crap. I was going to be done with this, but can't resist. really really last one though ;) On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 09:08:39PM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote: > > On Jul 15, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: >> A bicycle legally >> owns the entire lane they are riding in (in many areas where I've >> ridden) > > Hmm. In most places I've driven bicyclists are required to share a lane, > and are *not* entitled to an entire lane by law. It strikes me that it > would really hold up traffic if they were entitled to an entire lane, since > passing is not generally allowed on city streets. Cars would end up stuck > behind a bicycle going 10-15 mph, unable to legally get by. Its a problem and I don't deny it. There needs to be a solution. dedicated bike lanes are probably the best. And unlike > cyclists, drivers are not always given a free pass by the police for > breaking traffic laws. read my other posts on this. cyclists do not alwaysget a free pass, nor do I think they should necessarily get a free pass. There are times when its appropriate and times when its not. I've never seen a cyclist get a free pass when they've cause dthe accident though. I've seen some pretty anti-cyclist police officers and some pro-cyclist police officers. It really depends, just as any other situation does, on the individuals involved. > > I agree that cars should give bicycles as much space as practical, though, > and I often give them an entire lane if traffic allows, and will hang back > if there's not enough space to pass safely. > >> That said, if you'd rolled forward another foot, then >> you'd have entered a crosswalk without stopping at the stop line that >> is generally placed *before* the crosswalk, which means you'd have >> rolled the stop sign -- also a violation. just sayin' it. > > Actually, I *had* stopped before the crosswalk. I was beginning to roll > forward again so I could see cross traffic around the hedges when the > bicyclist suddenly appeared in front of me. fair enough. And I've already agreed that this particular cyclist sounds like an idiot. i can't address what might have happened had there been a collision, but I think its clear from our exchange about it that there are many factors involved and its not always a simple solution. > >> If I can get >> through an intersection and onto clear open road where I'm visible and >> in control of my situation then I will do it, even if it means running >> a red light. that doesn't mean I blow through a light without looking >> or without awareness of motorists, but it does mean that you as a >> motorist may be frustrated by having to wait for a red light while I >> roll through it. > > Pro-cyclist groups like Critical Mass seem to feel that cyclists have the > right to block traffic that has a green light so other cyclists can run a > red. This sticks in my craw. If they want to be treated with the same > respect as other motorists they shouldn't be able to decide the law doesn't > apply to them. Just sayin' it. > Two things here. Critical Mass rides (never been on one) are a form of protest and political action. I don't know if they are properly permitted by authorities or anything like that, but within the context of a political protest, I see no problem with holding up traffic for a bit. In all other circumstances, they should obey the rules appropriately (see my other posts about the application of rules of the road to cyclists and the dangers of strictly following those rules). Obviously we have to agree to disagree about a lot of this. Meanwhile, thanks for a nice little exchange and I'll see you on the road somewhere (usually m/c now-a-days...) A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature