CommuterRun
03-26-07, 03:04 AM
No, none of those sites specifically say that. However, cycling is safer than driving, or riding in, a motor vehicle. Now connect the dots. If the trailer is connected to a bicycle........
View Full Version : Honking JAM lesson-teacher learns a lesson.
Cyclaholic
03-26-07, 03:19 AM
No, it doesn't specifically say that. However, cycling is safer than driving, or riding in, a motor vehicle. Now connect the dots. If the trailer is connected to a bicycle........
Depends where you're cycling, it wasn't safer for me last Friday evening that's for sure.
I do agree that cycling with my kids is much safer since we ride along some of the hundreds of miles of completely segregated cycleways and mups we have here, and we never do more than about 10mph. On those MUPs I've never been honked at, buzzed, road raged, knocked down, cut off, backed into, swerved at, or in any way threatened by anything that could even remotely hurt me, it's really safe. :D
Anyhow, my apologies to HH for alowing this discourse to get so far off topic.
Depends where you're cycling, it wasn't safer for me last Friday evening that's for sure.
I do agree that cycling with my kids is much safer since we ride along some of the hundreds of miles of completely segregated cycleways and mups we have here, and we never do more than about 10mph. On those MUPs I've never been honked at, buzzed, road raged, knocked down, cut off, backed into, swerved at, or in any way threatened by anything that could even remotely hurt me, it's really safe. :D
Anyhow, my apologies to HH for alowing this discourse to get so far off topic.
Brian
03-26-07, 06:22 AM
Depends where you're cycling, it wasn't safer for me last Friday evening that's for sure.
I do agree that cycling with my kids is much safer since we ride along some of the hundreds of miles of completely segregated cycleways and mups we have here, and we never do more than about 10mph. On those MUPs I've never been honked at, buzzed, road raged, knocked down, cut off, backed into, swerved at, or in any way threatened by anything that could even remotely hurt me, it's really safe. :D
Anyhow, my apologies to HH for alowing this discourse to get so far off topic.
You've got no magpies? ;)
I do agree that cycling with my kids is much safer since we ride along some of the hundreds of miles of completely segregated cycleways and mups we have here, and we never do more than about 10mph. On those MUPs I've never been honked at, buzzed, road raged, knocked down, cut off, backed into, swerved at, or in any way threatened by anything that could even remotely hurt me, it's really safe. :D
Anyhow, my apologies to HH for alowing this discourse to get so far off topic.
You've got no magpies? ;)
Cyclaholic
03-26-07, 08:15 AM
You've got no magpies? ;)
Oh yeah, forgot about those :o :D
Oh yeah, forgot about those :o :D
Carusoswi
03-26-07, 08:22 AM
Jack ***** Motorist.
Beyond "cager..." a cager being a motorist that can't thing outside of "the box."
A JAM is a rude abusive motorist that has their head "where the sun doesn't shine."
I see (and seeing is probably a good symptom in this thread).
Caruso
Beyond "cager..." a cager being a motorist that can't thing outside of "the box."
A JAM is a rude abusive motorist that has their head "where the sun doesn't shine."
I see (and seeing is probably a good symptom in this thread).
Caruso
genec
03-26-07, 08:31 AM
I see (and seeing is probably a good symptom in this thread).
Caruso
BTW that cager description is supposed to be "can't Think outside of the Box."
Anyway, you probably understood. But seeing is believing. :D
Caruso
BTW that cager description is supposed to be "can't Think outside of the Box."
Anyway, you probably understood. But seeing is believing. :D
bmike
03-26-07, 08:35 AM
Yeah, and have you noticed they don't have Woodsy the Owl or the crying Indian anymore...
I'm sure the native american was crying because of bus fumes and litter... :rolleyes:
I'm sure the native american was crying because of bus fumes and litter... :rolleyes:
sggoodri
03-26-07, 09:10 AM
I ride with my little one in a trailer in traffic. Not a big deal, IMHO.
Me too, every weekend and when I bike-commute. I choose light-traffic low-speed roads because these are most enjoyable.
WAY safer than biking on the sidewalk to get to our destinations (ice cream shop, school, park, etc.)
Me too, every weekend and when I bike-commute. I choose light-traffic low-speed roads because these are most enjoyable.
WAY safer than biking on the sidewalk to get to our destinations (ice cream shop, school, park, etc.)
sbhikes
03-26-07, 09:22 AM
I'm sure the native american was crying because of bus fumes and litter... :rolleyes:
Wow, look at that. This guy doesn't know about the crying indian, one of the most well-known PSAs/commercials ever created.
Wow, look at that. This guy doesn't know about the crying indian, one of the most well-known PSAs/commercials ever created.
sggoodri
03-26-07, 09:28 AM
Nope, nothing there says anything about the safety of a child in a trailer. If your statement is just what you choose to beleive irrespective of how unfounded that belief is, just say so, it's OK you're entitled to your opinion.
Enclosed, low two-wheeled trailers are safer than having a kid ride high on a child bike seat, because trailers do not make the bike unusually tippy and the kid will not fall on the ground head-first from a high height. Even if the adult falls, the trailer occupant is usually unscathed. And, for that small percentage of injurious bike accidents that involve motor vehicles, trailers are more likely to get pushed out of the way in a crash rather than sending the child tumbling. For those crashes that are fast enough to crush the trailer due to inertia, a higher seat position is unlikely to be much help. My child's trailer has a flag and we get passed at greater distance and with greater caution than when I cycle by myself.
Upright sit-on trailers are a little more tippy and require the kid to hold on tight. But still, the parent controls the traffic negotiation, so they are safer than the kid piloting a bike.
Drivers are WAY more careful around kids on the road than they are around adult cyclists. I think motorists get angry because they consider the kids to be innocent human shields exploited to deter motorists from treating adult cyclists dangerously and discourteously for the presumably sinful act of roadway cycling. The fact that some complain so much about kids on trailers just proves that they don't care so much about the safety of adult cyclists on the road, i.e. adults cyclists get what they deserve for making the choice of being on the roadway.
