How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

Cathy Kearns wrote:

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
no exceptions for "safety reasons."

Yet police are not shy about inviting children to ride on the sidewalk on
some routes close to schools to keep them out of danger.

Children are not licensed drivers. A licensed driver is supposed to
know the rules of the road and follow them regardless of what type of
vehicle he's using. If he's riding a bicycle, he's to ride on the road
in the same direction as traffic.

Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians on
a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of the
road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't have
someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

GaryG wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...

GaryG wrote:


Moron...if you're threading through groups of peds while "coming up fast
from behind", you're the one with the problem. Try removing the

training

wheels from your bike, and ride where bikes belong - in the street. If
you're bumping into peds on a MUP, you're a dangerous idiot.

GG

GG



My my my, what a nasty temper you have there. And such a big mouth. Do
you talk this way to people face to face?


Generally, yes. On occasion I've gotten face-to-face with cagers in the
middle of the road.

As for "temper", perhaps you've read more anger into my response than I had
at the time I wrote it (common with written expression). I merely meant to
inform you that you're doing something dangerous and stupid, and that there
is an alternative to blowing by little old ladies at 15 mph on a park path.


I doubt you have the guts,
little man.


You'd be wrong.


When you're not indulging your ugly, frustrated personality
on with insulting ng posts, how do you usually express it, beating your
wife & kids, perhaps? What am I saying, that would imply you actually
have human contact outside of your usenet outbursts. The incident in
question occurred on a designated BIKE path.


Was it a "bikes only" path? Or (much more likely) was it a "multi-use path"
(MUP) where both bikes and peds are permitted?

If the latter, it is your responsibiltiy to control your speed...something
it sounds like you're not doing.

FWIW, multi-use paths are inherently more dangerous for cyclists because of
the unpredictability of peds, roller bladers, dogs, etc. Whining about how
"stupid" they are won't change that fact - it's inherently dangerous riding
"fast" on a MUP. And that's precisely the reason most cyclists choose to
ride the streets whenever they feel the need to go fast.


And apparently you missed
the part about how the woman walked into ME when I was traveling at a
walking pace. I'll agree with the OP on this thread with regards to
"responding in kind"; Go to hell, asshole.


Hmmmm...now who's temper is showing?

GG


Dan





As to all of the above, "yeah, sure". It's easy to see you are
definitely a force to be reckoned with, very impressive indeed. And
much as I would like to spend the rest of my Sunday arguing with an
utterly insignificant Usenet loud mouth, it's just too nice outside.

Plonk, flyspeck.

Dan

"Ferris" wrote in message
...
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:56:14 -0400, "WeatherGuy"
wrote:


This behaviour by the cyclist was unacceptable. The "****head" was
unacceptable as well. There are times when it is necessary for safety
reasons to ride on a sidewalk


Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
no exceptions for "safety reasons."


Can you cite the specific law that covers this? A quick search on Google
showed that in California it is illegal to park a bike laying down on
the sidewalk, and that local communities may have laws regarding
sidewalk riding. But I didn't see anything at the state level making
this illegal.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd11.htm

See especially the following *infractions*:

21202(a) Bicyclist, failure to use right edge of roadway.
21208(a) Failure to ride in a bicycle lane.
21208(b) Bicyclist shall not leave bike lane until reasonably safe.
21952 Sidewalk, failure to yield to pedestrian on.

I would regard your and your wife's behavior as extremely rude, in any
case. If the two of you were taking up the entire width of the sidewalk,
as you said in your original post, then at least one of you should have
been paying attention so you could accomodate others on the sidewalk.
Did you see the biker on the sidewalk? If not, then I doubt either of
you would have paid attention to another pedestrian.


Based on CVC 21952, while the use of "****head" might have been especially
rude, calling out the bicyclists traffic infraction was, IMHO, correct.

Cathy Kearns wrote:
Yet police are not shy about inviting children to ride on the sidewalk on
some routes close to schools to keep them out of danger. I've seen it done
in person in my little town. In a Palo Alto there are many road signs in
similar neighborhoods that say "Bicyclist may use sidewalks". I expect these
are directed at the younger riders.

Those signs used to say "must" instead of may, until the state overturned
them. Alma St. and Embarcadero Rd. are both exactly the kind of street
where bikes should not be allowed -- narrow lanes, no shoulder, normal
traffic goes about 50, and plenty of parallel streets bikers can easily
use (including the dedicated Bike Boulevard on Bryant St. near Alma).

That law needs to be put back the way it was.

Arif Khokar wrote:
Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians on
a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of the
road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't have
someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
speed when he approaches a pedestrian -- just as cars are forced to slow
to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

Since the number of people driving cars is always much greater than the
number of either pedestrians or bikers, when there is a choice between
creating those two outcomes, the first is preferable by far.

Wow, you sure do spend a lot of time hating, don't you? And your numerous
photos of trivial (and yes, aggravating) public indiscresions are sad and
pathetic. I'm guessing you were the fat kid in the back of class tattling
to the teacher everytime someone passed a note in class.

Hopefully your inevitable ulcers and/or stress related heart attacks won't
sideline you for long, for we all need little heel-nipping, self-rightious
nitwits like you to cure the world of all its wrongs.

Maybe you could do us a favor and post a list of rules we should be
following so that we can avoid your raging wrath?




"Scott en Aztlán" wrote in message
...
My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
heads in disbelief.

Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:

http://tinypic.com/539poy

There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?

People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
bad name.

--
Life is short - drive fast!
http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

John David Galt wrote:

Arif Khokar wrote:

Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians
on a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of
the road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't
have someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
speed when he approaches a pedestrian

No, it means that the cyclist can either ride at his own pace on the
road, or he can walk his bicycle while on the sidewalk.

-- just as cars are forced to slow
to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

Since when do cars have to slow down? If the cyclist is in the right
lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow down.

The key difference between cyclists vs. pedestrians and cars vs.
cyclists is that the latter two are restricted by rules of the road.
Each of them must remain within lane markings and they are supposed to
signal when changing lanes or direction.

Pedestrians on a sidewalk do not have to stay within a "lane" on the
sidewalk, and they are not required to signal before changing direction.

That difference is why cars going 20 to 40 mph faster than cyclists is
safe (assuming separate lanes, of course), but cyclists going 15 mph
faster than pedestrians is unsafe.

On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:22:04 -0700, John David Galt
wrote in message
:

That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
speed when he approaches a pedestrian -- just as cars are forced to slow
to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

Since the number of people driving cars is always much greater than the
number of either pedestrians or bikers, when there is a choice between
creating those two outcomes, the first is preferable by far.

Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that
is all that matters.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:19:06 -0700, John David Galt
wrote in message
:

In a Palo Alto there are many road signs in
similar neighborhoods that say "Bicyclist may use sidewalks". I expect these
are directed at the younger riders.

Those signs used to say "must" instead of may, until the state overturned
them.

See? Sanity can prevail. Well done Palo Alto, award yourselves a
gold star.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:27:18 GMT, "DD"
wrote in message
. net:

Wow, you sure do spend a lot of time hating, don't you? And your numerous
photos of trivial (and yes, aggravating) public indiscresions are sad and
pathetic.

I don't know - the woman didn't look too bad from the back ;-)

I'm guessing it's fitness envy. No other reason for bleating about
two people riding on an obviously deserted sidewalk. I think Scott
should get himself a bike and get out more.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound