Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves

From: [email-masked] (Eric Edwards)
Date: 14 Jun 1995 21:06:05 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Michael E. Dey) writes:
>
>In number (4) you recognize that bicycles are indeed considered vehicles, 
>and then you go on in number (5) to say that cyclists are 'stupid' to ride 
>in the middle of the road.  It is much safer for the cyclist to be in the 
>middle of the lane (that he is legally entitled to occupy) than to hug 
>the curb and let cars pass in the same lane.

No.  It is *only* safer when the cyclist can keep up with traffic.  In heavy
traffic in Columbia, MO I road in the middle of the lane.  No problem.

Here in the southern California desert that kind of behavoir will get you
killed.  Roads are wider.  Traffic is comparatively lighter.  Traffic on
city streets moves at 60+.  I will ride on the right edge, thank you.

A cyclist should ride as safely as possible within the law. If that means 
changing strategies to match the conditions than so be it.

-- 
Eric Edwards = [email-masked] or [email-masked]  ||  "The Sony
Walkman will become obsolete thanks to the Sony rnman. The instructions will 
be on a seperate device, the Sony manman" -- The HAPPYNET Manifesto

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles B. Musgrave)
Date: 14 Jun 1995 21:17:50 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Joe Chew) writes:
|> As both a driver and a cyclist, I am equally peeved (at different
|> times) by drivers who think it's worth a cyclist's life to get
|> somewhere five seconds sooner, and by cyclists who are above -- or
|> just oblivious to --  safety and courtesy.
|> 
|> The road is a shared resource, friends, and if everybody just chills
|> out we'll ALL get where we're going, safely, in a reasonable amount
|> of time.

I'm a cyclist too and I agree. Then again, when a cyclist messes up he
generally only hurts himself, while when someone driving a 3,000 pound
car screws up he can kill whole families at once.

I've been hit 6 times...all were the fault of the car driver (btw-5 out
of six of the drivers were female). Average damage to bike was 900 dollars.

|> 
|> --Joe

Charles
PS: I saw Thurlow Rodgers riding today (84 olympic team, 7-11 team,
rode in the tour de France, etc.) He was riding partially in the lane
(just far enough so cars had to get partially into the next lane to 
get around him). That's exactly what you are supposed to do.

---

From: [email-masked] (KP)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 09:21:38 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Brad Woods) writes:
>KP ([email-masked]) wrote:
>
   big snip of my previous article.
>: crunch, and who gets the verbal abuse???? 
>
>I bicycle and drive.  And where I live there are a fair number of bicyclers.
>I have yet to find an inconsiderate bicycler.  They certainly don't bike down
 
 I am very happy for you.

>the middle of the road for fear of their safety.  Atleast 2 or 3 times a week
>I'll have a close call with a car, or a car will cut me off.
>
   and of course you have never contributed to the above situation in the
slightest have you.

>Also, I have never -- not once in my entire freakin' life, been driving along
>in my car when all of a sudden a bicycler comes whizzing by me and yells
>in my ear "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" or anything like that.

  I am assuming you are trying to make a car horn noise here. If so, I'll 
agree with you, its rude and dangerous (because of the distraction it will
cause). However; I was not complaining about the volume of noise I have had
to endure, it is the language its self. When a bicyclist has to run off the
road or loose control because he has run a stop sign while squeezing between 
the curb and my big bad car just as I make a right hand turn... it is of
course all MY fault and I am deserving of all the verbal abuse in the world.
right??    

>Further, such a biker would have about zero chance of causing me ANY physical
>damage.  The reverse is not true.

  Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting
sued... guess who's insurance gets jacked up... and if the biker is killed...
guess who not only suffers all the above but also stands the chance of loosing
their license, or at a min. being harrassed by the state for several years
and forced to take periodic driving tests for no reason.  

  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience
I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault. From the experience of
my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
situation like above is unfortunately killed.

>
>In otherwords, I have no sympathy for you car-driving pigs.

  Earlier in this thread someone stated that even if all bikers were to 
become 100% safe responsible drivers you would still have motor vehicle
operators who would find something to complain about. Don't be so blind,
the same is true in reverse.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
still find something to complain about... resorting to name calling for 
any one who drives a car ("car-driving pigs") kinda drives that point home.

- jim

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:27:00 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
KP <[email-masked]> wrote:
)In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Brad Woods) writes:
)
) Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
)windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
)in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
)wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
)all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
)guess who gets to pay the medical bills.

The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.

) Guess who stands the chance of getting
)sued...

If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.

)  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
)while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
)are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.

This is not true.

) From personal experience
)I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
)as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
)the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.

This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
See 21950(b):

21950.  (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
   (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
 -Tom

---

From: [email-masked] (KP)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 13:31:56 -0400

>The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.

  Not if they bicyclist is treated as a pedestrian.. please see below 
>If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.

  Never assume that. My brother was stopped behind a lady at a stop sign,
she had pulled to far ahead, put the car in reverse and slammed into him.
Lots of folks reported just that, minor damage to both cars, and everyone
walked away. Almost a year to the date he was informed that she was sueing
him (so was her husband since she could no longer perform in bed for him
as a result of this tramatic accident). Don't know how it turned out for 
the poor husband, but fortunately for my brother he was on company business
in a company car. Their insurance paid out.. even though it was not by 
brothers fault.

>)are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
  
  I can only go by what I am told, perhaps it is not true, I don't care to
put myself in the position to find out. I would also prefer I don't be PUT
in the position to find out.

>This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.

  Which state is this code from please?

>traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

  This does not entirely address what I was talking about, actually after 
reading it over a few times I do not see where it addresses any of what 
I've said. While it does say what vehicles and pedistrians must do, it does
not say what they can do about it after the fact.

  alas, you seem more prepared with section codes and all that, however...

Oct. 30, 1993 I was heading East on a major road, a city bus was parked
facing West. Just as I got parallel to its rear bumper a 14 year old boy
jumped out from behind it and landed directly in front of my van just left
of center. Fortunately for him I was not in a hurry and was well below the
speed limit, he got hurt, but nothing as serious as broken bones.. did a good
number on the front end of my van however.

  The bus driver was watching through his side mirror, the boys sister was 
watching from inside the bus, and the cars coming in the opposite direction
saw it as well. Without hesitation, every person said there was nothing I
could do, there was no room or time to move towards the right and away from
him, there was NO time for me to attempt to come to a stop before hitting
him. The police did all their measurements and concluded that I was well
within the posted speed limit.

  Next thing I know my insurance rates go up. I try to fight it, but NY
state law says that in a vehicle/pedestrian accident, regardless as to who
is at fault the vehicles insurance must handle the medical bills. Also,
the insurance company can (and does) raise your rates as a result (its not
the same as an act of nature when a deer runs out in front of you).
It was also suggested by my lawyer that I sue the child and his parents to
recoup the damages to my car. He doubted that we would win, but felt by
us starting an action it may help offset anything the kids family could 
eventually come after us with. We opted not to follow this advice, but
have held our breath ever since.

  As I said Tom, I do not have the section codes that cover this, but do 
know regardless what 21950 says is the responsibilty of the pedestrian,
there is a law out there that says what the responsibility of the driver
is if the pedestirian does not obey 29150.

- jim

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 19:24:49 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
KP <[email-masked]> wrote:
)In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Tom Holub) writes:
)>
)>If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.
)
)  Never assume that. My brother was stopped behind a lady at a stop sign,
)she had pulled to far ahead, put the car in reverse and slammed into him.
)Lots of folks reported just that, minor damage to both cars, and everyone
)walked away. Almost a year to the date he was informed that she was sueing
)him (so was her husband since she could no longer perform in bed for him
)as a result of this tramatic accident). Don't know how it turned out for 
)the poor husband, but fortunately for my brother he was on company business
)in a company car. Their insurance paid out.. even though it was not by 
)brothers fault.

Did they lose the case, or settle?  Do you have a case reference?  I
simply cannot accept this at face value.

)>)  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
)>)while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
)>)are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
)>
)>This is not true.
)  
)  I can only go by what I am told, perhaps it is not true, I don't care to
)put myself in the position to find out. I would also prefer I don't be PUT
)in the position to find out.

I'd prefer not to be in the situation, either, but the legal system generally
works in a reasonable manner, and it most assuredly does not put the full
onus of responsibility for accidents on drivers.

)>) From personal experience
)>)I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
)>)as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
)>)the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.
)>
)>This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
)>See 21950(b):
)
)  Which state is this code from please?

California.

)>   (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
)>from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
)>shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
)>into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
)>immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
)>traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
)
)  This does not entirely address what I was talking about, actually after 
)reading it over a few times I do not see where it addresses any of what 
)I've said. While it does say what vehicles and pedistrians must do, it does
)not say what they can do about it after the fact.

The courts interpret the law, they don't make it.  When deciding on fault
in an accident situation, this section tells the courts to take into 
consideration the fact that a pedestrian must exercise due care when crossing 
the road in deciding whether he was at fault in an accident.  A driver
who wants to fight a claim from a pedestrian he injured will have to 
prove that the pedestrian didn't exercise due care.

)  Next thing I know my insurance rates go up. I try to fight it, but NY
)state law says that in a vehicle/pedestrian accident, regardless as to who
)is at fault the vehicles insurance must handle the medical bills. 

Well, OK, in states with no-fault insurance things may be different.
Actually, I'd question the constitutionality of this even there (it may
not have been tested yet).