Enclosed, low two-wheeled trailers are safer than having a kid ride high on a child bike seat, because trailers do not make the bike unusually tippy and the kid will not fall on the ground head-first from a high height. Even if the adult falls, the trailer occupant is usually unscathed. And, for that small percentage of injurious bike accidents that involve motor vehicles, trailers are more likely to get pushed out of the way in a crash rather than sending the child tumbling. For those crashes that are fast enough to crush the trailer due to inertia, a higher seat position is unlikely to be much help. My child's trailer has a flag and we get passed at greater distance and with greater caution than when I cycle by myself.
Upright sit-on trailers are a little more tippy and require the kid to hold on tight. But still, the parent controls the traffic negotiation, so they are safer than the kid piloting a bike.
Drivers are WAY more careful around kids on the road than they are around adult cyclists. I think motorists get angry because they consider the kids to be innocent human shields exploited to deter motorists from treating adult cyclists dangerously and discourteously for the presumably sinful act of roadway cycling. The fact that some complain so much about kids on trailers just proves that they don't care so much about the safety of adult cyclists on the road, i.e. adults cyclists get what they deserve for making the choice of being on the roadway.
bmike
03-26-07, 09:36 AM
Wow, look at that. This guy doesn't know about the crying indian, one of the most well-known PSAs/commercials ever created.
No. I do know the spot. I guess I should have said industrial pollution, traffic, exhaust fumes, etc.
My guess is that native americans have far more to be sad and upset about than being co-opted by an ad agency to help curtail littering. Perhaps he's crying about being forced off his land and having most of his race systematically relocated "out of the way" of manifest destiny, or maybe he laments how a people with such a rich cultural history have been reduced to stereotypes, airbrushed paintings on the sides of vans, and reduced to lobbying to open casinoes.
I find it one of the more offensive PSAs out there.
No. I do know the spot. I guess I should have said industrial pollution, traffic, exhaust fumes, etc.
My guess is that native americans have far more to be sad and upset about than being co-opted by an ad agency to help curtail littering. Perhaps he's crying about being forced off his land and having most of his race systematically relocated "out of the way" of manifest destiny, or maybe he laments how a people with such a rich cultural history have been reduced to stereotypes, airbrushed paintings on the sides of vans, and reduced to lobbying to open casinoes.
I find it one of the more offensive PSAs out there.
Bikepacker67
03-26-07, 09:51 AM
About a mile from our house I noticed the signal turn red at the light ahead, looked back to make sure it was clear, merged left, and stopped behind the second car at the light. Moments later the light turned green, the two cars went, so did we. I noticed a car was approaching from behind so when we were about half way into the intersection and I looked back (over my right shoulder this time) and merged right towards the curb. As the car was about to pass us, the JAM started honking. Not a friendly toot, mind you, but a solid seconds-long hold-it-down-as-hard-as-you-can. The stuff you've seen on some of Al's videos. I looked over inside the car, and it was 70ish geezer angrily flapping his lips (I couldn't hear anything he was saying) and waving his hand up and down and all around while his wife (presumably) was looking straight ahead, like a zombie, ignoring the whole thing. It was strange because we were in no way holding him up, so it was a classic "I feel the need to teach this jerk-on-bike-with-little-girl-in-tow a lesson". Whatever, this kind of stuff doesn't happen to me very often, nor does it really bother me. What bugs me is the prevalence of this "bike don't belong in the road" attitude. For every JAM that honks like this, I'm sure there are a hundred that simply mutter the same thing in silence. Anyway, he kept going and I probably wouldn't have given it much of a thought again except then I noticed that the black and white car immediately behind him was one of San Diego's finest! I'm not sure exactly when I grasped it, because it took a few moments for my mind to get wrapped around the unbelievable luck we were having. But at some point I was looking over at the officer/driver of the patrol car, and he was looking over at me, we nodded at each other, and he turned on his lights! I slowed down to savor the scenario as it unfolded in front of us for the next few minutes... By the time I pulled up next to the guy, the officer had already pulled him over, walked up to the car, and was giving him the "he has the same right as you to be on the road" lecture. The old guy had an entirely different demeanor, of course, and was expressing concern for "the little girl", saying he was trying to let me know how unsafe it was. The officer calmly noted that honking angrily and attempting to scare the father is an odd way to express concern for the girl, and explained why doing so can cause a cyclist to crash. At that point I interrupted, told him my little girl was 7 and that I was her 46 year old father, and that keeping her safe was my most important task in life. I looked at the officer, said "thank you", and we took off. A couple of blocks later my girl said, "Papa, that police man stopped that man". Yes, honey, he stopped him for honking at bicyclists - he's not supposed to do that". A few minutes later the officer passed us, but I never saw the JAM again. The sad thing is, I bet he's a decent guy and really believed he was doing a good deed.
Pssst... HH, paragraphs are your friend.
Pssst... HH, paragraphs are your friend.
Speedo
03-26-07, 09:56 AM
I find it one of the more offensive PSAs out there.
Too bad. The man was presented in a dignified way, and the message was simple, powerful, and effective.
(Edit) You can see the add on YouTube Keep America Beautiful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1MYY-IQ_yU)
Speedo
Too bad. The man was presented in a dignified way, and the message was simple, powerful, and effective.
(Edit) You can see the add on YouTube Keep America Beautiful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1MYY-IQ_yU)
Speedo
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 11:25 AM
Pssst... HH, paragraphs are your friend.
If long paragraphs and sentences were good enough for Marcel Proust...
If long paragraphs and sentences were good enough for Marcel Proust...
genec
03-26-07, 11:38 AM
If long paragraphs and sentences were good enough for Marcel Proust...
when you write in the quality of proust, you may use his style. :rolleyes:
i wrote this in the style of e.e.cummings... aint it cute. :p
when you write in the quality of proust, you may use his style. :rolleyes:
i wrote this in the style of e.e.cummings... aint it cute. :p
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 11:38 AM
Yup, might take a darn long time... as you point out. However, even Smokey the Bear and Woodsy Owl made impressions on some folks right off the bat.
We have had rights to the road in California, for instance, since the '70s... but info regarding such has not been in the driver's handbook until about the '90s (as I can best recall) and even now it amounts to about a page and a half of some 80 pages. Motorists don't know, cause frankly no one has told them. If we cyclists expect rights to the road, we have to tell the world... otherwise it is essentially "our little secret."
