Please help me reply to this guy...
03-29-05 | 02:45 PM
#26
Headed to the Library...
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
From: DC
Bikes: 2003 cherry red Bianchi Giro, Quattro Assi Team 2000 Rocket
This article is crazy. We've talked about the issue of whether or not a bike is a vehicle, which determines the level of responsibility that would be legally required. On the other side, I think it's important to look at the benefits of a car v. a bike (and I use the term 'benefits' rather loosely). My point is, at the base of it, cyclists are really just trying to suvive on roads that are built with only motorists in mind. Don't get me wrong, I'll run a red light as much as the next guy. The thing that bothers me is that motorists get all hight and mighty, as if they never break traffic laws.
I agree that education is the most important and most effective way of diminshing these problems. But at the same time, both motorists and cyclists just need to learn to give each other the benefit of the doubt!!
I agree that education is the most important and most effective way of diminshing these problems. But at the same time, both motorists and cyclists just need to learn to give each other the benefit of the doubt!!
03-29-05 | 03:35 PM
#27
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 0
From: North Central Massachusetts
Bikes: Cannondale R600
Originally Posted by clevernamehere
Thanks for all the feedback!
I've got a first draft pulled together. I may have to shorten it up though... it got a bit long.
Comments? Suggestions?
I've got a first draft pulled together. I may have to shorten it up though... it got a bit long.
Comments? Suggestions?
(although actually you might consider a clever slip
I disagree mildly on the licensing response - the poster who said "because it's not the law" gets my vote, but I don't feel all that strongly about it. Interesting why this is so -- when I was growing up (in Arlington, Va), we had to get bicycle license plates, although I don't think they were particularly effective other than in returning a few abandoned bikes.
03-29-05 | 03:39 PM
#28
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 0
From: North Central Massachusetts
Bikes: Cannondale R600
Originally Posted by DC_Emily
My point is, at the base of it, cyclists are really just trying to suvive on roads that are built with only motorists in mind.
03-29-05 | 04:18 PM
#29
Huachuca Rider
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte, NC
Bikes: Fuji CCR1, Specialized Roubaix
Originally Posted by jazzy_cyclist
Great job! There's one typo: Many are not aware that a cyclist has the rite to “take the lane”
(although actually you might consider a clever slip
(although actually you might consider a clever slip
__________________
Just Peddlin' Around
Just Peddlin' Around
03-29-05 | 05:15 PM
#31
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: In a van down by the river
The writer seems to be confused about what constitutes a vehicle. I doubt that lights, horns, and licenses are included in any definition of a vehicle. I think Karldar defined it most succinctly and correctly:
The trouble is, the government creates its own definitions. In my state of California, the vehicle code provides this one:
So, by this definition, a bicycle is not a vehicle (nor is a train for that matter). So, what is it then? According to the vehicle code, it is this:
If it transports a person/thing, it's a vehicle.
A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc670.htm
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc670.htm
A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc231.htm
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc231.htm
Last edited by Trab; 03-29-05 at 05:20 PM.
03-29-05 | 09:13 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Trab
The trouble is, the government creates its own definitions...
"bicycle" means any muscular propelled, chain-driven wheeled device in, on, or by which a person is or may be transported or drawn"
By this definition, shaft-driven bikes are not bicyles.
03-30-05 | 06:11 AM
#33
SNIKT!
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,560
Likes: 0
From: Home for wayward mutants
Bikes: '06 Kona Dawg Deluxe/'06 Cannondale F400(frame)/'98 Cannondale SuperV1000
Originally Posted by Trab
The writer seems to be confused about what constitutes a vehicle. I doubt that lights, horns, and licenses are included in any definition of a vehicle. I think Karldar defined it most succinctly and correctly:
The trouble is, the government creates its own definitions. In my state of California, the vehicle code provides this one:
So, by this definition, a bicycle is not a vehicle (nor is a train for that matter). So, what is it then? According to the vehicle code, it is this:
The trouble is, the government creates its own definitions. In my state of California, the vehicle code provides this one:
So, by this definition, a bicycle is not a vehicle (nor is a train for that matter). So, what is it then? According to the vehicle code, it is this:
[edit] Forgot to mention that your reply looks pretty good, clevernamehere. I think that should get the point across without ruffling too many feathers.
__________________
I like pie!
"The bright flicker of our television screens is the stolen incandescence of a thousand young minds." - Theodore W. Gray
"you taught us to fish while so many others were handing out tuna sandwiches" - Ziggurat
I like pie!
"The bright flicker of our television screens is the stolen incandescence of a thousand young minds." - Theodore W. Gray
"you taught us to fish while so many others were handing out tuna sandwiches" - Ziggurat
03-30-05 | 10:59 AM
#36
Chairman of the Bored
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,825
Likes: 2
From: St. Petersburg, FL
Bikes: 2004 Raleigh Talus, 2001 Motobecane Vent Noir (Custom build for heavy riders)
quote edited to add item numbers to the article:
1) lights are availble for bikes, and are quite common amongst those who know they are required for night riding.
2) horns on bikes are usually grossly inadequate in terms of volume. Plus in the majority of commuter instances it is the car creeping up on the bike, not the other way around, so would a horn blast after the fact do anything? There is one horn that is rather good, but it relies on pressurized air canisters...which I find to be rather shaky ground in terms of safety.
3) cars are subsidized down to the sales tax level. Your registration is to cover environmental and road damage caused by your vehicle...a bike does no environmental damage and is far less wear/tear on a road. Plus we pay sales tax as well, so we do pay for the road!
4) I see this with car drivers too, bad drivers come in all forms.
5) many states have laws that already do this, maybe you just need to make it known that the police in your area should be enforcing it? Make sure there are bike laws in your vehicle code first though.
...as far as deciding to not share the road, that will just put you in the wrong...bikes do have a legal right to the road in most states, all that needs to be done is better code enforcement by police, and better programs to ensure bikers have the proper gear such as lights.
Originally Posted by clevernamehere
1)If bikes are vehicles, too, where are their lights? Too often we cannot see them at night until we are almost on the riders. To make matters worse, these nincompoops usually dress in dark clothing.
2) If bikes are vehicles, too, where are their horns? You can't hear them until they are at your side, or worse, up your rear.
3) If bikes are vehicles, too, where are their licences? If they wish equal treatment, then they must be prepared to pay the dues that all other vehicle owners must pay -- the annual licence fees.
4) If bikes are vehicles, too, why don't they follow the rules of the road like other drivers do? We see bicyclists weaving in and out of traffic, seemingly oblivious to the oncoming vehicles. Perhaps they just don't care, or are subconsciously suicidal.
5) If bikes are vehicles, then their owners should be subject to fines for not having the required safety items that other vehicles require before being allowed on the road.
If they are not willing or able to adhere to the rules of the road, then perhaps cyclists should stop thinking of their bikes as vehicles and consider them really as glorified recreational toys.
I will share the road only with bikes that have the required features mentioned above.
[/FONT]
2) If bikes are vehicles, too, where are their horns? You can't hear them until they are at your side, or worse, up your rear.
3) If bikes are vehicles, too, where are their licences? If they wish equal treatment, then they must be prepared to pay the dues that all other vehicle owners must pay -- the annual licence fees.
4) If bikes are vehicles, too, why don't they follow the rules of the road like other drivers do? We see bicyclists weaving in and out of traffic, seemingly oblivious to the oncoming vehicles. Perhaps they just don't care, or are subconsciously suicidal.
5) If bikes are vehicles, then their owners should be subject to fines for not having the required safety items that other vehicles require before being allowed on the road.
If they are not willing or able to adhere to the rules of the road, then perhaps cyclists should stop thinking of their bikes as vehicles and consider them really as glorified recreational toys.
I will share the road only with bikes that have the required features mentioned above.
[/FONT]
2) horns on bikes are usually grossly inadequate in terms of volume. Plus in the majority of commuter instances it is the car creeping up on the bike, not the other way around, so would a horn blast after the fact do anything? There is one horn that is rather good, but it relies on pressurized air canisters...which I find to be rather shaky ground in terms of safety.
3) cars are subsidized down to the sales tax level. Your registration is to cover environmental and road damage caused by your vehicle...a bike does no environmental damage and is far less wear/tear on a road. Plus we pay sales tax as well, so we do pay for the road!
4) I see this with car drivers too, bad drivers come in all forms.
5) many states have laws that already do this, maybe you just need to make it known that the police in your area should be enforcing it? Make sure there are bike laws in your vehicle code first though.
...as far as deciding to not share the road, that will just put you in the wrong...bikes do have a legal right to the road in most states, all that needs to be done is better code enforcement by police, and better programs to ensure bikers have the proper gear such as lights.
06-05-22 | 12:43 PM
#38
LBKA (formerly punkncat)
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,324
Likes: 1,016
From: Jawja
Bikes: Spec Roubaix SL4, GT Traffic 1.0
