|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Tom Sherman writes:
Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: Not according to the BICYCLE LANE ZEALOTS. Of course, they seem to lack experience of real world motorists. No, it is the anti-bike lane zealots who have no sense of reality.... Watch what the drivers do (somewhere other than Silly Cone valley). Troll (and I'll note that the troll snipped the full response, only a few lines long because he had no possible reply). Here it is again: Some drivers will get mad at you no matter what. In one case, some woman screamed and honked at me while I was riding in a bike lane. What got her mad is that I stopped at stop sign and she was somewhat behind me and wanted to make a right turn, so she had to wait a couple of seconds for me to clear the intersection. Traffic was so light that, as far as I could see in either direction, including along the cross street, there was precisely one bicycle and one automobile using those roads. There's a simple solution to the problem - don't give licenses to people who lack the maturity needed to operate a motor vehicle. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes: Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: Not according to the BICYCLE LANE ZEALOTS. Of course, they seem to lack experience of real world motorists. No, it is the anti-bike lane zealots who have no sense of reality.... Watch what the drivers do (somewhere other than Silly Cone valley). Troll (and I'll note that the troll snipped the full response, only a few lines long because he had no possible reply). Here it is again: Some drivers will get mad at you no matter what. In one case, some woman screamed and honked at me while I was riding in a bike lane. What got her mad is that I stopped at stop sign and she was somewhat behind me and wanted to make a right turn, so she had to wait a couple of seconds for me to clear the intersection. Traffic was so light that, as far as I could see in either direction, including along the cross street, there was precisely one bicycle and one automobile using those roads. There's a simple solution to the problem - don't give licenses to people who lack the maturity needed to operate a motor vehicle. "Bicycle lanes" often endanger the cyclist at intersections (where most cyclist/vehicle collisions occur) in return for some psychological comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind (which is rare, even without bicycle farcilities). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Tom Sherman schrieb:
in return for some psychological comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind (which is rare, even without bicycle farcilities). I've noticed that listening to music reduces that irrational fear, too. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Tom Sherman writes:
Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: Watch what the drivers do (somewhere other than Silly Cone valley). Troll (and I'll note that the troll snipped the full response, only a few lines long because he had no possible reply). Here it is again: Some drivers will get mad at you no matter what. In one case, some woman screamed and honked at me while I was riding in a bike lane. What got her mad is that I stopped at stop sign and she was somewhat behind me and wanted to make a right turn, so she had to wait a couple of seconds for me to clear the intersection. Traffic was so light that, as far as I could see in either direction, including along the cross street, there was precisely one bicycle and one automobile using those roads. There's a simple solution to the problem - don't give licenses to people who lack the maturity needed to operate a motor vehicle. "Bicycle lanes" often endanger the cyclist at intersections (where most cyclist/vehicle collisions occur) in return for some psychological comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind (which is rare, even without bicycle farcilities). Nonsense. That "psychological comfort" thing is simply a reahsh of Jon Forester's silliness about bike lanes and it is meaningless rhetoric. A bicycle lane's main advantage is when it can line up cars at intersections with long queues of cars so that bicycles can move to near the front of the queue without having to follow a slalom course through stopped cars spread out across a wide lane. As to safety, sometimes there is going to be a stripe anway - either a bike lane stripe or a shoulder stripe. The shoulder stripe gets dropped by heading to the curb. The bike lane stripe is dropped by simply stopping it and looks like the normal case where two lanes merge. At intersections with a right turn lane, we'll have the right turn lane to the right of the "through" bike lane. The result for novice cyclists is that they'll end up to the left of right turning cars and the fact that they are going straight will be obvious to everyone. Without the bike lane stripe, cyclists tend to ride on the lane stripe dividing the through lane from the right-turn-only lane in order to make it easier for overtaking drivers. If the cyclist is an inch inside the right turn lane, and goes straight, the cyclist is violating the law and that would be held against the cyclist in an accident even though the cyclist's intentions were completely clear and even though the cyclist was simply trying to maintain as much clearance from motor vehicles as conditions allow. