The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone



P

Paul Berg

Guest
~

In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of
the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also
required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and
have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and
meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states
have the same or similar requirements.

With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
traffic areas.

The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
vehicles do.

~
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
>commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
>serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
>requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
>traffic areas.


Happy trolling.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
B

bdbafh

Guest
On Aug 20, 5:52 pm, [email protected] (Paul Berg) wrote:
> ~
>
> In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
> motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
> supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of
> the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also
> required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and
> have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and
> meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states
> have the same or similar requirements.
>
> With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
> commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
> serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
> requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
> traffic areas.
>
> The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
> children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
> catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
> the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
> type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
> vehicles do.
>
> ~


Let me guess ... you sell automotive and motorcycle insurance?
You also believe that more government is better than less government?
Exactly what problem are you intending to solve?

Perhaps a newsgroup that is local to Oregon is the best place for you
to have an intelligent discussion of this "issue"?


"We now need to insured the public"

Uh, perhaps you need to take another stab at that one.

Sorry about feeding the troll.
Perhaps the thread can be hijacked into something useful.
It appears that this book is finally about to ship:
Bicycling & the Law: Your Rights as a Cyclist
http://www.velogear.com/prodinfo.asp?number=VP+LAW

-bdbafh
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Paul Berg wrote:
> ~
>
> In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
> motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
> supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of
> the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also
> required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and
> have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and
> meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states
> have the same or similar requirements.
>
> With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
> commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
> serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
> requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
> traffic areas.
>
> The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
> children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
> catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
> the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
> type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
> vehicles do.


Basically you want to discourage the use of bicycles by using the weight
of the majority just as has been done with motorcycles.

I find it remarkable that having anything more the ritual of a test for
driving is so fought against, but for smaller lighter vehicles we have to
have real tests of competency and knowledge.

You do understand that somewhere around oh, I'd say roughly 99% of the
adult bicyclists have already passed the 'tests' to drive an automobile,
and thusly should already know the vehicle code. Sure, they might not
know some finer points, but they don't know the finer points for driving
cars and smaller trucks (both skill wise and the vehicle code) either.

When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles off
the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until then,
incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think darwin's
(maybe stolen) theory)
 
N

Nate Nagel

Guest
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Paul Berg wrote:
>
>>~
>>
>>In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
>>motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
>>supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of
>>the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also
>>required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and
>>have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and
>>meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states
>>have the same or similar requirements.
>>
>>With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
>>commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
>>serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
>>requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
>>traffic areas.
>>
>>The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
>>children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
>>catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
>>the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
>>type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
>>vehicles do.

>
>
> Basically you want to discourage the use of bicycles by using the weight
> of the majority just as has been done with motorcycles.
>
> I find it remarkable that having anything more the ritual of a test for
> driving is so fought against, but for smaller lighter vehicles we have to
> have real tests of competency and knowledge.
>
> You do understand that somewhere around oh, I'd say roughly 99% of the
> adult bicyclists have already passed the 'tests' to drive an automobile,
> and thusly should already know the vehicle code. Sure, they might not
> know some finer points, but they don't know the finer points for driving
> cars and smaller trucks (both skill wise and the vehicle code) either.
>
> When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles off
> the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until then,
> incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think darwin's
> (maybe stolen) theory)
>


I dunno, the average bicyclist in my area - and there are more here than
anywhere else I've ever lived - is even LESS likely to obey any traffic
laws at all than the average motorist.

Of course, you don't need a license to get a citation, but you DO need a
cop that's willing to ticket.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Nate Nagel wrote:

> I dunno, the average bicyclist in my area - and there are more here than
> anywhere else I've ever lived - is even LESS likely to obey any traffic
> laws at all than the average motorist.


It's about the same where I am.

> Of course, you don't need a license to get a citation, but you DO need a
> cop that's willing to ticket.


IME the only cops that go after bicyclists are the ones who believe
bicyclists have no business using the road. The result of that is the
ones who ride a bicycle like a toy are left alone while vehicluar
bicyclists are pulled over for legal riding.
 
T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
bdbafh <[email protected]> writes:

> Sorry about feeding the troll.


No sweat, don't worry about it.

> Perhaps the thread can be hijacked into something useful.
> It appears that this book is finally about to ship:
> Bicycling & the Law: Your Rights as a Cyclist
> http://www.velogear.com/prodinfo.asp?number=VP+LAW


Kewl! I'm gonna look for that book.
Thanx for the heads-up.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
P

Paul Berg

Guest
~

BEFORE, I GO ON ANY FURTHER. I WANT IT TO BE KNOWN, THAT I'M ONLY
TALKING ABOUT BICYCLES AND BICYCLISTS IN "HIGH VOLUME TRAFFIC AREAS".

If a bicyclist has a valid drivers or moped license, I see no need for
such an individual to take any further testing. For they have already
demonstrated their knowledge of the rules of the road.

For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would
wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to
pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test.

Bicyclists with a suspended or revoked drivers, moped or bicycle
license would not be allowed to ride a bicycle in "high volume traffic
areas".

