robyr

I will only say this to you. Saying that you can mitigate the dangers on the sidewalk by "being aware of them" is like saying you can mitigate the dangers of driving drunk by being aware that you are drunk. The dangers are inherent to riding on the sidewalk. You can be "aware" all you want, and its STILL several times more dangerous. Please read my link to the Cornell FAQ and the links to the studies contained within.

unterhausen

there is a reason why VC has its own forum hidden inside the A&S forum; discussions get nasty quick. Please take this discussion over there.

I-Like-To-Bike

Read it; it is full of quotes and extract of wee-wwe poor statistical analysis and foolish factoids about cycling risk

For starters the claim that "x" % of various scenarios of cyclist-motorist accidents involved sidewalk cycling is worthless without knowing the percentage of cyclists who are riding on the sidewalk vice the approved method. If 90% of the cyclists at the location ride on the sidewalk it is reasonable to expect 90% of accidents at the location to "involve" sidewalk cycling.

And of course, as in all these BS cycling risk FAQ's, accident severities are totally ignored when making the Henny Penny pronouncements about danger and risk.

The rest of the Cornell FAQ is no better.

Recommend that all the posters making statements about the risk of sidewalk cycling compared to street/road cycling, just claim what they prefer to do and stop trying to berate other cyclists with phony-baloney statistics about cycling risk.

GriddleCakes

It is in no way like being drunk! The dangers inherent in drunk driving are things like reduced reflex time, blurred vision, poor decision making ability, compromised balance and co-ordination, etc. These are all internal factors effecting one's ability to drive, unavoidable and un-mitigatable until one has sobered up. The dangers inherent in sidewalk cycling, as succinctly outlined in the Cornell FAQ that you posted, are all external factors that are completely avoidable if you watch for them.

From the Cornell FAQ: "Bicycling on the sidewalk eliminates the relatively small danger to cyclists of crashes with overtaking motorists, but increases the potential for more common intersection collisions." The FAQ then goes on to list a number of likely collisions that the sidewalk cyclist is vulnerable to, all of which are "intersection collisions", collisions where the motorist it traveling across the path of the cyclist. The studies the FAQ cites are population studies, which can only identify correlation, not causation, and only do so for one variable (on sidewalk vs. on road). The studies do not take into effect the ability/experience level of the cyclists who have been in the collisions that they cite.

And here's the catch: if a cyclist knows that riding upon the sidewalk increases the likelihood of cross-traffic/intersection collisions, then by watching out for said collisions a cyclist can mitigate the danger of said collisions. Same as how I know that when I walk across the street, I could get hit by a car. So, by looking both ways and only crossing the street when it's clear, I can mitigate said danger and safely cross the street.

brumskee

Originally Posted by himespau
Based on his posts, I'm guessing OP is young - say 15. To him, 30 is middle aged, 35 is old, and 40 is positively ancient. I wanna see pictures of this "old" lady in her running shorts and sports bra before I make any judgments here. Agreed?

Yeah me too, and post 'em in the over fifty forum so we can get a fair assessment!

myrridin

It was once considered good behavior to show elders respect for a very simple and good reason. There age and experience usually meant what they were saying was of value. Usually value that the young, inexperience, and hotheaded fools just didn't get...

The OP refuses to post his location, so I think it is fair to assume that the women in question was actually correct about it being illegal to ride on the sidewalk (and the OP knows it)... It was certainly rude to respond with vulgarities, something you agreed to. Situation is a perfect reason, why children were expected to show respect to their elders...


And even under the original mores, the response if the elder was wrong was simply, "Yes, mam." and continue about your behavior... Hardly a smell inducing bull*&^% expectation. It is called being civil. Replace the term elder, with anyone you don't know well and the same principal applies... (though you may wish to drop the mam...)

Lot's Knife

Greatest story every.

chipcom 

will the Queen do?

chipcom 

1. OP
2. usual BF wackiness ensues

nothing unusual to see here

chipcom 

then someone has to mention VC and it all goes to hell

kengrubb

TISH! That's French!

Commando303

I'll not fight you to produce textual evidence to back up this idea of the way the "world once was" that you seem to be confidently pushing; I'll say simply it's irrelevant to me what not only your perception, but the reality, of society's history in the vein may be. One does not earn respect — one should not be allowed to receive respect — by naked virtue of a trait over which one has no more power to dismiss than one had to acquire, be that trait age, race, creed, or some other.

As I said, none of this is meant to intimate my agreement with (or opposition to) the original poster's actions in the scenario he presented. I don't much care to comment further, either way, on the instance than I already might have.

