Oh, that's just... despicable.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
I'm sure everyone feel sorry for the kid, but compassion really has a limit. The guy's car was damaged, and not just any car. An Audi. Someone has to pay. Besides, the family got almost $50,000 for the kid's life, and the driver is only seeking about $30,000 for his car.
Posted by DeathofBees (Member # 3862) on :
quote: "It's the only way I have to claim my money back," Delgado was quoted as saying...
His money? The money paid to Iriondo's parents as compensation for their son's life? I was surprised they found both parties to be at fault, since Delgado was going almost twice the legal speed limit after dark. Wearing reflective clothing and a helmet (Iriondo wasn't, which is why they said he was also at fault) probably wouldn't have stopped a car going 100 mph from killing him.
Totally unrelated side note: Yahoo! keeps crashing Internet Explorer on my computer. It did it when I clicked on the above link, and it does it frequently when I'm browsing through my Yahoo! groups. Does anyone else have problems with this? What can I do to fix it? And now back to your regularly scheduled, thought-provoking thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not surprised, to be perfectly honest. I've read a dozen stories in the last six months on cyclists who are injured, killed or just roughhoused by drivers and even cops. A lot of drivers want cyclists off the road, and don't much seem to feel bad when they get hurt or killed in the process. It's mind boggling and shocking to many, but, I'm really not surprised.
There was a case in California, I want to say in Beverly Hills, where a biker was riding his bike down the road (this is from memory, I might be getting some details wrong) perfectly lawfully, and a driver behind him started aggressively trying to run him off the road. When the police showed up, they gave a ticket to the CYCLIST for impeding traffic.
There was a case this past week in Toronto where a driver tried to make an illegal right turn and very nearly hit a cyclist, who then got up and held the car in place until two cops (on bikes) arrived to give the driver a ticket, so to be fair it works both ways, but the incident isn't uncommon, cyclists are always in danger on roads.
I like to think Hatrackers are an intelligent bunch, but if there's anyone reading this who hasn't clued in yet, please wear your helmet! I won't stop a car going twice the speed limit, but any extra protection is worth it.
The ratio of non-helmet-wearers to helmet-wearers in Toronto is something like 10:1, or even 15:1. It's horrible. You never know when someone's going to make that illegal turn.
Why doesn't this jerk go after his insurance company?
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
Here in Louisiana, it's required by law to wear a helmet. Plenty of people don't, though, and I've never heard of anyone being ticketed for it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've never worn a helmet while bicycling.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
That's horrible!
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've never worn a helmet while bicycling.
I can't remember if you have children or not, but what about them? Would you or do you make them wear helmets?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I always wear a helmet, and I bike fairly often in the summer, though I almost always stick to side streets and never into heavy traffic, which doesn't preclude the possibility of getting hit, just makes it less likely.
Still, people should wear helmets. It's not about how careful YOU are when you are cycling, it's about how careful the giant SUV you don't see ISN'T being.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I think it's very important for bikers to stay on the bike trails, if available. I was in Boiling Springs, NC near Gardner-Webb University earlier this week. They have bike paths every where. I was amazed at how many bikers rode to the left of the bike paths.
Why would you not bike on the path, if there's a path? Why would you prefer to bike in the road next to the path?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I'm also in the ranks of non-helmet wearing bicycle riders. Of course, this is a small town and the vast majority of my riding is on side streets, not highways.
Oh, and there are no bike paths in this town.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Still, people should wear helmets. It's not about how careful YOU are when you are cycling, it's about how careful the giant SUV you don't see ISN'T being.
Exactly.
quote: Why would you not bike on the path, if there's a path? Why would you prefer to bike in the road next to the path?
Sometimes because the path is ill-maintained and tough to ride on. Sometimes because it means I have to deal with curbs every 200 metres or so. I don't mind them for leisure riding, but when I'm trying to actually use my bike as transportation, the road is much better.
Of course, this is all predicated on there being a centre lane or something so cars can get around me. If I feel like I'd be causing a hazard, I'm on the path.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Most towns do not have designated bike paths, and very few major cities do. Europe has a lot more. Canada is making a push for them, and you're starting to see some bigger US cities doing it too. New York City recently had a bruhaha over plans to change the layout of the streets. They want to change the lanes around to add a bus lane, HOV lane, bike lane, and reduce the number of single occupancy car lanes. There was also talk of doing what London has done and charge cars for driving through the busiest parts of town. The idea is to encourage any form of transportation except cars.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by DeathofBees:
quote: "It's the only way I have to claim my money back," Delgado was quoted as saying...
His money? The money paid to Iriondo's parents as compensation for their son's life?
