#11
|
|||
|
|||
Singapore Bikes
On Jun 15, 4:20*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 15, 3:33*pm, Jay Beattie wrote: On Jun 15, 8:58*am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Jun 14, 8:05*pm, john B. wrote: The interesting thing is that there are no bike lanes and no special rules for bikes. Bicycles seem to be treated as just another highway user. You see them peddling along the side of the road, stopping for stop lights and hardly ever on the sidewalks as bicycles and motorcycles are forbidden to ride on sidewalks which are reserved for foot traffic. The idea that somehow you are different because you ride a bicycle to work that I've noticed on various groups doesn't seem to exist and a bicycle is viewed as just another variety of transportation. By the way, no lycra, no foam hats, no half gloves. Just normal attire. In other words, Singapore proves that a city can have lots of bicycling without weird multicolored bike lanes, barrier separated "bike tracks," special traffic lights, etc. And people can ride bicycles and feel adequately safe without weird plastic hats and day-glo clothing. Can someone please let the American "bike advocates" know? *Start with Andy Clarke, John Pucher and Mia Birk. (Of course, telling them to abandon fear mongering would be like like telling them to abandon their life's work.) Well, then there is Holland with separate bicycle facilities. *If you believe that is the proper model, then current efforts in the USA are woefully inadequate. We should be condemning rights of way to put in extensive bicycle avenues -- maybe through your living room. Of course, I don't think we need such things. *Or rather, we need them only in a few unusual places. In general, I'm pretty fond of the system of bike facilities we already have. *They call them "roads" and they already go everywhere a person is likely to want to go! Eh, shoulders would be nice. For both cyclists and motorists. Far too many "only way to get there from here" roads have paved/rideable areas to the right of the white line only inches wide. Aside from cyclist concerns, a flat tire or breakdown in a motor vehicle can seriously fornicate traffic on such a road. nate |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Singapore Bikes
On 6/15/2011 6:24 AM, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:28:52 -0500, T�m Sherm�n �_� " wrote: On 6/14/2011 7:05 PM, john B. wrote: [...] The above is the norm during the week but on the weekend the recreational riders appear, booted and spurred, they are very noticeable on the more open highways and in certain areas of the island where there are specified MTB tracks. The idea of "ride anywhere" mountain bikes is abhorrent to the Singapore government and there are serious fines imposed for riding in unspecified areas. Better just a fine than being attacked by a handsaw wielding wacko nut. It is fine to joke but the Singapore government takes its laws seriously. $500 fine for spitting on the street, probably a thousand for riding in a park. No joke: http://www.berkeleyside.com/2010/06/03/bicycle-opponent-arrested-for-assaulting-cyclist/. Well know rec.bicycles.soc and alt.mountain-bike troll Mikey V. was acquitted on two charges, hung jury on one charge, and convicted on three charges stemming from the handsaw assault incident. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Singapore Bikes
On 6/15/2011 3:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 15, 3:33�pm, Jay wrote: On Jun 15, 8:58�am, Frank wrote: On Jun 14, 8:05�pm, john wrote: The interesting thing is that there are no bike lanes and no special rules for bikes. Bicycles seem to be treated as just another highway user. You see them peddling along the side of the road, stopping for stop lights and hardly ever on the sidewalks as bicycles and motorcycles are forbidden to ride on sidewalks which are reserved for foot traffic. The idea that somehow you are different because you ride a bicycle to work that I've noticed on various groups doesn't seem to exist and a bicycle is viewed as just another variety of transportation. By the way, no lycra, no foam hats, no half gloves. Just normal attire. In other words, Singapore proves that a city can have lots of bicycling without weird multicolored bike lanes, barrier separated "bike tracks," special traffic lights, etc. And people can ride bicycles and feel adequately safe without weird plastic hats and day-glo clothing. Can someone please let the American "bike advocates" know? �Start with Andy Clarke, John Pucher and Mia Birk. (Of course, telling them to abandon fear mongering would be like like telling them to abandon their life's work.) Well, then there is Holland with separate bicycle facilities. �If you believe that is the proper model, then current efforts in the USA are woefully inadequate. We should be condemning rights of way to put in extensive bicycle avenues -- maybe through your living room. Of course, I don't think we need such things. Or rather, we need them only in a few unusual places.[...] Indeed. The primary places special separated bicycle lanes are needed are bridges on controlled access roads where there is not a nearby bridge that is bicycle accessible. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Singapore Bikes