Your idea that "children" should respect "elders," however, as you're using it, is ridiculous. "Respect" is not tantamount to silence or cowardice, and if someone has acted to deserve what may be termed a crude or unrefined reply, his or her years must not be magically considered in deciding whether to deal such treatment.

myrridin

That you would even suggest the need for "evidence" that the world once expected children to "respect their elders" is telling in a number of ways. One it says a lot about your age, upbringing (which sadly is common among your age group), and society in general.

Respect is neither something earned or required. It is something that is part of civilized and polite behavior. Here are a few others you may never have been taught.. You don't discuss politics in polite conversations. You don't ask a women her age. You don't brag about your wealth (or poverty). You don't tell someone they are ugly, fat, old, etc... For the young and uncouth among you it is called being polite. Doing any of the above (or cursing at a polite stranger) simply shows the lack of character of the person committing the rudeness...

And no matter what offense you seem to find in the concept, we are talking a very simple situation... A person (who happens to be older and presumably wiser) politely informs the child in question that what they were doing was illegal. The child responds with a disrespectful curse in return. The first person behaved reasonably and politely as described by the OP. The OP's behavior is impolite, immature, and contemptuous--all very telling of the way he was raised and how he currently chooses to live his life.

A polite contact from a stranger is never an excuse for impolite behavior. And when someone (anyone but certainly someone older) politely tries to tell you something, it is a good idea to listen. You may, or may not agree, but on the off chance that they could be right, listening is a good idea. It is also not a burden. I tell you this because given your reaction, you have never been instructed in how to behave in a polite society. Bless your heart!

chipcom 

kids, can't live with em, can't bury em in the back yard. I remember back in the day when our parents made us walk 20 miles to school, with no clothes, on roads paved with tacks, uphill, in the winter, backwards...no back talk from us, CUZ WE LIKED IT!

AlmostTrick

Well said Commando. Not too shabby for someone with a pants down Homer avatar.

And give it a rest already myrridin. Don’t you have an employee somewhere that needs a firing because they said a couple of saucy words to an Almighty Elder?

Commando303

Ad-hominem points (suppositions about my age; presumptions about my upbringing) can't carry you far in a conversation. I can assume you're white, male, sixty-plus years of age; generally disillusioned by culture and annoyed by what you see as an irreverance in youth, which was happily absent a time ago. As well, you could be a sixteen-year-old girl, perhaps Mexican, in the second-floor bedroom of a Chicago apartment, who happens to feel much the same way, if from different experiences. It really doesn't bear on my regard for your position. Recall, I didn't ask you for evidence to back up your presentation of "days past"; I said it's impertinent to me whether the depiction is accurate.

I think you've lost yourself in your upset about this topic. As much is evident in the banalities you've dropped about manners and mores (not, mind you, about respect). Somewhere, maybe early, in this sickly-bloated thread, you firmly fixed yourself to making the original post an issue about age rather than about anything else. I'll briefly play the game you started, of picking on my years (to which you can naught but guess) rather than my thoughts, and suggest you're more than a little sad about not being treated the way you'd like to be. Maybe your family doesn't talk to you as you'd like; maybe your kids don't; maybe your grandkids are rapscallions; maybe the neighbors irritate you with their tone; maybe it's the news or the movies or just some unfortunate illusion in your mind. It doesn't matter.

If your feeling is that the line of what bounds acceptable conduct repositions per someone's age, you're wrong — and that is your feeling: Several times you've begun with the generality of treating persons with politeness and respect, then quickly blended in your point that special consideration must be granted from the age-difference between a pair. You're wrong; any bitterness, desperation, and else you might carry around will not take you nearer to being right.

Unless something new and interesting is said, I think I'll extract myself from this discussion, here.

chipcom 

get off my lawn!

GriddleCakes

Erm...my bad, I won't mention it again or respond to others talking about it unless it's in the super secret sub-forum. I guess I'll just get off y'alls lawn and go play in the expressway.

chipcom 

leave us some of them griddle cakes tho...I'm kinda hungry

MNBikeguy

Dang it chipcom. I was all set to leave this thread. Then you drop that famous queen picture.
Makes me feel just like that time in 8th grade snooping in Mr. Winslows secret collection in the basement.
Gawd save the queen!

the cyclops

Im sorry,this pic was too good not to use....

Seattle Forrest

Has Cue been reborn?

kengrubb

kengrubb

Rule, Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

kengrubb

Yes, but use in what capacity? I suppose, for a rat infestation, one could post copies of the picture and it should work better than a skilled piper. However, it might blind the rats, and then one would be stuck with a bunch of blind rats scampering about.