You misread it. He didn't pay a penny to the family of the dead kid. His insurance company did. What he paid was the money to fix the car. He wants that back, and probably figures he can get it from their insurance. Or from them. My guess is that he doesn't care one way or another.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DeathofBees:
quote:"It's the only way I have to claim my money back," Delgado was quoted as saying...
His money? ...
Jumping aside the issue of fault, I wonder if he would really have said that or have said something more like "Es la única manera que tengo que reclamar mi dinero de vuelta" or whatever the real Spanish equivalent is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tammy:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've never worn a helmet while bicycling.
I can't remember if you have children or not, but what about them? Would you or do you make them wear helmets?
Our children wear helmets.
[ January 26, 2008, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
From wikipedia: (with some editing for brevity)
quote:The League of American Wheelmen was founded in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1880, and was the leading national membership organization for bicyclists in the United States.
The League was a prominent advocate for the improvement of roads and highways in the United States[1] long before the invention of the automobile. LAW founded and led the Good Roads Movement in the US in the last part of the 19th century, and began publishing Good Roads magazine in 1892, a full ten years before the founding of the American Automobile Association.
The League continued to play a leading role in bicycling issues in the 20th century. One example was the promotion and distribution of John Forester's Effective Cycling cyclist education program to clubs and educational institutions across the United States from the 1970s through the 1990s. This indicated the strength of the vehicular cycling (VC) philosophy in the League, as opposed to advocates of segregated cycle facilities (SCF). However, some of the League's sponsors, such as the larger bicycle manufacturers, favored the SCF approach.
The vehicular cycling philosophy is that a bicycle is a vehicle and bicyclists should have all the same rights as motor vehicles. Roads were built for bicycles before they were built for cars, and bicycles serve the same function as cars, yet take up less space, and do not pollute or use fossil fuels.
I happen to favor the VC philosophy.
MPH, I think the idea is that you should wear a helmet for your children's sake. You wouldn't want them to lose a father. I always wear a helmet, and so does the rest of my family.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I ride almost every day, and I never ride without a helmet. Even when I'm riding in the desert where there is no traffic I keep the helmet on. Oh, by the way that's the Boy Scout standard. For you adults, (mr porteiro head) shame on your bad example.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
The car was going 100 mph people. A helmet wasn't going to do much. At best it would have left him a quad. If you are going almost double the speed limit, it's all your fault.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
In this particular incident it probably isn't a helmet issue. Then again, we don't know the specifics of how the two vehicles collided. In any case, the driver of the car was clearly the cause of his own damage, and deserves nothing from the family of the guy he killed.
But most bicycle deaths are due to head injuries. I've never been hit by a car, but I've had plenty of cases where I was forced off the road by a car, and once I got cut off and I crashed into the side of the car (explanation: "But I had my blinker on!" and he blew a .24)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The sun had set" does not mean it was dark. Twilight lighting is stronger than headlights for around half an hour after sunset. Don' matter none if had it been totally dark anyways. 100mph is outdriving the coverage distance of headlights: ie there's no way to spot a road hazard and come to a stop from 100mph before exceeding the distance to that road hazard. The victim could have just as easily been a pedestrian wrapped in reflective duct-tape crossing the road, and the driver still would not have had time to stop.
And wear a helmet. I have far too many friends who are alive and well solely cuz their helmets were crushed (and sometimes splintered) rather than their heads. Wear a helmet always. I crushed a helmut while going very slowly, hitting my new front brake too hard, and flipping over the handlebars.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I've hit my head hard twice while biking. Once when a truck in SLC clocked me with its passenger side outside mirror. The second time here in Lexington when I blew a bike path stop sign (there was vehicular cross traffic, but they're usually quite cautious) and got hit by a delivery van.
Both times I was extremely glad for my helmet; the second time it saved me a trip to the emergency room, at least.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
My dad got in a freak cycling accident about a year and a half ago, in Centerville, Utah. One of the streets there is composed of concrete slabs, with large, visible gaps between the slabs. These were supposedly going to be filled in at some future date, but not before my dad's front tire slipped into a crack while traveling approximately 30 mph downhill. It was the absolutely last thing he was expecting.
If he hadn't been wearing a helmet, he would be dead right now. As his son, I am indebted to his helmet, which prevented his head from being snapped apart like much of the rest of his body. Sure, his back is twisted, his lung capacity permanently diminished, and he limps slightly--but at least his head is in one piece.
To put it simply, and (hopefully) not offensively, DON'T be stupid, and please, PLEASE wear a helmet. If you die because you didn't wear a helmet that you tell your kids to wear, they'll be devastated, and possibly traumatized for life.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: The vehicular cycling philosophy is that a bicycle is a vehicle and bicyclists should have all the same rights as motor vehicles.
