skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for billdsd

( billdsd )

Comments made by billdsd

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

I understand actual logic just fine. Your disjointed disconnected thoughts can be tough to follow.

My claims are pretty easy to verify with a little research, not to mention actually observing how things work in the real world. You seem to be incapable of either.

Registering to vote is not in any way like licensing. You don't pay to register. You don't have to pass a test. You just have to be a citizen of proper age without convictions for certain crimes.

I don't consider it a bicycle until it has pedals. In 1817 there were no pedals on the draisine. In 1863 two french inventors put pedals on a two wheeler and that was the first bicycle and their claims are documented. There is one claim from Scotland that purports to be before that but the claim was made years later by the inventor's son and it is not well documented and so many consider it suspect. Your two other dates are after 1863.

Why not? Because bicyclists don't have the carnage statistics to justify a license requirement. They particularly don't have the numbers for injuring others. You try to pretend that they do but they just don't.

As for how drivers came to be licensed, have you done any research on this whatsoever? I've read several articles stating that. There were actually some fairly big anti-car movements in the early 20th century due to their massive carnage.

I am a trained vehicular cyclist. If you have to do anything on the road because of me, you have a long time to react to me. You'll see me signal before making any lateral move. You'll see me stop at stop signs and wait at red lights. Of course, you assume that because I am a bicyclist that I do boneheaded stunts on the road. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Back here in reality, I've driven about 750,000 miles in my life and I never seem to have difficulty dealing with bicyclists on the road. I can only guess at why you do. I expect that it's because you aren't really paying attention to the road and you somehow expect bicyclists to not be there and you're shocked when there's suddenly one in front of you. Bicyclists don't shock me. They don't surprise me. They are easy to avoid.

You're the one reading with prejudice. You are full of hate for people who are not like you.

Bicyclists also tend not to be responsible for this sort of carnage:

https://www.google.com/#q=head+on+col...

February 11, 2014 at 11:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

Again, you're just making things up because you don't pay attention to bicyclists unless they force you to. Where is your business? Even in particularly recreational spots like 101 through Del Mar and Solana Beach I see plenty of commuters but then I'm actually looking for them all the time.

I look for bicyclists because it's a subject that I actually care about. I see commuters everywhere. I worked downtown for years and I saw very few downtown who didn't look like commuters. I see bike commuters everywhere. I can't help it if you're not paying attention.

You say: "You must be registered to vote even if it is at the time of voting but it is a right that cannot be revoked."

I've read that 3 times and your sentence makes no sense. It's gibberish.

Let me see if I can break it down for you on bikes:

1. Bicyclists have had a legal right to use the roads since bicycles were invented in 1863.
2. Bicyclists have never been required to have an operator's license.
3. You can't take away their bicycle operator's license because it doesn't exist. Riding a bike on the road is a right.

As for motorists:

1. Motorists have been required to have an operator's license since around 1913 in California if I recall correctly.
2. Mandatory licensing came about for motorists because they were killing thousands of people even back then.
3. Licenses can be revoked because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege which is predicated upon your ability to operate that vehicle safely on the roads.

In any case, most adult bicyclists already have driver's licenses and know the rules of the road as well as most motorists, which isn't saying much since most motorists have a limited awareness of the rules of the road. Driving tests are far too easy.

NYC is unusual in that pedestrian traffic is dramatically larger in both numbers and percentages than any other city in the U.S. Riding on the sidewalk is illegal there but many do it anyway due to the fear of cars. Notice that that story doesn't talk about pedestrians being killed and it also notes that more pedestrians are seriously injured by cars. From that blog, 70,000 injured and hundreds killed in NYC alone by motorists. It's been years since a pedestrian was killed in NYC by a bicyclist. The numbers don't even come close to being comparable.

You clearly have a big problem with bicyclists. When I drive, bicyclists are by far the least of my problems. Motorists cause me most of the headaches I have while driving, followed by traffic controls, followed by pedestrians. You're focused on the least of your problems and ignoring much bigger issues. You're acting like an occasional trivial inconvenience is a major problem. You're grasping at straws for any excuse to support your hatred.

February 10, 2014 at 8:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

California Vehicle Code 21200(a) says that bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as the drivers of vehicles with respect to Division 11 of the CVC and certain other sections which it explicitly names. CVC Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 4 covers most of the bicycle specific laws.

It's a right because it does not require licensing. You can't revoke a license that doesn't exist. Privileges can be revoked. Rights, not so much. Having a right to use the road doesn't mean that there are no rules. You have a right to free speech but you don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there actually is a fire) or threaten the president.

