jeichelberg87

Got any evidence at all less cars equals less bicycle accidents...any...?

chirp...chirp...

Bueller???? Bueller???

You don't...okay...c ya...

VTBike

My claim was not the extraordinary claim. Keep dodging my question... This has actually become quite entertaining. It's certainly proving my point about your trustworthiness.

jeichelberg87

+1

jeichelberg87

Claim? You made a claim somewhere? What was that?

mikeybikes

Thanks for the clarification.

This is most certainly your opinion. I have enough experience to know that Denver drivers aren't as bad as you make them out to be. The multiple lane roads are often the most direct route through town, and as long as the speed on them is low, as is most often on the cases you've referred to, they're perfectly adequate. If there's a direct route to my destination that is better than the one I'm on, sure, I'll consider that route first, but that isn't always the case, or have stupid intersections like 16th Avenue, Broadway and 16th St Mall.

..

Look, I don't disagree with you entirely. Cyclists frequently chose routes that aren't the safest. Sometimes those routes are chosen because they're faster and more direct. Sometimes the cyclist doesn't know any better.

What I have issue with is the presumption that you know which roads are better to ride on than me or someone else. The attitude that cyclists shouldn't be on this road and instead on that road is not what we should be advocating. Instead, we should be working on redesigning all of our streets to accommodate all road users. If a cyclist is on a road, he/she very likely has a reason to be on that road and we should not question it.


This is true, some of the time.

VTBike

Just to play your burden of proof shifting game:
A study of urban intersections finds that congestion leads to greater accidents: Tracking the most dangerous intersections for Minneapolis cyclists | Minnesota Public Radio News
Congestion leads to accidents in Boston: New Map Shows Boston Bike Crash Hotspots :: Boston Injury Lawyer Blog

I can go on...

But you knew this. Your ego, however, would not allow you to state the obvious. All because you couldn't stand to be proven wrong. You are just too fragile.

Here is the simple truth. You stated: The OP has a beef with the way the cyclist was riding and where the cyclist was riding. And until he can back up his beef with relevant facts and support (he made the points, no one else did) then his beef is opinion.


You have already admitted that going straight through a left-turn lane was a relevant fact in support of an allegation of unsafe operation. And unless you are an ignorant fool, you knew that choosing a roadway with greater congestion was a relevant fact in support of an allegation of unsafe operation.

So you are either an ignorant fool or you were playing childish games. Either is quite sad.

mikeybikes

I realize I ramble a bit and my point might have been lost. ...

I'd rather see threads like this:
instead of

Let's discuss how to solve problems and not denigrate those who ride on roads we wouldn't be comfortable with.

jitteringjr

If you read my edit: your stopping distance for cars is woefully inaccurate. Plus a car traveling at 40 MPH from behind you can quickly over take you, hit it's breaks and stop much faster than you can. You thus have no control over the safe following distance in this case.

If you really live in Nowhere Indiana like your location states, I'm guessing you have never had this happen to you otherwise you wouldn't be quoting inaccurate links because you may have actually lived the experience.

jeichelberg87

As suspected, first link offers no proof...does not denote whether or not cars were involved at all...2nd link also provides no info, except 20 taxi/bike crashes in a three year period...and this is not even in Denver...

Please don't...

Yeah, whatever...pwned...

CbadRider

I'd have to delete a third of this thread in order to clean up the bickering. I'm closing it instead.