John Forester has attempted to spread the word via his book... which few cyclists have ever read. LAB has attempted to preach to the choir, but only by word of mouth. (you have to know they exist to even go looking for them or their classes)
Time to get serious about spreading the word. "Go tell it on the mountain." Get the word out. Take the same path as those before... be it littering, seatbelts, drunken driving or anti-smoking... If you want the public to know... ya gotta tell 'em. We sure aren't doing it now. I was really hoping Lance Armstrong might share some of his glory to this cause... but he has another calling...
So we have to do it on our own.
Motorists think "share the road" means that cyclists should move over for cars... so much for that idea.
It is high time (especially in light of the cost of gas) to spread the word. Critical Mass isn't the way either... it has been sending some darn mixed messages.
Nope, if we expect to have rights to the road, then every road user has to know about those rights... and it up to us to tell 'em.
This is also the key to keeping our rights to the road... if our fellow cyclists don't know they have rights, how in the world can they be expected to defend those rights?
Time to get out there and tell the world. We own the road too. I think you're totally missing the point.
When the cop told the JAM that "he" (that would be me) has the same right to be on the road as he (the JAM) has, the JAM had no objection to that concept, didn't even blink. His opinion was obvious: that regardless of what right the law happened to give me, riding a bike in traffic is so inherently dangerous that it is irresponsible to do it with a child in tow. He was genuiniely furious with me for putting myself, and particularly my daughter, in that situation. If every billboard in the county and every commercial on TV was about cyclist rights, it wouldn't even begin to address the main factor in this incident: the belief that riding a bike in traffic is inherently dangerous.
Frankly, something the cop said only supported the JAM's opinion. The cop said that the reason he shouldn't have honked is because the honking might scare "him" and cause him to crash - again emphasizing the fragility and supposed inherent dangers of riding a bike in traffic.
The message we need to get across, first to cycling advocates so we can all do this together in a united way, then to cyclists and law enforcement and the general public, is not so much that we have a right to be in the road (though that is important too), but that it is SAFE for us to be in the road. That vehicular cycling in traffic is NOT an inherently dangerous and stupid thing to do (IF you know what you're doing). That vehicular cycling in traffic is a reasonable thing to do, even with child in tow.
We have had rights to the road in California, for instance, since the '70s... but info regarding such has not been in the driver's handbook until about the '90s (as I can best recall) and even now it amounts to about a page and a half of some 80 pages. Motorists don't know, cause frankly no one has told them. If we cyclists expect rights to the road, we have to tell the world... otherwise it is essentially "our little secret."
John Forester has attempted to spread the word via his book... which few cyclists have ever read. LAB has attempted to preach to the choir, but only by word of mouth. (you have to know they exist to even go looking for them or their classes)
Time to get serious about spreading the word. "Go tell it on the mountain." Get the word out. Take the same path as those before... be it littering, seatbelts, drunken driving or anti-smoking... If you want the public to know... ya gotta tell 'em. We sure aren't doing it now. I was really hoping Lance Armstrong might share some of his glory to this cause... but he has another calling...
So we have to do it on our own.
Motorists think "share the road" means that cyclists should move over for cars... so much for that idea.
It is high time (especially in light of the cost of gas) to spread the word. Critical Mass isn't the way either... it has been sending some darn mixed messages.
Nope, if we expect to have rights to the road, then every road user has to know about those rights... and it up to us to tell 'em.
This is also the key to keeping our rights to the road... if our fellow cyclists don't know they have rights, how in the world can they be expected to defend those rights?
Time to get out there and tell the world. We own the road too. I think you're totally missing the point.
When the cop told the JAM that "he" (that would be me) has the same right to be on the road as he (the JAM) has, the JAM had no objection to that concept, didn't even blink. His opinion was obvious: that regardless of what right the law happened to give me, riding a bike in traffic is so inherently dangerous that it is irresponsible to do it with a child in tow. He was genuiniely furious with me for putting myself, and particularly my daughter, in that situation. If every billboard in the county and every commercial on TV was about cyclist rights, it wouldn't even begin to address the main factor in this incident: the belief that riding a bike in traffic is inherently dangerous.
Frankly, something the cop said only supported the JAM's opinion. The cop said that the reason he shouldn't have honked is because the honking might scare "him" and cause him to crash - again emphasizing the fragility and supposed inherent dangers of riding a bike in traffic.
The message we need to get across, first to cycling advocates so we can all do this together in a united way, then to cyclists and law enforcement and the general public, is not so much that we have a right to be in the road (though that is important too), but that it is SAFE for us to be in the road. That vehicular cycling in traffic is NOT an inherently dangerous and stupid thing to do (IF you know what you're doing). That vehicular cycling in traffic is a reasonable thing to do, even with child in tow.
Keith99
03-26-07, 11:48 AM
Of course only you would have Obie right behind the JAM and have it dealt with righteously right on the spot.
He's not the only one. I had a car turn right against the red forcing me over almost 2 lanes (2 lanes each way, but sort of a third if you are turning right immediatly after the freeway offramp, which is what i was going to do). Of course I did not have it quite as easy as HH. I ended up braking and clipping out, but also yelling, rahter profanly and very loud. One of the cops dealing with something across the street heard and took action. Did not see the end, also never found out what was going on on the other side of the street. There was something about the driver that turned right and almost all of my attention was on him from the begining.
He's not the only one. I had a car turn right against the red forcing me over almost 2 lanes (2 lanes each way, but sort of a third if you are turning right immediatly after the freeway offramp, which is what i was going to do). Of course I did not have it quite as easy as HH. I ended up braking and clipping out, but also yelling, rahter profanly and very loud. One of the cops dealing with something across the street heard and took action. Did not see the end, also never found out what was going on on the other side of the street. There was something about the driver that turned right and almost all of my attention was on him from the begining.
genec
03-26-07, 12:28 PM
The message we need to get across, first to cycling advocates so we can all do this together in a united way, then to cyclists and law enforcement and the general public, is not so much that we have a right to be in the road (though that is important too), but that it is SAFE for us to be in the road. That vehicular cycling in traffic is NOT an inherently dangerous and stupid thing to do (IF you know what you're doing). That vehicular cycling in traffic is a reasonable thing to do, even with child in tow.
I understand your point, but it can be dangerous to ride, in any manner, as long as there are idiots out there that don't know you have rights, and chose to try to "teach you a lesson."
