Quantcast
 
 
 
Top Story
The GOP Convention: Maverick in Name Only
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Pitt plays dumb in Coens' 'Burn After Reading'
 
 
expand
NATIONAL AFFAIRS

Pedal vs. Metal

A surge in bike ridership spurs a new kind of road rage

By Winston Ross | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 28, 2008 | Updated: 11:10  a.m. ET Jul 28, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: ireland04 @ 08/21/2008 8:42:46 PM

    Comment: The problem is two way, new cyclists need to respect and obey all traffic laws. Bicycles are vehicles. Auto drivers need to respect cyclists a lot more than they currently do. I'm a avid cyclist (predominantly mountain biking) and know that I'm supposed to follow traffic laws, but some of the new crop of cyclists that have recently started riding due to high gas prices have a hard time adjusting to bikes, or believe that they don't have to follow proper road rules because they don't view bikes as normal vehicles. On the other hand, car drivers need to respect bikes as equals on the road. I've had many drivers ignore me, or almost hit me, because they believe that I am in their way, and should move to let them go where they want. Point: new cyclists need to follow the traffic laws, and drivers need to pay attention and respect cyclists.

  • Posted By: ireland04 @ 08/21/2008 8:40:26 PM

    Comment: The problem is two way, new cyclists need to respect and obey all traffic laws. Bicycles are vehicles. Auto drivers need to respect cyclists a lot more than they currently do. I'm a avid cyclist (predominantly mountain biking) and know that I'm supposed to follow traffic laws, but some of the new crop of cyclists that have recently started riding due to high gas prices have a hard time adjusting to bikes, or believe that they don't have to follow proper road rules because they don't view bikes as normal vehicles. On the other hand, car drivers need to respect bikes as equals on the road. I've had many drivers ignore me, or almost hit me, because they believe that I am in their way, and should move to let them go where they want. Point: new cyclists need to follow the traffic laws, and drivers need to pay attention and respect cyclists.

  • Posted By: Lypiphera @ 08/15/2008 6:39:07 PM

    Comment: Bikers here in Utah are a HUGE problem, so i can feel for other states. We have no bike lanes, and the winding mountain roads are often filled with Lance Armstrong wannabe's. But when they start driving exclusively in the roads instead of the bike lanes, running read lights, turning from the middle lane or going straight in the right lane, etc, it gets out of hand. I wish there were more specific and strict rules to protect both parties- its grey area's that get people in to these kinds of prediciments... or just not following the laws in general....

  • Posted By: marcomania @ 08/12/2008 4:33:44 PM

    Comment: Both motorists and cyclists are responsible to obey all traffic laws. More significantly, both are responsible to a higher standard of mutual respect, consideration, and helpfulness to one another as cohabiters of their communities. We all lose when we damage one another in various ways, and we all win when we are mutually helpful. I am a road cycllist and a high mileage driver. It agers me when another cydlist I may be riding with unecessarily inconveniences a driver, and it also angers me when a driver unecessarily endangers a cyclist. The first is foolish; the latter stupid and short sighted. Education/awareness could go a long way toward easing this tension. I have seen a greater awareness of cycling safety in eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware since "Share the Road" highway signs have been posted on many highways in the last decade.

  • Posted By: urbl @ 08/09/2008 4:37:45 PM

    Comment: Nothing new here. There have always been and always will be bad actors on both sides, but in general we're looking at cyclists literally fighting for their lives while motorists get upset about perceived wrongs as they sit coddled in their climate-controlled luxo-yachts. That's a simple observation after 22 years of being one of those Lycra-clad, smooth-legged racer-types everybody hates by virtue of his existence.

  • Posted By: GreenJuly @ 08/09/2008 2:49:50 PM

    Comment: Regarding ' wiseroption ' comment: "After all, it is a somewhat elitist sport & most of the lawmakers & law shakers are the very ones on the bicycles." I am a walker and find runners to be somewhat of an elitist group. They rarely stop in crosswalks, ignore red lights and 'don't walk signs' and besides they tend to be skinny, happy and are type A personalities.

  • Posted By: probike @ 08/09/2008 9:03:42 AM

    Comment: Much of this discussion reveals the result of 50-60 years of virtually nonexistant education regarding the use of bicycles. Many adults will say "I know how to ride a bike, I don't need instruction." Actually, they may know how to stay BALANCED on a bike, but not really have clear understanding of the laws and methods of safe operation of bicycles, This goes for motorists as well - motorists who inevitably pass their "understanding" of bicycle operation on to their kids.
    For example, many posters have complained about cyclists riding two abreast. Examples shown are from Oregon & Arizona statutes:
    OREGON: Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances: (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
    ARIZONA:28-815. A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations: If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for. a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
    B. Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadway set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
    So riding two abreast is permitted in many situations - watch traffic long enough and you'll see that every situation is different.
    Road use taxes and bicycles. The right to use the roadways is not a function of any fee/tax structure. Use of roadways is only a function of the responsible use of the road. In theory, irresponsible users are stripped of their rights. If fees/taxes were a factor, trucks would have more rights than motorcycles. Convicted drunk drivers who owned many vehicles would not lose their right to drive, because they would "pay enough to keep using the road" .Driver's licenses requiring knowledge & ability would be worthless, since all that would matter would be payment of fees. Foreign tourists would be denied access to our roadways, since they do not "pay their fair share".
    Cycling Safety: Many posters comment on whether cyclists wear helmets or not. The point is moot. Although some states requ

  • Posted By: skxskibum @ 08/08/2008 2:30:04 PM

    Comment: what about the morons in 4000lb hunks of metal driving: drunk, inattentively, openly hostile, etc.? This article started with a cyclist acting poorly, reprehensible yes, but a cyclist riding like a moron causes property damage or the cyclist's death. A driver of a car acting similarly is sure to cause death or serious injury to a cyclist in cycle/motor vehicle conflicts. I ask drivers: is being inconvenienced by a stupid bicyclist a reason to kill or permanently injure him?

  • Posted By: saninj @ 08/08/2008 12:26:14 AM

    Comment: Only in the make believe of America can someone state with religious conviction that "roads are made for cars??? and that cyclists have no place on them. Ever been to Japan, Europe, China? It???s rather simple: The roads are for people and products, not cars, and there are a whole lot more ways of moving them around than one finds in the states. Guess what's going to happen as oil supplies inevitably decline and a few hundred million cyclists in Asia get behind the wheel of their own 4 wheelers? As gas prices break family budgets in the US, all these whining road-entitled ???victims??? of cyclist wild abandon will reevaluate their opinions - well, maybe not completely. They'll probably opt for a moped ;).

  • Posted By: Biketourist @ 08/07/2008 12:21:46 PM

    Comment: As a cyclist, I frown upon the Critical Mass movement. It is like saying " I am showing my right to use the road by denying it to you. Society psyche is on the highwire and this kind of activity plus angry drivers is an explosive mixture. If you want to show your right of use of the road, just use it, and obey the law. After all, the law is there to keep the order. There is always the driver who thinks the bike belong to the sidewalk, but if you use the sidewal;lk, the cop will fine you. So, what to do?Every morning on my bike commute, I am reminded about my mother by many many motorists. But I pay no attention.

  • Posted By: bubsey @ 08/07/2008 12:05:12 PM

    Comment: Cyclists should be considered pedestrians by drivers and pedestrian laws should be aplied to them.

    • Posted By: urbl @ 08/09/2008 16:43:10

      Comment: ...but peds can't cruise at 25 mph. Even a casual cyclist can travel much faster than a pedestrian and has vehicle dynamics closer to a car than to a pedestrian. Reality check, please?

  • Posted By: jonathankrall @ 08/07/2008 11:34:55 AM

    Comment: To answer the question posed in the article, there are two clear reasons for
    cyclists to express road rage:

    1) In the United States it is de facto legal for motorists to kill cyclists.

    A recent article in Bicycling magazine, entitled Broken, describes the story of a
    cyclist who is mowed down by a distracted driver in broad daylight and in the
    presence of witnesses: the driver says she never saw the cyclist and the DA fails
    to prosecute because he believes no jury will side with the cyclist. The article
    goes on to show that this is typical, even when a cyclist is killed. If the
    motorist can pass as an upstanding citizen who just didn't notice the cyclist, he
    or she is highly unlikely to be locked up.

    2) Many people, including many police officers, do not believe that cyclists belong
    on the roads.

    A modicum of online research will show that police officers often display ignorance
    of the law, citing cyclists for safe and legal actions, such as riding in the road
    instead of a nearby side path.

    In summary, cyclists know that many motorists do not want them around, that these
    motorists have a de facto license to kill, and that the police cannot be counted on
    for protection.

    And you wonder why cyclists are angry?!?

  • Posted By: EffYou @ 08/07/2008 8:54:19 AM

    Comment: New kind of road rage? Not at all.
    Merely a completely unreported kind of road rage, as it has existed for years.
    Just ask any long-term commuting cyclist.
    It's just the same road rage, only now cyclists' viewpoints are being reported instead of only drivers'.

  • Posted By: calebemeth @ 08/06/2008 6:26:50 PM

    Comment: While I sympathize with the frustrations of motorists clogged in rush-hour traffic --- and especially with those who encounter thoughtless or illegal bicyclists --- more rules & bureaucracy are not the right solution. Instead, the sensible solution lies in thoughtful bicyclists who obey the rules of the road (not to mention thoughtful & law-abiding motorists, too!) and adequate, well-designed streets with plenty of bicycle paths & wide bicycle routes, etc. Public campaigns & instruction of the young can accomplish the former far better than costly new, or expanded, bureaucracies. As for the latter, Americans will have to overcome their kneejerk aversion to taxes and pay for the services we need or demand from our government. We also need to think things through more carefully, and plan wisely, before we invest billions of dollars into new or revised transportation structures.

    For instance, when constructing streets, why not invest now in paths for bicycles rather than later, after they're completed? Why not anticipate things prior to the situation becoming urgent? This is particularly apropos given that bicycle infrastructure is vastly less expensive than that which is necessary for automobiles; money invested in bicycling is, in the end, miniscule in proportion. Nor can anyone claim that such a vision is impossible. I have toured thousands of miles by car & bicycle across the United States (twice by bicycle & once by car) and through Europe (once by bicycle), and I can tell you from personal experience the advantages --- whether for bicyclist or motorist --- of places where both are accommodated amicably in orderly peace. The most obvious example is the Netherlands. An enormous part of the population there bicycles everyday in cooperation with an also enormous fraction of the population that drives cars. The fact that they do so comfortably, in far larger ratio than we as Americans have ever yet achieved, is proof that the vision is feasible.

    However, we must invest to make it happen successfully here. Yet how is this unthinkable when a tiny pittance of money would have to be spent in comparison to the copious billions spent every year on the infrastructure for cars? And how could this possibly be impractical when gasoline has hit $4 per gallon? Even if only 10% of us commuted by bicycle regularly, the investment for a nation-wide infrastructure of bicycle paths (ways entirely separate from cars) and bicycle routes (ways that combine with cars on the roads --- but with ample room to the side of the road and not the pathetically narrow shoulders that so often pass for bicycle routes in this country) --- is obviously worthwhile, saving money, increasing health, decreasing congestion, encouraging friendliness, lessening pollution & making things fun (because, yes, bicycling is fun!). What in the world --- other than shortsightedness, bullheadedness & being penny-wise but pound-foolish --- could keep us from pedalin

  • Posted By: calebemeth @ 08/06/2008 6:13:19 PM

    Comment: While I sympathize with the frustrations of motorists clogged in rush-hour traffic --- and especially with those who encounter thoughtless or illegal bicyclists --- more rules & bureaucracy are not the right solution. Instead, the sensible solution lies in thoughtful bicyclists who obey the rules of the road (not to mention thoughtful & law-abiding motorists, too!) and adequate, well-designed streets with plenty of bicycle paths & wide bicycle routes, etc. Public campaigns & instruction of the young can accomplish the former far better than costly new, or expanded, bureaucracies. As for the latter, Americans will have to overcome their kneejerk aversion to taxes and pay for the services we need or demand from our government. We also need to think things through more carefully, and plan wisely, before we invest billions of dollars into new or revised transportation structures.

    For instance, when constructing streets, why not invest now in paths for bicycles rather than later, after they???re completed? Why not anticipate things prior to the situation becoming urgent? This is particularly apropos given that bicycle infrastructure is vastly less expensive than that which is necessary for automobiles; money invested in bicycling is, in the end, miniscule in proportion. Nor can anyone claim that such a vision is impossible. I have toured thousands of miles by car & bicycle across the United States (twice by bicycle & once by car) and through Europe (once by bicycle), and I can tell you from personal experience the advantages --- whether for bicyclist or motorist --- of places where both are accommodated amicably in orderly peace. The most obvious example is the Netherlands. An enormous part of the population there bicycles everyday in cooperation with an also enormous fraction of the population that drives cars. The fact that they do so comfortably, in far larger ratio than we as Americans have ever yet achieved, is proof that the vision is feasible.

    However, we must invest to make it happen successfully here. Yet how is this unthinkable when a tiny pittance of money would have to be spent in comparison to the copious billions spent every year on the infrastructure for cars? And how could this possibly be impractical when gasoline has hit $4 per gallon? Even if only 10% of us commuted by bicycle regularly, the investment for a nation-wide infrastructure of bicycle paths (ways entirely separate from cars) and bicycle routes (ways that combine with cars on the roads --- but with ample room to the side of the road and not the pathetically narrow shoulders that so often pass for bicycle routes in this country) --- is obviously worthwhile, saving money, increasing health, decreasing congestion, encouraging friendliness, lessening pollution & making things fun (because, yes, bicycling is fun!). What in the world --- other than shortsightedness, bullheadedness & being penny-wise but pound-foolish --- could keep us from pedal

  • Posted By: texan75082 @ 08/06/2008 3:57:51 PM

    Comment: I am an avid biker myself, but I have enough common sense to know better than to go out and ride my bicycle in the middle of the street with a 40 mph speed limit in the middle of rush hour. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of my fellow bikers in my area lack that common sense. I live in a suburb of Dallas, and lately I have noticed more and more bikers riding on the main road that I take from home to work during rush hour. Not only do they cause major traffic problems from the fact that they are moving 30mph slower than the other traffic, but they also cause many minor traffic accidents, and most of them seem to have no respect at all for traffic laws. It is not uncommon to see them running red lights and stop signs, as well as passing cars stopped at red lights on the shoulder, or even worse, between lanes of traffic. Often cars will have to struggle to pass people on bicycles, only to have the bikers pass them again illegally at the next stop light... talk about frustrating and infuriating!!!

    There has been a lot in the news lately about hyper-milers getting tickets for doing 50 mph in a 70mph zone to save gas, but isn't it even worse for a bicycle to be going 5 to 10mph in a 40 mph zone? How is that not impeding the flow of traffic? Cars can get tickets for that, but bicycles can't? How is that fair?

