation. If there's any problem, it's that fees on cars are too low. This is evident by the fact that there's so many of them, way more than an efficient transportation system requires. Absolute rubbish. -- Cliff |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at leastthreefeet a good idea?
Apples and oranges. The original thrust of this thread was about the newly proposed three foot buffer that motor vechicles must maintain when overtaking a bicyclist. You have morphed this into a discussion of relative amount of damage caused by bicyclists and motorists. Tax bicyclists and bicycles to create a seperate "bicycle infrastructure" and you eliminate interference between the two types of transportation. I have tried this in our residential area. A separate bike path from my house out to the next intersection, where I need to make a left. But that now prevented my neighbors from the right to enter the street with a left turn since they'd cross the (supposedly separate) bike path and they are forced to make a left turn leaving the neighborhood as the right part is now occupied by a separate bike facility. On the other hand I can't make a left turn leaving my neighborhhod b/c there is now a separate car facility. We figured the only way would be to build the bike path one level up to not interfere with the cars, but it'll take a while to get that in place. Could you propose your idea on how the two separate transportation systems can be built so they truly don't interfere with one another, yet get everyone to their respective destinations? bjorn |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at leastthreefeet a good idea?
"CJ" wrote in message ... Apples and oranges. The original thrust of this thread was about the newly proposed three foot buffer that motor vechicles must maintain when overtaking a bicyclist. You have morphed this into a discussion of relative amount of damage caused by bicyclists and motorists. .. Um, it was (that's you isn't it?) that morphed this thread: "CJ" wrote in message ... Doc O'Leary wrote: ...The problem is not that the laws aren't bicycle-friendly enough, but that they are too car-friendly. Could that be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah... couldn't be. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at leastthreefeet a good idea?
Apples and oranges. The original thrust of this thread was about the
newly proposed three foot buffer that motor vechicles must maintain when overtaking a bicyclist. You have morphed this into a discussion of relative amount of damage caused by bicyclists and motorists. Tax bicyclists and bicycles to create a seperate "bicycle infrastructure" and you eliminate interference between the two types of transportation. What apples & oranges? It's already been explained that most of the costs for the "car infrastructure" are paid for out of general funds, not user taxes & fees. Using your argument, the "bicycle infrastructure" should be getting funds that have previously been going to the "car infrastructure." But it's an argument that has little to do with the new law. The facts are that bicyclists and motorists (and horse & buggies for that matter) have co-existed on the same roads for over 100 years. There is need for a comprehensive and integrated transportation infrastructure, but any talk of separate facilities for bikes & cars etc leads us further down a path of disconnected transportation options, and we eventually end up... pretty much where we are today. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at leastthree feet a good idea?
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 03:08:32 -0000 in rec.bicycles.soc, "CJ"
wrote: Tax bicycles and their riders to create a "bicycle infrastructure" with seperate bicycle roadways, then you won't have to worry about car/bicycle interference. you really are clueless, aren't you? BIKES DO NOT NEED SEPARATE ROADS. Bikes belong on the same roads as other vehicles, and those roads should be designed to accomodate bikes, pedestrians, and other non-motorized traffic. Besides, there is no way in hell you could raise enough money from bicycle taxes to pay for separate bike roads. If they existed, drivers would be hounding us to "get on the bike path". No thank you. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at leastthreefeet a good idea?
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 04:32:23 -0000 in rec.bicycles.soc, "CJ"
wrote: Tax bicyclists and bicycles to create a seperate "bicycle infrastructure" and you eliminate interference between the two types of transportation. No, you create second class roads for bicycles, and once they were built, the cagers would make it illegal for us to ride on the real roads. Sorry, I'm not buying your goofy idea for segregation. Fought that battle once, and I'm not going to do it again. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at least three feet a good idea?
In article ,
"CJ" wrote: Doc O'Leary wrote: ...The problem is not that the laws aren't bicycle-friendly enough, but that they are too car-friendly. Could that be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah... couldn't be. Could that be because bicycles don't have *nearly* the impact on the surrounding environment that motor vehicles do? Yeah . . . that could be exactly it. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NYC IS TOO GOOD TO DRIVERS | NYC XYZ | General | 8 | March 5th 06 10:10 PM |
Canberra riders/drivers | TimC | Australia | 27 | April 29th 05 04:22 AM |
Good drivers scaring cyclists | Tamyka Bell | Australia | 5 | November 13th 04 03:52 AM |
Dangerous Drivers Idea | Anthony | Australia | 49 | September 4th 04 03:10 AM |
Idea for riders with wrist problems | Peter Gardner | General | 7 | August 30th 03 10:40 PM |