As far as defining a "high volume traffic area", I would leave that to
local governments with guidance, by law, from the state legislature. I
would hope that any law would allowed for the highest amount of public
input in designating "high volume traffic areas".

As far helmet, insurance, bicycle equipment and bicyclist safety
requirements, I would leave that for the state legislature to decide.
These are things that should be uniform throughout the state. And,
remember I'm only talking about bicyclists and bicycles in "high
volume traffic areas" here.

~
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Paul Berg wrote:
> ~
>
> BEFORE, I GO ON ANY FURTHER. I WANT IT TO BE KNOWN, THAT I'M ONLY
> TALKING ABOUT BICYCLES AND BICYCLISTS IN "HIGH VOLUME TRAFFIC AREAS".


As if this makes it any different.

> If a bicyclist has a valid drivers or moped license, I see no need for
> such an individual to take any further testing. For they have already
> demonstrated their knowledge of the rules of the road.


I'll wager aproximately 99% of adult bicyclists already have passed the
test to drive an automobile.

> For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would
> wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to
> pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test.


All you want to do is reduce bicycling, just be honest and admit it.

You accept the joke that is drivers' licensing for an automobile but are
demanding real demonstrations of competence to ride a bicycle. If the
licensing were equal, it is already accomplished to as high of a degree
as is possible.
 
T

Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman

Guest
Paul Berg wrote:
> ...
> With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
> commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
> serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
> requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
> traffic areas....


I don't know if we have discussed helmets thoroughly enough on the other
thread. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Aug 20, 9:31 pm, Paul Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> ~
>
> BEFORE, I GO ON ANY FURTHER. I WANT IT TO BE KNOWN, THAT I'M ONLY
> TALKING ABOUT BICYCLES AND BICYCLISTS IN "HIGH VOLUME TRAFFIC AREAS".
>
> If a bicyclist has a valid drivers or moped license, I see no need for
> such an individual to take any further testing. For they have already
> demonstrated their knowledge of the rules of the road.
>
> For those bicyclists without a drivers or moped license, AND who would
> wish to ride in high volume traffic areas, they should be required to
> pass a written test similar to the instructional permit test.
>
> Bicyclists with a suspended or revoked drivers, moped or bicycle
> license would not be allowed to ride a bicycle in "high volume traffic
> areas".
>
> As far as defining a "high volume traffic area", I would leave that to
> local governments with guidance, by law, from the state legislature. I
> would hope that any law would allowed for the highest amount of public
> input in designating "high volume traffic areas".
>
> As far helmet, insurance, bicycle equipment and bicyclist safety
> requirements, I would leave that for the state legislature to decide.
> These are things that should be uniform throughout the state. And,
> remember I'm only talking about bicyclists and bicycles in "high
> volume traffic areas" here.


To put it charitably, your ideas are totally impractical. (I don't
think you're trolling, BTW. I think you just don't realize how
impractical your ideas are.)

For example: How would you define a "high volume traffic area"? By a
minimum number of cars passing per minute? How would a cyclist judge
that? What would happen when there was a break in traffic? What
would happen at 6 AM, or 11 PM? Traffic volume changes!

Would you define certain zones as requiring a bike license,
irrespective of instantaneous volume? How would you indicate them?
How would you convince any city to waste funds putting signs up around
the perimeter of each such zone?

How would you convince cops to enforce such laws? They presently
ignore almost all cyclists who violate that most fundamental law,
"ride on the right side of the road" (in the US, that is). Why would
they start checking random cyclists to see if they are "qualified"?

Basically, you think you've identified a problem. But nobody agrees
that the problem is of sufficient magnitude to justify any of your
corrective measures. There may be some podunk town where a four-
person town council might be convinced to pass such laws, but even
those laws would never be enforced for long.

Sorry. Bad ideas. You may as well try to license shoes. If you want
to change something, get the cops to enforce the current laws -
including those that motorists consistently violate.

And you're wrong about the value of helmets too.

- Frank Krygowski
 
M

Mike Jacoubowsky

Guest
> The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
> children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
> catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
> the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
> type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
> vehicles do.


You forgot how congested our inner cities have become. Pedestrians are more
numerous even than cyclists, and have been known to cross streets against
lights, not observe simple rules of flow (walking to the right), among other
things. While some municipalities have taken to at least registering
bicycles, to the best of my knowledge no city has taken on the task of
registering shoes.

I propose that all pedestrians, for ease of identification, have the first
and last four digits of their social security number tattooed upon their
foreheads. In this way we can catch the offenders on security cameras and
shame them on the evening newscasts.

Seriously, since there are so many more pedestrians in many cities than
bicyclists, it's logical that's where we should first apply our "minimum
requirements" efforts.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Paul Berg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>~
>
> In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
> motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
> supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of
> the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also
> required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and
> have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and
> meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states
> have the same or similar requirements.
>
> With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
> commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
> serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
> requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
> traffic areas.
>
> The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
> children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
> catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
> the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
> type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
> vehicles do.
>
> ~
>
 
P

Paul Johnson

Guest
On Aug 20, 2:52 pm, [email protected] (Paul Berg) wrote:

> The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
> children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
> catch up the present situation.