You only were honked at, others have been hit by motorists with quite similar attitudes to the JAM you dealt with. (their tales are right here on BF)
I fully agree that cyclists need to know we all have rights to the road too.... I just see nothing wrong with informing everyone... not just cyclists. As I mentioned earlier, if even cyclists don't know they have rights to the road, then how can we expect them to defend those rights.
Every road user needs to know. That is what it comes down to... eliminating misconceptions and falsehoods about who gets to use the streets.
I understand your point, but it can be dangerous to ride, in any manner, as long as there are idiots out there that don't know you have rights, and chose to try to "teach you a lesson."
You only were honked at, others have been hit by motorists with quite similar attitudes to the JAM you dealt with. (their tales are right here on BF)
I fully agree that cyclists need to know we all have rights to the road too.... I just see nothing wrong with informing everyone... not just cyclists. As I mentioned earlier, if even cyclists don't know they have rights to the road, then how can we expect them to defend those rights.
Every road user needs to know. That is what it comes down to... eliminating misconceptions and falsehoods about who gets to use the streets.
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 12:40 PM
I understand your point, No you don't understand my point. Evidence:
but it can be dangerous to ride, in any manner, as long as there are idiots out there that don't know you have rights, and chose to try to "teach you a lesson."
That was the exact same point the JAM was trying to make. The exact same point: that there are idiots out there (of course from his perspective he didn't include himself) who make it dangerous to ride in any manner.
As far as that JAM goes, all he did to "teach me a lesson" is honk his horn. So what? How does that make it dangerous to ride? And he knew I had rights, it didn't matter. The lesson he was trying to teach me wasn't that I don't have a right to be there. The lesson he was trying to teach me is the SAME ONE you are trying to teach me: it is dangerous to be out there.
You only were honked at, others have been hit by motorists with quite similar attitudes to the JAM you dealt with. (their tales are right here on BF) And do you really think some PSAs are going to make those psychopaths less dangerous? Why don't we have PSAs against murder and rape while we're at it? I can see it now, "Just in case you didn't know, it's wrong to kidnap, torment, molest and strangle a little kid. Kids have rights too." Yeah, that should make a difference. :rolleyes:
I fully agree that cyclists need to know we all have rights to the road too.... I just see nothing wrong with informing everyone... not just cyclists. As I mentioned earlier, if even cyclists don't know they have rights to the road, then how can we expect them to defend those rights.
Every road user needs to know. That is what it comes down to... eliminating misconceptions and falsehoods about who gets to use the streets. I think it's much more important to get people, starting with you, to realize that it is not dangerous, unreasonable or stupid to ride a bike in traffic, even with a kid in tow, if you know what you're doing.
but it can be dangerous to ride, in any manner, as long as there are idiots out there that don't know you have rights, and chose to try to "teach you a lesson."
That was the exact same point the JAM was trying to make. The exact same point: that there are idiots out there (of course from his perspective he didn't include himself) who make it dangerous to ride in any manner.
As far as that JAM goes, all he did to "teach me a lesson" is honk his horn. So what? How does that make it dangerous to ride? And he knew I had rights, it didn't matter. The lesson he was trying to teach me wasn't that I don't have a right to be there. The lesson he was trying to teach me is the SAME ONE you are trying to teach me: it is dangerous to be out there.
You only were honked at, others have been hit by motorists with quite similar attitudes to the JAM you dealt with. (their tales are right here on BF) And do you really think some PSAs are going to make those psychopaths less dangerous? Why don't we have PSAs against murder and rape while we're at it? I can see it now, "Just in case you didn't know, it's wrong to kidnap, torment, molest and strangle a little kid. Kids have rights too." Yeah, that should make a difference. :rolleyes:
I fully agree that cyclists need to know we all have rights to the road too.... I just see nothing wrong with informing everyone... not just cyclists. As I mentioned earlier, if even cyclists don't know they have rights to the road, then how can we expect them to defend those rights.
Every road user needs to know. That is what it comes down to... eliminating misconceptions and falsehoods about who gets to use the streets. I think it's much more important to get people, starting with you, to realize that it is not dangerous, unreasonable or stupid to ride a bike in traffic, even with a kid in tow, if you know what you're doing.
genec
03-26-07, 12:48 PM
No you don't understand my point. Evidence:
That was the exact same point the JAM was trying to make. The exact same point: that there are idiots out there (of course from his perspective he didn't include himself) who make it dangerous to ride in any manner.
As far as that JAM goes, all he did to "teach me a lesson" is honk his horn. So what? How does that make it dangerous to ride? And he knew I had rights, it didn't matter. The lesson he was trying to teach me wasn't that I don't have a right to be there. The lesson he was trying to teach me is the SAME ONE you are trying to teach me: it is dangerous to be out there.
You took my words out of context. The JAM said it IS dangerous to ride out there, I said it CAN be dangerous to ride out there with such idiots.
Very different meaning.
I don't feel it is dangerous, but others can make it so by their actions. JAM feels it is inherently dangerous.
That was the exact same point the JAM was trying to make. The exact same point: that there are idiots out there (of course from his perspective he didn't include himself) who make it dangerous to ride in any manner.
As far as that JAM goes, all he did to "teach me a lesson" is honk his horn. So what? How does that make it dangerous to ride? And he knew I had rights, it didn't matter. The lesson he was trying to teach me wasn't that I don't have a right to be there. The lesson he was trying to teach me is the SAME ONE you are trying to teach me: it is dangerous to be out there.
You took my words out of context. The JAM said it IS dangerous to ride out there, I said it CAN be dangerous to ride out there with such idiots.
Very different meaning.
I don't feel it is dangerous, but others can make it so by their actions. JAM feels it is inherently dangerous.
noisebeam
03-26-07, 12:51 PM
As far as that JAM goes, all he did to "teach me a lesson" is honk his horn. So what? How does that make it dangerous to ride?
What about the JAM who honks horn. You give slow signal/look back. They escalate and tailgate and honk. You still hold your ground and communicate. Then they intentionally close pass to make sure their 'get off the road' message is made clear.
That puts the cyclist in greater danger.
Al
What about the JAM who honks horn. You give slow signal/look back. They escalate and tailgate and honk. You still hold your ground and communicate. Then they intentionally close pass to make sure their 'get off the road' message is made clear.
That puts the cyclist in greater danger.
Al
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 01:44 PM
You took my words out of context. The JAM said it IS dangerous to ride out there, I said it CAN be dangerous to ride out there with such idiots.
It is understood that when people say it IS dangerous to ride a bike in traffic, they mean it's dangerous because you CAN encounter a motorist who is acting in way that may harm you, and there will be nothing you can do about it.
Very different meaning. I don't see a speck of difference between what you are saying, and what the JAM was saying. You're just more polite.
I don't feel it is dangerous, but others can make it so by their actions. JAM feels it is inherently dangerous. The JAMs feels it is "inherently dangerous" because he takes it as a given that there are others out there who can make it dangerous by their actions.
Gene and the JAM, two peas in a pod, two sides of the same coin.
It is understood that when people say it IS dangerous to ride a bike in traffic, they mean it's dangerous because you CAN encounter a motorist who is acting in way that may harm you, and there will be nothing you can do about it.
Very different meaning. I don't see a speck of difference between what you are saying, and what the JAM was saying. You're just more polite.
I don't feel it is dangerous, but others can make it so by their actions. JAM feels it is inherently dangerous. The JAMs feels it is "inherently dangerous" because he takes it as a given that there are others out there who can make it dangerous by their actions.
Gene and the JAM, two peas in a pod, two sides of the same coin.
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 01:47 PM
My point is that it is NOT dangerous riding in traffic, despite the idiots and irresponsible drivers out there, IF you know what you're doing.
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 01:50 PM
What about the JAM who honks horn. You give slow signal/look back. They escalate and tailgate and honk. You still hold your ground and communicate. Then they intentionally close pass to make sure their 'get off the road' message is made clear.
That puts the cyclist in greater danger.
Al
The moment they escalate in response to my reasonable efforts to communicate, I'm out of there. Call me chicken, but I will not hold my ground with someone exhibiting psychopathic tendencies.
That puts the cyclist in greater danger.
Al
The moment they escalate in response to my reasonable efforts to communicate, I'm out of there. Call me chicken, but I will not hold my ground with someone exhibiting psychopathic tendencies.
Bikepacker67
03-26-07, 02:03 PM
My point is that it is NOT dangerous riding in traffic, despite the idiots and irresponsible drivers out there, IF you know what you're doing.
C'mon Head, of course riding in traffic CAN be dangerous, despite knowing what you're doing. You don't have control over others' actions, nor can you always react fast enough to avoid they're boneheadedness.
The question is, is riding in traffic inherently more dangerous than other daily activities (taking a shower, slicing vegetables, riding in a car), and I say no.
C'mon Head, of course riding in traffic CAN be dangerous, despite knowing what you're doing. You don't have control over others' actions, nor can you always react fast enough to avoid they're boneheadedness.
The question is, is riding in traffic inherently more dangerous than other daily activities (taking a shower, slicing vegetables, riding in a car), and I say no.
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 02:27 PM
C'mon Head, of course riding in traffic CAN be dangerous, despite knowing what you're doing. You don't have control over others' actions, nor can you always react fast enough to avoid they're boneheadedness.
From now on -- if some ******* breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place.
As quoted in the OP of the responsibility thread. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467)
The question is, is riding in traffic inherently more dangerous than other daily activities (taking a shower, slicing vegetables, riding in a car), and I say no.
Yes, and that of course is the point.
The terms "safe" and "dangerous" are very subjective and subject to interpretation based on context.
What I don't like is the use of the terms "not safe" and "dangerous" with respect to traffic cycling in contexts that imply, "therefore you shouldn't do it".
From now on -- if some ******* breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place.
As quoted in the OP of the responsibility thread. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467)
The question is, is riding in traffic inherently more dangerous than other daily activities (taking a shower, slicing vegetables, riding in a car), and I say no.
Yes, and that of course is the point.
The terms "safe" and "dangerous" are very subjective and subject to interpretation based on context.
What I don't like is the use of the terms "not safe" and "dangerous" with respect to traffic cycling in contexts that imply, "therefore you shouldn't do it".
noisebeam
03-26-07, 03:00 PM
The moment they escalate in response to my reasonable efforts to communicate, I'm out of there. Call me chicken, but I will not hold my ground with someone exhibiting psychopathic tendencies.
Say your riding in a NOL bounded by a high curb on the right side. How does one evade an excessive tailgaiter who is honking and not responding to your communication to back off?
Al
Say your riding in a NOL bounded by a high curb on the right side. How does one evade an excessive tailgaiter who is honking and not responding to your communication to back off?
Al
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 03:17 PM
Say your riding in a NOL bounded by a high curb on the right side. How does one evade an excessive tailgaiter who is honking and not responding to your communication to back off?
Al
It's impossible to say without being there, but I wouldn't rule out hopping up onto the curb based on how seriously I was taking their threats.
Al
It's impossible to say without being there, but I wouldn't rule out hopping up onto the curb based on how seriously I was taking their threats.
noisebeam
03-26-07, 03:22 PM
It's impossible to say without being there, but I wouldn't rule out hopping up onto the curb based on how seriously I was taking their threats.
Is tailgaiting (2-3ft from your rear wheel) and honking for >10s a threat?
I will admit I can not confidently hop up a parallel 8" curb. I've done it in parking lots, but not with the confidence so as not to fall in front of a tailgaiting motorist.
Al
Is tailgaiting (2-3ft from your rear wheel) and honking for >10s a threat?
I will admit I can not confidently hop up a parallel 8" curb. I've done it in parking lots, but not with the confidence so as not to fall in front of a tailgaiting motorist.
Al
genec
03-26-07, 03:32 PM
It's impossible to say without being there, but I wouldn't rule out hopping up onto the curb based on how seriously I was taking their threats.
OK, you are in a 50MPH construction zone, there is a K-rail to your right, to the top of the hill and beyond. Because of the construction, the lane is just 10 feet wide. There are two lanes going either way. It is a steep 12% grade. Traffic on your left is nearly bumper to bumper and moving at 50MPH. The motorists are intent to make it to the nearest freeway on-ramp. It is a Friday afternoon at 4:20PM. A motorist in a Hummer is on your bumper and is laying on the horn and closing. It is more than a mile to the top of the hill. You are carrying your office clothes for the last three days and your laptop in your backpack. In the opposite two lanes across the double yellow are a what appears to be a large caravan of of drunken rowdy college students returning from a sporting event. They are throwing things at other cars. Just in front of you are a series of deep potholes and some broken glass. Your cell phone slipped out of your pocket at the bottom of the hill and smashed into a thousand pieces. The sky is darkening and you just felt rain drops. Your front tire feels a bit low. And your boss wants to see you first thing on Saturday morning.