On Jun 15, 1:20*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 15, 3:33*pm, Jay Beattie wrote: On Jun 15, 8:58*am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Jun 14, 8:05*pm, john B. wrote: The interesting thing is that there are no bike lanes and no special rules for bikes. Bicycles seem to be treated as just another highway user. You see them peddling along the side of the road, stopping for stop lights and hardly ever on the sidewalks as bicycles and motorcycles are forbidden to ride on sidewalks which are reserved for foot traffic. The idea that somehow you are different because you ride a bicycle to work that I've noticed on various groups doesn't seem to exist and a bicycle is viewed as just another variety of transportation. By the way, no lycra, no foam hats, no half gloves. Just normal attire. In other words, Singapore proves that a city can have lots of bicycling without weird multicolored bike lanes, barrier separated "bike tracks," special traffic lights, etc. And people can ride bicycles and feel adequately safe without weird plastic hats and day-glo clothing. Can someone please let the American "bike advocates" know? *Start with Andy Clarke, John Pucher and Mia Birk. (Of course, telling them to abandon fear mongering would be like like telling them to abandon their life's work.) Well, then there is Holland with separate bicycle facilities. *If you believe that is the proper model, then current efforts in the USA are woefully inadequate. We should be condemning rights of way to put in extensive bicycle avenues -- maybe through your living room. Of course, I don't think we need such things. *Or rather, we need them only in a few unusual places. Like he http://highlandpark.wordpress.com/20...rnia-cycleway/ I want a board track cycleway -- ride silks to work and do impromptu Madisons with the Bohemian fixie commuters. Not much fun in the rain or snow, though. -- Jay Beattie. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Singapore Bikes
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:58:10 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Jun 14, 8:05*pm, john B. wrote: The interesting thing is that there are no bike lanes and no special rules for bikes. Bicycles seem to be treated as just another highway user. You see them peddling along the side of the road, stopping for stop lights and hardly ever on the sidewalks as bicycles and motorcycles are forbidden to ride on sidewalks which are reserved for foot traffic. The idea that somehow you are different because you ride a bicycle to work that I've noticed on various groups doesn't seem to exist and a bicycle is viewed as just another variety of transportation. By the way, no lycra, no foam hats, no half gloves. Just normal attire. In other words, Singapore proves that a city can have lots of bicycling without weird multicolored bike lanes, barrier separated "bike tracks," special traffic lights, etc. And people can ride bicycles and feel adequately safe without weird plastic hats and day-glo clothing. Can someone please let the American "bike advocates" know? Start with Andy Clarke, John Pucher and Mia Birk. (Of course, telling them to abandon fear mongering would be like like telling them to abandon their life's work.) - Frank Krygowski Well, not really. Recently there has been a spat of complaints about bicycle riders. Generally for such things as running red lights, riding in the middle of the lane (on highways with plenty of room on the sides) and other sins. The bicyclists on the other hand argue that there is no "culture of cycling" in Singapore so no one knows how bicycles act (I might comment that, say 40 years ago, very few Singaporeans owned automobiles). The usual "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" attitude. But no helmet laws, and probably because there are so few accidents no hair raising stories in the newspaper about the horrifying death of a bicyclist. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Singapore Bikes
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:20:41 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Jun 15, 3:33*pm, Jay Beattie wrote: On Jun 15, 8:58*am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Jun 14, 8:05*pm, john B. wrote: The interesting thing is that there are no bike lanes and no special rules for bikes. Bicycles seem to be treated as just another highway user. You see them peddling along the side of the road, stopping for stop lights and hardly ever on the sidewalks as bicycles and motorcycles are forbidden to ride on sidewalks which are reserved for foot traffic. The idea that somehow you are different because you ride a bicycle to work that I've noticed on various groups doesn't seem to exist and a bicycle is viewed as just another variety of transportation. By the way, no lycra, no foam hats, no half gloves. Just normal attire. In other words, Singapore proves that a city can have lots of bicycling without weird multicolored bike lanes, barrier separated "bike tracks," special traffic lights, etc. And people can ride bicycles and feel adequately safe without weird plastic hats and day-glo clothing. Can someone please let the American "bike advocates" know? *Start with Andy Clarke, John Pucher and Mia Birk. (Of course, telling them to abandon fear mongering would be like like telling them to abandon their life's work.) Well, then there is Holland with separate bicycle facilities. *If you believe that is the proper model, then current efforts in the USA are woefully inadequate. We should be condemning rights of way to put in extensive bicycle avenues -- maybe through your living room. Of course, I don't think we need such things. Or rather, we need them only in a few unusual places. In general, I'm pretty fond of the system of bike facilities we already have. They call them "roads" and they already go everywhere a person is likely to want to go! - Frank Krygowski In Thailand the bicycle is considered, by law, to be one step above a pedestrian and has no special rights at all. Just as the pedestrian they are allowed to use the highways but with the caveat that they have a very low priority. In fact there is a law that bicycles and motorcycles are to ride on the side of the road; signs every couple of kilometers on all highways. There is another idiosyncrasy here, the larger vehicle is deemed to be guilty, until proven innocent. If a bicycle hits a pedestrian the bicycle is deemed wrong; an automobile hits a bicycle, the auto is wrong, and so on. The burden of proof is on the larger vehicle to prove that he/she/it was not guilty. Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Singapore Bikes