    It is sad to have to say this, but apparently we need laws to enforce what should be common sense. At the very least, any bicycle that is on a street with a posted speed limit above 30 mph should be required to have some form of liability insurance, since after all, they can cause damage to other vehicles when they break the law... They should also be required to have their bikes registered, and have some sort of safety inspection and proper safety equipment. It is not fair that they have no license plate or anything to identify them when they run red lights... The cameras enforce this for cars, but not bicycles... once again, how is this fair?

  • Posted By: wiseroption @ 08/05/2008 6:28:18 PM

    Comment: For the life of me, I do not understand why bicyclists are given such freedom to control our avenues of transportation. My issue with this is that there are certain times of the morning, evening or weekends that this 2-wheeled sport gets in the way of motorists using the byways for what they were actually engineered for, TRANSPORTATION and they often present a danger to others as well as themselves. I mean, it is a road for God's sake, not a recreational riding course! I have nothing at all against bicycling, it is a great sport, past time, recreation, exercise, etc., but you do not see golf carts on the highways, do you? You do not see 4-wheelers, dirt bikes, or tricycles or skate boarders, do you? NO. They have courses to use. Why is the sport of bicycling different? Yet, motorists are taught to give the right of way to any un-motorized vehicle, pedestrian or whatever that happens to be in the way (except road kill). Do not tell me the designated margins on the side of the road are for these cyclists because they ALWAYS narrow in areas that make it impossible for the cyclist to stay out of the motorist???s way. They are simply not adequate.

    Operators of motorized vehicles pay large sums of money in vehicle & road taxes in order to travel on them to & from work, yet they are forced to give the right of way to a non-motorized, non-taxed sporting occasion that presents serious dangers to all travelers. Many times, I have been forced to slow to a crawling speed, swerved to avoid a cyclist on a blind corner, or worry about getting too close to a bicyclist in areas where the bicycle margins narrow. This makes the already dangerous challenge of driving on the roads even more daring.

    I say the laws need to change to force the bicyclists to designated courses just like any other sporting event or exercise programs, OR at the very least, implement licensing, tags & taxes to the owners of bicycles who use the roads, just like all other motorists. This might stress the importance of the laws of the highway to both, motorized & non-motorized drivers until we can find a solution to an ongoing danger (wider lanes for cyclists that cover the entire length of the road traveled), but I doubt seriously it will ever happen. After all, it is a somewhat elitist sport & most of the lawmakers & law shakers are the very ones on the bicycles.

    • Posted By: GreenJuly @ 08/09/2008 14:38:09

      Comment: " After all, it is a somewhat elitist sport & most of the lawmakers & law shakers are the very ones on the bicycles."
      I am a walker and I find runners somewhat of an elitist group. They are in shape, seem to be type A type personalities. They rarely stop at crosswalks. I feel like they could run me or my family over anytime.

    • Posted By: Cyclingadvocate @ 08/08/2008 14:15:10

      Comment: There are a few things that the author of this comment is not considering. First, some automobile drivers use the roads for recreation, not transportation (here in Los Angeles there are large groups of recreational drivers and motorcycle riders who use the mountain roads). Undoubtedly they inflict minor inconveniences on those who are using the roads strictly for transportation. Second, pedestrians often (probably more often than not) use public sidewalks (and sometimes public streets) for recreation, and undoubtedly inconvenience motorists in the process. Even so, it would be unconscionable to prohibit either of these groups from using public roads. Third, the vast majority of recreational cyclists own cars, buy gas occasionally, and pay their taxes, so it is unclear why they should not have an equal claim to use of public roads. Fourth, there is no obvious reason to accept the commentator's premise that the purpose of public roads is transportation only. Fifth and finally, the suggestion that cyclists represent a special danger to others is ludicrous. In direct collisions with cyclists motorists are almost never hurt. And while it is true that motorists may injure themselves or others in trying to avoid cyclists, to regard these injuries as the fault of the cyclists themselves, as opposed to the drivers who executed this or that unsafe maneuver in their haste to transport themselves from point A to point B.

    • Posted By: Too late smart @ 08/06/2008 00:36:28

      Comment: Here in Portland cyclists are usually on the road commuting to work, on errands or shopping as essential as any auto trip. Also may slow traffic less than a car using no fuel that demand has driven to over $4.00 per gallon

  • Posted By: wstephenjackson @ 08/02/2008 3:46:08 PM

    Comment: As a cyclist and a driver, I would like to speak to this from both sides. Having a 15 mile commute on Dallas streets, cycling is not a reasonable option for my commute. Because I currently take a toll road to work, bicycles are not an issue. Previously, however, I worked at a different location and last year began to note this issue. Our streets have no bike lanes. A cyclist must move in traffic lanes. This becomes an issue in rush hour traffic where traffic signals cannot clear in the time allowed. One cyclist, and even the most fit cannot accelerate very quickly and none that I have ever met could do the 40 mph speed limit, can cause a meltdown on a four lane road in rush hour. Put several out there and then thousands pay the price of extra time and gasoline so that a very few can be 'environmentalists'.

    I am afraid that I would have to support limitations on the use of bicycles on roads which are not equipped to handle them, for the safety of cyclists and motorists alike, not to mention the huge toll in fuel costs which is borne by drivers having to wait for them.

    I realize this will never happen; it is not a currently politically correct point of view .... heaven knows, no local politician would touch it ... and that is a shame.

  • Posted By: Skip0053 @ 08/01/2008 1:40:38 PM

    Comment: Reply to "jtfjz": I agree we ought to get more bike lanes. However, this commenter does not realize cyclists have the same rights as cars on the roads. So, cyclists do not "need to realize" anything. The commenter needs to realize the laws independent of personal opinions such as his "manual typewriter" bit.

    • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 08/02/2008 10:29:26

      Comment: SAME RIGHTS ....................AND SAME RESPONSIBILITIES...............LIKE MAKING A TURN SIGNAL EVEN WHEN IT IS INCONVENIENT BECAUSE THE RIDER HAS HIS HANDS FULL(RIDING UNSAFELY), OR NOT SWITCHING FROM VEHICLE LANE TO PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AS IF THERE WAS A SWITCH THAT TRANSFORMED THE BIKE TO A WALKER OR ASSUMING THAT A BIKE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS ON A SIDEWALK AS A PEDESTRIAN WHEN THE RIGHT OF WAY ALWAYS GOES TO FOOT TRAFFIC!

  • Posted By: jtfj2 @ 08/01/2008 12:13:27 AM

    Comment: Cyclists need to realize that they do not own the road and that some roads were not designed with bikes in mind. There is nothing worse than a two mile long line of traffic on a narrow two-lane road held up by one inconsiderate cyclist whom drivers cannot safely or quickly get around. Bicycles are not the answer to our problems any more than manual typerwriters are to the energy crisis. Leave the bike at home during rush hour and/or confine your riding to clearly defined bike lanes. In the meantime, please press your local politiciians to help us all by building more bike lanes. That way we can all get along safely and happily.

  • Posted By: tmd760 @ 07/31/2008 10:14:44 PM

    Comment: I drive a inner city mainline bus and I also ride my bicycle to work. Do I go thru red lights with my bike, No., Do I go thru red lights with my city bus, not if I want to keep my job. It takes lots of patience to drive on the streets and I find some drivers take insult with every little thing. We need to step back and acknowledge that present rules are inadequet for the new realities. Maybe we need to have larger bike lanes and enforcement of bike lanes just like we have enforcement of 4-wheeled vehicles. Of course not everyone uses "common sense" but are we prepared to accept the consequences of our actions out on the streets with bikes or pedestrians.