POP quiz, what do you do?
OK, you are in a 50MPH construction zone, there is a K-rail to your right, to the top of the hill and beyond. Because of the construction, the lane is just 10 feet wide. There are two lanes going either way. It is a steep 12% grade. Traffic on your left is nearly bumper to bumper and moving at 50MPH. The motorists are intent to make it to the nearest freeway on-ramp. It is a Friday afternoon at 4:20PM. A motorist in a Hummer is on your bumper and is laying on the horn and closing. It is more than a mile to the top of the hill. You are carrying your office clothes for the last three days and your laptop in your backpack. In the opposite two lanes across the double yellow are a what appears to be a large caravan of of drunken rowdy college students returning from a sporting event. They are throwing things at other cars. Just in front of you are a series of deep potholes and some broken glass. Your cell phone slipped out of your pocket at the bottom of the hill and smashed into a thousand pieces. The sky is darkening and you just felt rain drops. Your front tire feels a bit low. And your boss wants to see you first thing on Saturday morning.
POP quiz, what do you do?
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 04:08 PM
Is tailgaiting (2-3ft from your rear wheel) and honking for >10s a threat?
I will admit I can not confidently hop up a parallel 8" curb. I've done it in parking lots, but not with the confidence so as not to fall in front of a tailgaiting motorist.
Al
Well, I also wouldn't rule out hugging the curb. Although we don't recommend sharing lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared, you can move over far enough in even a 10 foot lane to allow a psycho to pass.
I will admit I can not confidently hop up a parallel 8" curb. I've done it in parking lots, but not with the confidence so as not to fall in front of a tailgaiting motorist.
Al
Well, I also wouldn't rule out hugging the curb. Although we don't recommend sharing lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared, you can move over far enough in even a 10 foot lane to allow a psycho to pass.
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 04:09 PM
OK, you are in a 50MPH construction zone, there is a K-rail to your right, to the top of the hill and beyond. Because of the construction, the lane is just 10 feet wide. There are two lanes going either way. It is a steep 12% grade. Traffic on your left is nearly bumper to bumper and moving at 50MPH. The motorists are intent to make it to the nearest freeway on-ramp. It is a Friday afternoon at 4:20PM. A motorist in a Hummer is on your bumper and is laying on the horn and closing. It is more than a mile to the top of the hill. You are carrying your office clothes for the last three days and your laptop in your backpack. In the opposite two lanes across the double yellow are a what appears to be a large caravan of of drunken rowdy college students returning from a sporting event. They are throwing things at other cars. Just in front of you are a series of deep potholes and some broken glass. Your cell phone slipped out of your pocket at the bottom of the hill and smashed into a thousand pieces. The sky is darkening and you just felt rain drops. Your front tire feels a bit low. And your boss wants to see you first thing on Saturday morning.
POP quiz, what do you do? The only choices I see are 1) keep going, or 2) hug the k-rail. I choose (1).
POP quiz, what do you do? The only choices I see are 1) keep going, or 2) hug the k-rail. I choose (1).
noisebeam
03-26-07, 04:11 PM
Well, I also wouldn't rule out hugging the curb. Although we don't recommend sharing lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared, you can move over far enough in even a 10 foot lane to allow a psycho to pass.
That was never an option you suggested back when we discussed the 15s and 17s honkers (one of which was tailgaiting). Have you rethought this?
Al
That was never an option you suggested back when we discussed the 15s and 17s honkers (one of which was tailgaiting). Have you rethought this?
Al
Sandwarrior
03-26-07, 04:13 PM
OK, you are in a 50MPH construction zone, there is a K-rail to your right, to the top of the hill and beyond. Because of the construction, the lane is just 10 feet wide. There are two lanes going either way. It is a steep 12% grade. Traffic on your left is nearly bumper to bumper and moving at 50MPH. The motorists are intent to make it to the nearest freeway on-ramp. It is a Friday afternoon at 4:20PM. A motorist in a Hummer is on your bumper and is laying on the horn and closing. It is more than a mile to the top of the hill. You are carrying your office clothes for the last three days and your laptop in your backpack. In the opposite two lanes across the double yellow are a what appears to be a large caravan of of drunken rowdy college students returning from a sporting event. They are throwing things at other cars. Just in front of you are a series of deep potholes and some broken glass. Your cell phone slipped out of your pocket at the bottom of the hill and smashed into a thousand pieces. The sky is darkening and you just felt rain drops. Your front tire feels a bit low. And your boss wants to see you first thing on Saturday morning.
POP quiz, what do you do?
Shoot the hostage!
POP quiz, what do you do?
Shoot the hostage!
genec
03-26-07, 04:14 PM
Shoot the hostage!
Damn, you read the book! ;)
Damn, you read the book! ;)
genec
03-26-07, 04:20 PM
The only choices I see are 1) keep going, or 2) hug the k-rail. I choose (1).
Bzzzzzt! You lose.
Hummer driver plows into your behind and rolls over you, as they answered their cell phone and lost interest on what was on the road... Their foot was planted on the accelerator, so they also chose "keep going."
Search for "Dallas Lawyer" for prime example of what CAN happen.
For homework, refer to dictionary for definitions of "is" and "can." Compare and contrast the two words and their meanings.
Have a nice day.
Bzzzzzt! You lose.
Hummer driver plows into your behind and rolls over you, as they answered their cell phone and lost interest on what was on the road... Their foot was planted on the accelerator, so they also chose "keep going."
Search for "Dallas Lawyer" for prime example of what CAN happen.
For homework, refer to dictionary for definitions of "is" and "can." Compare and contrast the two words and their meanings.
Have a nice day.
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 04:24 PM
That was never an option you suggested back when we discussed the 15s and 17s honkers (one of which was tailgaiting). Have you rethought this?