I agree with this (although I'd add that cyclists should follow the same rules as car drivers as well, and that bicycles don't have a place on all roadways), but:
quote:Roads were built for bicycles before they were built for cars
So what? First, I'm not sure I believe it. Where was bicycle usage heavy enough to warrant the construction of roads specifically for their use? I'm not necessarily saying that this isn't the case, but if it is I'm unaware of it.
Second, what difference does that make, even if it's true? Roads were built for all manner of conveyance before they were built for motor vehicles. That doesn't mean that ox carts or human-borne litters have a place on modern roadways.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:That doesn't mean that ox carts or human-borne litters have a place on modern roadways.
Tell that to the Amish. Or for that matter, to any farmer or construction worker who needs to drive their tractor on a public roadway and thus blocks traffic. The issue isn't whether the vehicle is human powered or fuel powered, it's whether it operates in the same traffic flow pattern. Tractors routinely block my progress as a bicyclist, just as they block cars. And for that matter, bicycles create very little obstacle to traffic compared to pedestrians, especially at speed limits of 30 mph or so, which is pretty standard for most cities.
quote:Where was bicycle usage heavy enough to warrant the construction of roads specifically for their use?
In any American city. In the 20th century check out bicycle use in China. And also in the 20th century and continuing to the present, check out the rails to trails conservancy and other bike path initiatives in the U.S.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Tell that to the Amish.
I'm aware that the Amish drive buggies on public roadways. I don't think it's a particularly safe practice, and am not a fan of it.
quote:Or for that matter, to any farmer or construction worker who needs to drive their tractor on a public roadway and thus blocks traffic.
I grew up in the country in Kansas, so I'm also pretty familiar with tractors, combines, and so forth being on the roads. They definitely constitute a traffic hazard, but they're a necessary one.
I definitely don't think that they have a place on interstates and other relatively high speed traffic arteries. Do you?
quote:The issue isn't whether the vehicle is human powered or fuel powered, it's whether it operates in the same traffic flow pattern.
Agreed. I'm not sure if we're arguing or not, here; do you agree that an element of being part of the same traffic flow pattern would be the ability to travel for extended periods of time at speeds within the same general range of the other vehicles on the road?
quote:bicycles create very little obstacle to traffic compared to pedestrians, especially at speed limits of 30 mph or so, which is pretty standard for most cities.
True. Is anyone advocating pedestrians walking in the streets? For the record, I think that that's a very bad idea.
quote:
quote:Where was bicycle usage heavy enough to warrant the construction of roads specifically for their use?
In any American city.
Just to be clear, you're arguing that prior to the invention of the automobile, it was a common practice in all (or virtually all) American cities to build roads expressly for the purpose of handling bicycle traffic?
quote:In the 20th century check out bicycle use in China.
Yeah, my ears mostly perked up at the "prior to the invention of the automobile" aspect of what you were saying, and I'm focused for the purposes of this discussion on roadways in the United States. I'm aware that other countries have used the bicycle much more extensively as a means of transportation than we have in this country.
quote:And also in the 20th century and continuing to the present, check out the rails to trails conservancy and other bike path initiatives in the U.S. [/QB]
I'm aware of this as well, but it's not what we were talking about. I'm all for bike paths, preferably ones that are physically seperate from roadways, and would love for there to be a network of them stretching across the country. Using existing railbeds which are in the process of rusting and rotting away from disuse and lack of maintenance for that purpose makes sense, and I wholeheartedly support it.
[ January 27, 2008, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Noemon, what have I said about this before? Get the heck out of my brain! *shakes fist)
What he said.
Also, I've had a fantastic experience with the converted railway bed bike paths in Madison, Wisconsin, and I'd pay dearly in taxes to extend those more broadly throughout the US (and Canada, the other government that gets my tax money). That was an amazing use of public funds.
I'm pro-bike. I've biked to work daily in the past (~15 miles roundtrip), and I'll do so again when I am no longer working from home. I also am quite concerned about bicyclists using road lanes without obeying all applicable traffic laws, which has seemed to me to be the norm rather than the exception. Passing on the right, lack of a full stop at stop signs, not yielding at intersections when the yield is one's obligation -- when this is what I see as the norm rather than the exception, it's hard for me to promote treating bicycles as having all the same rights as motor vehicles.
(I recognize that legally they do, it's just hard for me to promote that, since what makes the rights of motor vehicles work in concert with one another as well as they do is the general adherence to corresponding restrictions.)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: (Noemon, what have I said about this before? Get the heck out of my brain! *shakes fist)
But it's so comfy in here!
quote:I'd pay dearly in taxes to extend those more broadly throughout the US (and Canada, the other government that gets my tax money). That was an amazing use of public funds.
Agreed. I mourn a bit for the loss of potential light rail travel between towns across the country, but lets face it; those stretches of track weren't going to be used for that purpose anyway.
quote:I'm pro-bike.