  • Posted By: Kar1 @ 07/31/2008 6:56:20 PM

    Comment: America is ilprepaired for this abrupt end to oil. We could have been taught "transportation skills" starting with pedestrians as part of curriculum. Instead we are now thrust into the only sensible action having exhausted all the other possibilities. Cyclist must be treated just as other road users, and they should act like them. Law enforcement is one answer, driver re-education another, but we need to fast track now.

  • Posted By: rgriner @ 07/31/2008 3:27:16 PM

    Comment: I stop at stop signs and red lights, but many signals will only change if a motor vehicle is waiting (sensor imbedded in pavement); Until a vehicle pulls up alongside one has a long wait for a sigmal change. Some signals cycle so rapidly a cyclist has insufficient time to clear the intersection. Some signals cycle sufficiently slowly to frustrate motorist patience. Sitting, engine idling at an intersection with no cross traffic waiting for a green light is frustrating.
    rgriner@sbcglobalcom

  • Posted By: ButtFuzz @ 07/30/2008 4:40:24 PM

    Comment: "Bicycles probably cause close to zero wear and tear of public roadways, so why should they be forced to pay for the wear and tear caused by larger..."

    Err, because the road cost some defineable amount to build in the first place. You want to ride on it? You should pay for it. Doesn't matter if you're tearing it up or not...

  • Posted By: ButtFuzz @ 07/30/2008 4:37:45 PM

    Comment: " whereas almost any 8-year old kid can operate a bicycle with relative safety. "

    Why is this, or your, 8 year old allowed to operate this bicycle on the streets. Don't you see some kind of fundamental flaw in this? And just what is 'relative safety'? Only gets hit by a car 5 times in 100 trips?

  • Posted By: skipjack142 @ 07/30/2008 2:49:04 PM

    Comment: I bike commute several days a week in Petaluma Ca. In the past, I have also lived and bike commuted in Dallas, New Orleans, San Francisco, Kalamazoo and Marquette. Unfortunately, cars and bikes don't mix well. Drivers are mostly courteous and aware, but you never know which one it is that will turn into you on your bike. Deep tinted windows make it worse, as you can't judge if the driver has looked at you. Bicyclist hate giving up momentum to stop signs/lights. More and more, stop lights are the ???triggered??? types. Back when lights were timed, you could adjust your speed to hit it green, but now, from a block back on a bike, it is almost impossible to predict the light???s timing. In a flat town on a good bike, I can ride for miles at a reasonable pace and not break a sweat, except for the stops and starts. Getting rolling and back up to speed after a series of stop light interruptions is a drag, but not honoring the lights/signs is asking for trouble. ???Amateurs??? riding the wrong direction in bike lanes, coming around corners at speed on the wrong side, or dipping through traffic without using the old fashioned hand signals (do they even teach those anymore?) tees everybody off. Traffic planners need to think in terms of alternative routes. Putting the bike lane on the busiest street may not be smart thing, put the bike lanes on parallel streets with low speed limits but no stop signs (yields okay). The speed limit discourages cars, but gives bikes an alternative route without interruptions. Cul-de-sacs need to have ???throughways??? for bikes to escape. In some places you have to ride ???out??? of the neighborhood a half mile in the wrong direction uphill before being able to turn the bike towards your destination.

    • Posted By: DodgerFan @ 07/30/2008 15:19:52

      Comment: It is true that bicyclists often have to choose between losing momentum to honor a stop sign/traffic light (something a non-biker will probably never be able to comprehend) or running the sign/light. I usualy choose a middle ground, slowing down to maintain some forward momentum, looking to see if the coast is clear, then running the sign/light if it is OK. If there is any cross traffic, the bicyclist should yield.

      I agree that amateurs probably give a bad name to responsible cyclists. The bicyclist should ride defenisively and use caution and common sense. I yield when I have to and also when I don't have to. I give as much room as possible for the cars to pass. I stay out of traffic lanes as much as possible. I have ridden thousands of miles on LA streets and have never had an altercation with a driver. I once got sucker-punched from behind on Olympic Blvd, and I got a coke thrown on me on PCH in Huntington beach, but those were just mischevious kids, not traffic-related disputes over right-of-way or anything like that.

  • Posted By: ButtFuzz @ 07/30/2008 2:30:54 PM

    Comment: Frankly, I just don't understand why we can't all just get along. However, in the spirit of stirring things up just a bit more, here are a couple of arguments I keep seeing repeated over and over and my response to same:

    1. "I've [also] got a car and I pay taxes and [road-use] fees on it!" [Implying your car taxes somehow 'covers' the bicycle]

    A bicycle is not titled. Therefore, I (or you) pay no personal property taxes, periodic registration fees, periodic tag fees, periodic inspection fees and the like on the bicycle. Your argument fails.

    2. "I have a valid automobile operators permit!" [meaning 'driver's license'...]

    This does not NOR should not cover your bicycle, and just invites the observance that "Bicyclists are the largest group of unlicensed drivers on the road today!". Your automobile driver's license no sooner covers motorcycles, semi-trucks, or a 50 passenger bus for hire. NOR should it without proper testing and associated fees. Just because you are licensed to drive one type or mode of transportation does not automagically make you licensed to drive the rest. Your argument fails.

    ...now go play in traffic...

  • Posted By: ButtFuzz @ 07/30/2008 2:28:50 PM

    Comment: Frankly, I just don't understand why we can't all just get along. However, in the spirit of stirring things up just a bit more, here are a couple of arguments I keep seeing repeated over and over and my response to same:

    1. "I've [also] got a car and I pay taxes and [road-use] fees on it!" [Implying your car taxes somehow 'covers' the bicycle]

    A bicycle is not titled. Therefore, I (or you) pay no personal property taxes, periodic registration fees, periodic tag fees, periodic inspection fees and the like on the bicycle. Your argument fails.

    2. "I have a valid automobile operators permit!" [meaning 'driver's license'...]

    This does not NOR should not cover your bicycle, and just invites the observance that "Bicyclists are the largest group of unlicensed drivers on the road today!". Your automobile driver's license no sooner covers motorcycles, semi-trucks, or a 50 passenger bus for hire. NOR should it without proper testing and associated fees. Just because you are licensed to drive one type or mode of transportation does not automagically make you licensed to drive the rest. Your argument fails.

    ...now go play in traffic...

    • Posted By: DodgerFan @ 07/30/2008 15:39:11

      Comment: 1. I am just guessing, but the majority of road taxes, vehicle registration fees, etc. are possibly earmarked for maintenance and improvement/expansion of public roadways. Bicycles probably cause close to zero wear and tear of public roadways, so why should they be forced to pay for the wear and tear caused by larger, heavier, and faster vehicles? Bicycles are also not repsonsible for the massive congenstion of our highways, so why should they be forced to pay for expansion of the road system?
      2. I agree that bicyclists are the largest group of unlicensed drivers on the road, and I can see a certain logic to the principle of requiring a bicycle driver's license. But how will this be implemented with regard to children? Will all kids have to get the license before being allowed to ride their bikes to school or the playground? Perhaps your argument fails if one considers the high level of skill and knowledge required to safely operate a motorcycle, semi, or bus, whereas almost any 8-year old kid can operate a bicycle with relative safety. Also, simple physics (mass and velocity) indicate that the consequences of improper operation are usually much more severe with a car, motorcycle, truck, or bus than with a bicycle.

  • Posted By: tiredofbikes @ 07/30/2008 2:11:46 PM

    Comment: I live in Tennessee, and recreational cyclists show the worst examples of road rage I've ever seen. They yell, curse, and flip drivers off, and a visitor came to my house one day, parked his truck at the curb, and a cyclist spit into his window because he dared to park on the street. What I see is a massive amount of selfishness and self-righteousness as bikers have taken their slow-moving vehicles and bullied motorists into avoiding the right lane completely as they have ridden two, three, and even four abreast. It's a form of urban bullying, taken straight out of the playground and onto the road.