)  As I said Tom, I do not have the section codes that cover this, but do 
)know regardless what 21950 says is the responsibilty of the pedestrian,
)there is a law out there that says what the responsibility of the driver
)is if the pedestirian does not obey 29150.

Yes, actually, 21950(c) says:

   (c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not relieve a driver
of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of
any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection.

Basically, these sections should cancel out, and the person who is at
fault should be the one paying for injuries.
 -Tom

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 22:06:29 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Indian Outlaw  <[email-masked]> wrote:
)
)Tell that to the McDonald's that paid millions to someone who spilled 
)coffee on her self.  Laws and jury decisions don't always see eye to eye.

First of all, that reward was reduced significantly on appeal.  Second of
all, the jury heard the case, and you did not, so I suggest that they knew
more about the situation than you did.
 -Tom

---

From: "Ion C. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 17:33:41 -0700

> )are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
	i have got to say, that when i called the insurance company after
being hit recently, they said that i would be treated like a pedestrian (i
was going to object strenuously, but the guy explained this meant my
medical bills would be paid as i went along).  i think that to the
government, you are a vehicle, and to the insurance companies, you are a
pedestrian.
				Cheers,
     o__    ____ 		Ion C. Freeman
    _,>/'_  -----http://ocean.washington.edu/people/grads/freeman/resume.html 
   (_) \(_) ------

---

From: Indian Outlaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:59:43 -0500

> traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

Tell that to the McDonald's that paid millions to someone who spilled 
coffee on her self.  Laws and jury decisions don't always see eye to eye.

---

From: [email-masked] (KP)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 16:06:49 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler) writes:
>:   Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
>: he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
>: a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
>: windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
>
>Are you seriously complaining that bicyclists are endangering "a fool
>[who] comes blasting down the road and rams into" them because they may
>then come through the windshield and cause injury?  Can you cite a
>single incident of a motorist being injured in this way, or are you
>just making this up?

  Just making this up? Are you talking about people injured by a deer 
coming through a windshield? Happens all the time. Can I cite an instance
where this has happend with a bike? I can cite where a pedestrian was struck 
two years ago and went part way through the windshield. The driver alas
was drunk and drove all the way home with this body hanging half way out
his windshield.. are you going to say that a bicycle and its rider would 
cause less damage? And where the hell do you get off insinuating that I
am more worried about the stupid driver who drives recklessly into an 
innocent biker. If you have been following this thread you will see that
I am pissed at both, the reckless auto driver AND reckless behavior from 
the bicyclist. The above quote of mine that you yanked out was in reply
to someone who claimed that there is no way possible for a biker to cause
physical harm to the vehicle driver.

>
>: in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
>: wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
>: all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
>: guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting
>
>Okay, I'll guess - not the motorist.  If you can cite a single instance
>in which all interested parties and witnesses agree that the cyclist is
>at fault, but the motorist is forced to pay the cyclist's medical
>views, I will admit that my guess was wrong.  Otherwise, I will claim

  Please see another follow up article by me as a reply to someone who
showed a vehicle code that shows what people are supposed to do. No, I dont
have proof that the bicyclist is treated the same as a pedestrian.. it
is true that I've only been told that, but as I say in my other article,
I don't wish to find out if its true, and I don't want some idiot on a bike
causing an accident and forcing me to find out.

 In any case, in the event of a pedestrian vs. auto accident, read my personal
experience in my other posting.

>you are just setting up another straw-man argument.

  This straw-man argument has cost me plenty in the form of raised insurance
premiums. 

>
>Your opinion, then, is that being forced to take a driving test merely 
>for killing a cyclist constitutes harassment?

  You need to get a life.. I would have hoped that all that riding in the 
fresh air would have helped clear your head. Please for the love of God
read my original posting that you are clipping this from. I said that even
in the event of it being the fault of the person who was killed in an 
accident, the driver is harassed by repeated follow up driving tests. If
that person WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the accident, yet they are singled out
for repeated check ups.. then yes, they are being harrassed. There is NO
merely killing anyone. That is a terrible event, your making slight of it
is more than just rude.

>
>:   I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
>: while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
>: are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience
>
>I don't know what a "pedistian" is.  Do you mean "pedestrian"?
>

  Typical reponse. You don't have anything relevent to say one way or the
other... but you really want to make some noise, so 'lets attack the 
spelling'. In many cases, proper spelling and punctuation is really required
to get a thought across.. if you don't have the deductive abilities to
understand  what I was saying.. well then maybe I can understand your 
problem in relating to the topic where this all came from. Pet Peeves,
mine was when a bicyclist does something stupid... most of the other peeves
were about things that other car drivers do that tick us off. Things did not
get personal and hateful until rec.bicycles.soc somehow got included.

  Who's big idea was it to include these children into our party any how?

>: I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
>: as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
>: the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.  From the experience of
>: my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
>: situation like above is unfortunately killed.
>
>Well, don't leave us in suspense.  What does your state say?  I assume
>you mean, "as expressed in its laws", rather than "as expressed in the
>general opinion of your friends".  And what are the results of such an
>accident?

  No, I'm talking about personal experience, complete with lawyers and 
a nice hike in my insurance.

>
>:				.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
>: drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
>: still find something to complain about...
>
>Try us.

  I already find you very trying.. I think I'll just leave you alone now and 
wait until you fully blossom into this beautiful creature you seem to think
all bicyclists metamorph into. Perhaps then you can discuss, instead of just
posting condescending drival.

---

From: kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 23:54:36 GMT

KP ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]> kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler) writes:
: >KP ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >
: >:   Wrong in many ways. If a fool comes blasting down the road and rams into you
: >: he stands every bit as much chance of being injured as he would if he hit 
: >: a deer. Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
: >: windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
: >
: >Are you seriously complaining that bicyclists are endangering "a fool
: >[who] comes blasting down the road and rams into" them because they may
: >then come through the windshield and cause injury?  Can you cite a
: >single incident of a motorist being injured in this way, or are you
: >just making this up?

:   Just making this up? Are you talking about people injured by a deer 
: coming through a windshield? Happens all the time. Can I cite an instance
: where this has happend with a bike? I can cite where a pedestrian was struck 
: two years ago and went part way through the windshield. The driver alas
: was drunk and drove all the way home with this body hanging half way out
: his windshield.. are you going to say that a bicycle and its rider would 
: cause less damage?

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of the story about the drunk driver
and the pedestrian.  Shall I interpret your answer to mean that, no, you
cannot cite any incident in which this has happened with a cyclist?

:		      And where the hell do you get off insinuating that I
: am more worried about the stupid driver who drives recklessly into an 
: innocent biker. If you have been following this thread you will see that
: I am pissed at both, the reckless auto driver AND reckless behavior from 
: the bicyclist. The above quote of mine that you yanked out was in reply
: to someone who claimed that there is no way possible for a biker to cause
: physical harm to the vehicle driver.

I have just gone back and re-read the entire thread and have found no
statement by you either expressing concern for the cyclist involved in
the above hypothetical incident, nor criticizing the behavior of the
motorist, other than in the quote above where you refer to him as a
fool (and which I included).  I don't see that it is necessary for me
to insinuate anything.

: >: in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
: >: wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
: >: all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
: >: guess who gets to pay the medical bills. Guess who stands the chance of getting
: >
: >Okay, I'll guess - not the motorist.  If you can cite a single instance
: >in which all interested parties and witnesses agree that the cyclist is
: >at fault, but the motorist is forced to pay the cyclist's medical
: >views, I will admit that my guess was wrong.  Otherwise, I will claim

:   Please see another follow up article by me as a reply to someone who
: showed a vehicle code that shows what people are supposed to do. No, I dont
: have proof that the bicyclist is treated the same as a pedestrian.. it
: is true that I've only been told that, but as I say in my other article,
: I don't wish to find out if its true, and I don't want some idiot on a bike
: causing an accident and forcing me to find out.

You seem to be the one who first started playing lawyer in this
thread.  When you make statements about what will happen in particular
juridical situations, it is reasonable to ask you to back those
statements up with references to law.

:  In any case, in the event of a pedestrian vs. auto accident, read my personal
: experience in my other posting.

: >you are just setting up another straw-man argument.

:   This straw-man argument has cost me plenty in the form of raised insurance
: premiums. 

As I stated in my post (and which you deleted without addressing)
insurance rates are typically raised after any accident, regardless of
whether cyclists are involved.

: >Your opinion, then, is that being forced to take a driving test merely 
: >for killing a cyclist constitutes harassment?

:   You need to get a life..

I have one, thanks, and I'd like to hang onto it despite riding in
traffic.  That's what this discussion is about.  I'm sorry that you
find it necessary to descend to the level of overused catcalls.

:			     I would have hoped that all that riding in the 
: fresh air would have helped clear your head. Please for the love of God
: read my original posting that you are clipping this from. I said that even
: in the event of it being the fault of the person who was killed in an 
: accident, the driver is harassed by repeated follow up driving tests. If
: that person WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the accident, yet they are singled out
: for repeated check ups.. then yes, they are being harrassed. There is NO
: merely killing anyone. That is a terrible event, your making slight of it
: is more than just rude.

You are disingenuous in pretending not to recognize the literary device
of irony.  You know very well that I am not making slight of the
cyclist's death; indeed, it is a principle point of my argument that
the death of the cyclist is more significant than the inconvenience to
the motorist.