Aboslutely; me too. If there were a network of trails I could take to work, or if there were surface streets that were bicycle friendly I'd be biking to work on all but the foulest of days myself, even if it added a few miles to my commute.
quote:I also am quite concerned about bicyclists using road lanes without obeying all applicable traffic laws, which has seemed to me to be the norm rather than the exception. Passing on the right, lack of a full stop at stop signs, not yielding at intersections when the yield is one's obligation -- when this is what I see as the norm rather than the exception, it's hard for me to promote treating bicycles as having all the same rights as motor vehicles.
(I recognize that legally they do, it's just hard for me to promote that, since what makes the rights of motor vehicles work in concert with one another as well as they do is the general adherence to corresponding restrictions.)
Yup. And well said.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
It really concerns me, too. I get really upset when cyclists aren't following the road rules. It bugs me as a driver, because I don't know what to expect, and it bugs me as a cyclist because it makes the drivers around me confused and angry and they could take it out on me.
I'm a big fan of quiet side streets and especially designated bike lanes.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We have a helmet law here, too. I have seen people ticketed for violating it, and for not following road rules, and I have also seen car drivers ticketed for disregarding the safety of cyclists. It's a pretty good community to ride your bike in. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, I think it's more likely that roads were built more for horses prior to automobiles than they were for bicycles, particularly in our bigger eastern cities.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Now you're talkin' crazy talk, Rakeesh!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
While horse&cart/horse&buggy roads existed a long time beforehand, the impetus for building smoothly paved roads was mostly due to the GoldenAge of Bicycles in the 1890s. And it was largely through the preexistence of city roads which could withstand constant bicycle traffic that automobiles came to be adopted as rapidly as they were.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I definitely don't think that they have a place on interstates and other relatively high speed traffic arteries. Do you?
No more so than I think automobiles should be allowed on bike paths, and yet it is a common argument that bike paths and bike bridges should be built to automotive specifications so that they can be used by automobiles if traffic needs demand it.
quote:True. Is anyone advocating pedestrians walking in the streets? For the record, I think that that's a very bad idea.
You've never heard of crosswalks? How much do they interfere with automotive traffic? And how likely are they to be the scene of accidents? Beyond this, wherever there are no sidewalks, which is most roadways, pedestrians walk alongside roadways all the time, and their mere presence is an impediment to traffic, whether they actually take a lane of traffic or not.
quote:Just to be clear, you're arguing that prior to the invention of the automobile, it was a common practice in all (or virtually all) American cities to build roads expressly for the purpose of handling bicycle traffic?
Paving existing roadways to provide adequate surface to ride bicycles, yes. Horses did not require the same surface quality.
Prior to that most paved roadways were privately owned turnpikes. The federal government built mail roads, but that was it. Most of the roadways that existed at that time were not so much "built" as existed as the byproduct of horse and wagon traffic. They essentially built themselves.
quote:I also am quite concerned about bicyclists using road lanes without obeying all applicable traffic laws, which has seemed to me to be the norm rather than the exception.
This position bothers me, because it seems to imply that automobile drivers DO obey all applicable traffic laws. As a driver and a bicyclist, I see drivers drive through red lights, roll through stop signs and fail to yield right of way all the time, especially to bicycles, it seems, because they don't believe bicycles belong on roadways. I've been honked at, yelled at, and told straight to my face that bicycles do not belong on a road, (not to mention forced off the road) by people that drive as if they own the road. Yet I've rarely ever seen a bicyclist exceed the speed limit or fail to yield right of way to an oncoming car.
Yes, bicyclists should obey traffic laws, and yes, it would be nice if there were a parallel bike path for every roadway. But there isn't, and there isn't going to be. In the 80's the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act was supposed to require all roadways to be built with at least a 3' shoulder for bikes to ride on, but it was largely ignored, and instead of enacting the penalties (withdrawal of federal funding) they simply retracted the law. This ties in with what I said above: They build bike paths to meet automotive needs, but they refuse to build roadways to meet bicyclists needs.
In any case it seems unreasonable to point the finger at bicyclists who disobey traffic laws, when there is little or no education offered to drivers or bicyclists as to what role bicycles play on public roadways.
What is comes down to is that roadways are supposed to be for everybody to SHARE. There are rules that are specific to drivers when interacting with bicycles, and rules that are specific to bicycles, but these are poorly understood because they aren't properly promoted.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I also am quite concerned about bicyclists using road lanes without obeying all applicable traffic laws, which has seemed to me to be the norm rather than the exception.
This position bothers me, because it seems to imply that automobile drivers DO obey all applicable traffic laws.
Well, no, that isn't my intent. As I said, I think "... what makes the rights of motor vehicles work in concert with one another as well as they do is the general adherence to corresponding restrictions."
