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

[John S.]

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

Yes, bicyclists do commute to work.


> and commercial transportation,

Huh??? How are bicyclists providing commercial transportation. Are
you talking about pedicabs (not bicycles) or messenger services, or
what?


> 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.

Riding license - For adults who likely have an automobile license?
For what purpose.

Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required.

Safety - (equipment I guess) - what kind of safety equipment would you
propose for a slow lightweight bicycle. Fenders, bumpers, air bags,
seat belts and turn signals?

Insurance - Most riders in high volume areas are adults who have
medical and liability coverage elsewhere. Are you talking about comp
and collision coverage for bikes or what.


>
> 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.

Precisely how are bicycle commuters presenting a risk to the non-
bicycling public in high traffic areas (mostly automobiles) that is
not covered by existing insurance. Since bicyclists are competing
mostly with cars for the same space in high traffic areas I don't see
much of a risk for the bikers. Indeed it is in bike rider's self-
interest to ride defensively and watch out for cars since they have
a much greater chance of being seriously injured by the much bigger,
heavier and faster car. Consequently I have no idea how you could
test and license for the ability of bike riders to ride defensively.

 

[[email protected]]

I think there are some good points to be made on this thread. Too bad
it once again has to devolve to the pejorative. Personally I agree
that cyclists pose a (vastly) diminshed threat to other vehicles out
there but that does not exonerate them from behaving appropriately and
predictably as a vehicle should.

One thing that I feel is really important is respect. Many drivers in
this country offer little to no respect to the cyclists on the road.
If registration and licensing would help to further this point and
make the car vs bike relationship more respectful (and less
contemptable), then I'm interested.

While I'm at it, I think it's pretty remarkable that it takes only a
regular driver's license to operate a really big RV. Those guys should
go to truck driver's school!

-Rick


> Precisely how are bicycle commuters presenting a risk to the non-
> bicycling public in high traffic areas (mostly automobiles) that is
> not covered by existing insurance. Since bicyclists are competing
> mostly with cars for the same space in high traffic areas I don't see
> much of a risk for the bikers. Indeed it is in bike rider's self-
> interest to ride defensively and watch out for cars since they have
> a much greater chance of being seriously injured by the much bigger,
> heavier and faster car. Consequently I have no idea how you could
> test and license for the ability of bike riders to ride defensively.

 

[Festivus]

Brent P wrote:
> 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.
>

No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they
have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't
guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to prove
their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't even
properly educated.

Biking or driving poorly through ignorance is forgivable and correctable.

 

[John S.]

On Aug 21, 2:06 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I think there are some good points to be made on this thread. Too bad
> it once again has to devolve to the pejorative. Personally I agree
> that cyclists pose a (vastly) diminshed threat to other vehicles out
> there but that does not exonerate them from behaving appropriately and
> predictably as a vehicle should.
>
> One thing that I feel is really important is respect. Many drivers in
> this country offer little to no respect to the cyclists on the road.
> If registration and licensing would help to further this point and
> make the car vs bike relationship more respectful (and less
> contemptable), then I'm interested.

Yes, I agree it would encourage more people to use 2 wheels if
motorists would not intimidate cyclists and be more willing to share
the road. If a license program could be shown tohave promise of
improving the car-bike relationship I would favor it . I would also
help to dedicate road space to bicycles in locations where there is
sufficient interest in riding.


>
> While I'm at it, I think it's pretty remarkable that it takes only a
> regular driver's license to operate a really big RV. Those guys should
> go to truck driver's school!

Yes, I agree they should have to demonstrate skills such as the
ability to change lanes, back up, park and descend a hill safely.
Some of those big motorized RV's are essentially a Greyhound bus in
disguise and some of the towed ones approach a semi-trailer in
length. Such a license would further hurt an already soft market for
motorized RV's so I doubt it would pass.

I've been behind big RV's when they shakily change lanes or start down
a hill too fast and it's scary because I doubt that those drivers are
aware how close they are to disaster. A family member was towing a
good sized trailer behind a Ford Expedition at too high a speed and
got hit by a side gust of wind on the downhill. The driver tried to
steer out of the sway and the trailer flipped and darned near flipped
the SUV.