: >:   I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
: >: while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
: >: are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian. From personal experience
: >
: >I don't know what a "pedistian" is.  Do you mean "pedestrian"?
: >

:   Typical reponse.

I suppose I could have refrained from that comment.  I do think, though,
that careful use of language is useful in this sort of discussion.

:							         Things did not
: get personal and hateful until rec.bicycles.soc somehow got included.

Discussions about actions which cause death and injury tend to be more
impassioned when the victims are included than they are when the
perpetrators are talking only among themselves.  I wouldn't classify
pointing out a spelling error as "hateful".

:   Who's big idea was it to include these children into our party any how?

Name-calling again?  I wasn't aware that it was a private party.
Perhaps I was misled by the fact that it was held on a public forum.

: >: I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
: >: as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
: >: the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.  From the experience of
: >: my ex neighbors mother I know what the results are if the pedistrian in a 
: >: situation like above is unfortunately killed.
: >
: >Well, don't leave us in suspense.  What does your state say?  I assume
: >you mean, "as expressed in its laws", rather than "as expressed in the
: >general opinion of your friends".  And what are the results of such an
: >accident?

:   No, I'm talking about personal experience, complete with lawyers and 
: a nice hike in my insurance.

Again, the insurance hike is not specific to involvement with a cyclist
or a pedestrian.  I am still curious, since you brought it up, to learn
what your state's laws have to say on the subject of collisions
involving pedestrians.

: >:				.. even if all car drivers became 100% good 
: >: drivers who were totally respectful of the bikers, many of the bikers would
: >: still find something to complain about...
: >
: >Try us.

:   I already find you very trying..

My meaning was that you've made a very simple assumption which cannot be
disproven.  I could as easily say that if we could all get along together
then pigs could fly.  You can't judge what cyclists would do unless
you're willing to be respectful of cyclists.

:				     I think I'll just leave you alone now and 
: wait until you fully blossom into this beautiful creature you seem to think
: all bicyclists metamorph into. Perhaps then you can discuss, instead of just
: posting condescending drival.

I actually think that many cyclists are quite irresponsible in their
behavior.  However, the consequences of their irresponsible actions are
far less serious for other road users than are the consequences of the
actions of irresponsible motorists.  I have nowhere argued that
cyclists don't cause accidents, nor that they should not be held
accountable for those which they cause.  I have merely challenged your
claim that cyclists can cause serious injury to motorists by coming
through the windshield in a collision, and criticized your apparent
sympathy for the inconvenience to the motorist in accidents which
result in the death of a cyclist.  My post was intended as discussion;
I'm sorry that you can find no response to it other than name-calling.
If you don't wish to discuss it, that is, of course, your right.  I
won't bother to point out the correct spelling of drivel.

========================
Ken Ferschweiler                         Internet: [email-masked]
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University

---

From: Indian Outlaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:53:55 -0500

A pansy wrote:
> B

Oink, oink.

Brent Vaughan

---

From: [email-masked] (Tigress)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:58:11 -0400

Brad Woods ([email-masked]) wrote:
: KP ([email-masked]) wrote:

: :   At last, we got to my bet peeve. Yes, the cyclist is entitled to the use 
: : of the lane. Quite often around here I'll see a bicycle riding down the 
center
: : of the lane, and while I have to take a deep breath, I wait until it is safe
: : to change lanes to pass them. Actually, this part is OK in my book, if they
: : are right on the edge I may be tempted to pass them when it really is not 
: : safe to do, I don't mind waiting that few extra seconds it usually takes.

: :   BUT, after I've waited for the chance to safely pass and have done so, I
: : end up at a traffic light only to find the biker squeezing between my car
: : and the curb to get back in front of not only me, but the entire line of
: : traffic causing a whole new bottle neck.

: :   How about being stopped at a traffic sign waiting to make a right hand
: : turn? No problems to your right, check to the left, no problem, start to 
make
: : your turn and suddenly you realize that Mr. "I have the same road rights as 
: : you" has decided he can pass you against the curb and run the stop sign.. 
near
: : crunch, and who gets the verbal abuse???? 

: I bicycle and drive.  And where I live there are a fair number of bicyclers.
: I have yet to find an inconsiderate bicycler.  They certainly don't bike down
: the middle of the road for fear of their safety.  Atleast 2 or 3 times a week
: I'll have a close call with a car, or a car will cut me off.

: Also, I have never -- not once in my entire freakin' life, been driving along
: in my car when all of a sudden a bicycler comes whizzing by me and yells
: in my ear "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" or anything like that.
: Further, such a biker would have about zero chance of causing me ANY physical
: damage.  The reverse is not true.

: In otherwords, I have no sympathy for you car-driving pigs.

: B

I've been reading your posts, and from what I gather, you seem to believe
that cyclists should have all rights. I do believe cars should not pass
cyclists an inch away, but I think they should only have the same rights
as cars, not more. Passing cars while they are stopped and running red
lights makes _you_ the dangerous driver.
Yeah cars are more dangerous to you, but _you_ are the one making the danger
by pulling these manuvers. My biggest peeve about cyclists is that I have
not come across one that will not pass all the cars that just passed him,
which is the most stupidest manuver I have seen pulled. You are causing
yourself and the car drivers (by having to pull out into the opposite
lane) more danger by pulling this manuver. And by no rights should a
cyclist be able to pass cars on the right so that he blocks a car that
passed him who wants to turn right. Plus, that is even more danger that
the _cyclist_ creates because the driver of the car turning right may not
expect you to go in front of him or see you (you are small and in his blind
spot). Point is, many times it is not the drivers causing the danger, it is
the cyclists. 

Tigress
-- 
      |\      _,,,---,,_		Tigress
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ 		[email-masked]
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)                cat drawn by: Felix Lee

---

From: Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 12:09:26 -0700

On 13 Jun 1995, BARRACUDA wrote:

> We can all thank Jimmy Carter for these wonderful laws.  I hate 
> cyclists.  I do my best to not hit them or scare them, but I dont go 
> out of my way.  I dont wait untill the left lane is clear to go by 
> them either.
> 
> BARRACUDA
> 

Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.  There,
cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  

      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama      << [email-masked] >>         |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac    << 92 Acura Integra GS-R >>      |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                                           \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright |
                                            *----------------------------*

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles B. Musgrave)
Date: 14 Jun 1995 21:25:15 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]> writes:
|> On 13 Jun 1995, BARRACUDA wrote:
|> 
|> > We can all thank Jimmy Carter for these wonderful laws.  I hate 
|> > cyclists.  I do my best to not hit them or scare them, but I dont go 
|> > out of my way.  I dont wait untill the left lane is clear to go by 
|> > them either.
|> > 
|> > BARRACUDA
|> > 
|> 
|> Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.  There,
|> cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
|> 

Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just learn
to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you...you "driving
maniac".

|> 
|>       |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
|>  |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama      << [email-masked] >>         |
|>  |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
|>  +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac    << 92 Acura Integra GS-R >>      |
|>  | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
|>                                            \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright |
|>                                             *----------------------------*
|> 

Charles

---

From: Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 10:13:47 -0700

Charles B. Musgrave writes:

> Dai F Toyama wrote:
> >
> >Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.
> >There, cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
>  

I can say the exact same thing to the cyclers.  'So you wanna ride on
the carriageway?  Good thinking... so the drivers can run over you?  Just
learn to cycle and the pedestrians won't be such a problem to you.' :-)

      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << [email-masked] >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*

---

From: [email-masked] (Alain Southiere)
Date: 19 Jun 1995 14:12:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...
>
>Frank Hamlin ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: This thread started over in rec.autos.driving.  It makes interesting reading
>: if you think that automobile drivers will respect cyclists and obey the laws
>: if ALL cyclists suddenly become 100 perfect.  Too many automobile
>: drivers consider perfect as OUT OF MY WAY, NO MATTER WHAT I AM DOING
>: WRONG.  
>
>You got that right, Frank.  A lot of lumpheads don't see the imbalance in the
>situation, i.e. a car can easily kill or cripple a person.  A bicycler has
>no such chance against a person in a car.  It boils down to inconsiderate
>driving pigs who think that a few seconds of their time is worth a lot more
>than another human life.

   Yeah, it's true. I wonder why so many cyclists do stupid things such as
to ignore traffic signs when they know they don't stand a chance against
a car... Do they only want to make a big lawsuit or something ?

   Don't get me wrong, I try to co-exist as much as possible with cyclists,
but many seem to do everything to get hit or simply do everything to
annoy car drivers. For instance, in some streets here, we have a cyclist
path just between the road and the sidewalk. But many cyclist still
ride on the road itself instead of the cycle path. The road is narrower
than it was because they built a cycle path, so it's more dangerous for
cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.

   Another example, a bike ignoring a stop sign while riding at 35 mph+.
The car driver does it's stop and slowly starts (after looking on all
sides). The cyclist almost hit the car... And you want to blame the
car driver ? Get real ! If cyclist are to share the same roads as cars,
they should obey the same rules. BTW, I've seen plenty ov cyclist in
infraction of the law, but never saw a police arrest them. Perhaps they
should ?

>N.B.  Anyone who disagrees with the above is either a lying s.o.b. or an
>embecile, just keep that in mind before flaming me.

   So, you're the holder of the holy truth ?

-- 
Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
[email-masked] (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
[email-masked] (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.