  • Posted By: anarcissie @ 07/30/2008 1:37:19 PM

    Comment: Actually there is not a new road rage; it's the same old road rage. I mostly use a bicycle and avoid most of it, but when I drive occasionally I am shocked by the hostility and aggression shown by motorists to one another. I guess some of the politicized bicyclists are being infected by the hostility of the environment they're struggling with.

  • Posted By: WinstonSmithLives @ 07/30/2008 1:18:22 PM

    Comment: Cyclists keep pushing that they have the legal "RIGHT" to the road and that they are "better" than drivers. I am on cycling enthusiast who deeply resents the cycling community's arrogance and screwball logic. I was the kid who chose to ride my bike when I could have taken the bus. I love my bikes, but now I am embarrassed for my neighbors to see me ride. Get real folks: technically bikes have the right and the history, but the truth is that the roads would not exist the way the do if they weren't built for and paid for by cars. You can pass all the laws you want and levy all the fines in the world but it won't change the reality that the majority of drivers KNOW they own the road. Until cyclists can ride in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of traffic they will continue to piss off drivers because they are taking from the drivers something they believe they own. My need to ensure my personal safety requires that I ALWAYS ride as if I am a guest on the road. How you ride is your business... until it pisses some driver off and he runs me or my family off the road. Please, please, dial down the arrogance and insane Critical Mass mentality so the rest of us can get back to using these truly marvelous machines. Bicycles can be incredibly positive but cyclists have made they so ugly. Such a waste.

  • Posted By: organic.brian @ 07/30/2008 11:06:56 AM

    Comment: Wow, the myths about transportation are just flying.
    - Vehicle registration fees pay only for the cost of administering the license. Licensing cyclists would not generate any money, and might actually cost money.
    - In the U.S., roads were originally paved in response to activism by CYCLISTS. Look into the history of the League of American Wheelmen to see what I'm talking about. Therefore, "roads are primarily for cyclists" is just as valid a statement as "roads are primarily for cars" since, after all, cyclists were there first.
    - The only car-free cyclists who are NOT subsidizing transportation for motorists are homeless and jobless, and riding on freeways. Fuel tax pays for only a fraction of transportation infrastructure, and mostly highways and freeways. Much of it is paid from income and sales taxes, which we all pay. A study found that a cyclist with average income and average miles travelled (I have no car and a few months ago was working as an engineer at Intel) subsid9izes a motorist with average income and avetage miles travelled. Bikes cause a thousand times less wear on roads, and don't need anywhere near the infrastructure. What does a car parking space cost to build, and what does it fcost to installa bike parking rack on a sidewalk? Not to mention, the hidden costs from automobiles: increawse3d health care from pollution, military support for oil companies...
    Oh wow, the editor for this blog is HORRIBLE.

  • Posted By: winegirl @ 07/30/2008 10:28:15 AM

    Comment: I both ride several bicycles, own a Harley and several automobiles. I think it's important for our national economic security that there are alternative transportation options for all citizens, in order for them to conduct their daily business. I believe it is also imperative that all users of public roadways obey the laws governing such use. In Wisconsin, that means "slower traffic keep to the right." Motorists as well as bycylists ignore this law, despite reminder road signs. There is also a big problem here with motorists as well as bicyclists ignoring stop signs and lights, imperiling the safety of others. I see this as a sign of the "me" culture, rather than the idea of prior generations that we are living in a cooperative society.

    One of my pet peeves is the cyclist who ignores available, NON-OCCUPIED off road bikes paths in favor of riding in heavy traffic on some of the busiest commuter roads, that have no shoulders, during rush hours, and failing to move to the right. As a cyclist, I actively seek out routes that allow me to enjoy my ride in safety by using the designated bike paths and lesser travelled streets. Why tempt fate when a better, more enjoyable alternative is available? When an alternative is not available, that's a different story, but that is also not often the case. I'd like to see municipalities hand out tickets to cyclists who fail to use available bike paths, that we have built at no little expense all over my city, for that purpose. These paths are literally deserted but I'm often stuck behind a bicyclist riding in the road, right next to an empty bike path, in a "no passing" zone, in heavy traffic with a string of vehicles backed up for a half mile. I just don't get that--

  • Posted By: ggpolk @ 07/30/2008 9:51:13 AM

    Comment: I spend a lot of time on the road, both on a road bike and behind the wheel. Most people fall into one of three categories while sharing the road with cyclist.

    1. Blind Drivers: Because of age and/or distractions, this driver will nearly clip you while passing with no visible sign they even noticed you. They're the same ones you have to watch making turns in your pathway.
    Sadly, they can be as dangerous as the next group.

    2. Road Rage Drivers: In their mind, you have no right to be on the road and they'll make sure you know it. They're the most dangerous ones out there, but thankfully they belong to a smaller group than the rest.

    3. Average Drivers: They're not perfect and make mistakes like the rest of us, but largely have no trouble sharing the road and deserve some slack when problems do arrise. The largest group by far and growing every day.

    Whether a driver or rider on the road, there will always be situations that could have gone better by simply paying attention, controlling anger and/or just being a little nicer to others while you pedal or drive.

    • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/30/2008 15:18:20

      Comment: I BELIEVE YOU MISSED A GROUP AND THAT IS A LARGE GROUP.....................THE KIND THAT ACTUALLY GIVE A WIDE BERTH TO BICYCLES OR MOTORCYCLES BECAUSE THEIR(AND MY ) WORST NIGHTMARE WOULD BE TO KILL OR CRIPPLE SOMEONE THAT I HAD NOTHING AGAINST.

  • Posted By: crankmychain @ 07/30/2008 1:07:20 AM

    Comment: This story and link has caused a ton of hits on the "biker on hood of road rager" video that I didn't shoot but posted at YouTube. You can watch my response and rough version of a new song called "Road Rage" here http://youtube.com/watch?v=T6Vt3v45nWU

  • Posted By: bikeshoplady @ 07/30/2008 12:55:46 AM

    Comment: I've been an avid cyclist for over 20 years. In the tens of thousands of miles I've logged, I've not been involved in an accident with a car. Here's the problem as I see it. In the last 5-10 years the roads have become increasingly populated by self absorbed, knuckle-headed troglodytes who have no regard for the rules of the road or the human lives around them. You will find them operating cars and bicycles. I have experienced as many near misses with cars while on my bike as I have with bikes while driving in my car.

    • Posted By: JimLamb @ 07/30/2008 09:27:08

      Comment: You have hit the nail on the proverbial head.

    • Posted By: JimLamb @ 07/30/2008 09:26:18

      Comment: bikeshoplady, you hit the nail on the proverbial head. Having logged several thousand miles cycling myself, I completely agree. I think the only solution is a long term one based on building awareness, educating road users (both motorists and cyclists) and getting our best and brightest more involved in transportation infrastructure planning.