>
> -Rick
>
>
>
> > Precisely how are bicycle commuters presenting a risk to the non-
> > bicycling public in high traffic areas (mostly automobiles) that is
> > not covered by existing insurance. Since bicyclists are competing
> > mostly with cars for the same space in high traffic areas I don't see
> > much of a risk for the bikers. Indeed it is in bike rider's self-
> > interest to ride defensively and watch out for cars since they have
> > a much greater chance of being seriously injured by the much bigger,
> > heavier and faster car. Consequently I have no idea how you could
> > test and license for the ability of bike riders to ride defensively.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2:06 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>> One thing that I feel is really important is respect. Many drivers in
>> this country offer little to no respect to the cyclists on the road.
>> If registration and licensing would help to further this point and
>> make the car vs bike relationship more respectful (and less
>> contemptable), then I'm interested.
>
> Yes, I agree it would encourage more people to use 2 wheels if
> motorists would not intimidate cyclists and be more willing to share
> the road. If a license program could be shown tohave promise of
> improving the car-bike relationship I would favor it . I would also
> help to dedicate road space to bicycles in locations where there is
> sufficient interest in riding.

There is a licensing system for drivers, one for commerical truck
drivers, one for taxi drivers, one for bus drivers,etc and so forth does
any group show any more respect for the other groups or even those in
their own group because of the licensing? I think we can agree the answer
is no. So why should we allow the same government controls that will
eventually errode bicycling into an effective government granted
priviledge (as it with the others)?

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Festivus wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they
> have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't
> guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to prove
> their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't even
> properly educated.


The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the adult
bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy to hold
people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a car.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Festivus <[email protected]> writes:

> Biking or driving poorly through ignorance is forgivable and correctable.

Poorly operating 1.5+ tons of rolling machinery in
the public domain is always inexcusable. Period.


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

 

[Festivus]

Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Festivus wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they
>> have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't
>> guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to prove
>> their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't even
>> properly educated.
>
>
> The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the adult
> bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy to hold
> people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a car.
>

The original post indicated that a bicycle license would be for those
not already possessing of a valid driver's license. A driver's license
would certainly be sufficient - though we might want to include a few
more bicycle questions on the written exam.

Seems perfectly reasonable that if they want to share the roads they
understand all of the rights and responsibilities pursuant.

 

[Festivus]

Angry Dave wrote:
> On Aug 21, 8:50 am, Festivus <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I'm not anti-bike. I commute 20 miles round trip 2-3 times a week in
>> all weather year round. Every time some ass on a bike decides he's
>> above the rules of the road I become a target for the next ******-off
>> driver.
>
> Sounds like we need less ****** off drivers, not biking laws.

You can keep arguing your straw man, but he'll never learn to ride a
bike. How we got from "too many bike riders are scofflaws" to "we need
more bike riding laws" escapes me.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 21, 11:27 am, "The Great Jimbo" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> 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.

I agree. But the root of the problem, I think, is that bicyclists are
never taught the rules of the road.

Bicycling begins in the grade school years. Kids are taught to ride
by their parents, but parents often don't know that the normal rules
of the road apply to bicyclists. So kids never learn - and kids grow
up and repeat the process.

So, grade school kids (and high school kids) should receive age-
appropriate instruction in bicycling rules of the road. Even if it's
just a few hours of book learning, it would help. Better yet would be
actual on-road instruction as part of Phys Ed class.

Oh, and the instruction should use quality material developed by truly
knowledgeable cyclists, not whatever jumps into the teacher's (and
Safe Kids) heads. There is way too much bad information out there.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required.

Visit www.cyclehelmets.org and learn a bit about the issue before
posting.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Festivus wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Festivus wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they
>>> have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't
>>> guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to prove
>>> their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't even
>>> properly educated.
>>
>>
>> The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the adult
>> bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy to hold
>> people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a car.

> The original post indicated that a bicycle license would be for those
> not already possessing of a valid driver's license.

That would make the rant even more pointless. As I remember reading it,
he was calling for a bicycle endorsement...

> A driver's license
> would certainly be sufficient - though we might want to include a few
> more bicycle questions on the written exam.


> Seems perfectly reasonable that if they want to share the roads they
> understand all of the rights and responsibilities pursuant.

The last thing a bicycle rider hating motorist wants are bicyclists that
obey the vehicle code. Because well, they've learned things about it
being legal to take the lane under various conditions. That they have the
same rights, etc and so forth.

As much as bicycling hating motorists want to whine about stop signs
being run by people on bicycles going 8mph, they actually prefer that over
having a bicyclist take the lane in front of them and come to a complete
stop such that they couldn't do their 5-10mph rolling stop.

 

[Festivus]

Brent P wrote:
>
> As much as bicycling hating motorists want to whine about stop signs
> being run by people on bicycles going 8mph, they actually prefer that over
> having a bicyclist take the lane in front of them and come to a complete
> stop such that they couldn't do their 5-10mph rolling stop.
>

Ok, Uncle. You're clearly going to shift the argument regardless. You
don't think bicycle riders should be under any obligation to prove that
they have any competence whatsoever on the rules of the road.

