Posted on 07/29/2008 7:55:24 AM PDT by fightinJAG
The League of American Wheelmen started a movement for good roads in the 1890s long before cars existed in any numbers. Without them, there would have been few paved roads for the horseless carriages to drive on. So originally the roads were paved for bikes.
As I told someone else, I see far more stupidity by drivers than bicyclists. However, a lot of posters seem to pick out cyclists for special ire. A lot of the anti cyclist posters obviously have no time for cyclists, even ones like myself who try not to do anything stupid.
How would you like to be on a bike, minding your own business, riding legally and have someone drive by, just missing you, and it being quite obvious they did it on purpose?
I do the same thing to a car on my bicycle and the driver is just going to laugh at me.
Those same people who have no problem buzzing an unprotected cyclist would think twice about doing the same to another motor vehicle.
Again, I stand by my statement. Apparently, you’re not a rider. Spend a few years riding and get back to me about how courteous drives are to cyclists. Yes, a lot of drivers are, but there are just enough jerks to make it a little scary at times.
Some of the drives that would scare me obviously post on FR.
I have a class C and a Class M license, so surely I’m qualified to ride a bicycle on the streets. No?
I don’t know what jurisdictions you’re talking about, but I’m allowed to change lanes in Texas, and yes, use the turn lane.
No problem. Given the damage in dollars to other vehicles that bicycles rack up every year my insurance payments won't equal the stamp on the envelope, and the insurance company will still make a profit. I'm all for it.
As for licensure, I'm already licensed to drive any two wheeled vehicle on the roadways, so surely it would be as valid for a bicycle as it already is for my Harley or a moped if I had one.
15mph!!! I’d never to get to work!
Hopefully some Freepers still alive in Portland will do what you suggest. I don’t live in Portland and have avoided it like a city infested with the Black Plague since 9/11. The rat bastards in charge of Portland sided with Islamofacists and would protect them with our lives.
So Portland no longer gets any visits nor money from us.
“This is a perfect example of when the truly new New Media should jump in.
I mean citizen bloggers, with camera phones and video, posting reports. It might start small, but I think it would get quite an audience through word-of-mouth. And you might accomplish something constructive for the city.
Find a few folks to get out there and document stuff for a blog. And ask readers to send in reports. You might be surprised at the good work you could get done!”
I think you are still missing my point.
I agree with you that motorists and bicyclists both do rude things and, yes, some do deliberately try to provoke the other.
I never said that drivers are always courteous to cyclists, or vice versa.
I simply said you seem to think that any “hatred” of cyclists is completely unfounded. It isn’t, anymore than the way some cyclists feel toward motorists is completely unfounded.
I don’t know how to say it any plainer than I have, though: at least some of what you call “hatred” of cyclists is not, as you posit, because motorists have “no concern” for cyclists, but because they DO.
Again, many people simply are fed up with being put in the position of possibly harming someone (a cyclist) because of that person’s own actions.
> I have a class C and a Class M license, so surely I’m qualified to ride a bicycle on the streets. No?
No. You should have to sit a bicycle driver’s license to be qualified to ride a bicycle on the streets. And the bicycle should be registered, licensed and insured.
Too stupid for words. My class M is downwards compatible for all the scooter and moped licenses so it sure encompasses bicycle should licensure ever become an issue. Unless...your real motivation is just to stick it to bicycle owners regardless. Hmmmmm.
> Unless...your real motivation is just to stick it to bicycle owners regardless. Hmmmmm.
No, my real motivation is to advocate licensing for bicycle riders.
I do not believe there should be downward compatibility with your motorbike license because a bicycle is not a motor vehicle. It enjoys different rules to a motorbike: sometimes it can behave like a pedestrian (eg be walked across an intersection) and sometimes it behaves like a motor vehicle, and sometimes it behaves like neither.
Riding a bicycle safely requires skills that — it is apparent — many bike riders do not have, or do not choose to use. And there is a gap in the laws that allow for unequal treatment of bicycles.
For example, exactly how / should a DUI bicyclist be penalized? How do you suspend his license to ride? Are drunks on bikes dangerous? You bet.
And aside from fines, how do you punish reckless bike riders? There are plenty of those on the road: go downtown to any major city where there are bike couriers if you want proof.
I cannot think of one good reason why bicycle riders — such as yourself — should not be separately licensed and insured whenever you ride. What’s your excuse?
“Too stupid for words?” I don’t think so.
In fairness, a moped is more like a bicycle than a motorcycle and my license covers those. Hell, a moped IS a bicycle with a pee-wee 25cc motor strapped to it. You can get more powerful weedeaters.
Riding a bicycle safely requires skills that — it is apparent — many bike riders do not have, or do not choose to use.
Ok, fair enough, but which skills do you want to test for? Do you even have an idea what it is you're looking for?
For example, exactly how / should a DUI bicyclist be penalized? How do you suspend his license to ride? Are drunks on bikes dangerous? You bet.
Here in Texas, I face the same penalties for bicycling drunk as I would driving drunk. They'll suspend my license etc, just if I were operating a motor-vehicle. While the revocation of my license doesn't bar me from bicycling, the judge can do so at his/her discretion. They almost always do if it's a second offense. See, we got it covered.
I cannot think of one good reason why bicycle riders — such as yourself — should not be separately licensed and insured whenever you ride. What’s your excuse?
We've addressed the licensing already. I suppose you could add one more two wheeled class to the two-wheeled structure, but being a kiwi you just might not understand that American licensing structure allows you drive operate all vehicles beneath your license.
If you hold a license to operate 3 axle vehicles, you also by default hold a license to operate 2 axle and single axle vehicles. If you hold a license to operate 2 axle vehicles, you can drive a car by default. Ditto for two wheeled vehicles. If you hold a <250cc license you can operate mopeds as well. Or if you hold a class M you can ride anything from a Boss Hog on down.
As for insurance, I'm not against it, it's just silly. My motorcycle insurance is about 1/5 of what my auto insurance runs. The reason? The actuary table shows that they have to pay out about 1/5 the amount in dollars that they do for my jeep. The truth is that mom's in minivans present a much greater risk in monetary terms than my motorcyle.
If we looked at potential pay outs for bicycles, we'd see payments less than the stamp used to mail it off. Overhead would be greater than what little profit would exist.
Unless, you'd like to see bicycle owners bent over for insurance payments greater than their actuarial cost to the insurance companies. That would be not only unamerican, but illegal in some states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.