  • Posted By: LikesToRide @ 07/29/2008 7:44:28 PM

    Comment: Well, this has been quite a discussion. I have seen both sides in action, and it just comes down to simple old common sense and common courtesy. That is a problem world wide, not just in the United States, as some have indicated. I do not ride my bike anywhere anymore. It scares me. But I do not ride my horse near traffic for the same reason. Inconsiderate people. When I have attempted to educate bike riders about alerting horseback riders when they are approaching from behind, I get the middle finger and called a nasty name, EVERY SINGLE TIME!! That has been on the street and on the trails. And I am not being rude, or calling names, I just ask for them to please holler a warning when they are coming from behind, and to slow down. As for cars, the same applies, but I usually had to shout because they were moving too fast to hear. I have had cars honk at me right as they get to me, and I can only guess it is to see if my horse will dump me, so I am sure that happens even more so for bicycle riders. I really don't know if people understand how easily it is to die. Bikes, pedestrians, and horses, are no match for cars, and will lose the argument every time. One can say "I was right" all the way to the morgue. Is it worth it? Just be better stewards of our freedoms. Bike riders, pay attention and look out for yourselves. Why are you letting your life depend on others to see you and notice you?? Be proactive about your own safety. Drivers, SLOW DOWN!! Just take a breath and get over yourselves. You are not the only one on the road, get used to it. And everyone, let someone educate you on your mistakes. It is OK, you are not going to die for listening, and you might actually learn something. I think this is really about finding our manners again, and depending on ourselves for our own safety, not so much car vs. bike.

  • Posted By: Chipperback @ 07/29/2008 6:08:28 PM

    Comment: I own a car and I own bicycle. I use both to get around and I use them responsibly. As a bike commuter it irks me to see so many bicyclists who don't wear helmets ESPECIALLY KIDS! I think people who are riding helmetless need to get tickets. I have no problem with lights, etc. either.
    I also don't like seeing careless riding. Being on a bike more I'm sensitive to it when I drive my car. At the same time, we are motorists also need to realize that we have to be aware and realize we have to share the road. With power comes responsibity. Our cars are more powerful thus our responsibility is greater.

    Now I've notice the complaints about "cyclists don't pay road taxes". Its nonsense. We are pay road taxes. I sure as sin do because I also own a vehicle and have to have it registered, etc. But here's an idea. Rather than build some goofy licensing scheme that is more bureaucracy. Here' s an easy to pay our "fair share" Just put a 1% tax on bicycles, bike helmets, cycling jerseys, the tight biker shorts, pedals, pedal clips, cycling shoes, bike light kits, bike bags, etc. and put the money towards maintaining bike paths, bike lanes and bicycle enforcement. Given how much a good bike cost, and how many people want bikes now...You'll have the money for it. Also we need to better codify the laws for all concerned. When you clairfy it and make people aware, you have the means to enforce it.
    Where I live there are jackasses in cars and jackasses on bike, but I've found them to be 1% of the populace. Most people get along and play well with others because most people are adult enough to realize that in the long run you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    • Posted By: JimLamb @ 07/30/2008 09:33:41

      Comment: I think your heart's in the right place, but I don't think additional legislation or taxes is the solution. Cyclists can wear helmets or not. Personally, I choose to because I see very little downside to it. In reality, your just as likely to sustain a fatal head injury while driving your car. So, if you're going tor require helmets for cyclists, you'll need to require them for motorists as well. The main problem is enforcement. If you start pulling over cyclists to cite them for not wearing helmets you may likely be putting them more at risk than if you just let them ride on.

      We don't need a special cycling tax. Existing property taxes (which make up the majority of the funding for transportation projects) are more than adequate to cover both motorists and cyclists infrastructural needs. We shouldn't be creating economic disincentives to discourage people from cycling rather than driving - quite the opposite.

  • Posted By: cleoj @ 07/29/2008 5:19:25 PM

    Comment: Pedestrians also must watch out for cyclists in addition to motorists now. The other day the crosswalk light went on so I started to cross the street, and almost got mowed over by a guy on a bicycle who was turning right and should have yielded to pedestrians. You think bicyclists have little protection, pedestrians have even less.

  • Posted By: good conscience @ 07/29/2008 3:35:40 PM

    Comment: I personally would hit a brick wall, a huge tree, or wrap my car around a light pole before I would ever hit a cyclist. However, they must be aware that first and foremost, the roads are for cars. If they think it's ok to ride on car roads, that is the chance they take. There are, in countless instances, perfectly good and much safer sidewalks for cyclists to ride. My big peeve are those who deliberately challenge drivers by riding down the middle of the lane and hold all the traffic up behind them. These are the ones who are true ***holes, and they should not wonder why motorists get so frustrated. I think it's up to the cyclist to get out of the way, to stop if need be, to wait for all cars to pass, then resume their pedaling on our roads. It's not an easy predicament, but the cyclists need to understand that they are second fiddle to cars. Period.

    • Posted By: JimLamb @ 07/30/2008 09:37:06

      Comment: OK. You are fundamentally wrong, wrong, wrong. Roads are not primarily for cars. Cars, trucks, tractors, bikes, motorcycles, etc. all have equal rights to all roads but interstates with fully controlled access. If you want special privileges in your car then stick to the interstates. Just because the traffic ahead of you is moving more slowly doesn't give you an absolute right to pass under any and all circumstances. Pass when it is safe to do so and remember that the traffic (and, yes, this includes cyclists) ahead of you has the right of way.

    • Posted By: MoJabar @ 07/29/2008 16:41:14

      Comment: Also, : All of the following types should be made to drive on the sidewalk too, as each disgusts me in a different way: teenagers driving while text-ing, the overweight to obese types stuffing faces with Cinnabon or BigMacs while driving, lovers of booming bass rap music, ladies applying makeup in the rearview mirror, the elderly doing any number of puzzling things behind the wheel; monster trucks with suspension kits, smokers lighting up at 60mph and using the world as their astray.

      • Posted By: bigjt3 @ 07/29/2008 21:53:15

        Comment: moja bars are dangerous and illegal in 37 states. if we can't stop the proliferation of these obscene gay strip bars, we are surely doomed as a society. when these flaming "moja" go flying by on these devil machines with pedals, one is provoked to anger. i say ban all these pedaling mojas in your town today!

    • Posted By: kenji@obra.org @ 07/29/2008 16:37:52

      Comment: I do agree with you that cyclists that take up the entire road are inconsiderate- but no more inconsiderate than a driver that drives 25 in a 35 mph zone. That said, most groups will attempt to move to the right to allow cars to go around. Roll down your window and listen to the group, if you hear them yelling "car back", that means that the folks in the rear are attempting to tell the riders further up to move over.

      Remember to pass in a safe area- killing someone over saving 30 seconds of commute time isn't worth it. Not only are you facing jail-time, you are facing losing your car and your home. People forget the civil litigation that will surely follow.

      However, your assertion that cyclists play "second fiddle to cars. Period" is incorrect, at least in Oregon. According to ORS (Oregon Revised Statues) 814.400 "Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles..." Furthermore, taking your logic to its conclusion, then motorcycles, mopeds and/or farm equipment must play second fiddle to cars.

    • Posted By: MoJabar @ 07/29/2008 16:25:06

      Comment: Sometimes the bike must take the lane if there is a line of parked cars on the right and not enough room to share the lane. If I'm riding at 20mph, I don't want one of those driver's car door to open up and cause me to wreck. Another place a bike may take the entire lane is when he is moving fast and doesn't want to be wrecked into by a car who thinks that he can make a right hand turn in front of the biker, taking the lane prevents that. There are safety reasons a cyclist must takes the whole lane. Have you ever considered this?

  • Posted By: kenji@obra.org @ 07/29/2008 3:26:32 PM

    Comment: This "pedal vs. metal" or "war" has gotten a little out of hand. Newsweek and other media outlets need to stop sensationalizing this entire matter. It is not as bad as the media seems to make it. You look at the statistics these interactions are in the minority. You'll always have a percentage of the population that acts like jerks- be it on bikes or in cars. That's a fact of life. These sort of poorly researched articles feed into the confrontational attitudes.