---

From: [email-masked] (Frank Hamlin)
Date: 15 Jun 1995 14:40:15 GMT

This thread started over in rec.autos.driving.  It makes interesting reading
if you think that automobile drivers will respect cyclists and obey the laws
if ALL cyclists suddenly become 100 perfect.  Too many automobile
drivers consider perfect as OUT OF MY WAY, NO MATTER WHAT I AM DOING
WRONG.  

--

Frank Hamlin, Santa Rosa Systems, Hewlett Packard      __@ __@  
1400 Fountaingrove Pkwy, Santa Rosa, Calif           _-\<,-\<, 
[email-masked]                                    (*)/---/(*)

---

From: kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:48:35 GMT

: sued... guess who's insurance gets jacked up... and if the biker is killed...

Your insurance will also go up if you hit an automobile whose driver is
completely in the wrong.

: guess who not only suffers all the above but also stands the chance of loosing
: their license, or at a min. being harrassed by the state for several years
: and forced to take periodic driving tests for no reason.  

Try us.

========================

---

From: [email-masked] (Timothy D. Shoppa)
Date: 19 Jun 1995 16:30 PST

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Alain Southiere) writes...
>...

There are a few problems with the cycle paths on the right hand sides of
the road here in Pasadena:

1.  Cars park in them, even if it is illegal to park there.
Actually, this is a big problem on 4-lane
city streets without bike paths as well.  If given a choice between
weaving left and right to avoid cars parked in the bike lane, or
staying to the left of all the parked cars and driving in a safe,
predictable manner, I'll choose the straighter, safer route.

2.  The bike lane often becomes the right-turn lane for cars at
every intersection.  More than once I've been moving at a good clip
down the bike lane when a car slides into the bike lane, and nearly into
me, while preparing for a right turn.

Don't get me wrong; bike lanes are a Good Thing.  We just need the
motorists to realize that bikes use them!  (And to get them to realize
that they can no longer park on the street on Hill between Del Mar and
Colorado here in Pasadena!  I wouldn't notice so much if it wasn't
part of my daily commute...)

Tim. ([email-masked])

---

From: [email-masked] (darien mann)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 04:42:07 GMT

I enjoyed reading this thread. I even own a registered, insured motor
vehicle, although I rarely find a reason to use it. 

On the subject of waiting behind the last car at a red light so that it
won't pass you again later. That would make sense on a two lane road with
great distances between lights. But in the city, a simple joy of cycling
is passing by the HUNDREDS cars stuck at lights. The last in line won't
see you again that day. And you don't have to pass on the right, when
you're moving faster than traffic, just move left all the way to the
centerline if necessary.

---

From: [email-masked] (John Vance)
Date: 19 Jun 1995 21:59:15 GMT

>cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.

It is unfortunate that your community chose to narrow a perfectly good
roadway in order to install a dangerous bicycle sidepath.  It has been
known for more than 20 years that 9 out of 10 bicycle/motor vehicle
accidents are the result of one vehicle turning or crossing the path of
another.  Cyclists using such sidepaths risk collisions with turning motor
vehicles at every driveway, side street, and intersection that the path
crosses.  AASHTO recognizes these dangers, and specifically advises
against the construction of cycle paths parallel to roadways. 
Additionally, such paths make it difficult, if not impossible, for a
cyclist to make a safe and proper left turn. 

I suggest that you contact your city councillor about this dangerous
sidepath.  Tell him that you do not mind sharing the roadway with lawful
cyclists, but that the sidepath narrows the roadway, making it difficult
to pass cyclists who, understandably, do not wish to endanger and
inconvenience themselves by using the sidepath.  Ask that the path be
removed, and the curbside travel lane be widened sufficiently to allow for
easy overtaking of bicyclists (14 feet is considered adequate.)

John Vance

---

From: [email-masked] (Curt Sampson)
Date: 19 Jun 1995 22:02:18 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>cyclists, but they still use the road instead of the safer cycle path.

You're quite right that cyclists shouldn't be ignoring lights, stop 
signs, or any other rules of the road.

As for the path, there may be good reasons for the cyclist to ride on
the street instead. Paths can be quite hazardous due to bad placement,
pedestrians, gravel, glass and the like in them. It would most likely
have been more sensible for the right-hand lane to have been made
wider, rather than putting a path in.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson    [email-masked]		Retrogrouch n. a person who spurns
Internet Portal Services, Ltd.		clipless pedals, and is still dubious
Vancouver, BC   (604) 257-9400		about whether index shifting is a
Info at http://www.portal.ca/		really good idea.

---

From: [email-masked] (RCMoeur)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 15:13:23 -0400

[email-masked] (Brad Woods) did post:
- How about some kind of nation-wide bicyclers group to effect legislative
- reform with regard to road safety?  Mothers against drunk drivers have
been
- fairly successful at tightening-up drunk-driving laws and enforcement.

If I recall correctly, the League of American Bicyclists has been working
toward this goal in cooperation with other traffic safety organizations
over the past few years.

The name for the program is the "Safe Roads Movement". This is named after
the "Good Roads Movement", of which the League was a significant proponent
back in the early 1900s, along with early motoring organizations.

Yes, there is a national effort underway - let's hope it is as effective
as
MADD and other groups.

* Richard C. Moeur        P.E.,  E.C.I.,  N7WTB,  whatever...
* Practicing Traffic Engineer (I'll get it right someday...)
* Phoenix, Arizona, USA
* "Hit it with the hammer, Big Ed! No, the hammer! That's a wrench,
* that long thingie's a hammer..." - Animaniacs, "Ups & Downs"
* The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
* any organization to which I may be affiliated, grouped,
* or linked by incriminating evidence. Necessarily, that is.
:9

---

From: [email-masked] (Techs Avery)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 01:08:53 GMT

Dai F Toyama ([email-masked]) wrote:

: Charles B. Musgrave writes:

: > Dai F Toyama wrote:
: > >
: > >Agreed.  This is one of the few things that I like about Japan.
: > >There, cyclists have to go on the pavement (aka 'sidewalk').  
: >  
: > Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just learn
: > to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you...you "driving
: > maniac".
: > 

: I can say the exact same thing to the cyclers.  'So you wanna ride on
: the carriageway?  Good thinking... so the drivers can run over you?  Just
: learn to cycle and the pedestrians won't be such a problem to you.' :-)

In almost ever state in the US, it is ILLEGAL for bicyclists, even 
juveniles, to ride on the sidewalk. And the ticket goes on your DMV 
record and is counted by insurance companies. If your bicycle is on the 
sidewalk, you are supposed to walk it.

Go figure.

:       |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
:  |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << [email-masked] >>     |
-- 
Techs Avery
[email-masked]

---

From: Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 07:25:55 -0700

On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Techs Avery wrote:

> : > Good thinking...so the cyclists can run over the pedestrians? Just
> : > learn to drive and the cyclists won't be such a problem to you... 
> : > "you driving maniac".
> 
> : the carriageway?  Good thinking... so the drivers can run over you?  
> : just learn to cycle and the pedestrians won't be such a problem to 
> : you.' :-)
> 

I suggest that you read my original statement above.  That's why I like
it better in Japan in this respect --- the cyclists MUST ride on the
'sidewalk' there, where there is one.  I'm not saying which method is
better; it's just that I'd much prefer the Japanese way in this sense.

Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists to ride on
the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know the reason behind it.

---

From: [email-masked] (Steph Greenberg)
Date: 20 Jun 1995 20:30:35 GMT

Geoff Miller ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]> asks:
: > Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists
: > to ride on the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know
: > the reason behind it.
: Presumably because cyclists are more likely to run into pedestrians
: when they ride on the sidewalk, since there are no pedestrians on
: the street for them to hit.

: You know, this has given me the germ of an idea.  I suspect that the
: reason for the inferiority complexes from which so many cyclists 
: seem to suffer might be that they perceive themselves to be at the
: bottom of the pecking order, transportation-wise.  Maybe if it's

That is, if you assume that bicyclists don't have cars. Most do, and are 
riding for exercise. Get a job using computers every day and you'll 
understand by the time your 25.

: food chain from somebody else -- pedestrians -- they'll acquire the
: self esteem necessary to enable them to ride without getting in the
: way of motorized traffic.  And as a bonus, this newfound self esteem
: might just imbue them with the inner strength necessary to allow them

In Los Angeles, the bicyclists carry guns. Especially junior high school kids.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg                       
[email-masked]           "Every Friday is a prelude to Monday." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Jun 1995 21:27:45 GMT

Geoff,
     Apparently the smell of gasoline fumes has affected that tiny 
little brain of yours. As a bicyclist, I do not consider myself inferior 
to anyone using any other type of transportation. On the contrary, I 
consider myself superior to people such as yourself who have no respect 
for the rights of others. These rights include the right to choose a 
source of transportation that uses no fossil fuels, provides one with a 
great amount of cardiovascular exercise, and allows our brains to 
develop to the point where we don't feel the need to "smear the road" 
with anybody. I hope your not the next one to mow down an innocent 
cyclist. Your attitude will surely result in your conviction.

---

From: [email-masked] (Steph Greenberg)
Date: 20 Jun 1995 20:45:09 GMT

Dai F Toyama ([email-masked]) wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Techs Avery wrote:
: > 
: > In almost ever state in the US, it is ILLEGAL for bicyclists, even 
: > juveniles, to ride on the sidewalk. And the ticket goes on your DMV 
: > record and is counted by insurance companies. If your bicycle is on the 
: > sidewalk, you are supposed to walk it.
: > 

: I suggest that you read my original statement above.  That's why I like
: it better in Japan in this respect --- the cyclists MUST ride on the
: 'sidewalk' there, where there is one.  I'm not saying which method is
: better; it's just that I'd much prefer the Japanese way in this sense.

It's pretty inconvenient to go on and off the curb every 75 meters, which 
is the average block length. I can just picture all those cylists on busy 
downtown steets in Tokyo with all of those pedestrians packed shoulder to 
shoulder!

: Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists to ride on
: the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know the reason behind it.

Elderly pedestrians have a great deal of political clout in local elections.
They fear young whippersnappers on those newfangled two wheeled monstrosities!

---

From: [email-masked] (KP)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 09:21:38 -0400

I am very happy for you.

- jim

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:27:00 GMT

This is not true.

---

From: [email-masked] (KP)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 13:31:56 -0400

- jim

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 19:24:49 GMT

California.

---

From: Indian Outlaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:59:43 -0500

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 22:06:29 GMT

---

From: "Ion C. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 17:33:41 -0700

---

From: [email-masked] (KP)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 16:06:49 -0400

---

From: kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 23:54:36 GMT

:   Typical reponse.

:							         Things did not

========================

---

From: [email-masked] (Tigress)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:58:11 -0400

: B

Tigress

---

From: kennino@"cs.orst.edu" (Ken Ferschweiler)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:48:35 GMT

Try us.

========================

---

From: Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 12:09:26 -0700

---

From: Indian Outlaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:53:55 -0500

Oink, oink.

Brent Vaughan

---

From: Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 10:13:47 -0700

---

From: [email-masked] (Frank Hamlin)
Date: 15 Jun 1995 14:40:15 GMT

--

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles B. Musgrave)
Date: 14 Jun 1995 21:25:15 GMT

|> 

Charles

---

From: [email-masked] (Geoff Miller)
Date: 20 Jun 1995 19:08:50 GMT

Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]> asks:

> Do you have any idea as to why it's illegal for the cyclists
> to ride on the 'sidewalk' in most US states?  I'd like to know
> the reason behind it.

Presumably because cyclists are more likely to run into pedestrians
when they ride on the sidewalk, since there are no pedestrians on
the street for them to hit.

You know, this has given me the germ of an idea.  I suspect that the
reason for the inferiority complexes from which so many cyclists 
seem to suffer might be that they perceive themselves to be at the
bottom of the pecking order, transportation-wise.  Maybe if it's
made more widely known that the reason why they're required to ride
on the street is because they're essentially a notch farther up the
food chain from somebody else -- pedestrians -- they'll acquire the
self esteem necessary to enable them to ride without getting in the
way of motorized traffic.  And as a bonus, this newfound self esteem
might just imbue them with the inner strength necessary to allow them
to outgrow those silly little helmets with the dentists' mirrors on
them.

Geoff "and perhaps eventually, the goofy Spandex shorts" Miller

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
         "I smear the road with bicycles." -- Phillip J. Birmingham
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

---

From: [email-masked] (John Vance)
Date: 19 Jun 1995 21:59:15 GMT

John Vance

---

From: [email-masked] (Alain Southiere)
Date: 19 Jun 1995 14:12:08 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (darien mann)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 04:42:07 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (RCMoeur)
Date: 16 Jun 1995 15:13:23 -0400

---

From: [email-masked] (Geoff Miller)
Date: 20 Jun 1995 19:08:50 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Steph Greenberg)
Date: 20 Jun 1995 20:30:35 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Steph Greenberg)
Date: 20 Jun 1995 20:45:09 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Curt Sampson)
Date: 19 Jun 1995 22:02:18 GMT

cjs

---

From: [email-masked] (Timothy D. Shoppa)
Date: 19 Jun 1995 16:30 PST

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Jun 1995 21:27:45 GMT

Geoff,

---

From: [email-masked] (Techs Avery)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 01:08:53 GMT

: > Dai F Toyama wrote:
: > >

Go figure.

---

From: Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 07:25:55 -0700

---

From: tony@sebastian (Antonio S. Esporma )
Date: 21 Jun 1995 23:37:38 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Tom Holub) writes:
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>Steph Greenberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
>)
>)I can't believe you actually advocate side by side riding. This is 
>)unbelievably rude.
>
>Certainly no ruder than driving a car.
>
<snip>

>Please explain why riding double-file makes things "more dangerous for
>everyone."  It makes it safer for the cyclist, certainly, and I fail to
>see how it creates hazards for the motorist.
>
>Remember that two cyclists ahead of you will *always* slow you down *less*
>than two cars; you wait a few seconds, at most, then you pass them and
>get right back into the same road position you were in before (except, of
>course, that two other road users are behind you).
> -Tom

(1) In my home city, Irvine, the previous mayor, Agran, a socialist of the two 
    wheel kind, endowed all of our major streets with wide bicycle lanes.

(2) However, Agran (he of New York bust fame) also realized that the good
    bourgois citizens of the city would not tolerate our motor vehicles 
    slowed by pedal pushing zealots so he passed a law prohibiting side by 
    side riding and riding outside of the bicycle lane.  Fair enough as the 
    lanes are wide most such local riders agreed.

(3) Well, wouldn't you know, some politically concious activist-wannabes 
    from the hallowed grounds of the University of  California at Irvine 
    decided to upturn the law by organizing some mass rides using 'Le Peloton'
    style a la Tour de France.

(4) Naturally, our fascist police, smelling overtime and free donuts, 
    arranged to swell the coffers of the city rather handsomly during these 
    running dog reactionary neo marxist rides.

(5) Needless to say, UCI students and faculty returned to their ivory towers,
    Larry Agran got ousted from the Irvine Taj Majal (City Hall) and the city
    is now once again suffering from cash starvation.

(6) So please, please come on down to Irvine and ride in double file.  You
    need not worry about Bubba in a pickup, but bring you VISA (American 
    Express too) 'cause the flashing lights  behind you will make sure that
    our parks are well maintained and that the donut shops are kept in the
    black.

Thanks 
tony

PS: Don't bother with your helmets either......

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 20:20:16 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Robert S. Jenkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
)
)Well I will tell you what I think,(let me first say I too ride a bike, I
)also ride a motorcycle).
)To begin with car owners are the ones who pay for the upkeep of the roads and 
)highways with the tax on gas, now I as a car owner am paying for you to
)have a road to drive on, no you should not have extra rights.

Actually, roads are heavily subsidized from the general funds (various 
statistics posted for various states in rec.bicycles.soc within the last
couple weeks if you need to verify), therefore car owners are *not* paying
for the upkeep of the roads.

I personally don't think bicycles should have "extra" rights.  However, I
personally believe bicycles are not, in reality, granted the rights they
legally should have.
 -Tom

---

From: [email-masked] (Steph Greenberg)
Date: 21 Jun 1995 23:45:01 GMT

Roger Marquis ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Steph Greenberg ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >While I ride my bike for anything under 5 miles (daylight hours), I'm on 
: >the side of r.a.d. posters. You arrogant jerks are making riding more 
: >dangerous for everyone, simply by declaring yourself more environmentally 
: >friendly and thereby advocating behavior that angers and frustrates 
: >people who need to transport themselves from one destination to another 
: >in a car.

: Thanks Steph, for the excellent example of rudeness and aggression.
: You have my sympathies too.  If I had to drive in the smog and traffic
: of LA I'd probably be a road-hogging, hot under the collar,
: hyper-aggressive driver too.

Well, the smog isn't as bad as it used to be when I was growning up here, 
even though we have 3 times the population. I thank the EPA, may they 
continue their success. The traffic . . . well you have no idea what that 
does to your brain.

: And no, while I do probably put in more time cycling than driving I do
: not advocate riding double file unless there's enough room for
: motorists to pass or the group is very large.  In the first case (room
: to pass) some drivers don't feel they should have to cross the
: center-line to pass (is this lazy or what?) and in the second (large
: group) it's often easier to pass a short-wide group of cyclists than a
: long-skinny group.

OK, let's take this tack: If you are going to occupy a lane, it is 
illegal to double up, at least here in California. Also, I hope you're 
not advocating motorists crossing double yellow lines to pass cyclists. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that road construction funds in the US 
largely come from gasoline taxes. In a technical sense the roads belong 
to motorists.

I suspect that people who commute largely by bicycle, but also drive 
sometimes are more aware of what's going on than those who commute solely 
by bicycle or occasionally use bicycles for pleasure or exercise. It's an 
unfortunate fact of life that anyone can bike just by plunking down their 
money, and it doesn't take much more to drive.

: Roger Marquis

---

From: [email-masked] (D. Dale Gulledge)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 21:08:20 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Brad Woods) writes:

   How about some kind of nation-wide bicyclers group to effect legislative
   reform with regard to road safety?  Mothers against drunk drivers have been
   fairly successful at tightening-up drunk-driving laws and enforcement.
   Well, why not BADD: Bikers (Bicyclers if you wish) Against Dangerous Drivers?
   The first law could be federal zero-tolerance for car phone, i.e. use one
   and lose your car and license.  Car phones are a lot more dangerous to a biker
   or pedestrian than a joint.  The guy that hit me (he was turning right at a red
   light was on his car phone, but didn't smell like he had been smoking-out or
   drinking.

I have the same feeling about this that I have about the annual flurry of
legislative activity called the federal crime bill.  I don't honestly think
that our country is badly in need of new laws.  We simply need enforcement of
the existing ones.  When a car hits a bike and the driver is at fault, charges
should be filed and the sentencing should be no different than when a car hits
another car.  Too often, this is not the case.