I don't think that all drivers obey all laws, nor would I claim that all cyclists break all laws. I would claim that I make a point of watching cyclists, as I am one myself, and -- although I always stop at stop signs and red lights myself, and yield whenever it is my obligation, just as if I were driving a car -- my fellow cyclists that I see are more likely to keep going with the momentum than stop, so long as it looks like it can be done without causing an accident. Which is not in accordance with the law.
And that trend isn't true by my assessment of my fellow drivers -- a few will act not in accord with the law sometimes, but most do obey the laws. Some don't, but most do obey all applicable laws most of the time. By my assessment, most cyclists do not obey all applicable laws most of the time. And since it is the general adherence to such restrictions that I believe to be why traffic tends to flow in the States and Canada as well as it does, what I see to be the lack of general adherence amongst a subset really disturbs me. Not only is it dangerous, but it is double-dipping as well.
quote:As a driver and a bicyclist, I see drivers drive through red lights, roll through stop signs and fail to yield right of way all the time ...
More so than not?
quote:I've been honked at, yelled at, and told straight to my face that bicycles do not belong on a road, (not to mention forced off the road) by people that drive as if they own the road.
All of which is wrong, and none of which I do. I yield very well and carefully to cyclists! But no amount of this behavior makes it okay for any of us to break the law in response, be it as drivers or cyclists. Bad behavior in others doesn't excuse the same in us.
quote:Yet I've rarely ever seen a bicyclist exceed the speed limit or fail to yield right of way to an oncoming car.
I'm not sure how to read this. Do you mean that you've rarely seen a bicyclist fail to stop whenever it is his/her obligation to do so [e.g., at every occurrence of a 4-way stop]? Or are you limiting the claim only to yielding when there is an oncoming car that might hit the bicyclist? (Honest question -- not trying to trap you.)
quote:In any case it seems unreasonable to point the finger at bicyclists who disobey traffic laws, when there is little or no education offered to drivers or bicyclists as to what role bicycles play on public roadways.
I may just be lucky, but every cyclist and driver I've talked about this with has known that bikes on traffic roads are supposed to be treated the same as motor vehicles, and they are supposed to follow the rules of the road applicable to motor vehicles. I wonder how much of it is not knowing (either on the part of drivers or cyclists), and how much is not caring, or just disagreeing with the state of affairs that is already known?
quote:What is comes down to is that roadways are supposed to be for everybody to SHARE. There are rules that are specific to drivers when interacting with bicycles, and rules that are specific to bicycles, but these are poorly understood because they aren't properly promoted.
I for sure agree with you that the road is to be shared. I also agree that some very visible public campaigning is in order. I also think we cyclists should be using peer pressure to help police ourselves, and so should we drivers. I don't see a conflict amongst or between any of these beliefs.
[ January 27, 2008, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Proposed Trafficon: A group of Hatrackers in different cities get together on the same day to track traffic through an intersection (in each city) frequented by both bicyclists and car drivers. Note the number of moving violations, analyzed by group.
(I'm half-joking, but I would know which way I'd bet my money, were I the betting sort. )
--
Edited to add: Of course -- of course! -- no amount of bad behavior in one group would excuse any amount of bad behavior in the other group. I've never intended to make that argument. What I've been saying all along is this:
quote: Passing on the right, lack of a full stop at stop signs, not yielding at intersections when the yield is one's obligation -- when this is what I see as the norm rather than the exception, it's hard for me to promote treating bicycles as having all the same rights as motor vehicles.
(I recognize that legally they do, it's just hard for me to promote that, since what makes the rights of motor vehicles work in concert with one another as well as they do is the general adherence to corresponding restrictions.)
And so, because I would indeed prefer to be whole-heartedly promoting that, my response to that concern is to participate in vocal self-policing by peer pressure within both groups of which I am a part. And this includes cyclists. I don't want us to be demeaned, spit on, or threatened, but I do want us to obey the law.
It makes us safer because we are then more predictable (as are most cars), as Eaque Legit notes. It also gives us a higher road to speak from.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: It makes us safer because we are then more predictable (as are most cars), as Eaque Legit notes. It also gives us a higher road to speak from.
Yes!
I was driving once along a road with designated 3' bike lanes. A biker was coming toward me (i.e., on the wrong side of the road) and I didn't know what to make of him. I went to make a right turn, assuming since he obviously wasn't behaving like a car that he'd behave like a pedestrian and stop at the intersection. But he came right through and I had to slam on the brakes to avoid him. (He also wasn't wearing a helmet.)
Everyone following the same rules makes things more predictable and a lot safer.
Since I don't know the area or the road rules here, I am going to be pedestrian-cycling until I get used to things, especially driving on the left. Keeps me and everyone else safer.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:More so than not? [Confused]
It seems around here that about five cars are allowed to go through a light after it turns red. By allowed I mean that the police don't ticket them, and often, it includes the police. Speeding? well, do I need to really cover that one? Yielding right of way to bicycles? Forget about it, just get out of my way, dammit.
quote:Or are you limiting the claim only to yielding when there is an oncoming car that might hit the bicyclist? (Honest question -- not trying to trap you.)