john B. wrote:
Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here. Even if the larger vehicle failed to give way? If the larger vehicle pull out of a side road in front of a bicycle and stopped before the bicycle collided with the vehicle, who is at fault? -- JS. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Singapore Bikes
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:02:34 +1000, James
wrote: john B. wrote: Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here. Even if the larger vehicle failed to give way? If the larger vehicle pull out of a side road in front of a bicycle and stopped before the bicycle collided with the vehicle, who is at fault? I don't know. Initially the larger vehicle is deemed to be wrong but in the case where the vehicle is stationary, as you describe, I suspect that the bicycle would be found at fault after an investigation. I can't give any reference for that scenario other then that my wife rear-ending another auto driving down the out ramp in a parking garage because he braked suddenly. The police weren't called as it happened on private property but the insurance investigator reckoned that it was my wife's insurance that paid. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Singapore Bikes
On 16/06/2011 9:27 PM, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:02:34 +1000, wrote: john B. wrote: Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here. Even if the larger vehicle failed to give way? If the larger vehicle pull out of a side road in front of a bicycle and stopped before the bicycle collided with the vehicle, who is at fault? I don't know. Initially the larger vehicle is deemed to be wrong but in the case where the vehicle is stationary, as you describe, I suspect that the bicycle would be found at fault after an investigation. I can't give any reference for that scenario other then that my wife rear-ending another auto driving down the out ramp in a parking garage because he braked suddenly. The police weren't called as it happened on private property but the insurance investigator reckoned that it was my wife's insurance that paid. Yeah, that's common here too. If you rear end someone, it's almost always your fault. That's not the scenario I meant though. I've had drivers fail to give way and stop at the last moment. Thankfully I've made it around them, but I watched a friend T-bone a car that did just that. He had his right knee cap surgically removed as a result. I can't see that it is satisfactory to rule that the larger, stationary vehicle is not to blame when clearly failing to give way to through traffic. -- JS. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Singapore Bikes
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:48:13 +1000, James
wrote: On 16/06/2011 9:27 PM, john B. wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:02:34 +1000, wrote: john B. wrote: Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here. Even if the larger vehicle failed to give way? If the larger vehicle pull out of a side road in front of a bicycle and stopped before the bicycle collided with the vehicle, who is at fault? I don't know. Initially the larger vehicle is deemed to be wrong but in the case where the vehicle is stationary, as you describe, I suspect that the bicycle would be found at fault after an investigation. I can't give any reference for that scenario other then that my wife rear-ending another auto driving down the out ramp in a parking garage because he braked suddenly. The police weren't called as it happened on private property but the insurance investigator reckoned that it was my wife's insurance that paid. Yeah, that's common here too. If you rear end someone, it's almost always your fault. That's not the scenario I meant though. I've had drivers fail to give way and stop at the last moment. Thankfully I've made it around them, but I watched a friend T-bone a car that did just that. He had his right knee cap surgically removed as a result. I can't see that it is satisfactory to rule that the larger, stationary vehicle is not to blame when clearly failing to give way to through traffic. I cannot visualize the conditions that you are describing, but it is really not a matter of describing the traffic laws as "satisfactory" or "un-satisfactory", they just are. The individual can only obey or not obey. Rather like the bloke who kills someone and then says that he considers the law, that is going to hang him, to be unsatisfactory. But as I said, the law here classifies a bicycle as one step up from a pedestrian. If you walked into the side of a truck would it be the truck's fault? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Three UK Young Men Bullying Singapore Senior Citizen in his 70s | [email protected] | UK | 0 | October 31st 07 06:09 AM |
LBS in Singapore | Andrew Priest | Australia | 2 | July 25th 07 12:47 PM |
Singapore | Theo Bekkers | Australia | 3 | September 30th 05 08:04 AM |
RR: Singapore Bike Hash. My experience | MikeyOz | Australia | 6 | June 28th 05 11:02 AM |
Anybody from Melbourne or Singapore? | GizmoDuck | Unicycling | 7 | July 22nd 04 04:34 AM |