Skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Comments made by billdsd

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

As usual, you completely miss the point. You're also trying to distort my words because you are incapable of forming a coherent argument based upon facts and logic.

You clearly don't know what it's like to be poor in this town. It's been a while for me but I still remember.

You try to pretend that we have great public transit. We don't unless you are travelling at prime time. I've also used public transit in recent years as I've tried to drive less. It's really not that great.

The fact is that bicyclists are not a problem on the road, no matter how hard you try to pretend that they are. I'm sure that you'll keep pretending to be a victim though. That's what bigots always do.

March 9, 2014 at 7:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

Rules of the road: You claimed that the CVC does not say that bicyclists can use the full lane when it is unsafe to ride far right. CVC 21202(a)(3) says precisely that.

You do think you are too important. That's the only reason to be so upset with bicyclists. I see through your excuses. I've been listening the same childish excuses from anti-cyclists for decades.

Bicyclists don't jam traffic for miles when they ride in the middle of the lane. There's this amazing invention called changing lanes. You would do it for a bus. You would do it for a garbage truck. You'd do it for a cement truck. It's only bicyclists that you somehow can't figure out how to move over to pass.

It's not a stupid comparison. It works. I've been doing it for years. It's taught by every significant bicycle safety organization, teacher and book. I named at least 5 in previous comments. You think it doesn't because you can't be bothered to study the subject. I know a lot of old vehicular cyclists, including John Forester himself (author of Effective Cycling) who is in his 80's. Forester first got Effective published in 1976 IIRC though he was teaching for years before that. Vehicular cyclists have been at this a while. CVC 21202(a)(3) and (a)(4) are based upon ideas from vehicular cycling.

As far as public transit, check the bus schedules after 10pm. Try getting anywhere after about 8pm on a Sunday if you're not near a trolley route. I've used public transit. You clearly have not used it except maybe in the middle of the day or during peak periods. It's fairly easy to use then but not so much during off hours.

Not all poor people work in restaurants but a lot do. I did when I paid my own way through college working multiple jobs. I was poor in this city when I was in college. Have you ever been poor in this city?

February 25, 2014 at 9:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

@JeanMarc: Riding in the middle of the lane renders it safe. It makes the bicyclist completely visible and impossible to not notice. It makes it completely clear that you can't pass within the same lane so that you have to change lanes to pass. People tend not to run into bicyclists who are riding in the middle of the lane for the same reason that they tend not to run into the back of buses or garbage trucks or loaded 18 wheelers or RV's or cement trucks or any other slow moving vehicle. They see it and they deal with it.

Changing lanes to pass a bicycle safely is trivially easy but some people act like it's the worst injustice that has ever occurred in history. Bicycles are no more difficult to deal with than any other slow moving vehicle and the law (CVC 21200(a)) says that bicyclists have just as much right to use the road as the drivers of vehicles.

This interactive flash animation demonstrates the principles well:

Here's a video made by a couple of League of American Bicyclists certified safety instructors showing how it works in the real world:

All we're really talking about is motorists moving over to pass bicycles in exactly the same way that they do other motorists, because some people think that they shouldn't have to.

February 17, 2014 at 9:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

You don't know why I got assaulted do you?

I was riding my bike in the right lane on north bound Morena Blvd. The lane was far too narrow for a bike and a car and it was next to parallel parked cars and the driver pulled in front of me and slammed on the brakes and started screaming about how he was going to kick my ass. I was doing nothing wrong. I was in full compliance with the law and the left lane was open. He could have passed safely but in his mind he was entitled to not change lanes to pass a bicycle safely.

I am well aware of public transit but a lot of very poor people can't afford it. Have you priced a bus pass lately? A monthly pass for an adult will set you back $72. There are people who can't afford that every month. Furthermore, we have a very poor public transit system. If you work at a restaurant or bar and get off work at 2am, good luck finding transit. They don't run that late. Most routes don't run past 10pm and some not past 8pm. Basically none after midnight. Maybe YOU are the one who should look at our public transit system.

You don't seem to know what a straw man argument actually is. Maybe you should look it up.

You are ignorant of the rules of the road and you are ignorant of bicycle and road safety. Bicyclists have always had the right to travel on the public roads but you clearly think that you are too important to share the road with bicyclists in the same way that you do with other motorists. Every once in a great while you might have to deal with a bicyclist in some small way and for you, that's too much. Nevermind the fact that other motorists are what really make driving a pain. You're focused on the most trivial inconvenience in all of driving because you put yourself above anyone on a bike.

February 14, 2014 at 10:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

I forgot to mention, your suggestion that the only very poor riders are covered with bags and cans and are a danger is yet another example of your extreme bigotry.

You forget about poor immigrants who quite often are working part time minimum wage jobs because that's all that they can get. They often ride bikes because they can't even afford public transit. Many also work restaurant or bar jobs which require them to work hours beyond what public transit supports.

You also forget about college students who also often work part time minimum wage jobs and can't afford a car.

I also wonder how it is that you think that the homeless bottle and can collectors with their bikes are so dangerous. Really? I mean really? I have never once felt endangered by them in my car or on my bike. They're really easy to avoid and they're just trying to survive.

Your elitism just keeps shining through.

February 14, 2014 at 12:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

I've driven 750,000 miles because I've been driving for over 34 years. I used to live in O.C. and I did a lot of driving back then. I used to ski a lot. I've driven across the country. I've driven up and down the coast. I've done a lot of driving.

Bicyclists are treated as lesser beings for simply existing. Most of the time I'm fine but I've also been riding on the road for over 42 years so incidents do come up. I've also know plenty of people who've been assaulted and threatened and I've read plenty of stories of the same.

You say I can live without the bike. There you go again with your need to pretend that I am less than you. Riding a bike is part of who I am. Riding bikes is important to many people.

We don't get assaulted for bad behavior. We get assaulted for existing. That's all there is to it.

CVC 21202(a)(3) says that bicyclists don't have to ride far right when any condition makes it unsafe to ride far right. CVC 21202(a)(4) says that bicyclists don't have to ride far right when approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. Maybe you should try actually bothering to read the law before pretending to know what it says. Bicyclists who are trained in bicycle safety know when it is and is not safe to ride far right. They also know that it's usually unsafe to ride far right and conditions which satisfy (a)(3) or (a)(4) occur almost constantly on most roads. If you don't believe me then take a class from the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition.

We do have responsibilities. Bicyclists are required to obey the rules of the road and they do get ticketed. I know that you like to pretend that they don't but they do. They are also liable for injuries and damage. The lack of insurance doesn't make that responsibility go away. You don't want responsibility. You just want to punish bicyclists for existing.

February 13, 2014 at 10:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

You were right not to pass them in a blind curve. Passing anything on a blind curve is idiotic. A safe place to pass will present itself soon enough. I've driven thousands of miles on roads like that. You always have to deal with something that's slow at some point or another. The main difference with bicycles is that they tend to be a lot easier to pass than most other slow traffic on the road.

They were probably right to use the full lane. Most of Honey Springs road is far too narrow for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side within the lane. When bicyclists ride far right in this situation, cars tend to pass too close. I've had two different friends get clipped this way. Fortunately both made full recoveries.

When bicyclists use the full lane in narrow lanes, motorists tend to slow down and wait for a safe place to pass -- the same as they would for a bus or a garbage truck or a tractor or any other slow moving vehicle. It's much much safer.

CVC 21202(a)(3) (that's California state law) says that bicyclists don't have to ride far right when the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side within the lane. Safely side by side within the lane would include safe passing distance (3 ft according to most traffic safety experts). It has been law in California since 1976. I know this because I know a couple of the safety advocates who convinced the state legislature to add it to the law. commus has the excuse that it was passed after he learned to drive. What's your excuse for not knowing this?

Share the road does not mean share the lane side by side but you still think that you should be able to endanger bicyclists by passing dangerously close to them in the same lane. How do you share the road with buses? Do you expect them to ride on the edge of the road or do you expect to move over to pass them? Why do you think that it is different with a bicyclist? The law says that it's not.

The only reason that you think commus is winning is because you didn't bother to learn the rules of the road and you think that you have a superior right to the road over bicyclists.

February 12, 2014 at 10:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

Bicyclists are also victims of violent attacks from ignorant psycho rednecks. I've been called many names myself and been spit on and had things thrown at me merely for riding a bike on the road. I have been run off the road more than once. I've had drivers pull in front of me and slam on the brakes. In most cases these incidents happen on multi-lane roads where drivers can easily change lanes to pass and where there are safety issues with riding far right in the lane. Many bicyclists who ride on the road have been attacked. These attacks aren't about time or the law. They are about priority, entitlement and territory.

Here's a story of an assailant who got convicted recently, though he managed to plea bargain to a lesser charge:

Reality is that you want bicyclists to have licensing and insurance because you want to discourage bicycling. If those things were required then a lot fewer people would bother, which is what you really want. Of course, a lot of very poor people would lose their only form of transportation other than walking. The spandex racer types would probably not be affected so much. I guess you mostly just want to keep very poor people from riding?

What about licensing children or are you just going to ban them from the streets altogether?

You'd also probably get really angry if all of the bicyclists were actually trained in bicycle safety. It would mean that you'd be seeing a lot more bicyclists using the full lane a large percentage of the time because that's what bicyclists do when they understand how collisions actually happen and the means to avoid those collisions.

February 12, 2014 at 7:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

You wrote: "As do most motorists who know that the biker can pull all sorts of boneheaded stunts and demand, just as you do, that the motorist compensate for it."

What exactly am I expecting them to compensate for? Are you not accusing me of doing bone headed stunts?

On the road, I compensate for all other road users all the time. It's called defensive driving. I set up safe clearances. I maximize visibility. I allow for the possibility that anyone else could do something stupid. This is the essence of defensive driving. I could go into more detail on specific techniques but that will take up a lot of space.

The fact is that bicyclists on the road are not a real problem. The best you've come up with is an old article which shows what seems to be a large number of injuries from bicyclists in NYC until you read the entire article and see that that number is absolutely dwarfed by the number of injuries and deaths caused by motorists.

Meanwhile, time marches on and here's a more recent article about how bicyclists are getting significantly better in NYC, in large part due to the massive increase in the number of bicyclists there in the last few years:

You ignorantly and incorrectly presented the notion that bicyclists don't pay for the roads. You did this to pretend that motorist have more right to the road than bicyclists, regardless of what the law says.

You tried to pretend that most bicyclists are recreational. Again, in an effort to pretend that their use of the roads is less important than yours. Of course, nevermind that I am active in the local bicycling community and so I know an enormous number of bicyclists and most of them are bike commuters. The only exclusively recreational riders I know are riders who only ride off road. All of the people that I know who ride on the road commute by bike at least part of the time. A racer friend of mine commutes 20 miles each way to work every day. The spandex racer types usually also commute because it helps them get in some training every day.

You are trying to establish priority and superiority. Racists do the same thing as they make up arguments about other races. Homophobes and xenophobes follow the same M.O. It's a basic component of all active bigotry.

February 12, 2014 at 7:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

Here's a book about the history of fighting the dangers of cars, though it starts at around 1915. I know I've read stuff that was about this problem from even earlier, but I'm having trouble finding it right now.

February 11, 2014 at 11:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )