So, you are now trying to resort to put words into my mouth. I've said nothing like you are imagining.

:rolleyes:

It's clear is that you don't read or understand the posts here.

Well then we're not in disagreement and my original statement still stands. You misread it and continue to do so. Because it is merely an expanded way of saying, "Motor vehiclists and bicyclists generally share the same rules of the road." Your inferences and interpretation, which are incorrect, have nothing to do with my intention.

PS: How can I be putting words in your mouth when I'm asking for clarification?

The problem with what you said is that it is very misleading and technically incorrect.

Laws that reference "motor vehicles" don't apply to bicyclists. Your weird insistance in using the word "motor" just confuses people.

Laws that reference "motor vehicles" don't apply to bicyclists. This is important for people to be clear about because it helps them understand how the traffic laws work. Yet you want to keep confusing people.

The inclusion of the word "motor" in the traffic laws is quite deliberate. It's absence in a law is deliberate too.

Your use of the word is bizarre: you included it but say you aren't referencing it.

No, you aren't asking for "clarification". You are saying what you think "I am stating". From what you wrote there, you clearly haven't been payin attention.

==========

This is bizarre and sloppy writing.

The mistake you are making is that you are excluding bicyclists who are not operating "motor vehicles".

You include bicyclists by dropping the word "motor".

Forgive me for confusing the issue while trying to be specific.

When I switched the wording the the more particular "automobiles" you chastised me for not being inclusive of other motor vehicles... which was the wording I used to begin with and caused confusion on your end.

I have never said laws which reference motor vehicles apply to bicycles. Now who's trying to put words in the the mouths of others...?

:rolleyes: Criminy!

You are confused. Not I.

Why mention motor vehicles at all? Drop the word "motor". It makes no sense. Using "automobiles" made even less sense.

If you were paying any sort of attention, I did not say that you said this. Your use of the word "motor" makes it sound like you might be saying it. At least, using that word will confuse people.

Your harping on "motor vehicles" is weird since bicycles don't have motors!

Laws that reference "motor vehicles" don't apply to bicyclists.

You have never said that you get this. You just keep insisting on including word "motor". That's bizarre.

I get this, of course I get this.

What you don't seem to get is the intent of the original statement, that motor vehicle drivers and bicyclists generally share the same rules of the road. More broadly: where a law states "vehicle," both motor vehiclists and bicyclists are bound by it.

If you did not read my original statement this way, then you misread it. I haven't read a reply where anyone else has expressed confusion regarding my statement...

That's progress!

You have to communicate the "intent" of your crappy original statement. You are saying something else here.

No, your original statement is wrong. Whatever you intended it to mean, you failed to communicate that intent. That's not my problem. It's yours.

It's "more broad" and more correct! I said the same thing (but more clearly) in the post before yours! You should have said this as your original statement!

And where a law states "motor vehicle", bicyclists are not bound by it.

No, this is clearly wrong.

The "NY Vehicle Law statutes" clearly says that the laws pertaining to the operation of "vehicles" applies to bicyclists. The laws pertaining to "motor vehicles" do not apply to bicyclists.

You've spent nearly a page arguing this, clearly this is a problem for you or you'd have abandoned the issue...


I did.

Look, if you were correct about this, then traffic law regarding motor vehicles covered in said laws by the broader term "vehicles" would not be applicable to bicyclists. Since this is not the case, you are clearly in the wrong.

???

Huh?

You are making no sense at all!!

"Vehicle" laws apply to all vehicles, including bicycles. Laws that mention "motor vehicles" don't.

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

This is one law that applies to motor vehicles (and not to bicyclists):

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/VII/33/1212

Here is another law that applies to motor vehicles (and not to bicyclists):

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/VII/33/1213

And another:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/VII/33/1214

And another:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/VII/33/1215

There are a lot of laws that apply specifically to motor vehicles. None of them apply to bicyclists.

Thus, clearly, they don't "generally" apply to bicyclists at all!

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

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/VII/34/1231

Again, the NYS law clearly says "vehicle". The word "motor" does not appear in the "bicycle" law.

This is wrong. You could argue that the law implies it but it does not say it.

If the law says it applies to motor vehicles, the law does not apply to bicyclists.

This may be off the subject, but did anyone notice on the last episode of Dexter that the guy killed on a bike wasn't wearing a helmet? He was also wearing road shoes but the bike had platform pedals. How wrong can you get?

Do I really need to list all the traffic laws which apply to both motor vehiclists and bicyclists just to prove my point? There are many.

There are also laws which apply only to bicyclists, but not motor vehicles. The laws which apply to only motor vehicles, or only bicycles are few; the laws which cover both are many. Thus, generally, traffic law which concerns motor vehicles also concerns bicycles. And vice versa. Specifically, those laws which are written pertaining to "vehicles."

Here's another approach: There are many NYS traffic laws which apply to motor vehicles but are not specific to motor vehicles. There are many NYS traffic laws which apply to bicycles but are not specific to bicycles. Many of those laws apply to both groups. Some of those laws apply to only one group or another.

The pertinent road use laws which apply to both form the common vesica piscis or overlap in a Venn diagram; those specific to drivers of bikes or motor vehicles are the outlier crescents on either side of the central vesica where laws pertain to both groups. So, generally, there are many laws in NYS traffic statutes which cover both motor vehicle operation and bicycle operation on public roads.

I assume NYS has some law regarding coming to a full stop at a stop sign. That applies to motor vehiclists; it also applies to bicyclists. It is one of those general traffic laws pertaining to the operation of a motor vehicle which also applies to the operation of bicycles. I'm clear that because the statute says "vehicle" it applies to both and understand that you would interpret it the same way. But according to your interpretation of my original statement, because it applies to drivers of motor vehicles, it does not apply to those riding bicycles. Which is as insane as the beef you have with what I said

Enough, njkayaker & mconlonx!
We all get that there are laws that apply to both motorists and cyclists. Also, that there are laws that apply to just one or the other.
Your argument over the semantics of how something was stated is tiresome (and, yes, I recognize the redundancy in that sentence). If y'all feel compelled to continue the discussion, how about messaging each other?

Don't make me create an animated GIF of y'all smacking each other. :)

Yes, the helmet nonsense is better.

All those laws apply to vehicles. Which is what the NYS (and every other state) says.

Your point (whatever it is) isn't meaningful or useful.

...

Hmmm------------checking back here after a few days I see that the tired old rants against helmets have totally failed, so the anti helmet crowd has turned this thread into bike vs cars. Losers always go off on a tangent.

I don't agree. I know that this will not change anyone's mind on this (helmet or not) but I can tell you first hand, if you go down and hit your head, you will feel differently on helmet/no helmet. I know this first hand. I hit a pack of gravel once when having to suddenly brake (to avoid impact). The bike went on it's side and my head hit the pavement on my temple side. There was no option to control the fall, it happened in a split second and there was no time to adjust. Boom.. right down on my side like someone pulled the bike from underneath me. Thank goodness I had my helmet on. When I hit, I didn't get knocked out but it was close. I saw everything go white for a brief second but never went fully out. My head was ok but I was bruised from my toes to my fingertips and everything on my right side. I was at about 5mph when the bottom of the bike kicked over to the left and no maneuvering could have helped me. It was upright to the ground in a split second. I don't think it could have been closer to a "knock out" than it was but I'm 101% sure the helmet was the difference between serious injury or not. I was wearing a 3/4 helmet which probably saved me from serious injury.

Just my 2 cents!

This is so true, that's why I got bored with the all the ignorant rants because the losers of the argument, and I mean the anti-helmet crowd, always go off tangent and in addition to going off tangent refuse to believe the insurmountable evidence provided by numerous highly qualified proof that helmets are effective. If all the evidence produced here for both the pro and cons against helmets had been been taken to a court the judge and jury would have had no choice but to rule in favor of helmets; but alas we're not talking about rational judge and jury, we're talking about irrational people who want what the want and won't believe the evidence no matter how overwhelming the evidence is. I've said this before, I don't care if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet, that's their right, but don't shove that belief down our throats by coming up with a few isolated examples showing that helmets don't work. Helmets aren't perfect but neither is seat belts and later airbags, people die in cars all the time with crush zones, seat belts, and airbags, but something is better than nothing.