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes: Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: Watch what the drivers do (somewhere other than Silly Cone valley). Troll (and I'll note that the troll snipped the full response, only a few lines long because he had no possible reply). Here it is again: Some drivers will get mad at you no matter what. In one case, some woman screamed and honked at me while I was riding in a bike lane. What got her mad is that I stopped at stop sign and she was somewhat behind me and wanted to make a right turn, so she had to wait a couple of seconds for me to clear the intersection. Traffic was so light that, as far as I could see in either direction, including along the cross street, there was precisely one bicycle and one automobile using those roads. There's a simple solution to the problem - don't give licenses to people who lack the maturity needed to operate a motor vehicle. "Bicycle lanes" often endanger the cyclist at intersections (where most cyclist/vehicle collisions occur) in return for some psychological comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind (which is rare, even without bicycle farcilities). Nonsense. That "psychological comfort" thing is simply a re[]h[a]sh of Jo[h]n Forester's silliness about bike lanes and it is meaningless rhetoric. Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who want to make left turns. A bicycle lane's main advantage is when it can line up cars at intersections with long queues of cars so that bicycles can move to near the front of the queue without having to follow a slalom course through stopped cars spread out across a wide lane. That is hardly worth being ghettoized. As to safety, sometimes there is going to be a stripe an[y]way - either a bike lane stripe or a shoulder stripe. The shoulder stripe gets dropped by heading to the curb. The bike lane stripe is dropped by simply stopping it and looks like the normal case where two lanes merge. And? At intersections with a right turn lane, we'll have the right turn lane to the right of the "through" bike lane. The result for novice cyclists is that they'll end up to the left of right turning cars and the fact that they are going straight will be obvious to everyone. Without the bike lane stripe, cyclists tend to ride on the lane stripe dividing the through lane from the right-turn-only lane in order to make it easier for overtaking drivers. If the cyclist is an inch inside the right turn lane, and goes straight, the cyclist is violating the law and that would be held against the cyclist in an accident even though the cyclist's intentions were completely clear and even though the cyclist was simply trying to maintain as much clearance from motor vehicles as conditions allow. Take the lane, dude! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Tom Sherman writes:
Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: "Bicycle lanes" often endanger the cyclist at intersections (where most cyclist/vehicle collisions occur) in return for some psychological comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind (which is rare, even without bicycle farcilities). Nonsense. That "psychological comfort" thing is simply a re[]h[a]sh of Jo[h]n Forester's silliness about bike lanes and it is meaningless rhetoric. Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who want to make left turns. Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane. A bicycle lane's main advantage is when it can line up cars at intersections with long queues of cars so that bicycles can move to near the front of the queue without having to follow a slalom course through stopped cars spread out across a wide lane. That is hardly worth being ghettoized. Cut the loaded language - it is a purely emotional argument - i.e., a fallacious one. As to safety, sometimes there is going to be a stripe an[y]way - either a bike lane stripe or a shoulder stripe. The shoulder stripe gets dropped by heading to the curb. The bike lane stripe is dropped by simply stopping it and looks like the normal case where two lanes merge. And? And what? You mean the next that followed? At intersections with a right turn lane, we'll have the right turn lane to the right of the "through" bike lane. The result for novice cyclists is that they'll end up to the left of right turning cars and the fact that they are going straight will be obvious to everyone. Without the bike lane stripe, cyclists tend to ride on the lane stripe dividing the through lane from the right-turn-only lane in order to make it easier for overtaking drivers. If the cyclist is an inch inside the right turn lane, and goes straight, the cyclist is violating the law and that would be held against the cyclist in an accident even though the cyclist's intentions were completely clear and even though the cyclist was simply trying to maintain as much clearance from motor vehicles as conditions allow. Take the lane, dude! Why take a lane when riding at less than the normal speed of traffic when the road design makes that unnecessary? Do you want them to go out of their way to make it necessary for you to merge into the stream of traffic at each intersection? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Bill Z. schrieb:
Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who want to make left turns. Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane. No. Motor vehiclists might expect cyclists to stay on the bike lane and do indirect left turns. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb: Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who want to make left turns. Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane. No. Motor vehiclists might expect cyclists to stay on the bike lane and do indirect left turns. BZ still doesn't understand that since "they have their own lane" motorists want cyclists to stay in those lanes. Turning left out of that lane is the cyclist's problem, not theirs. "We can't go in their bicycle lane, why do they think they can come into ours?" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes: Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: "Bicycle lanes" often endanger the cyclist at intersections (where most cyclist/vehicle collisions occur) in return for some psychological comfort of reducing the risk of getting hit from behind (which is rare, even without bicycle farcilities). Nonsense. That "psychological comfort" thing is simply a re[]h[a]sh of Jo[h]n Forester's silliness about bike lanes and it is meaningless rhetoric. Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who want to make left turns. Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane. It has nothing to do with my or any other cyclist competence. The marked bicycle lane implies to motorists that is where the cyclists will be, and they wonder what the hell the cyclist is doing when he/she properly moves into the left lane to make a left turn. I have even had cagers pass me on the left when I was in the left half of the left lane signaling a left turn. A bicycle lane's main advantage is when it can line up cars at intersections with long queues of cars so that bicycles can move to near the front of the queue without having to follow a slalom course through stopped cars spread out across a wide lane. That is hardly worth being ghettoized. Cut the loaded language - it is a purely emotional argument - i.e., a fallacious one. Nonsense. Like it or not, what the cagers think is relevant, and it is influenced by the presence of a marked "bicycle lane". As to safety, sometimes there is going to be a stripe an[y]way - either a bike lane stripe or a shoulder stripe. The shoulder stripe gets dropped by heading to the curb. The bike lane stripe is dropped by simply stopping it and looks like the normal case where two lanes merge. And? And what? You mean the next that followed? There is a scenario posted, but no analysis. At intersections with a right turn lane, we'll have the right turn lane to the right of the "through" bike lane. The result for novice cyclists is that they'll end up to the left of right turning cars and the fact that they are going straight will be obvious to everyone. Without the bike lane stripe, cyclists tend to ride on the lane stripe dividing the through lane from the right-turn-only lane in order to make it easier for overtaking drivers. If the cyclist is an inch inside the right turn lane, and goes straight, the cyclist is violating the law and that would be held against the cyclist in an accident even though the cyclist's intentions were completely clear and even though the cyclist was simply trying to maintain as much clearance from motor vehicles as conditions allow. Take the lane, dude! Why take a lane when riding at less than the normal speed of traffic when the road design makes that unnecessary? Taking the lane prevents getting "right-hooked" by right turning motor vehicles. Duh. Do you want them to go out of their way to make it necessary for you to merge into the stream of traffic at each intersection? I have no issue with that. It takes so little effort to change lanes or slow down and speed up a metal box. The drivers need to move their feet some to keep circulation going. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Oregon vs California law graphic
Jens Müller wrote:
Bill Z. schrieb: Back when I first moved to an urban area that had "bicycle lanes", I rode them since I did not know better. I soon came to the realization that cyclists would be better off without them, particularly those who want to make left turns. Are you incompetent? A bike lane is no more an issue when making a left turn than any other traffic lane on a road with more than one lane. No. Motor vehiclists might expect cyclists to stay on the bike lane and do indirect left turns. Yes, the cagers would like for us to dismount and make two (2) street crossings as pedestrians. The cagers would also like us to ride on the sidewalk, since they consider bicycles toy only suitable for multi-use paths. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Graphic design jerseys | Mika | Techniques | 3 | June 18th 07 06:37 PM |
World Transport - a great graphic.. | PiledHigher | Australia | 2 | August 28th 06 01:16 PM |
Graphic for muscle recruitment comparing standing/sitting? | [email protected] | Techniques | 5 | June 14th 06 02:06 PM |
Hermiston, Oregon to Hood River, Oregon? | Ted | Rides | 7 | December 4th 05 07:12 AM |