   I'm dead serious here, folk.  Anyone who has been hit by a car while on their
   bike or knows someone else who has knows what I mean.

   I bike to work most every day (I'm lucky, I live in SoCal).  I help to keep
   the level of air polution down, I help to lower the amount of traffic, I
   help to keep the demand, hence price of gas down, AND if I should hit anyone
   (which I haven't done yet in about 14 years of heavy bike-riding) I will
   not kill or cripple them, SO I want some respect and some rights on the
   road.

I'm rather proud of being in my 6th summer of bicycle commuting.  I consider
the fact that my Motobecane is on its 3rd saddle and just had its bottom
bracket worked over to be badges of honor.  I earned those with lots of
peddling in three cities.  I'm happy to say that the majority of drivers I
meet share the road rather amiably.  But the respect that I deserve is not
earned by doing anyone else a favor.  My taxes help to pay for the road I am
using.  Like every driver and pedestrian on it, I am entitled to use it within
the constraints set down by law to maintain safety.  As long as I stay under
the speed limit, right of center, signal properly and so forth, I have as much
right to a piece of the road as anyone else doing the same.

- Dale
--
'95 bicycle commuting season: 45 days, 370 km
Weather today: cold, drizzle, overcast.  Of course I rode to work!
--
[email-masked], D. Dale Gulledge, Software Engineer, Northern Telecom,
Directory & Operator Services, 97 Humboldt St., Rochester, NY 14609

---

From: [email-masked] (Steph Greenberg)
Date: 21 Jun 1995 23:45:01 GMT

: Roger Marquis

---

From: [email-masked] (Thomas H. Kunich)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 04:07:25 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>    our parks are well maintained and that the donut shops are kept in the

Sounds really interesting there Tony. Another point is that it is strictly
counter to state and local driving regulations that have priority.
Maybe Bill King will institute a law suit down there after he's through
kicking some butts up in Pleasanton. Irvine sounds like it has some
really wealthy taxpayers that are ripe for the picking.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 21:29:40 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Antonio S. Esporma  <tony@sebastian> wrote:
)
)Besides, double file riding is against California law anyhow.

Exactly how many times do I have to explain that double-file riding is not
against California law?  Please cite the relevant code if you have 
information that I don't.

)  How would
)you feel if after spending tons of money to build all those wide bicycle 
)lanes, bicyclists decided to ignore them and ride on the car lanes?

I would feel that maybe I should have listened to the cyclists who were
telling them than bike lanes are not reasonable solutions for bicyclists.

)IMHO, if I can get a ticket for driving on a bicycle lane, then bicyclists
)should also get a ticket when they ride outside of the lane (when not making
)a turn that is...). 

Which is why smart bicyclists don't want bike lanes; it is safest when
cyclists have full rights to use the roads, and people who want bikes in
bike lanes want to curtail our rights.  Bike lanes exist because CAR
DRIVERS WANT BIKES OUT OF THE WAY, not because bicyclists want bike lanes.

)They are designed to safely segregate the traffic,

It is not possible to safely segregate traffic by vehicle type.
 -Tom

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Gentry)
Date: 22 Jun 1995 19:20:16 GMT

Tom Holub ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>,
: KP <[email-masked]> wrote:
: )In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Brad Woods) writes:
: )
: ) Its not uncommon for them critters to come flying through the     
: )windshield.. BUT, there are other ways of suffering damage. EVEN if you are
: )in the wrong (I know thats impossible because ONLY car drivers can be in the
: )wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
: )all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
: )guess who gets to pay the medical bills.

: The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.

Please tell me in what states a bicyclist is required to carry liability 
insurance.

: ) Guess who stands the chance of getting
: )sued...

: If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.

: )  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
: )while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
: )are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.

: This is not true.

: ) From personal experience
: )I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
: )as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
: )the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.

: This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
: See 21950(b):

: 21950.  (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
: a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
: within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
: provided in this chapter.
:    (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
: from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
: shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
: into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
: immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
: traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
:  -Tom

I'm sorry Tom, but you're point falls a little short of the mark.  Yes, 
the law still perceives the cyclist as a vehicle, but the insurance 
companies don't.  Therefore the driver's liability insurance pays for any 
and all medical bills incurred even at the fault of the cyclist.  On top 
of which, becuase the cyclist doesn't carry liablity, any damage 
occurring to the car is paid for by the drivers collision insurance.  No 
matter what in this situation, the driver pays.

BTW I commute daily by bicycle.  I have no overt love for commuting by 
car, buy I don't hate them either.  I just hate the drivers.  Just like 
the computer, it is not the machine that creates or causes a problem, it 
is the person who is operating it.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 00:01:18 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Tom Gentry <[email-masked]> wrote:
)Tom Holub ([email-masked]) wrote:
): In article <[email-masked]>,
): KP <[email-masked]> wrote:
): )wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
): )all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
): )guess who gets to pay the medical bills.
)
): The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.
)
)Please tell me in what states a bicyclist is required to carry liability 
)insurance.

None.  Most probably carry health insurance, however, which is likely what 
would pay for the medical bills in an accident where the cyclist was at
fault.

)I'm sorry Tom, but you're point falls a little short of the mark.  Yes, 
)the law still perceives the cyclist as a vehicle,

Actually, that's not strictly true in many states (including mine).

) but the insurance 
)companies don't.  Therefore the driver's liability insurance pays for any 
)and all medical bills incurred even at the fault of the cyclist.

You've provided an assertion.  I've provided law.  I suggest, if you want
to argue that the law is not followed by the insurance companies, that you
provide some proof.

)  On top 
)of which, becuase the cyclist doesn't carry liablity, any damage 
)occurring to the car is paid for by the drivers collision insurance. 

The driver can sue the cyclist for damages if the cyclist is at fault.
 -Tom

---

From: [email-masked] (Lyle Seaman)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 12:22:35 GMT

> largely come from gasoline taxes. In a technical sense the roads belong 

1.  Road construction funds in the US largely come from the federal
government, and are thus funded by deficit spending.  In a technical
sense, the roads belong to your unborn offspring.

2. The larger portion of road and fuel taxes are paid by trucking
companies. Those costs are passed on to consumers.  In a technical
sense, the roads belong to purchasers of produce and furniture.

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Augenstein)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 21:12:34 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Tom Holub) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
>Subject: Re: Driving Pet Peeves
>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 02:39:29 GMT

>In article <[email-masked]>,
>Bruce Augenstein  <[email-masked]> wrote:

Tons of stuff that basically shows neither party can get a grip on the other 
party's viewpoint. 

Last paragraph from Tom........
>The basic stuff like the law, I already understand.  The basic stuff like
>the fact that motorists don't respect the law, or the cyclist's right to
>travel, I also understand.  What *you* fail to understand is that motorists
>are *wrong* to disrespect the law and the cyclist's right to travel.

Tom, any motorist who respects the law is a danger to his or her fellow 
drivers. Motorists know the speed laws are ridiculous, and drive accordingly. 
We have a tradition dating back to before the revolution that we'll openly 
disobey laws we consider unfair, or those that make no sense. There is no 
better example than our roadways, where most motorists drive at the speeds 
they feel safe at, and, to *be* safe, one should drive at the prevailing 
speeds. For you to say motorists are "*wrong*" (your emphasis) is only useful 
stuff if you're running for office. Any reasonable individual  who drives 
knows what is safe and what isn't. What is "safe" is generally 10 to 15 mph 
over the limit. If you go the limit, you're an obstruction, and it's plain to 
anybody out on the roadways that people going the speed limit are a menace to 
the other 99.9% of us.

It isn't that anybody objects to cyclists. We object to anyone who is an 
obstruction.

I am stating absolute facts as regards human nature and the motorist. Right or 
wrong isn't the issue. How people will react pretty much ten times out of ten 
*is* the issue.

As a cyclist, if you insist on equal rights to road use, you will get 
statistically killed, or cause someone else (typically a motorist) to be 
to be statistically killed.

Many cyclists quote the law under these circumstances, which is just so much 
silliness when we all know exactly what goes on out on the roads, why people 
get killed, and why speed differential is so much a part of this.

Bruce

---

From: tony@sebastian (Antonio S. Esporma )
Date: 23 Jun 1995 00:09:40 GMT

>Antonio S. Esporma  <tony@sebastian> wrote:
<snip, snip... we're talking about bicycle lanes now!!>

>It is not possible to safely segregate traffic by vehicle type.

But, it is possible to segregate the usenet groups.  This thread has gotten
really stupid.  In the future, we'd all be better off if you took your 
discussions into your bicycle group and we kept ours in the autos group.

It is obvious that this is becoming an ad hominen threat.  We don't see
DOS folks crossposting on Mac groups to tell them that they are full of it,
nor viceversa, do we?

Since we all are converted in our ways, lets keep our churches equal and
separate and from now lets remove the crossposting from this thread.

We'll keep our driving pet peeves and you'll get your riding pet peeves.  Does
any one remember who was the idiot that crossposted this thead?  I'd like
to put him in my kill file.

thanks

tony

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 04:45:00 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Bruce Augenstein <[email-masked]> wrote:
)>The basic stuff like the law, I already understand.  The basic stuff like
)>the fact that motorists don't respect the law, or the cyclist's right to
)>travel, I also understand.  What *you* fail to understand is that motorists
)>are *wrong* to disrespect the law and the cyclist's right to travel.
)
)Tom, any motorist who respects the law is a danger to his or her fellow 
)drivers. Motorists know the speed laws are ridiculous, and drive accordingly. 