Oh, I don't doubt you would feel a difference in a certain kind of fall, but I am making a distinction between when you're more likely to suffer a fall. In more extreme forms of riding, like racing where you are pushing the limits of your skills, or mountain biking where you are riding on very rough, very uneven, and often steep terrain, you are more likely to suffer a fall than when you are riding in a normal manner on paved roads and bike paths. Also in mtb and racing, you are more likely to suffer the kind of fall a bicycle helmet is designed for, specifically a solo fall to the ground. But people who insist on a helmet for street use often cite the possibility of a collision with a motor vehicle as the primary justification, but such an impact is well beyond the design parameters of a typical bike helmet, so that is sort of a non sequitur.

Not true entirely....note I said not entirely. I impacted a car head first with a helmet on and survived without any effects to my brain (maybe that's because of numerous frontal lobotomy's?). Anywho, the helmet was completely destroyed in the process, so the helmet worked according to me, and according to the paramedics who eyewitnessed the accident when it happen from across the street. My shoulder was not wearing helmet and it suffered a dislocation when I was tossed onto the pavement.

Brennan,

I don't know this to be a fact, but I'm guessing that most falls are simply that, falls. A rock patch, or a curb edge, etc. These happen when your're just simply riding. My point is simply that any fall is better with a helmet. But I do get what you are saying.

Helmet Morality & Choice
 

Before I begin, I want to say that I have been a member here for many years under a different name. However, this story is so deeply personal that I wanted to remain anonymous, create a temporary account, and just share my opinion on helmets.

This is an extremely epic story for me, in fact, it's the story of my life. But I'm not going to expound philosophical or in reams of prose, so here is the 2 minute version:

In 1988, my 14 year old brother, on a road bike, was clipped by a tractor, lost control, and struck another vehicle with his head. He was in a coma for months. He never recovered. When he "awoke" he was in a vegetative state, and was soon diagnosed as being in a permanent vegetative state. My Mother ended up a broken and traumatized woman, reading to him twice a week, then five times a week, then living at the care center, then hiring permanent care at-home. She put on 100+ pounds, developed Diabetes, then a rare large cell carcinoma, and died in 2006. She read to him from the Phantom Tollbooth the day before she died, after refusing additional chemotherapy.

In the midst of this, my brother, who was a great dude, far better than I, left a deep loss in my Father, and Dad, watching his wife waste away and go crazy (which she did), and due to his own psychoses of being a veteran, a fire fighter, and immersing himself in post 9/11 apocalyptic panic, decided to take his own life in 2002.

My brother was a good kid, and he wore his helmet that day. He was the best damn kid, you have no idea.

I know helmets save lives, and they do all the time, but my case, the most important case in the world, my family hit the lottery, and a helmet destroyed my entire family over the course of 18 years.

I'd like to participate in cycling events, but even at basic, non-sanctioned levels, there's a tremendous amount of pressure and even insistence on wearing a helmet. I find it so offensive and shocking that others demand I wear a helmet, that I often ride solo.

I'm an extremely professional, mild-mannered, good-natured individual, and the story of my life in regards to a bicycle helmet is so horrible that really only a handful of people know it, one of whom is on bikeforums. And under no circumstances would I ever tell it as a response to some Fred's frumpy wife badgering me about my "helmet requirements."

If I sign a waiver I should be able to go helmetless if I want. And on unsanctioned rides, the pressure to wear the helmet is offensive.

I have a wife and kids. When the dump truck with the stoned kid driving it comes, I just want to become Dead Daddy. Not Terry Schiavo. My brother turned 39 today. But he hasn't had birthday cake in 25 years.

Your tax dollars have paid, get this, $14,500,000 to keep him on a feeding tube with minimal care treatment for 25 years. You also paid for my Mom when she lost it.

For me, the helmet is a choice between the open casket funeral and the closed casket funeral.

If you want to preach morality, preach it. Be a judge. Kill Roe v. Wade.

But this isn't Roe v. Wade. I'll do what I want. It's my life. You won't let me sign a waiver? I'll just ride alone. A helmet left me alone in the first place.

Peace, all.

In before the move to Helmet Thread.

Sorry about your suffering.

I read this as saying your brother would have died if he hadn't been wearing a helmet and that would have saved the family significant grief. And while that's certainly one possible outcome, there are many others, including the same as you lived through.

I stand corrected.

In other news, a friend a few years ago was hit by a car that blew a stop sign at 25mph. After flying through the air 50+ feet, landing several times on hi head, he lives to tell the tale. He was wearing a helmet.