In most cases, that's what yielding right of way means. If a car and a bicyclist come to an intersection where the car has the right of way, the bicyclist really has no option but to yield or be hit. Yielding right of way is a lot different than obeying traffic control devices.
But here's one thing that I see all the time. A bicycle is traveling along the right side of the road, and a car passes on the left, and IMMEDIATELY turns right onto a side street, cutting off the bicyclist. Can you imagine a bicyclist doing the same thing? I used to have this happen to me in my morning commute at the same intersection, by the same driver, time after time. Since she came up behind me, it was almost impossible to anticipate it, but it got so common I eventually just took the lane at that point, so no one could pass me until I'd passed the side road. (That is legal, BTW)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:A biker was coming toward me (i.e., on the wrong side of the road) and I didn't know what to make of him.
Yeah, that drives me nuts too. There used to be a guy around here that made it a point to ride that way. Turns out he is mentally ill. I still see him all over the place, but he walks now.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:More so than not? [Confused]
It seems around here that about five cars are allowed to go through a light after it turns red. By allowed I mean that the police don't ticket them, and often, it includes the police. Speeding? well, do I need to really cover that one? Yielding right of way to bicycles? Forget about it, just get out of my way, dammit.
I'm curious about what Trafficon would show, and I'm welcome to learning it went either way. Come Spring and warmer weather, I'll propose it. (at the very least, Bob the Lawyer and I will get together for a couple of hours and entertain each other )
quote:If a car and a bicyclist come to an intersection where the car has the right of way, the bicyclist really has no option but to yield or be hit. Yielding right of way is a lot different than obeying traffic control devices.
Ah. So you are saying that when a cyclist doesn't have a real choice, then they do the right thing? (and for most ordinary cyclists, I suspect going over the speed limit for any sustained period of time is not much of an option) I wouldn't disagree with that. It's hard to make a choice you don't really have.
quote:But here's one thing that I see all the time. A bicycle is traveling along the right side of the road, and a car passes on the left, and IMMEDIATELY turns right onto a side street, cutting off the bicyclist. Can you imagine a bicyclist doing the same thing?
Not really, but for the reason above -- it doesn't seem to be a tenable choice.
I'm sorry that happened to you.
quote:I used to have this happen to me in my morning commute at the same intersection, by the same driver, time after time. Since she came up behind me, it was almost impossible to anticipate it, but it got so common I eventually just took the lane at that point, so no one could pass me until I'd passed the side road. (That is legal, BTW)
I'm glad you took the entire lane. I'd probably do that and/or change my time to go through the intersection. But good on you for doing it safely and legally.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:(and for most ordinary cyclists, I suspect going over the speed limit for any sustained period of time is not much of an option)
I was referring to cars. How many cars actually obey the speed limit where you live?
quote:So you are saying that when a cyclist doesn't have a real choice, then they do the right thing?
And again, motorists basically do the right thing only when they fear being hit or getting a ticket. I can't count how many people (someone on Hatrack recently claimed this but I can't remember who) argue that larger vehicles have the defacto right of way over smaller ones.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I was referring to cars. How many cars actually obey the speed limit where you live?
We do pretty well, actually. But I have lived in cities where that was not the case!
When I wrote, it was in response to this part about bicyclists:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold Yet I've rarely ever seen a bicyclist exceed the speed limit or fail to yield right of way to an oncoming car.
What was the point of that? I still don't get what you were driving at (pardon the pun). *honestly curious
quote:And again, motorists basically do the right thing only when they fear being hit or getting a ticket. I can't count how many people (someone on Hatrack recently claimed this but I can't remember who) argue that larger vehicles have the defacto right of way over smaller ones.
I still think that such people are the minority. We shall have to await the (highly scientific, well-funded, studiously rigorous ) Trafficon to see.
Edited to add: But I think the behavior of motorists is not very relevant, anyway, at least not to the claim that cyclists should be doing better. Especially when we are speaking out against not being treated like other vehicles. To consistently refrain from following the rules but then demand the benefits that would go alongside with those restrictions would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Or tire. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold Yet I've rarely ever seen a bicyclist exceed the speed limit or fail to yield right of way to an oncoming car.
What was the point of that? I still don't get what you were driving at (pardon the pun). *honestly curious
This was in comparison with motorists. Drivers do what they believe they can get away with. Pair this with the people who drive large cars because they know that people will get out of their way. It may be true that they are the minority, but is the lowest common denominator that sets the standard for road behavior.
