Bicyclists going wrong way and other crimes

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in message ...
In article , Jym Dyer wrote:
=v= Some, maybe most, bicyclists break certain laws. Most
motorists break more and far more severe laws with far more
deadly consequences. Given that, he occasional "bicyclists
break laws" diatribes are way, way, way out of proportion.

Motorists habitually speed and fail to signal turns. Bicyclists
habitually run red lights, use the sidewalk, ride down one-way streets
the wrong way, and fail to signal turns. Personally, I think running
red lights is more severe than speeding.

Hell- everybody breaks laws with their cars and with their bikes.
But the 4000 pound car running a red is by far the more dangerous. You
just can't equate reckless car drivers with reckless bike riders.

"Paul" wrote in message . ..

The other day, I saw a bunch of idiot kids riding southbound in the northbounds lanes
of I-95 in downtown Jacksonville, FL. It surprises me that they did not cause any
accidents. Add another one to the laws that some bicyclists break. Where are the cops
when they are needed? Oh, yeah, they are out writing tickets to people who are safely
operating their cars/trucks/motorcycles.

HAHA. I noticed that you used the word "safely" not "legally" in that
last sentence. The deadly criminals were prolly flying 90 mph down
the interstate but your attitude is "screw the law - if you think
it's safe to speed, go for it".

In article ,
says...
Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:51:41 -0400,
, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:
In article , says...
Personally, I think running red lights is more severe
than speeding.
=v= The car's statistics suggests otherwise: 40,000 dead
and 1,000,000 injured per year in the U.S.
How many of those are _DIRECTLY_ related to speeding?

A study in NSW found 40%. Another in the UK claimed 56%.
in which speed was a factor)

That's great for the NSW and UK, but that won't also apply here in the US.
--------------
Alex

In article , says...

Without reading the study, it's not possible to say that. But given the
straightforward effect speed has on stopping distance, it's not hard for
me to believe there are a great many accidents that could be avoided if
speed were a little less. Say, actually within the limit, for example.

that makes the false assumption that slowing down is the best thing to
do to avoid an accident. Turning the wheel, going faster or a combination
of the two are also valid was to avoid accidents.


Nothing, obviously! It's well known that in NSW everything is upside
down, and in the UK everything is mirror-image, right to left. That
means all the laws of physics are completely different in those countries!

Are there roads similar to ours? Do they have the same ratio of interstate
type roads to rural roads as the US? If not, their numbers don't apply.
------------
Alex

In article ,
"Paul" wrote:

"Matthew Russotto" wrote in message
...
In article , Jym Dyer
wrote:
=v= Some, maybe most, bicyclists break certain laws. Most
motorists break more and far more severe laws with far more
deadly consequences. Given that, he occasional "bicyclists
break laws" diatribes are way, way, way out of proportion.

Motorists habitually speed and fail to signal turns. Bicyclists
habitually run red lights, use the sidewalk, ride down one-way streets
the wrong way, and fail to signal turns. Personally, I think running
red lights is more severe than speeding.

The other day, I saw a bunch of idiot kids riding southbound in the
northbounds lanes
of I-95 in downtown Jacksonville, FL. It surprises me that they did not cause
any
accidents. Add another one to the laws that some bicyclists break. Where are
the cops
when they are needed? Oh, yeah, they are out writing tickets to people who
are safely
operating their cars/trucks/motorcycles.

--
Paul



Horse Puckey!

I once wrote a ticket to a wrong way cyclist in accordance to the MVC that a
bicycle is a vehicle subject to the same laws as any other vehicle...

Had to take a day off to go to court where the judge dissmissed the charges.

Probably the greatest reason why cops rarely right up bicycles.

HAND

--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
In article , says...


Without reading the study, it's not possible to say that. But given the
straightforward effect speed has on stopping distance, it's not hard for
me to believe there are a great many accidents that could be avoided if
speed were a little less. Say, actually within the limit, for example.


that makes the false assumption that slowing down is the best thing to
do to avoid an accident. Turning the wheel, going faster or a combination
of the two are also valid was to avoid accidents.