Al
I don't remember ever considering the possibility of thinking that the driver behind was actually displaying psychopathic tendencies. Again, it all depends. If it's a couple of kids having their idea of fun, I'll ignore it. If it's a freaky looking guy in rusty Ford Pinto, I might go for the curb...
Al
I don't remember ever considering the possibility of thinking that the driver behind was actually displaying psychopathic tendencies. Again, it all depends. If it's a couple of kids having their idea of fun, I'll ignore it. If it's a freaky looking guy in rusty Ford Pinto, I might go for the curb...
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 04:28 PM
Bzzzzzt! You lose.
Hummer driver plows into your behind and rolls over you, as they answered their cell phone and lost interest on what was on the road... Their foot was planted on the accelerator, so they also chose "keep going."
Search for "Dallas Lawyer" for prime example of what CAN happen.
For homework, refer to dictionary for definitions of "is" and "can." Compare and contrast the two words and their meanings.
Have a nice day.
You lost me.
Where do I search for "Dallas Lawyer"?
I find it incredible to believe that someone would be tailgating me - meaning they are aware of me right in front of them and are moving at my speed - and then they just speed up and run me over because of a cell phone call.
Hummer driver plows into your behind and rolls over you, as they answered their cell phone and lost interest on what was on the road... Their foot was planted on the accelerator, so they also chose "keep going."
Search for "Dallas Lawyer" for prime example of what CAN happen.
For homework, refer to dictionary for definitions of "is" and "can." Compare and contrast the two words and their meanings.
Have a nice day.
You lost me.
Where do I search for "Dallas Lawyer"?
I find it incredible to believe that someone would be tailgating me - meaning they are aware of me right in front of them and are moving at my speed - and then they just speed up and run me over because of a cell phone call.
noisebeam
03-26-07, 04:30 PM
I don't remember ever considering the possibility of thinking that the driver behind was actually displaying psychopathic tendencies. Again, it all depends. If it's a couple of kids having their idea of fun, I'll ignore it. If it's a freaky looking guy in rusty Ford Pinto, I might go for the curb...
I'd say one can't tell based on appearances alone. Or behavior until its too late.
Although I do agree that one can make a judgement based on a variety of factors that are too complex to fully put into words and most often make the right call. But not always.
Most want to intimidate thru behavior that appears to be on the edge of potential harm, but most of these most won't want to cause harm. Figuring out that .001% (NPOOA) of harrassers who are willing to cause harm vs. responding how the intimidator wants you to respond is a very difficult call.
Al
I'd say one can't tell based on appearances alone. Or behavior until its too late.
Although I do agree that one can make a judgement based on a variety of factors that are too complex to fully put into words and most often make the right call. But not always.
Most want to intimidate thru behavior that appears to be on the edge of potential harm, but most of these most won't want to cause harm. Figuring out that .001% (NPOOA) of harrassers who are willing to cause harm vs. responding how the intimidator wants you to respond is a very difficult call.
Al
genec
03-26-07, 04:36 PM
You lost me.
Where do I search for "Dallas Lawyer"?
I find it incredible to believe that someone would be tailgating me - meaning they are aware of me right in front of them and are moving at my speed - and then they just speed up and run me over because of a cell phone call.
Incredible ain't it. Dallas Lawyer. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=59635&highlight=dallas+lawyer)
Where do I search for "Dallas Lawyer"?
I find it incredible to believe that someone would be tailgating me - meaning they are aware of me right in front of them and are moving at my speed - and then they just speed up and run me over because of a cell phone call.
Incredible ain't it. Dallas Lawyer. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=59635&highlight=dallas+lawyer)
Helmet Head
03-26-07, 05:53 PM
Incredible ain't it. Dallas Lawyer. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=59635&highlight=dallas+lawyer)
One event three years ago. You're probably more likely to be picked off by a random sniper.
One event three years ago. You're probably more likely to be picked off by a random sniper.
genec
03-26-07, 06:17 PM
One event three years ago. You're probably more likely to be picked off by a random sniper.
Uh, one event witnessed and reported and involving an SMU lawyer...
Just like your "one event" is the only one of a motorist honking at a cyclist...
Uh, one event witnessed and reported and involving an SMU lawyer...
Just like your "one event" is the only one of a motorist honking at a cyclist...
bmike
03-27-07, 08:26 AM
OK, you are in a 50MPH construction zone, there is a K-rail to your right, to the top of the hill and beyond. Because of the construction, the lane is just 10 feet wide. There are two lanes going either way. It is a steep 12% grade. Traffic on your left is nearly bumper to bumper and moving at 50MPH. The motorists are intent to make it to the nearest freeway on-ramp. It is a Friday afternoon at 4:20PM. A motorist in a Hummer is on your bumper and is laying on the horn and closing. It is more than a mile to the top of the hill. You are carrying your office clothes for the last three days and your laptop in your backpack. In the opposite two lanes across the double yellow are a what appears to be a large caravan of of drunken rowdy college students returning from a sporting event. They are throwing things at other cars. Just in front of you are a series of deep potholes and some broken glass. Your cell phone slipped out of your pocket at the bottom of the hill and smashed into a thousand pieces. The sky is darkening and you just felt rain drops. Your front tire feels a bit low. And your boss wants to see you first thing on Saturday morning.
POP quiz, what do you do?
<lame humor>
I love these. Wasn't this the plot for Speed 10? I think it was the one where our very own Chipcom beat out Keanu Reeves for the top spot - The movie starts out with Chip on a tandem riding with the Dalai Lama as stoker. The bike is wired with explosives (this bike is a pipe bomb!) and he can't stop pedaling or it all goes off! JF is in the hummer running late picking up HH while on their way to their next speaking engagement.
</lame humor>
:) :)
POP quiz, what do you do?
<lame humor>
I love these. Wasn't this the plot for Speed 10? I think it was the one where our very own Chipcom beat out Keanu Reeves for the top spot - The movie starts out with Chip on a tandem riding with the Dalai Lama as stoker. The bike is wired with explosives (this bike is a pipe bomb!) and he can't stop pedaling or it all goes off! JF is in the hummer running late picking up HH while on their way to their next speaking engagement.