BTW, I think it may be necessary to point out that I DO obey traffic control devices, and I agree that all bicyclists should. But the idea that bikes should have separate bike paths is a concession to the idea that bikes don't belong on the road at all, and too many people believe that that's true.
Let's take a left turn here for a second and let me introduce another idea. How should a bicycle behave at an intersection?
Here's something I've noticed: at a standard intersection, a car starting from a dead stop and accelerating reasonably across the intersection when the light turns green reaches approximately 15 mph by the opposite side of the intersection. A bicycle accelerates at the same rate over that same distance. Yet cars behave as though bikes should wait until the cars have cleared the intersection before the bikes should be allowed to move. This includes situations where the bike has the right of way.
Or: when a bike makes a left turn, it's expected to turn from the right side of the road, because motorists believe that bikes are relegated to the right side of the road only. In cases where there are multiple lanes, and it would be impossible to turn left from the right side of the road, the bike should signal left, take the left lane, and wait for traffic to provide an opening to turn left. Yet I've had drivers tell me I should straddle the double yellow line while waiting to turn, so I don't block traffic. Note: a car turning left ALSO has to wait for traffic to provide an opening, yet for some reason, a bike is blocking traffic, while a car doing the same thing is just waiting to make a turn.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: This was in comparison with motorists. Drivers do what they believe they can get away with. Pair this with the people who drive large cars because they know that people will get out of their way. It may be true that they are the minority, but is the lowest common denominator that sets the standard for road behavior.
I don't understand what the point of this was, still, but that's okay. It may just be one of those days for me. Carry on. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
MPH, why don't you wear a helmet? To me, the helmet while bicycling is as natural as the seatbelt while driving, which is to say, I'm more comfortable with it on than without.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Helmets are super uncomfortable, not to mention dorky. I rode my bike for years and never wore a helmet. I never needed it either. I've never needed a seatbelt either. I only wear them when I'm driving or when a cop is nearby. If you don't wear safety equipment you are taking a risk. A very small risk.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I dunno. After seeing pictures of crashes where adults and/or children were improperly restrained, and crashes where they were properly restrained, I'd say it's a risk I'm not willing to take.
And I'll keep my kids in car seats as long as possible, too. My 20-month-old still rides rear-facing, and they don't go anywhere without a properly installed car seat, even though that means I usually end up installing it myself.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
If you don't ever crash, then there is never a need to have a seatbelt.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Considering I've been in cars that were hit 5 times in my life and I'm 24 years old, I'll wear the seat belt.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(And that's not counting the 3 accidents my husband has been in without me since we've been married, in one of which my daughter was in the car.)
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: If you don't ever crash, then there is never a need to have a seatbelt.
Except no matter how awesome you are, you can't count on every one else being so stupendous. It only takes one drunk or distracted driver to send your car spinning into a pole.
They're called "accidents" for a reason. No one intends to wipe out or crash. Not taking minor precautions against the unexpected is just plain stupid. And "they look dorky" is the argument I used when I was 12.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
I used to commute the streets of London during rush hour - a fantastic adrenaline rush - but it taught me one thing: No matter how dorky a helmet looks, a wheelchair is a worse option.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Look Elmer's Glue, it's one thing to say you don't wear seatbelts because you don't feel like it. It's stupid as hell, but at least you're being honest about things.
It's quite another to suggest it's smart not to, or that there's some logic behind it. There isn't. You're being an idiot. Feel free to continue to do so, but don't recruit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: If you don't ever crash, then there is never a need to have a seatbelt.
Not actually true. An almost accident -- skid, dodging a drunk driver or some other idiot -- can involve very rapid deceleration, even if there is no crash. On a bike, that can mean going flying off (which is where the helmet comes in); in a car that can mean cranial impact with seat or window (which is where the seatbelt comes in).
Also, what Rakeesh and EL said.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Helmets are super uncomfortable, not to mention dorky.
While this may have been true of helmets 20 years ago, it's certainly not true today. In fact, I'd say that today's helmets are super comfortable, and ultra lightweight. And while cool is in the eye of the beholder, at this point I think there are a lot more people who will look at you and think you're an idiot for NOT wearing one than those will look at you and think you're a dork for wearing one. So if it's your image your worried about, wear the helmet.
I could have used a helmet in 1978 when I went over a bump and my front wheel fell off. I don't even remember the accident, but I do remember the people looking at me weird (and not offering to help) when I walked past them with blood streaming down my face.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I had my front wheel fall off going off a curb onto a street. I landed on the front fork and went over the handlebars. I took most of the impact on my arms and luckily didn't break anything, although I could hardly use my arms for another day or so.
That was about 8 years ago, and I haven't really trusted a bike since then.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
If you read Spanish, and have no qualms about strong language, then here is a site which lists mentions of this case. It makes interesting reading, if you have the time:
Rakeesh, when did I say it was smart not to use safety equipment? I said it CAN BE unnecessary. If I'm not using safety equipment, and I get hurt, it's my fault. It's a risk I'm willing to take. And as long as I never get hurt, I'll be glad I took it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Elmer's Glue,
You never say it's smart not to, but you certainly suggest it repeatedly by saying that "it's a very small risk", "helmets are super uncomfortable and dorky" (both of which are untrue, by the way-a good helmet is not uncomfortable, and socially they are not dorky).
You also imply repeatedly that there's some calculated risk involved in your decision not to wear seatbelts. Only after getting called on it do you say, "It's not smart, and if I get hurt it'll be my fault."
Except earlier you said, "If you're going double the speed limit, it's all your fault," to drivers. Which is also incorrect, morally definitely but maybe legally too in some areas.
Safety equipment is never unnecessary, because its use is not predicated on necessity. Things like helmets, prevenative maintenance, and insurance are done to avoid the catostrophic which, while unlikely, is still a real possibility.
Your approach is, "It's highly unlikely, so why bother preparing for it?" You might as well win a round of russian roulette and proclaim your victory with pride. You haven't calculated a risk, you're just lazy.
How do I know? Well, it's pretty clear from that helmets are uncomfortable and dorky remark. If you'd bothered to look into the matter beyond, "I don't wanna," you'd have quickly found that a) helmets are not 'super unfomrtable' or even uncomfortable at all with a small investment, and b) they're certainly not dorky, for many cool and attractive people who ride their bicycles wear helmets all the time.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Mr. Glue, then you need to carry an appropriately certified "do not treat under any circumstance" card in your wallet, (and perhaps tatooed on your shoulder) Otherwise you are taking unfare advantage of my hard earned money for your emergency health care.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: If you don't ever crash, then there is never a need to have a seatbelt.
If you never type something stupid, you never need to use the edit button.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
An excellent point, Artemisia. The risk is yours, but the cost of that risk will not be born by you alone. Or are you not going to go to the hospital or use an ambulance if you get into a car accident and are seriously injured?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: If you don't ever crash, then there is never a need to have a seatbelt.
You can get in an accident even if you are a perfect driver. There are other drivers on the road you know.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Really? We're saying "if you don't care about your own life, please care about my wallet" now? I don't find that plausible in terms of being convincing Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Well, it seems the driver has dropped the suit due to media pressure.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good.
Thanks for the update, EL.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I just needed to add my 2 cents on helmets.
First cent: I recommend wearing one. They are expensive and they can be uncomfortable especially on a hot day. But every now and then something happens on a bike, a patch of ice, a dog, loose sand, and you end up on the ground before you even knew what was happening. I've broken helmets twice that way, once on the ice and once when a dog hit my front wheel, and I'm really glad it was the helmet that broke and not my skull.
Second cent: While you definitely want to be wearing a helmet if your head ever hits the ground, it is ridiculous to suggest that a helmet will provide any significant protection if you are hit by a car. I have several friends who have been hit by cars, some of them have been seriously injured and even have permanent disabilities because of it. Most of them had their limbs, hips, ribs or backs injured. The mechanics of being hit by a car usually aren't going to put you landing on your head. Even if your head is hit by a car, a bicycle helmet is made to protect your head from the sort of force it encounters to stop the momentum of a person moving a bicycle speeds and just won't provide much protection against something as large and fast as a car.
The biggest danger to cyclists on the road comes from cars and drivers who don't look for cyclists and yield right of way to them when required. Helmets don't significantly change that and its silly to pretend they do. In fact, at least one study found that car drivers were far more likely to pass dangerously close to a cyclist when that cyclist was wearing a helmet. If that is true, wearing a helmet in traffic may actually make riding less safe.
(As a side note, the study I referred to above also found that drivers gave more space to a cyclist who appeared to be a woman than it gave to male cyclist. Maybe someone should design a helmet that looks like a long haired wig.)
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I don't think that a helmet will necessarily save you from car-related injuries, but it's still good to be wearing one. And you never know, maybe it will help. I saw an article in the paper late last year about a guy who was run over by a truck and came out with his head undamaged, because his helmet took all the pressure.
I don't generally disagree with what you said, though, Rabbit.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I think the more relevant statistics are not based on what the bicyclist hit, but what injuries were the result of bicycle accidents. According to bicycle magazine, most fatalities are caused by head injuries.
I also know of several people with spinal chord injuries, who went over the handlebars and hit their heads. In each case they were wearing helmets, and in each case they believe that they might have died if they had not been wearing a helmet. I only have personal interaction with one of those people and he is able to walk, and to fix bikes (he owns a bike shop). He and his wife have indicated to me that if he hadn't been wearing the helmet, he would probably be a quadriplegic at the very least.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)