I don't understand your question about percentage of commuting miles. If you're really paying attention to bicyclists on the roads, you'll notice that most bicyclists are in fact commuters. Most of them are effectively invisible to the average motorist. Most motorists do their best to pretend that bicyclists don't exist which is why the #1 thing that motorists say when they hit bicyclists is "I didn't see (him/her/them)". A lot of the riders who you probably think are recreational are also commuters. If you see someone on a racing bike, wearing spandex but also a back pack, they are almost certainly a commuter. I tend to like to commute on my racing bike and I keep clothes at the office so that I don't have to carry them on my commute. Most people seeing me would think that I am not commuting, unless it's raining in which case I'm on my touring bike with fenders and wearing rain gear and tend to look much more like I'm commuting.

Over 4000 pedestrians per year are killed by motorists in the U.S. according to the NHTSA. I can't find stats on bicyclists killing pedestrians because it's so rare. When a bicyclist kills a pedestrian it tends to be big news though, again because it is so rare. Based upon news reports (which I follow), it seems to be about 1-3 per year and most of the victims are elderly or otherwise in fragile health such that they die from complications that would not kill a normal healthy adult. A bicyclist killing a pedestrians is basically a freak occurrence. A motorist killing a pedestrian is so common that most don't make the news. You have to wait for NHTSA statistics to come out to find out how common it is.

Most bicyclists do not have bicycle safety training in spite of the fact that there are League of American Bicyclists safety instructors all over the U.S. and Cycling Savvy instructors in several major metropolitan areas. Most people think that they understand bicycle safety (especially anti-cyclists who ironically, never do) but they don't. In spite of this, bicyclists actually do pretty good safety wise. Only about 600-700 bicyclists die per year on the roads of the U.S. Over 28,000 motorists die on the road every year (NHTSA).

February 10, 2014 at 11:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

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


Motor vehicle operation is a privilege, not a right. Riding a bicycle on the road is a right. That's why it doesn't require a license. Motorists earned their licensing requirements and insurance requirements through massive amounts of carnage over the course of decades.

Bicyclists on the road are not a problem. They are not causing massive numbers of injuries and deaths. They are not causing massive amounts of property damage. Motorists prove their danger to others every single day. Their massive daily carnage is well documented.

February 9, 2014 at 11:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

@commus: Nope. You are the one that is twisting people's words.

I never said that no bicyclist has ever done anything wrong. You made that straw man.

I don't have a problem with 99.9% of motorists. I have a problem with the people who try to deny me the right to ride a bicycle safely on the road according to both the law and the best safety practices recommended by the top bicycle safety experts in the country including the League of American Bicyclists, Cycling Savvy, Effective Cycling, Cyclecraft and Bicycling Street Smarts.

Back here in reality, a bicyclist can't come close to doing anything remotely like the damage that a car can. Your contrive examples are silly and not in any way based in reality.

Your complaints about bicyclists breaking the rules are simply an excuse to rationalize your general hatred of all bicyclists, including those like me, who actually do obey the rules of the road.

You whine about bicyclists as if they are the only ones breaking the rules or they are the real danger on the road. 34,000 deaths per year due to motorists and over 2 million seriously injured by motorists tells a much different story. You see so much law breaking by motorists that you filter it out and don't even notice it. I see massive numbers of drivers speeding and failing to signal and making unsafe lane changes. Try standing on the corner of Beech and India St and count how many cars actually come to a complete stop at the stop signs. It's even a favorite stop sign enforcement spot for SDPD but still they roll stop signs constantly.

Most of the bicyclists who are riding against traffic know it's against the law but they do it anyway because they incorrectly believe that it is safer. I can assure you that I've spent far more time arguing with wrong way bicyclists than you have.

Most adult bicyclists are already licensed drivers. What's next? Licensing pedestrians?

Insurance companies don't offer bicycle liability insurance for a reason. They've run the numbers and it doesn't make financial sense for them. Most of the cost would be overhead. Bicyclists usually do damage that is less than most deductibles. Damage is caused by force and force is equal to mass times acceleration. Motorists have dramatically more mass and significantly more acceleration which is why they are so much more dangerous.

You don't want to level the playing field. You simply want to punish bicyclists for existing and that is why you are trying so hard to spread hatred for people who are not like you. That is your motivation for wanting licensing. That is your motivation for wanting insurance. You can try to pretend that it isn't but you are transparent.
(continued)

February 9, 2014 at 11:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

Here are some tips on bike safety and sharing the road with bicyclists from the California DMV:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures...

