There ARE more adults riding bikes

On Oct 14, 9:48*am, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
"PatTX" wrote



I have never seen a police officer ticket ANY bike riders! People are
always upset over H()*&t laws, but, realistically, if a law isn't
enforced, it's just a hollow gesture.

I've never seen it either, come to think of it. But I have heard various
accounts (here and in other forums) of cyclists getting tickets for things
like busting a stop sign or light. I think those are the two things that
cyclist mostly get in trouble for. *More rare are bank robbers escaping on a
bike.

In another forum, I recently read a post where someone told a bike cop
that they'd seen a teenager crash a red light while riding without
lights at night and without his mandatory helmet.

According to the guy's post, the bike cop said he wouldn't do anything
about crashing the red light. But he would either lecture or ticket
the kid about the helmet.

Priorities?

- Frank Krygowski

:
: In another forum, I recently read a post where someone told a bike cop
: that they'd seen a teenager crash a red light while riding without
: lights at night and without his mandatory helmet.
:
: According to the guy's post, the bike cop said he wouldn't do anything
: about crashing the red light. But he would either lecture or ticket
: the kid about the helmet.
:
: Priorities?
:
: - Frank Krygowski

No, not priorities. A cop can't give somebody a ticket because of hearsay.
He has to SEE the kid run the red light. "Oh, officer! I saw Frank run a
red light in his car. Go over and give him a ticket!" Yeah, right.
Priorities? Gossip? Rumor?

Pat in TX

In article ,
"Roger Zoul" wrote:

"Luigi de Guzman" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:30:24 -0700, Art Harris wrote:


Since I only have their ear for a few seconds, I try to nicely say,
"You're riding on the wrong side. You're going to cause an accident." I
doubt that it makes a difference, but you never know. If every cyclist
they passed said that, they might eventually get the message.

A traffic ticket and actual police enforcement would be far more
effective at getting the word out. As would a number of fatal accidents
in which news reports prominently highlighted the fact that "the cyclist
was riding opposite the flow of traffic, and thus was struck and killed."

It's only too bad that contributory negligence is on its way out as a
legal doctrine, as well, because having an automobile driver claim that
the cyclist he struck was riding the wrong way would have immunized the
car driver from liability--since, by riding the wrong way, the cyclist
would have been deemed to have 'contributed' to his injury, and thus
would be legally barred from the 'profits' of that contribution.

People don't learn until they get hurt. People don't cycle until driving
is impossible or prohibitively expensive.

Well, exactly how many accidents are caused by people riding the wrong way
on a road?
Sure, it is not safe, but I think this is one of the least threatening
things people can do, which is one reason
why most police don't ticket these people.

Seriously? Because the last time I bothered to do research, wrong-way
riding was a seriously predisposing factor for a cyclist to get into a
crash.

The probable reason it's so dangerous is because the cyclist is in such
an unexpected location and with a completely unexpected vector.

Just as one example, it exposes you to a grave hazard from drivers
turning right* onto the street our example wrong-way-cyclist is riding
on. The ideal driver would typically check the sidewalk for pedestrians,
then look left for oncoming traffic. As they pull out, our friend
wrong-way will be riding into the car's right-front wheel.

There's all kinds of similar hazards. The one from left-turning cars
exiting the road may be even graver, given how completely out of normal
danger zones the rider is coming from.

Yeah, I know, this is mostly a self-punishing infraction, but bike-dents
are hell to get off of most cars, and if that doesn't stir your
sentiments, there are pedestrians, motorcyclists, and other cyclists who
would be just as surprised by the cyclist and considerably more
vulnerable to personal injury than the car's occupants.

*right-side driving example. Backward-driving Britons et al, please
mirror priorities.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:

I find the main arterials more bicycle friendly in many cases, or at
least street with enough traffic that intersections with arterials are
controlled by traffic signals. Crossing multiple lanes of higher speed
traffic at low speed is not my idea of bicycle friendly. Riding on the
major streets also lessens the number of motorists that pull out in
front of you.

In Vancouver the main arterials have become fraught with
so many traffic lights. The major intersections have
timed lights, and the less major intersections have
loop-detector or push-button lights. There are traffic lights
every second block. Riding on the arterials often means
dealing with red light after red light after red light ...

In my experience, some of the bike routes in Vancouver are very good
indeed. I'm pretty familiar with the routes around West Broadway, and in
particular the Off-Broadway route (one of the busiest bike routes in the
city) seems configured so that the bike route has priority over almost
all of the lesser crossing streets, and there's fast-acting crosswalk
signals (with curbside road-facing buttons for cyclists) at most of the
major crossings. (They use "no-cars" road furniture every ten blocks or
so to prevent drivers from treating the route as a thoroughfare; it is
otherwise a fairly normal-looking residential street).

In my experience, Broadway may be a bit faster for an especially fast
cyclist (sometimes), but Off-Broadway is a calmer, more consistent
route, and may actually be quicker for average cyclists.

So here it's better not to seek out not the main arterials nor
the parallel bike routes, but the diagonals that swiftly get
you from one section of town to another, disassociated one.
The trick is to avoid as many timed traffic lights as possible.

We have a great number of intersections with cyclists'
traffic light push-buttons that aren't on designated/official
bike routes. You just have to know where they are.
You don't always have to push the button.

The diagonals will set you free.

Interesting theory. I'll try it.

Not all local bike routes are so humanely designed. I can think of
several suburban routes that are either useless or downright dangerous.
The very street that I live on is a bike route, and it parallels a major
road (one block off). About five blocks from my house, the major road
remains nearly flat while the road the bike route is on gains about 23m
in a half-block, and gives nearly all of it back by the end of the block.

I'm not making that up: there is an ENORMOUS hump in the land there, and
the road (and houses) go up and over, while the main route has almost no
change.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
Well, exactly how many accidents are caused by people riding the wrong way
on a road?
Sure, it is not safe, but I think this is one of the least threatening
things people can do, which is one reason
why most police don't ticket these people.

Seriously? Because the last time I bothered to do research, wrong-way
riding was a seriously predisposing factor for a cyclist to get into a
crash.


Yeah, and not just for the wrong way rider. My only collision in 30+
years of riding occurred when one of two kids riding together on the
the wrong side ran into me.

Art Harris

"Art Harris" wrote in message
...
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
Well, exactly how many accidents are caused by people riding the wrong
way
on a road?
Sure, it is not safe, but I think this is one of the least threatening
things people can do, which is one reason
why most police don't ticket these people.

Seriously? Because the last time I bothered to do research, wrong-way
riding was a seriously predisposing factor for a cyclist to get into a
crash.


Yeah, and not just for the wrong way rider. My only collision in 30+
years of riding occurred when one of two kids riding together on the
the wrong side ran into me.

Art Harris

Not to lessen the incident, Art. But in 30+ years of riding you only had one
collision. So, WWR were only a problem for you once in 30 years.

Perhaps we're playing a game of picking the biggest of the tiny.

On Oct 14, 11:35*am, "PatTX" wrote:
:
: In another forum, I recently read a post where someone told a bike cop
: that they'd seen a teenager crash a red light while riding without
: lights at night and without his mandatory helmet.
:
: According to the guy's post, the bike cop said he wouldn't do anything
: about crashing the red light. *But he would either lecture or ticket
: the kid about the helmet.
:
: Priorities?
:
: - Frank Krygowski

No, not priorities. A cop can't give somebody a ticket because of hearsay..
He has to SEE the kid run the red light.

Perhaps that's what he meant, but to me, the phrasing wasn't clear.

I know I've seen a wrong way rider crash a red light while cutting
diagonally through a four way intersection directly in front of a cop
car, and the cops did nothing at all. I've seen cops pass wrong way
riders, and riders with no lights at night, and do nothing at all.
Yet I've heard cops give speeches on how important helmets are.

But we have no MHLs here, so I suppose it's not a fair test.

- Frank Krygowski

:
: I know I've seen a wrong way rider crash a red light while cutting
: diagonally through a four way intersection directly in front of a cop
: car, and the cops did nothing at all. I've seen cops pass wrong way
: riders, and riders with no lights at night, and do nothing at all.
: Yet I've heard cops give speeches on how important helmets are.
:
: But we have no MHLs here, so I suppose it's not a fair test.
:
: - Frank Krygowski

I don't know if you are talking about seeing the wrong way rider while you
were on a bike or in your car. I have seen cops ignore things that car
drivers did right in front of them! Once, I counted the cars with only one
headlight on my way to numerous referee meetings. Finally, I asked a cop,
"Why don't you ticket those cars?" and he replied, "Well, by the time I see
the car with only one headlight, I'd have to make a U-turn and go back and
try to find him. It's just too much trouble!" I was astonished because I
had seen numbers in the mid-20's of cars at night with only one
headlight--and that was just while on my way from Severna Park to Columbia!
So, by the time I returned home, I had seen upwards of 40 cars driving with
only one headlight.