:-) So is sliding sideways with tires smoking, then catching traction
and driving quickly into oncoming traffic, zigging and zagging between
terrified oncoming motorists until you get an opening to slide back into
your proper lane and proceed.

But that happens most often in motorhead fantasies and movies. In real
life, most real people do far better to just slow down.


Nothing, obviously! It's well known that in NSW everything is upside
down, and in the UK everything is mirror-image, right to left. That
means all the laws of physics are completely different in those countries!


Are there roads similar to ours? Do they have the same ratio of interstate
type roads to rural roads as the US? If not, their numbers don't apply.

Ah. And since Ohio has a different ratio than Pennsylvania does, those
comparative numbers don't apply either. And since southern PA has a
different ratio than northern PA, ditto. And since York PA has a
different ratio than Hanover PA, ditto.

In fact, the only valid data is that collected within 500 yards of your
car, so ignorance IS bliss!


Ah well. I'll let you have the last word. I'm off to contemplate
_other_ unknowable mysteries of the universe.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

In article ,
Bill Baka writes:

This right way/wrong way is starting to sound like a religious war.
I ride one road that requires me to ride wrong way in one direction.
The road has a bike path on one side only, so I am right way going
one direction, wrong way coming back.

When you encounter a rider going in the right direction while you're
going in the wrong direction on this bike path, how do you pass?

Is there enough room for bikes to pass each other within the path?
Even bikes with wider than usual handlebars?

If so, do you pass port-to-port, or starboard-to-starboard?

If not, on whom is the onus to swing out into the real roadway --
you, with your straight-ahead view of approaching cars? And
does your counterflow riding maneuver also imply that you're
taking the initiative to make any & all further evasive actions?

Or is the onus on the right-way rider, who'd normally swing out
to pass another right-way rider anyway?

I'm gonna be honest, and not pull any punches about risking
getting clobbered by cars, etc. My main beef with wrong-way
riders is that they interfere with /me/ -- a right-way rider.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article , Jym Dyer wrote:
Personally, I think running red lights is more severe
than speeding.

=v= The car's statistics suggests otherwise: 40,000 dead
and 1,000,000 injured per year in the U.S.
_Jym_

Non sequitur.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:51:00 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

In article , Jym Dyer wrote:
Personally, I think running red lights is more severe
than speeding.

=v= The car's statistics suggests otherwise: 40,000 dead
and 1,000,000 injured per year in the U.S.
_Jym_

Non sequitur.

Et ergo quid de quo sequitur? Animae quaerentes volunt scire!

Ex mea parte, censeo facilius tibi esse si Anglice et non Latine
respondeas. Pauci sunt hodie qui iam possint Latinam intellegere;
pauciores sunt qui iam possint Latine respondere. Quaecumque ita
sint, aut Anglice respondeas, aut magis scribeas, ut ampleatur
sententiam tuam.

-Luigi

Luigi wrote in part:

Incidentally; this does not mean that I'm not watching cross-traffic
roll up to uncontrolled intersections as I'm riding through
them--riding in the road doesn't mean you can ride with your eyes
shut.

Great, what about controlled intersections? You trust
that the controls will do the job?

What it does enable you--and everyone else, two wheels or four--to do
is predict how everyone else in the roadway is likely to move, and
anticipate those movements. Riding right-way on the road eliminates a
whole raft of possible moves for each party, and makes anticipation
easier.

You really are in more trouble than I thought. Riding
according to traffic rules is a great thing, but it does
not eliminate any possible moves that a vehicle can
make. Possible vehicle movements are determined
only by the laws of nature, not the rules of society.

You should know this. Weren't you hit by a van or
something while riding lawfully in London? Or was that
another Luigi de Guzman?

Robert