    T. Kenji Sugahara
    Executive Director
    Oregon Bicycle Racing Association

    • Posted By: BigDenver @ 07/29/2008 15:51:19

      Comment: Kenji, I sincerely hope that you are right along side of me in saying I always obey all traffic laws while cycling....yes stopping or yeilding means I must face an inconvience....so what I am out there for fun and exercise so be it.....in Denver we do have a problem as many of our cyclist do not stop at stop signs, red lights, or yield to pedx.....I certainly do and encourage all to do the right thing and take the laws seriously.

      • Posted By: kenji@obra.org @ 07/29/2008 16:21:29

        Comment: BD- Absolutely- and I encourage all bikers to do the same. For us, it's absolutely critical as riders are not only representing our organization, but their own sponsors.

  • Posted By: wagontire @ 07/29/2008 3:01:36 PM

    Comment: Separating cyclists from vehicular traffic is a great idea, and many bike paths have been created to achieve this goal. A lifelong cyclist myself, I was excited years ago when plans were put in action to build bike paths around the city. The idea was fantastic, but it is a different reality. On many bike paths, cyclist have been discouraged from using them because the paths are overrun with skaters, hikers, walkers, dogs on and off leash, people sitting in lawn chairs and others whose activities are clearly not biking. I have even found the bike path blocked by people enjoying a picnic that completely blocked the path. I had to get off my bike and carry it overhead while the picnickers glared at me for intruding. While the roads are not safe for bikers, off-duty motorists set up camp on the bike paths and show their disdain to bikers while exhibiting incredible stupidity. It is this kind of stupidity that hospitalized me in 2002 when its practitioner hit me and ran with his Subaru in Portland, Oregon. No, I do not run traffic lights and stop signs. I observe the rules of traffic. I do not ride two abreast. I do not yell at idiots in cars. I do not throw soft drinks, beer, coffee and cigarette butts at motorists. I am a decent highway citizen who has experienced far too much aggressive stupidity from the motoring public, most of whom are also decent and civil. But there are far too many aggressive, angry drivers who wield the power that is in their automobile as a weapon against the more vulnerable who must share the road with them.

  • Posted By: wagontire @ 07/29/2008 2:58:25 PM

    Comment: Separating cyclists from vehicular traffic is a great idea, and many bike paths have been created to achieve this goal. A lifelong cyclist myself, I was excited years ago when plans were put in action to build bike paths around the city. The idea was fantastic, but it is a different reality. On many bike paths, cyclist have been discouraged from using them because the paths are overrun with skaters, hikers, walkers, dogs on and off leash, people sitting in lawn chairs and others whose activities are clearly not biking. I have even found the bike path blocked by people enjoying a picnic that completely blocked the path. I had to get off my bike and carry it overhead while the picnickers glared at me for intruding. While the roads are not safe for bikers, off-duty motorists set up camp on the bike paths and show their disdain to bikers while exhibiting incredible stupidity. It is this kind of stupidity that hospitalized me in 2002 when its practitioner hit me and ran with his Subaru in Portland, Oregon. No, I do not run traffic lights and stop signs. I observe the rules of traffic. I do not ride two abreast. I do not yell at idiots in cars. I do not throw soft drinks, beer, coffee and cigarette butts at motorists. I am a decent highway citizen who has experienced far too much aggressive stupidity from the motoring public, most of whom are also decent and civil. But there are far too many aggressive, angry drivers who wield the power that is in their automobile as a weapon against the more vulnerable who must share the road with them.

  • Posted By: pdx57 @ 07/29/2008 2:40:00 PM

    Comment: There are two very different sides to this story. As a cyclist and a driver, I've gained perspective from both sides. The important thing here is to demonstrate a little understanding toward our fellow road users. No need to take sides. Rage is the issue here. Calm down, Portland and use common sense on the road...whether you're on two wheels or four.

    • Posted By: JimLamb @ 07/30/2008 09:39:36

      Comment: Absolutely.

  • Posted By: BigDenver @ 07/29/2008 2:35:18 PM

    Comment: wishfulthinker - I drive a vehicle and cycle....I have no problem paying a road use tax or somethig similr....ok with me and hopefull all other cyclist would also agree....if you have 2 vehicles you pay twice so a vehicle and a bike you shouold also pay twice.....I AGREE! But I also want my fellow cyclist to obey all laws and be respectful.....stay to the right when in traffic and use bike paths when available....even if you have to go a few miles out of the way it is good for us!

  • Posted By: wishfulthinker @ 07/29/2008 2:24:15 PM

    Comment: I can't help but to think of that as being "polite" theives. To think that as long as you are polite and follow the rules you can get away with using the roads with no financial responsibilities. My point has very little to do with the rage issue. Bicyclist get the use of the roads that were built for cars at no expense and very little responsibility.

    • Posted By: JimLamb @ 07/30/2008 09:43:29

      Comment: Your argument is ridiculous on multiple levels. The majority of cyclists own cars as well that they pay taxes on. Also, most of the funding for your transportation infrastructure comes from property taxes, not from vehicle-related fees. The wear and tear inflicted on the road by a cyclist is negligible when compared to a car or light truck.

      Lastly, the health benefits of regular cardiovascular exercise (like cycling) are proven to reduce long term health care costs. We have an obesity epidemic in this country that we will be paying billions for in the decades to come.

    • Posted By: jath123 @ 07/30/2008 07:14:19

      Comment: Yeah but the cyclists don't really need the 4-lane rebar-reinforced roadway with expensive traffic control systems. They could get by with an 8-ft wide crushed limestone or thin top asphalt trail that costs 1% of what a road costs. Plus, the wear and tear of a road is directly proportional to vehicle weight, meaning that a bike creates practically none. So if cyclists ever do pay a roadway tax, it should be logically much less than what motorists pay.

      OK, so now how do we get those damn pedestrians to pay for the sidewalks? Shoe tax? Damn criminals... ; )

  • Posted By: BigDenver @ 07/29/2008 1:56:12 PM

    Comment: To bikeliv2....Sounds like you bike even more than me.....I think it is up to people like you and I to police our sport.....There are bad drivers, runners, walkers ans bikers....help all bikers by encouraging all to obey the traffic laws 100% of the time. Yes it is inconcient to stop rather than slowly glide thru an intersection but it is the law if the light is red or there is a stop sing...I do it everytime and hopfully you do also....help me educate our fellow riders that it is the right thing to do and encourage them to always respect all others rights and hopefully we will all get along sharing the roads.

  • Posted By: bikeliv2 @ 07/29/2008 1:45:29 PM

    Comment: After having used a bike a the major form of getting around for the last 25 years it has become quite clear to me that bikes vs cars are a huge issue that we must deal with. It is only going to get worse with people leaving their cars to save money / sanity. Bikes are really a much more efficent way to get around, but most car drivers don't really respect bikers at all. I've only had a few close calls - mostly by bad drivers or bad conditions on the road. It would be best to have seperate road ways for cyclist - shutting off the inner cities to cars and reserve them for peds and bikes. Cars are the most efficent for long trips - more than 20 miles or so - but a really well designed public transport would trump the car even for this. I really see the car as the 20th century type of transportation - inefficent, polluting, selfish, and really a coffin on wheels. The bike is about freedom, individuality, community, beautiful and just plain efficent. When you realize that almost 60,000 people a year die in the car versus less than a 1,000 by bike then you have to question the true cost of the car. Is not the car infrastructure killing us but it is a way of life that is really a form of slavery. We are a nation that worships a big rolling metal coffin - "cars are coffins" baby. Just a little insight - ride safe and take care.