 

[Nate Nagel]

Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Festivus wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Festivus wrote:
>>>
>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they
>>>>have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't
>>>>guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to prove
>>>>their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't even
>>>>properly educated.
>>>
>>>
>>>The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the adult
>>>bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy to hold
>>>people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a car.
>
>
>>The original post indicated that a bicycle license would be for those
>>not already possessing of a valid driver's license.
>
>
> That would make the rant even more pointless. As I remember reading it,
> he was calling for a bicycle endorsement...
>
>
>> A driver's license
>>would certainly be sufficient - though we might want to include a few
>>more bicycle questions on the written exam.
>
>
>
>
>>Seems perfectly reasonable that if they want to share the roads they
>>understand all of the rights and responsibilities pursuant.
>
>
> The last thing a bicycle rider hating motorist wants are bicyclists that
> obey the vehicle code. Because well, they've learned things about it
> being legal to take the lane under various conditions. That they have the
> same rights, etc and so forth.
>
> As much as bicycling hating motorists want to whine about stop signs
> being run by people on bicycles going 8mph, they actually prefer that over
> having a bicyclist take the lane in front of them and come to a complete
> stop such that they couldn't do their 5-10mph rolling stop.
>

Actually I would prefer that bicyclists actually make an effort to stop,
even if it is only a "california stop" so I don't have to see their
asses plastered all over the road in front of me. I literally have no
idea how cyclists manage to stay alive around here, I guess maybe all
the motorists are just trained to expect cyclists to blow stops
consistently and are extra-vigilant (something I find hard to believe)

I'd be more than willing to give up a few seconds for a cyclist to be
safe. I guess that means that I don't count as a "cyclist hating
motorist" although I am a motorist and most cyclists annoy me.

nate

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

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Festivus wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> As much as bicycling hating motorists want to whine about stop signs
>> being run by people on bicycles going 8mph, they actually prefer that over
>> having a bicyclist take the lane in front of them and come to a complete
>> stop such that they couldn't do their 5-10mph rolling stop.
>>
>
> Ok, Uncle. You're clearly going to shift the argument regardless. You
> don't think bicycle riders should be under any obligation to prove that
> they have any competence whatsoever on the rules of the road.

Obviously you are not paying attention.

1) Adult bicyclists already have passed the tests for an automobile in
numbers that make going after the remaining tiny portion, silly.

2) To make bicyclists jump through more hoops and demonstrate competency
greater than that required for an automobile is just the height of
stupidity.

 

[Brent P]

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

> Actually I would prefer that bicyclists actually make an effort to stop,
> even if it is only a "california stop" so I don't have to see their
> asses plastered all over the road in front of me.

You're not a bicycle hating motorist though. You're rational, they
aren't, they simply hate. I've told the story of the 'drive car' guy. He
wasn't the only one, just the most memerable. That type of driver does
not like being in traffic behind a bicycle period, end of story.

> I'd be more than willing to give up a few seconds for a cyclist to be
> safe. I guess that means that I don't count as a "cyclist hating
> motorist" although I am a motorist and most cyclists annoy me.

The POB behavior I see annoys me. And when I am walking it is outright
safety threat.

I ride to the rules of the road, just as I drive. I've had cops get mad
at me for behaving 'like a car'. I've had countless motorists get all
****** off because I was preventing them from kissing the bumper of the
car in front of me. I can keep up with traffic but get yelled at to
get off the road, etc and so forth. Although occasionally I get people
with a clue, but it usually takes some context to get their respect. Like
the last time I was keeping up with a semi tractor trailer truck. I took
the lane and wasn't messsed with. I had even passed the semi at one
point. (he did re-pass me though)

 

[Lobby Dosser]

[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Festivus wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> No doubt. The drivers have at least taken a test to prove that they
>> have some minimal understanding of the rules of the road. Doesn't
>> guarantee that they will follow them, but not requiring bikers to
>> prove their competence guarantees that at least some (most?) aren't
>> even properly educated.
>
>
> The rules are the same and vast majority, as in nearly all of the
> adult bicycle riders already passed the driver's test. It is idiotcy
> to hold people to a higher standard to ride a bicycle than to drive a
> car.

Would you get out of your car at a light and bang on another driver's
window? Folks right here advocate cyclists do just that.

 

[Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S]

Who order the drunken swagger bravado ****?

bite all of us, knave

 

[Lobby Dosser]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>
>

Uh huh!

 

[Lobby Dosser]

"John S." <[email protected]> wrote:

> Consequently I have no idea how you could
> test and license for the ability of bike riders to ride defensively.
>

Turn them loose in a Demolition Derby. If they survive, they pass.