</lame humor>
:) :)
Speedo
03-27-07, 08:56 AM
Incredible ain't it. Dallas Lawyer. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=59635&highlight=dallas+lawyer)
Watch out if you're in Dallas! Her conviction was overturned on appeal. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-smuprof_01met.ART.North.Edition1.24fc7cd.html)
Watch out if you're in Dallas! Her conviction was overturned on appeal. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-smuprof_01met.ART.North.Edition1.24fc7cd.html)
genec
03-27-07, 09:20 AM
Watch out if you're in Dallas! Her conviction was overturned on appeal. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-smuprof_01met.ART.North.Edition1.24fc7cd.html)
Figures. I wonder how many cyclists were in the jury?
Figures. I wonder how many cyclists were in the jury?
slowandsteady
03-27-07, 09:58 AM
The only problem with these "stats" is that they compare autos moving at 60MPH to bikes moving at 20MPH.
Try comparing death rates per mile for vehicles moving at 20MPH only. Bearing in mind that all new autos today have airbags.
If autos were driven at bicycle speeds, they would be far far safer then even bikes, per mile driven. Up the speed and the kinetic energy also increases dramatically.
Imagine the opposite for instance... riding a bicycle at 60MPH...
Personally we'd all do much better if cars were never driven at hiway speeds on surface streets... That is one of the biggest issues I see in urban areas... they are designed for "auto scale" vice "human scale." If autos had to drive at 25 or 30MPH for instance, then bikes could easily be integrated into the picture... but when bikes are out there in 50MPH traffic... then it is easy to see why some folks just can't see riding a bike in traffic.
One of the reasons that bikes fare so well in many European cities is that the cities were designed long before autos existed... and therefore the streets are scaled for humans and carts (the latter which are often used to deliver goods in narrow Paris streets for instance). As soon as multilaned 45-50MPH and up Urban Hiways are added, then "auto scale" takes over and human scale is left behind.
Huh??? But bikes aren't traveling at 60 mph and cars aren't traveling at 20 mph. Riding a bike IS safer than riding in a car whether by mile or by time. Of course cars would be safer if they never exceeded 20 mph, but that isn't reality and it never will be.
Try comparing death rates per mile for vehicles moving at 20MPH only. Bearing in mind that all new autos today have airbags.
If autos were driven at bicycle speeds, they would be far far safer then even bikes, per mile driven. Up the speed and the kinetic energy also increases dramatically.
Imagine the opposite for instance... riding a bicycle at 60MPH...
Personally we'd all do much better if cars were never driven at hiway speeds on surface streets... That is one of the biggest issues I see in urban areas... they are designed for "auto scale" vice "human scale." If autos had to drive at 25 or 30MPH for instance, then bikes could easily be integrated into the picture... but when bikes are out there in 50MPH traffic... then it is easy to see why some folks just can't see riding a bike in traffic.
One of the reasons that bikes fare so well in many European cities is that the cities were designed long before autos existed... and therefore the streets are scaled for humans and carts (the latter which are often used to deliver goods in narrow Paris streets for instance). As soon as multilaned 45-50MPH and up Urban Hiways are added, then "auto scale" takes over and human scale is left behind.
Huh??? But bikes aren't traveling at 60 mph and cars aren't traveling at 20 mph. Riding a bike IS safer than riding in a car whether by mile or by time. Of course cars would be safer if they never exceeded 20 mph, but that isn't reality and it never will be.
slowandsteady
03-27-07, 10:00 AM
Motorists gave us a wide berth when we were on the streets, with the exception of one day, when someone leaned out the window of a lowered truck, and fired a .22 at my (now ex) wife.
That's horrible!!! Was the guy caught? Was it a starter pistol or a real gun?
That's horrible!!! Was the guy caught? Was it a starter pistol or a real gun?
genec
03-27-07, 10:52 AM
Huh??? But bikes aren't traveling at 60 mph and cars aren't traveling at 20 mph. Riding a bike IS safer than riding in a car whether by mile or by time. Of course cars would be safer if they never exceeded 20 mph, but that isn't reality and it never will be.
But that is exactly the issue... comparing apples to oranges. Consider that cars do tend to go about 25MPH in residential areas... so that "never" issue is wrong too.
But that is exactly the issue... comparing apples to oranges. Consider that cars do tend to go about 25MPH in residential areas... so that "never" issue is wrong too.
Speedo
03-27-07, 10:56 AM
Figures. I wonder how many cyclists were in the jury?
No, it was overturned by a panel of judges. Turns out that the original judge's charge to the jury was flawed. In the news story it says that the prosecutor will appeal this appeal and retry her if that fails, but I couldn't find any current updates.
Speedo
No, it was overturned by a panel of judges. Turns out that the original judge's charge to the jury was flawed. In the news story it says that the prosecutor will appeal this appeal and retry her if that fails, but I couldn't find any current updates.
Speedo
slowandsteady
03-27-07, 11:01 AM
But that is exactly the issue... comparing apples to oranges. Consider that cars do tend to go about 25MPH in residential areas... so that "never" issue is wrong too.
25 mph is not 20 mph. The times that cars actually do go 20 mph are incredibly small and irrelevent. You can claim that if we lived in a world where no one drove their car faster than 20 mph it would be safer. But the point is moot since at no time in the history of the world and cars was there a national/global speed limit of just 20 mph.
You are either a troll or just a little slow on the uptake. There are several different modes of transportation. Each one of them is quite different from the other. But that doesn't mean we cannot compare how safe each one is.
We have trains, cars, bikes, planes, and buses among others. You claimed that it was reckless and dangerous to ride a bike in traffic with one's child in tow. The reality is that it is far more reckless to drive a car in traffic with your child inside. This has been proven time and again that bike transportation is safer than car transportation whether by mile or by time.
25 mph is not 20 mph. The times that cars actually do go 20 mph are incredibly small and irrelevent. You can claim that if we lived in a world where no one drove their car faster than 20 mph it would be safer. But the point is moot since at no time in the history of the world and cars was there a national/global speed limit of just 20 mph.
You are either a troll or just a little slow on the uptake. There are several different modes of transportation. Each one of them is quite different from the other. But that doesn't mean we cannot compare how safe each one is.
We have trains, cars, bikes, planes, and buses among others. You claimed that it was reckless and dangerous to ride a bike in traffic with one's child in tow. The reality is that it is far more reckless to drive a car in traffic with your child inside. This has been proven time and again that bike transportation is safer than car transportation whether by mile or by time.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.