How exactly do motorists "know" this?  Why is the person who is obeying
the law the one who is creating the danger?  If your speed is too high to
safely share the road with all reasonable road users (including bicyclists),
then your speed IS TOO HIGH.

)It isn't that anybody objects to cyclists. We object to anyone who is an 
)obstruction.

I object to anyone who insists on driving 10MPH over the speed limit, and
the law agrees with me.

)As a cyclist, if you insist on equal rights to road use, you will get 
)statistically killed, or cause someone else (typically a motorist) to be 
)to be statistically killed.

Actually, riding on the roads, using the vehicular rules of the road, is
the safest way known to cycle.

)Many cyclists quote the law under these circumstances, which is just so much 
)silliness when we all know exactly what goes on out on the roads, why people 
)get killed, and why speed differential is so much a part of this.

Please provide some statistics which show that speed differential is so
much a part of people getting killed on the roads.
 -Tom

---

From: [email-masked] (Timothy J. Lee)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:04:41 GMT

[email-masked] (Bruce Augenstein) writes:
[email-masked] (Tom Holub) writes:
|>The basic stuff like the law, I already understand.  The basic stuff like
|>the fact that motorists don't respect the law, or the cyclist's right to
|>travel, I also understand.  What *you* fail to understand is that motorists
|>are *wrong* to disrespect the law and the cyclist's right to travel.
|
|Tom, any motorist who respects the law is a danger to his or her fellow 
|drivers. Motorists know the speed laws are ridiculous, and drive accordingly. 

_Some_ speed limits in the USA are ridiculous, others are not.

|                                    Any reasonable individual  who drives 
|knows what is safe and what isn't.

Unfortunately, most motorists have such poor driving skills that they
often do not realize what is safe and what is not.  Here are some dangerous
driving habits that I see often:

*  Following too closely.  It is common to see one car length following
   distances on highways.  Seems like this is an easy way to turn a two
   car crash into a multi car crash.
*  Right of way confusion at stop signs.
*  Merging too slowly onto a highway.
*  Passing in the right lane or going slowly in the left lane on a highway.
*  Weaving through traffic even when it is obvious that such action is
   probably futile due to heavy traffic.
*  Not adjusting driving for weather conditions (rain, fog, etc.).

You should also realize that cyclists are generally easy to pass safely,
and they contribute far less to traffic jams (i.e. delays) than additional
cars would, since they take up much less room and can often use road space
that a car cannot use (e.g. sharing a lane with a car).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee                                        [email-masked]
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

---

From: [email-masked] (Bob English)
Date: 23 Jun 1995 18:04:29 GMT

Bruce Augenstein ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Any reasonable individual  who drives knows what is safe and what isn't.

Actually, that isn't true.  Personal experience is not an effective
teacher when it comes to safety.

Suppose, for example, that you consider one automobile/pedestrian
accident per driver-career to be an acceptable accident rate.  It is
unlikely that someone who has driven 20 years will have accumulated
enough experience to know whether their driving practices will achieve
that accident rate.  If you don't think that every driver should expect
to hit a pedestrian, then several lifetimes may not give enough
experience to make accurate judgements.

The vast majority of drivers consider themselves to be "above average"
(myself included :-)).  Yet most drivers have at least one collision
during their life.  Because the obstacles they most frequently encounter
are other cars (with drivers similarly armored), the consequences are
muted.  Road users who aren't armored (like me) find protestations of
safety from roadway users who regularly collide with other users of the
roadway less than reassuring, because the safety records of drivers
suggest that they will collide with us at least once in _our_ lifetime.

When I ride to work (typically 7-20 miles), I typically have to take
evasive action two or three times to avoid being struck by a car backing
out of a driveway, running a stop sign, making an unsafe left turn, etc.
This has become so normal for me that I don't even get upset about it.
It is so common that I would be hard-pressed to tell you how many times
it happens during any single ride.

--bob--

---

From: "Steven Miale" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:21:20 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, Tom Holub <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Look, the speed limit is supposed to be a *limit*.  There's nothing rude
>about travelling under the speed limit, on a bike *or* in a car.

So does that mean it is OK for me to go, say, 1mph on a road?

Let me explain why *I* don't like double-file bikes. Take the town I live
in - Charlottesville. Most of the roads are wide and no-passing. The roads
are wide enough such that, if I am behind a bike and wish to pass, I can
pull over a bit and do so, without entering the other lane, without coming
within inches of the bike, and without affecting any cars going in the
opposite direction. 

However, if those bikers are double-file, then I cannot pass (since the
road is marked no-passing.) And even if I could pass, I'd have to wait
for a lack of cars in the opposite direction, etc.

So it's easier for me to pass bikes going single-file.

Steve
-- 
Steven Miale  <http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/smiale.html>

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Holub)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 15:23:29 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Steven Miale <[email-masked]> wrote:
)In article <[email-masked]>, Tom Holub <[email-masked]> wrote:
)>Look, the speed limit is supposed to be a *limit*.  There's nothing rude
)>about travelling under the speed limit, on a bike *or* in a car.
)
)So does that mean it is OK for me to go, say, 1mph on a road?

It means it's OK for you to use any reasonable method of transportation
on the roads.  That include bicycling and even walking if no sidewalk
exists.  It is not legal to intentionally block traffic, but if for some
reason you were limited to 1MPH, you would still have a right to travel and
hence a right to use the road.
 -Tom

---

From: Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 09:14:10 -0700

On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Tom Holub wrote:

> In article <[email-masked]>,
> )OK, let's take this tack: If you are going to occupy a lane, it is 
> )illegal to double up, at least here in California.
> 
> No, it is not.  If you believe differently, please cite the relevant code.
> 

A simple question.  If it's not illegal to double up, could two motor-
cycles go parallel to each other on a lane?  What about if a motorbike
tries to sneak through the heavy traffic jam?  I thought they were both
illegal in this country.  And if they are in fact illegal, should they
not be applied to bicycles also?

Thanks and regards,

---

From: [email-masked] (Siddarth Subramanian)
Date: 23 Jun 1995 12:17:16 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>,
Dai F Toyama  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>cycles go parallel to each other on a lane?  

This might vary from state to state, but here in Texas, I know that
two motorcycles can share a lane by mutual consent.

>What about if a motorbike
>tries to sneak through the heavy traffic jam?  

This does vary from state to state.  I know it's illegal here, but
it's legal in the LA area (don't know about the rest of CA).

>I thought they were both

Like I said it's not illegal, so the question doesn't apply.  The
interesting thing is that you didn't ask if it was legal for a car to
sneak past a cyclist within a lane, since it would be illegal to sneak
past a motorcyclist or another car (if the lane were *that* wide).  In
most states there are explicit exceptions to the lane laws that permit
a vehicle to pass a bike within a lane if it is safe to do so.  By
default, however, a bike still has the right to a lane.

-- 
Siddarth Subramanian   http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/siddarth
mailto:[email-masked]
Austin, Texas, USA

---

From: [email-masked] (Joshua_Putnam)
Date: 23 Jun 1995 19:08:09 GMT

>not be applied to bicycles also?

First, I'll note up front that I'm in Washington, not California,
so your mileage may vary: traffic laws are a state matter, not
federal.

Second, there are many regulations that apply only to motor
vehicles, not vehicles in general.  A law that applies only to
motor vehicles, e.g. motorcycles, does not apply to non-motor
vehicles, e.g. bicycles, horse carts, etc.

Third, specific legislative action in many states specifically
permits cyclists to ride two-abreast on public roadways, e.g.

RCW 46.61.770  Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. 
  (2)  Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride 
more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set 
aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Fourth, note that this rule does not grant the cyclists exemption
from any other rules of the road, such as:

RCW 46.61.427  Slow moving vehicle to pull off roadway.  
  On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of 
traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow 
moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed 
in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area 
for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles 
following to proceed.  As used in this section a slow moving 
vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less 
than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and 
place.

--

[email-masked]  is  Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
                     "My other bike is a car."                   
 Bike parts for sale: finger [email-masked] for list.

---

From: [email-masked] (Carson Kaan)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 18:28:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Steph

> largely come from gasoline taxes. In a technical sense the roads belong 

This is a truly silly argument.  Along this line of inane reasoning . . . 
Schools in the US are largely funded by property taxes, therefore people
who don't own property shouldn't be allowed to send their kids to school. 
Local roads, sidewalks and bridges (at least in Seattle) are largely funded
by local property and sales taxes, therefore motorists, pedestrians, the
homeless, etc who don't own property should likewise be kicked off of them.
 And if they need police services, or get in an accident and have to be
take to the county hospital, likewise, since the gas tax doesn't pay for
any of these things.  And let's not forget the gasoline itself, the supply
of which is insured by the carrier task force we have kept near the Persian
Gulf for the past 20 years  --  motorists who don't pay significant amounts
of income taxes should have not be allowed to buy gasoline.  And on and on
and on . . .

As for the premise that gas taxes pay for road construction and
maintenance, it isn't even true.  For instance, the last time I was in the
Bay Area (1/95), there were all these signs on I280 stating that
"Construction paid for by proposition A  --  your tax dollars at work",
with proposition A being a .5% sales tax increase.  Why the voters would
increase their sales tax to pay for freeway construction mystifies me, but
then, the car religion is the US is pretty strong and the auto and oil
industries do spend billions of dollars every year on advertising to
brainwash the American public.