You need to read ORS 811 again, since you're about 40 years behind the
legislature on this matter.
 
P

Paul Johnson

Guest
On Aug 20, 3:47 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:

> When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles off
> the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until then,
> incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think darwin's
> (maybe stolen) theory)


I'd be happy with California and Arizona actually testing their
drivers and eliminating license expirations longer than 5 years. Or
at least mandating all drivers from those states replace their plates
with something flourescent orange or drive with those student driver
style signs reading "MORON" so we have some warning before we're next
to them and they're swerving dangerously into our lane...
 
P

Paul Johnson

Guest
On Aug 20, 3:51 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Paul Berg wrote:

>
> >>~

>
> >>In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
> >>motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
> >>supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of
> >>the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also
> >>required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and
> >>have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and
> >>meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states
> >>have the same or similar requirements.

>
> >>With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
> >>commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
> >>serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
> >>requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
> >>traffic areas.

>
> >>The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
> >>children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
> >>catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
> >>the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
> >>type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
> >>vehicles do.

>
> > Basically you want to discourage the use of bicycles by using the weight
> > of the majority just as has been done with motorcycles.

>
> > I find it remarkable that having anything more the ritual of a test for
> > driving is so fought against, but for smaller lighter vehicles we have to
> > have real tests of competency and knowledge.

>
> > You do understand that somewhere around oh, I'd say roughly 99% of the
> > adult bicyclists have already passed the 'tests' to drive an automobile,
> > and thusly should already know the vehicle code. Sure, they might not
> > know some finer points, but they don't know the finer points for driving
> > cars and smaller trucks (both skill wise and the vehicle code) either.

>
> > When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles off
> > the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until then,
> > incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think darwin's
> > (maybe stolen) theory)

>
> I dunno, the average bicyclist in my area - and there are more here than
> anywhere else I've ever lived - is even LESS likely to obey any traffic
> laws at all than the average motorist.


There's a difference between bicyclists and morons with bicycles.
Just like there's a difference between motorists and some jackass
driving without a license.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Aug 20, 3:47 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>> When there's a test that gets the incompetent drivers of automobiles
>> off the road, then we can start worrying about bicyclists. Until
>> then, incompetent bicyclists are a self correcting problem. (think
>> darwin's (maybe stolen) theory)

>
> I'd be happy with California and Arizona actually testing their
> drivers and eliminating license expirations longer than 5 years. Or
> at least mandating all drivers from those states replace their plates
> with something flourescent orange or drive with those student driver
> style signs reading "MORON" so we have some warning before we're next
> to them and they're swerving dangerously into our lane...
>
>


Michigan: First thing they did after buying a new car was rip out the
rear view mirrors and the turn indicator.

New Jersey: You could tell who the pros were. They all had railroad ties
for bumpers.

Rural Oregon: "Everybody knows I turn there."
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

> There's a difference between bicyclists and morons with bicycles.
> Just like there's a difference between motorists and some jackass
> driving without a license.


The license is proof the licensee passed the test. Whether or not they are
a jackass on the road or off is another matter.
 
T

The Great Jimbo

Guest
"Paul Berg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>~
>
> In Oregon we require motorcyclists to have a driver's license with a
> motorcycle endorsement in order to drive on the public roads. This
> supposedly insure the public that the motorcyclists know the rules of
> the road and has the ability to operate a motorcycle safely. It is also
> required, in Oregon, that they wear an approved motorcycle helmet and
> have liability insurance. Motorcycles are required to be registered and
> meet equipment and safety standards. And, I'm sure most other states
> have the same or similar requirements.
>
> With the increasing number of bicyclists using bicycles as a means of
> commuter and commercial transportation, it is time that we take a
> serious look at license, helmet, safety, equipment and insurance
> requirements for those bicyclists who wish to ride in high volume
> traffic areas.
>
> The days when the bicycle was basically a recreational vehicle for
> children on neighborhood streets is long gone. And, now our laws should
> catch up the present situation. We now need to insured the public that
> the bicyclists and bicycles in the high traffic areas are meeting some
> type of minimum requirements as the motorists, motorcyclists and their
> vehicles do.


I don't agree with you. You're talking of licensing and insuring bicyclists.
That makes no sense at all. It's just more government intrusion.

However, bicyclists should know the rules of the road. Violating those rules
should get them a ticket. Speeding won't be a problem in most cases, but
things like darting out in traffic without bothering to look either way,
pedaling on the wrong side of the street, etc. should cause the bicyclist to
be ticketed.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Festivus wrote:

> Sounds good to me. The number of cyclists sharing the road with
> motorists who display a mend-bending lack of understanding of the rules
> of road safety and courtesy is exceeded only by the number of cagers
> doing the same.


People who drive poorly bike poorly and vice versa.
 
W

Wayne Pein

Guest
Festivus wrote:


>
> The behaviors we all routinely see:
>
> 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs
> 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane


Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to use
how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane, pass us
in another lane.

Wayne