I, too, have been in the car and have seen cops passing bicyclists without a
light at night and just ignoring the situation. And, that's just plain
dangerous! Why don't cops enforce laws on bicyclists? Dunno.

Pat in TX

On Oct 12, 9:33 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:07:11 -0500, "PatTX"
wrote:

Oh, I haven't said anything to them about that, but I do wonder if they will
have a second time...after all, it's tough to ride with your chin getting
hit by your knee each time it comes up, not to mention grinding it out in a
high gear. I saw a woman yesterday that fit that description, and as I went
by, I said to her "Put it in a lower gear." (in a nice way). I didn't get
all of her answer, but most of it was "I can do that?"

I just noticed that all of the people I see riding the sidewalks are adults
in their 40's and above. None have mirrors, either.

I commute to work on a bike--seven miles in each direction. There's
about a two-mile stretch coming home where I use a sidewalk. It's
rare that anyone actually uses it for walking, and on the rare
occasion that I do see someone, I yield to them. I'm not a novice
cyclist, and I've read some of Forester's stuff, but I've picked
myself out of ditches a couple times to avoid getting creamed. The
roadway is not wide enough to share a lane, and if you take it, the
driver's will pass close enough to scare the hell out of you just to
make a point.

Dave Clary
Corpus Christi, TX

There are about a gazillion different situations. You gotta do what
makes sense for you in the situations that you are in. As much sense
as Forester makes in his book... it's still just a freaking book and
not even the rule book. If everybody followed the rules in the real
rule book Forester wouldn't have much of a market for his book now
would he?

On Oct 13, 9:41 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:55 am, "PatTX" wrote:



::
:: I commute to work on a bike--seven miles in each direction. There's
:: about a two-mile stretch coming home where I use a sidewalk. It's
:: rare that anyone actually uses it for walking, and on the rare
:: occasion that I do see someone, I yield to them. I'm not a novice
:: cyclist, and I've read some of Forester's stuff, but I've picked
:: myself out of ditches a couple times to avoid getting creamed. The
:: roadway is not wide enough to share a lane, and if you take it, the
:: driver's will pass close enough to scare the hell out of you just to
:: make a point.
::
:: Dave Clary
:: Corpus Christi, TX

I hope this doesn't devolve into one of those "I break the rules of the road
because I feel threatened!" threads, because everyone has to make up his own
mind when breaking the traffic rules is necessary. I am talking about
people who are riding the sidewalks when there is a bike lane right
alongside them! Or when the street is so deserted that a bike could have the
entire lane with cars passing by in one of the other two lanes going that
direction. Yesterday, I saw a woman riding her bike on the sidewalk, and
with this particular sidewalk, there are stretches where no sidewalk exists.
So, she would be riding on the grass and rocks until she could get back on
the sidewalk, whereas I was riding in my bike lane right beside her! When I
went by, she looked up, startled. I got the impression from her face that
she was thinking, "You're allowed to ride on the street surface?"

Based on my experience, everything Pat says is also true without bike
lanes. They are not a requirement, whether the street is deserted or
no. Ordinary roads are fine.

And regarding Dave Clary's post: We've gotten dozens of similar posts
over the years, with about half of them coming from one colorful
individual. The general idea is always "You don't know how dangerous
it is to ride HERE! If you were here, you'd [ride on the sidewalk /
ride facing traffic / run traffic lights / stop every time a car gets
near / etc.]"

From what I see, over 99% of people who do those things are riding in
places where competent cyclists ride normally and safely. I suppose
it's not absolutely impossible that they're in some amazingly unusual
situation. But I strongly doubt it.

- Frank Krygowski

You presume that the only reason anyone would ride anywhere but the
road is that they are scared of the cars. I assure you this is not
the only situation where riding the sidewalk is warranted. But if you
are going to ride on the sidewalk - were legal or not - you have a
moral obligation not to run down the unwheeled gits that you share it
with.