Carson

---

From: [email-masked] (Steph Greenberg)
Date: 24 Jun 1995 17:53:04 GMT

Casey Kobyluk ~ ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Roger Marquis ([email-masked]) wrote:

: > And no, while I do probably put in more time cycling than driving I do
: > not advocate riding double file unless there's enough room for
: > motorists to pass or the group is very large.

: I believe Roger and Steph are both from California.  California has a law
: against riding double file.  Bicyclists are only allowed to be side by side
: when one is passing the other.  Also, California requires motorists on
: freeways to stay to the right unless they are passing some one.  As a
: motorist (I also bicycle) I am delayed by slow cars in the fast lane almost
: every day; it has been months since I was delayed by a bicycle.

: The opinions expressed are my own, and are not meant to represent
: the views of my employer.  Casey Kobyluk ([email-masked])

I'm not concerned with delays caused by bicycles. I'm worried about 
bicyclist's safty, my own in particular. I remember how angry I was when 
these two shitheads on Haight Street in SF were riding side by side in 
such a way that they couldn't be passed without crossing the 2bl yellow. 
I wanted to kill them. Really. When I'm riding my bike, I don't want some 
driver remembering his/her similar experience, because they might take it 
out on me.

Side by side riding, when it forces cars to queue up behind you, is rude 
and dangerous. And it endangers people who may be totally innocent of 
double riding. 

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg              "No one lies in their deathbed wishing          
[email-masked]            that they'd spent more time at work."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Brad Anders)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 21:38:25 GMT

>driver remembering his/her similar experience, because they might take it 

Steph, it's drivers with attitudes like yours ("I wanted to kill them. Really.")
that have formed my entire philosophy about riding in traffic. I just assume
they're all like you, and that some act of mine, legal (like riding two 
abreast) or perhaps illegal, will set them off. I make sure that they have as
little opportunity to put their thoughts into action as possible. Thanks for
reminding me that guys like you are out there.

-- 
*******************************************************************************
* Brad Anders / Sunnyvale CA * ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ba/banders/index.html *
*     [email-masked]     * ---------------------------------------------- *
*******************************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Henri R Helanto)
Date: 25 Jun 95 00:12:14 GMT

Chris Newman <[email-masked]> writes:

<snip>
>with anybody.

	I personally prefer not to stink like sh*t when I arrive hence
	I drive a car. Go get your cardiovascular excercise at a gym
	or at a dojo and preferably not in rec.autos.driving. Thank you.
	(And 'superiority' is a nice thing, a couple of my friends who
	drive trailer trucks have told me nice stories about bicyclists
	who have genuinely believed that they're superior to a 90-ton
	Kenworth ;-)

-Henri
-- 
######  Henri Helanto         ###  [email-masked] / [email-masked]  
#####  Architecture Major    ####  Nissan Skyline GT-R 'Janspeed Special'
####  Net Admin             #####  '71 LS-6 454 Corvette Coupe
###  Sports Car Enthusiast ######  Fiat Uno Turbo - 'AARGH! Front wheel drive!'

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Augenstein)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 23:36:28 GMT

>then your speed IS TOO HIGH.

They know this because they can all take curves at a minimum 50% over the 
posted speed without anyone in the car becoming uncomfortable. They know this 
because they tend to drive in a way that makes them feel safe and in control 
of the vehicle, and when they look at the speedometer it's at minimum 10 or 15 
mph over the posted limit. They know this because the speed limits on major 
roadways used to be 10 or 15 mph higher than they are now.

The person obeying the law is creating the danger in a way that has been 
already explained. To recap, it's because they're an obstruction, because 
the other 99.9% of us are speeding, and we're speeding because we know 
we're still safe while doing so, except for the people who either 
shouldn't be out there because they can't go with the flow, or those who 
are making a statement. 

I agree that our speeds are "TOO HIGH" to share the roads safely with 
cyclists. They're not going to change anytime soon.

Tom, you asked because you wish to argue the point. I am *not* taking a stand 
here. I am reporting the facts. I don't give the south end of a north 
facing rat about arguing the point. If you'd like to win an argument, 
fine. Consider yourself the victor. 

You, of course, *are* taking a stand, and  that's fine with me, but stop 
making this an argument.

>)It isn't that anybody objects to cyclists. We object to 
anyone who is an >)obstruction.

>I object to anyone who insists on driving 10MPH over the speed limit, and
Tom, as I 've already explained, we don't care about the law that you care 
about. Your objection to 99.9% of the driving population is duly noted.

>the safest way known to cycle.
This doesn't address the point in any way that I can see. The fact that 
cyclists can get hurt or killed more often while driving on the sidewalks 
doesn't mean that mixing cyclists and motorists is in any way safe.

>much a part of people getting killed on the roads.

Sorry, I have none, and wouldn't quote them if I did, since they're so easily 
skewed. However, if you'd care to delve into any auto safety reports from 
NHTSA or even the insurance nazis (IIHS, et al), they'll all make the same 
point over and over about speed differential.

See a back issue of Car & Driver (sometime in '94) quoting some NHTSA folks, 
or go directly to NHTSA.

Speed differential is an absolute linchpin of most published safety reports.

Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Augenstein)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 23:51:50 GMT

>teacher when it comes to safety.
stuff cut..........
>suggest that they will collide with us at least once in _our_ lifetime.

Let's assume two, or even three, accidents in a lifetime. I would not equate 
this with being above average or below average as a driver. Furthermore, it 
probably *is* "safe" from an armored perspective, and of course obviously not 
if you're on a bicycle. Remember, my position is mainly as reporter here, and 
people behave in a car in ways that make them feel safe, but those habits make 
for unsafe roadways with bicyclists around. The solution is bike lanes, and 
there ain't no other - know-what-ah-mean, Vern? :-)
.

>it happens during any single ride.

I've stopped riding a motorcycle for this very reason, but I understand it's 
human nature, so there's no sense bitchin'.

Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles Bruce Musgrave)
Date: 26 Jun 1995 18:16:53 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, tony@sebastian (Antonio S. Esporma ) writes:
|> In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
|> >In article <[email-masked]>,
|> >Antonio S. Esporma  <tony@sebastian> wrote:
|> >>
|> >>(6) So please, please come on down to Irvine and ride in double file.  You
|> >>    need not worry about Bubba in a pickup, but bring you VISA (American 
|> >>    Express too) 'cause the flashing lights  behind you will make sure that
|> >>    our parks are well maintained and that the donut shops are kept in the
|> >>    black.
|> >
|> >Sounds really interesting there Tony. Another point is that it is strictly
|> >counter to state and local driving regulations that have priority.
|> >Maybe Bill King will institute a law suit down there after he's through
|> >kicking some butts up in Pleasanton. Irvine sounds like it has some
|> >really wealthy taxpayers that are ripe for the picking.
|> >
|> 
|> Nope, after the Orange County financial debacle, we have a lot of very
|> hungry and nasty lawyers and a very pissed off bourgeoise.
|> 
|> Besides, double file riding is against California law anyhow.  How would

It is not.

|> you feel if after spending tons of money to build all those wide bicycle 
|> lanes, bicyclists decided to ignore them and ride on the car lanes?

Does it say car lanes on those lanes? I rarely see any lanes that say
"car lane" on them. Anyway, bike lanes rarely are in good areas going
anywhere a cyclist would want to go.

|> 
|> IMHO, if I can get a ticket for driving on a bicycle lane, then bicyclists
|> should also get a ticket when they ride outside of the lane (when not making
|> a turn that is...).  The bicycle lane laws apply equally to cars and bicycles.

Well that is not the law. Bike lanes are supposed to be an area where cyclists
can be protected from 2500 lb cars...I know you must be greatly inconvenienced
by cyclists, but it is nowhere near as inconvenienced as being hit by a 
car while on a bike.

|> They are designed to safely segregate the traffic, if you ignore them, in a
|> bicycle, no less. I dare say you are a fool just looking to get trampled.
|> On the other hand, I do not condone bubbas careening into the bicycle lanes
|> for the heck of it.
|> 
|> tony
|> 

Now how do with get a special lane on this newsgroup to separate the
fools from those who would like to read something sensible?

Charles

---

From: [email-masked] (Royce Myers)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 23:59:35 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

> In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked]
(Royce Myers) writes:
> 
> >And Eddie, one last thing.  As a safety lecturer you should be able to
> >answer the following questions: 
> >- How many cyclists are struck from behind?  
> >- How many of these cyclists are riding side-by-side?  
> >- What percentage of overall injuries result from this kind of collision?  
> 
> >If you answer honestly, you'll realize that this is not a significant
> >problem compared to, say, cross traffic collisions, which can be reduced
> >in some situations by side-by-side riding.
> 
> Something wrong with the logic here. Statistics indicate that being
> hit by a car while riding on the wrong side of the road wearing a
> gorilla mask is a very rare kind of accident indeed. There is
> therefore no reason to advise someone to stop doing this?

The advice Eddie gave me, but which you chose to edit out, provided advice
which traded one set of risks for another.  The dangerss he suggested
avoiding are already very rare (which is why I asked him to quantify these
risks), so the result of following his advice could be a net increase in
overall risk.

It was comparable to telling cyclists that they are safer on the sidewalk.

-- 
Royce Myers          [email-masked]