  • Posted By: MartyHough @ 07/29/2008 1:32:21 PM

    Comment: To those of you opposed to a tag and license for a cyclists, I never implied it would be expensive. The entire program could be administered for less than 25 dollars per person, per YEAR. By cycling, you'll be saving far more than that in fuel costs, not to mention the savings from an auto tag and maintenance costs for the vehicle. Too, under this system you'll be ensuring that, after certification, each rider knows the laws. Beyond that, let the rogue riders be held accountable with traffic citations. Sadly, when money is tight due to soaring living costs, the only thing some understand is when their actions keep costing them money for fines.

  • Posted By: slebahn @ 07/29/2008 1:32:00 PM

    Comment: You need to check the specifics of you coverage, but personal liability coverage on your renters/homeowners insurance can protect you against claims for injuries or damage you cause in a bicycle accident.

  • Posted By: Bodine @ 07/29/2008 1:26:35 PM

    Comment: What it boils down to is that people who don't ride just don't get it and they probably never will, so it really is a case of us against them. In order to stay alive on the streets and avoid the ire of someone in control of a vehicle that could kill you, you have got to use common sense, which means blending both an aggressive and passive attitude on the bike. Regarding lights and stop signs, know when to go for it and when it is a better idea to slow or stop and wait for a car to pass or turn. Do not ride erratically. Pick your spot on the road and ride a straight line. Don't put yourself in a bad position by riding on a dangerous street when a safer alternative exists a few blocks away. It comes down to avoiding bad situations and you do that by using your head and keeping your eyes open, anticipating problems and knowing what your capabilities are on your bike. I cringe when i see cyclists wearing headphones because I pick up an enormous amount of information regarding traffic through my ears. When you make a mistake, acknowledge that you've done so by pointing to yourself or mouthing I'm sorry. I also believe that a simple look and then continuing on as if nothing happened is more effective and thought provoking for the driver than freaking out after a near miss. We just have to keep in mind that we can only win battles, but never the war.

  • Posted By: bikeliv2 @ 07/29/2008 1:25:37 PM

    Comment: I've been using my bike as the major form of getting around for the past 25 years or so and have only been in a few situations that I would say warrant "rage" by a driver. Most drivers in cars can't see, hear, or stop as well as a bicyclist. The car, limits the drivers ability to really interact with their environment, it is after all a "coffin on wheels". Takes your money, health, and life. The main problem is that cars and bikes don't really belong on the same roadway. Untill people wise up and change their lifestyle - we are going to see way more of this problem. We need a better infrastructure for bikes and public transportation. Something we all benefit from in society. Cars are so 20th century - a very selfish and status driven way of getting around. There are just too many people on this planet - if they all wanted to live as we do - 5 earths of resources would have to be the price. The bike is a way of life that is healthy, enjoyable, cheap, and most of all friendly - both earth wise and people wise. It has been big news to the positive about how many less people are dying on the road in cars due to the economy - but bad news about the cyclists dying or causing problems because of an increased amount of people riding bikes. Let's look at reality - almost 60,000 people die in cars per year in this country (even with a big decrease) and less than 1000 per year on bikes (usually caused by cars and not wearing helmets) - so do the math, what is better for society. Bikes by far. We need to start saving ourselves one bike at a time - ride safe and ride for a better life.

    • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/29/2008 15:36:12

      Comment: almost 60,000 people die in cars per year in this country (even with a big decrease) and less than 1000 per year on bikes

      DID THE MATH .........................ABOUT 50,000 X THE CAR DIVERS IN THE U.S..........WAY SAFER IN A CAR!

      GOOD IDEA ABOUT SEGREGATION OF VEHICLE TYPES................BUT NO TAX BASE FROM TIRES, FUEL, LICENSING OR LUXURY TAX WITH BIKES............KINDA TOUGH TO TAKE THE OTHER PEOPLE DRIVEN SPORTS OFF THE BIKE TRAIL (SKATING, WALKING, RUNNING, SKATEBOARDS) SO THERE WILL STILL BE SOMEONE HOLDIING BACK THE HIGHER SPEED BICYCLE.............ANY THING THAT IS SLOW AND IN THE WAY IS A POTENTIAL DANGER.

      THE SEEMINGLY INGRAINED ELITISM YOU EXUDE WITH THE REPEATED STATEMENT (SELFISH) ONLY LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH ALL WHO DON'T ADOPT YOUR BONER DRIVEN ATTITUDE....................P.S. THE PUREST FORM OF SPORT USES NOTHING BUT THE BODY!

      P.S. BIKES REQUIRE LUBRICANTS, CARBON AND RUBBER NO SO PURE AS TO COPE AN ATTITUDE!

  • Posted By: wishfulthinker @ 07/29/2008 1:20:14 PM

    Comment: Your homeowners insurance would cover you and your personals NOT the others involved if it does not happen on your property. The issue here is when the cyclist causes the accident there is no recourse for the victims....

  • Posted By: BigDenver @ 07/29/2008 1:15:14 PM

    Comment: wishfukthinker.....I ride bike but I am not a whimp....in Denver At least most of use use the same routes if we ride to work or 99% of the paths are connected....so if I chased the rider down and let them know it is not acceptable to continue that practice a fair warning based on my size and intimidation factor they would at least keep an eye out for me.......and I have seen police in CO give cyclist tickets as they should....but you are right it might not be pretty if I have to chase them down a second time......as someone said earlier.....we all just need to grow up and take responsibility......when in my vehicle I have chased down people to get vehicle and tag information and report it......also can be effective on bike if enough of us do.....wichful my guess my discussion with the rider could very well result in a change of attitude as I would be sure to mention the consequences should I chase them a second time!

  • Posted By: slebahn @ 07/29/2008 1:11:17 PM

    Comment: Most if not all of the insurance needs for a cyclists may be covered by personal property and personal liability coverage in your renters or homeowners insurance. In addition, your auto insurance and medical insurance may provide additional protection. Contact your insurance agents for specifics of your coverage.

  • Posted By: Mr. Omniscience @ 07/29/2008 1:10:19 PM

    Comment: Eddie8 has picked up on a factor related to Oregon; that it is a very unfriendly state. When my family moved there in 1968 there were bumper stickers that read Don't Californicate Oregon. While I have lived in Oregon for 20 years of my life, the amount of rain and overcast, even during the summers, makes for very sour personalitites in Oregon. If Missouri is the Show Me state, Oregon is the I Don't Care If You Show Me state. At one time there was even an organization called SNOB, Society of Native Oregonians Born. This kind of inbred mentality has lessened over the years, but still exists in Oregon. This may be an extra factor why this story has surfaced in relation to Oregon, while the amount of consistent comments from around the country regarding arrogant bike commuters shows this is a nationwide problem. Once again, youngwarrior's input of how 80% of riders at one intersection ran the red light as captured by a tv crew shows that most riders disobey traffic laws.

    • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/29/2008 15:43:17

      Comment: LOL, BEEN THERE...........YOU ARE CORRECT............ALOT OF ELITISTS!

  • Posted By: wishfulthinker @ 07/29/2008 1:02:28 PM

    Comment: Hey BigDenver ,
    You know what would happen if you "chase" them down and let them know what they did wrong? It wouldn't be pretty. Reporting it to the authorities? That serves little purpose. THey don't have enough man power to handle the heavy stuff. Besides they can't do too much to them....take away their bicycle license? Oh wait, THEY DON"T HAVE ONE! You'de probably end up with an emotional assault charge or stalking....

  • Posted By: wishfulthinker @ 07/29/2008 12:56:26 PM

    Comment: Posted By: Hyprdrv @ 07/29/2008 12:21:21 PM
    Comment: http://www.vholdr.com/video/lane-sharing-california-traffic

    O this is priceless. Mind you it's on a motorcycle, traffic was never really stopped, and I was getting road rage from watching this idiot. I'm not saying bike rider