Taking a safety class from the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition would be even better if you really want to understand bicycle safety.

http://www.sdcbc.org/adult-bicyclist-...

Here is a series of interactive flash animations illustrating a variety of bicycle safety concepts:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/a...

Knowledge is better than ignorance.

February 9, 2014 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

California has no law prohibiting bicyclists from riding side by side. Most of those winding country roads have lanes which are too narrow for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side within the lane. CVC 21202(a)(3) says that when that is the case, then bicyclists are under no obligation whatsoever to ride far right. The reason is that it's safer for them to take up the whole lane because when they ride far right in narrow lanes, motorists tend to pass dangerously close and sometimes hit bicyclists. In the middle of the lane, motorists are forced to slow down and find a safe place to pass. In other words, it's the same thing as if you came up behind a tractor on a winding country road. They often have maximum speeds in the same range as bicyclists.

Most safety experts recommend an absolute minimum of 14 foot wide lanes for cars and bikes to share side by side. Texas and Florida even have that 14 foot width in their laws. Winding country roads almost never have lanes more than 12 feet wide and many are narrower than that.

I've driven roads like that plenty and in practice, it usually doesn't take long to find a safe place to pass. The relatively low speeds of bicycles, especially up hill means that most cars can pass them very quickly once there's an opening with adequate visibility and clearance. It's very rare to have to wait for more than a few seconds for a safe place to pass.

Out of control is bad. That guy that yelled at you after he crashed was probably extremely embarrassed and upset about crashing and didn't want to talk to anyone. Riding at night without lights is bad. I once flagged down an unlit night rider and gave him some lights.

The word "bigot" is appropriate. Some people will move over to pass any slow traffic as long as it isn't a bicycle. They will move over for a bus or a garbage truck or a loaded 18 wheeler or a cement truck. As long as it's a motor vehicle it's OK. They have a double standard when it's a bicycle though. They refuse to move over on multi-lane roads even though it's easy and they would move over for someone operating a motor vehicle in the same situation. It's based solely on the fact that it's someone on a bicycle and nothing else. It's not based upon the law which they don't understand. It's not based upon safety which they also don't understand. How is it not bigotry?

I'm just fine with riding on the road. I've studied bicycle safety from some of the top bicycle safety experts in the country. What protects me is making sure that drivers see me and don't have any illusions that they can just barely squeeze by me, and recognizing and staying out of dangerous crossing conflicts which are what cause most collisions. Too many of these separated facilities have to be shared with pedestrians which does not work. Too many set up dangerous crossing conflicts at driveways and intersections.

February 7, 2014 at 10:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

It is indeed a case of prejudice and elitism. People who have a problem with bikes on the road believe that they have a superior right to use the road and that bicyclists have less or no right to use the road. They don't care what the law says on the matter, especially when they find out that it doesn't support their delusions of entitlement.

Notice the arguments about who pays for the roads. It's an attempt to lay exclusive claim to a shared public right of way. By exclusive, I mean excluding bicyclists, again, regardless of what the law says.

They try to make arguments about safety, even though they've never spent 5 minutes studying bicycle safety and so they know nothing about it.

They try to make arguments about the law, even though in most cases they haven't read the law and even when they try to read it, they fail to comprehend even simple words like "or".

They do all of this because for some reason that I do not understand, they can't handle moving over to pass a bicycle safely or in rare cases, slowing down until they can move over to pass. It's the most trivial inconvenience in all of driving. When I'm driving, I am inconvenienced far more often and for far greater time losses by other motorists.

February 6, 2014 at 5:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

@sdreefer: You are blinded by your ignorance of bicycle and road safety and your delusion that you are entitled to not share the road with bicyclists.

I didn't refer to any bike clubs. I referred to bicycle safety organizations and books.

Riding far right is usually unsafe because it makes bicyclists less likely to be noticed by overtaking drivers, it sets up unsafe small clearances and it sets up dangerous crossing conflicts. It has nothing to do with tires.

Your annoyance is due to the fact that you have an expectation of not having to move over to pass bicyclists safely. That is an unreasonable expectation given what the law actually says and the reality of how bicyclists need to ride in order to be safe.

What is so difficult about moving over to pass a bicyclist safely? Why do you get more annoyed by having to do that than you do if you have to move over to pass a bus or any other slow traffic on the road?

February 6, 2014 at 12:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

@DonWood: Denmark has those "separated" facilities and they are finding that they don't work as well as you think. Fatalities are low but collisions are still high because those facilities aren't really separated. They still have crossing conflicts at every intersection and driveway. Learning how to ride safely does a better job.

February 5, 2014 at 11:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )