Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

[Daryl Hunt]

"gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> gds wrote:
>>
>> >BTW the laws here clearly state that a cyclist can take the lane
>> > to avoid debris in a bike lane or on a shoulder.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, that is typical when there is a mandatory bike lane/shoulder law,
>> though I think you mean "use" the lane rather than "take" the lane. You
>> have to wonder to what extent bike lanes are really for the benefit of
>> bicyclists when they are mandatory and when you have to have
>> justification in order to leave them. Imagine, for example, needing
>> justification to leave the minivan lane.
>>
>> Wayne
>> "Thank you sir! May I have another?"
>
> I think the up and back will go on forever. We must just have very
> different expereinces with rad conditions as they impact cyclists.
>
> Tell you what. You are invited to come out here to Tucson and ride
> with me. I'll bet that you will love it and will see that the issues
> that concern you just don't have much standing out here. The bike
> lanes, really just wide shoulders, are reallly great for riding. They
> are in good condition, are regularly swept, and there are virtually no
> hazards such as strom drains,posts, etc. Out here in the SW motor
> traffic is quite fast. So even in the city major streets have speed
> limits of 45 and cars regularly travel at 45-50 mph. Many of the nicer
> riding roads out in the country have speed limits of 55 or even 65. So,
> I and most cyslists are quite happy and satisfied having a nice wide,
> clean shoulder on which we can ride comfortably, often two abreast
> without having to worry about the cars at all. On smaller raods without
> shoulders we also havelittle trouble and drivers are generally polite
> and pass us with ample clearance.
>
> Local officials are very interested in the cycling community and in
> virtually every instance I can remember when roads are repaved or
> otherwise improved wide shoulders without obstructions are part of the
> design expressly for the use of cyclists. This has added quite a bit
> of cost to these projects and to my mind demonstrates that local
> officials put a high priority on serving the needs of the cycling
> community.

GD,

We all have been conversing with someone from alt.usenet.kooks Just put
wayne in your filter and ignore the nutcase.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Daryl Hunt wrote:


>
> GD,
>
> We all have been conversing with someone from alt.usenet.kooks Just put
> wayne in your filter and ignore the nutcase.
>
>
>

Hey Ignoramus,

Again you say NOTHING of interest or importance? Right from the
beginning of this thread anyone can see what a fool you are.

Why don't you go off to alt.rideagirlymanelectricmotorcyle? Although,
with your preponderance of adipose tissue, I suggest doing a little more
actual pedaling. Don't be afraid!

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

gds wrote:

> Tell you what. You are invited to come out here to Tucson and ride
> with me. I'll bet that you will love it and will see that the issues
> that concern you just don't have much standing out here. The bike
> lanes, really just wide shoulders, are reallly great for riding. They
> are in good condition, are regularly swept, and there are virtually no
> hazards such as strom drains,posts, etc. Out here in the SW motor
> traffic is quite fast. So even in the city major streets have speed
> limits of 45 and cars regularly travel at 45-50 mph. Many of the nicer
> riding roads out in the country have speed limits of 55 or even 65. So,
> I and most cyslists are quite happy and satisfied having a nice wide,
> clean shoulder on which we can ride comfortably, often two abreast
> without having to worry about the cars at all. On smaller raods without
> shoulders we also havelittle trouble and drivers are generally polite
> and pass us with ample clearance.

Tell you what. You are invited to come out here to Chapel Hill and ride
with me. We don't have bike lanes except in places where they aren't
needed anyway. Speed limits are lower. The ubiquitous narrow rural roads
in the county have no shoulders, but they are not "needed." Lots and
lots of bicycling occurs on these attractive roads. On Saturdays as many
as 60-80 of us have a bandit race. Because the roads are narrow, they
are more likely to have shade.

Wayne

 

[gds]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> > Tell you what. You are invited to come out here to Tucson and ride
> > with me. I'll bet that you will love it and will see that the issues
> > that concern you just don't have much standing out here. The bike
> > lanes, really just wide shoulders, are reallly great for riding. They
> > are in good condition, are regularly swept, and there are virtually no
> > hazards such as strom drains,posts, etc. Out here in the SW motor
> > traffic is quite fast. So even in the city major streets have speed
> > limits of 45 and cars regularly travel at 45-50 mph. Many of the nicer
> > riding roads out in the country have speed limits of 55 or even 65. So,
> > I and most cyslists are quite happy and satisfied having a nice wide,
> > clean shoulder on which we can ride comfortably, often two abreast
> > without having to worry about the cars at all. On smaller raods without
> > shoulders we also havelittle trouble and drivers are generally polite
> > and pass us with ample clearance.
>
> Tell you what. You are invited to come out here to Chapel Hill and ride
> with me. We don't have bike lanes except in places where they aren't
> needed anyway. Speed limits are lower. The ubiquitous narrow rural roads
> in the county have no shoulders, but they are not "needed." Lots and
> lots of bicycling occurs on these attractive roads. On Saturdays as many
> as 60-80 of us have a bandit race. Because the roads are narrow, they
> are more likely to have shade.
>
> Wayne

I've ridden in around the Duke campus area. Enjoyed it!

Shade! I remember that concept--don't use it much out here ;-)

 

[Ted P.]

Chris Neary wrote:
>> Such laws as in CA and elsewhere are also simply discriminatory to
>> bicyclists.
>
> Well of course they are (in the same manner that CVC 21656 is
> "discriminatory" to slow moving vehicles).
>
> Whats important is that there be a valid technical basis for the law.
>
>
> Chris Neary
> [email protected]
>
> "Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
> you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
> loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh


Was that a typo? Did you really mean 'valid technical bias'?

--

Ted
Don't forget to take out the trash