[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

When I see cyclists pass a test, pay insurance, stop at red lights, not mount the sidewalk, etc., then I'll treat them as equals. Until then they're a lower class of road user as far as I'm concerned.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but the law says differently - feel free to campaign to get it changed.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Yeah, well...

You don't have to pass a test because bikes don't kill.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...just-fine.html

The parents of a teenager killed by a speeding cyclist called for a change in the law after he walked away from court with just a £2,200 fine.

Jason Howard was convicted of dangerous cycling for killing Rhiannon Bennett as she walked to a shop with friends.

Howard, 36, sped towards Rhiannon at more than 23mph, shouting at her to get out of the way.

With no time to react, the 17-year-old horse management student was hit with the full force of the £4,750 custom-built bicycle, suffering fatal injuries as she hit her head on the pavement.

[Luca Rescigno]

Okay, so bikes occasionally kill.

I wonder how many pedestrians have been killed by cars since then compared with bikes?

[zombie punk]

The ability to find vanishingly small outliers and use them to make general statements is key to internet arguments.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

Okay, so bikes occasionally kill.

You just said they didn't. Make your mind up.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

The ability to find vanishingly small outliers and use them to make general statements is key to internet arguments.

You might want to read the thread again. The "vanishingly small outlier" was used to disprove an absolute statement, not make a statement itself. And it didn't take any finding at all - it was quite a big story here a couple weeks back, due to the lax punishment.

Let's see - winking like a regular, arguing like a leftie, just signed up. Which regular member are you then?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Let's see - winking like a regular, arguing like a leftie, just signed up. Which regular member are you then?

Here's enough lefties to last you at least a couple of days.

leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie, leftie.

An before you go off your bar stool, I'm not the zpunk.

----------

All cops are assholes, It's part of the job descripton.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

You just said they didn't. Make your mind up.

No, I didn't. Horsepoo!!! did. Try reading sometime.

[zombie punk]

Doof, your attack on me was so off topic, I'm not sure what your point was.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

When I see cyclists pass a test, pay insurance, stop at red lights, not mount the sidewalk, etc., then I'll treat them as equals. Until then they're a lower class of road user as far as I'm concerned.

I have a license, I also have insurance, I pay plenty of taxes, and stop at all red lights, and never go up on the sidewalk. Although in my state I am NOT required to wait for a green light (essentially I can treat a red light as a stop sign, yielding to other vehicles).

I am not exactly sure what you mean by treating them as "lower class" users. If you mean that you fail to give them the space they need for safety, and you feel it is your god given right to squeeze by in an unsafe manor every time you pass them on the road, you are looking for a lot of trouble. As stated before by others the law is very clear. They have as much right to the road as any car or truck. If you fail to respect that someday you are going to injure/kill someone, and you will be legally or financially liable.

The problem is most drivers are ignorant of the driving laws about cyclists. Some think they are supposed to be on the sidewalk, others drive like their auto has the right of way. If you do not want cyclists on the street, then I suggest you petition your local officials to build a network of roads/trails for them to use. Otherwise I suggest you slow down a little and grow some patience. Cyclists are not going away with gas over four bucks a gallon. You might as well learn to live with them.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by climber 

...you feel it is your god given right to squeeze by in an unsafe manor every time you pass them on the road...

I'd feel pretty unsafe too if I had to share the road with a very large house.

But seriously, I do agree with your post, climber. Everyone needs to just share the road. I don't begrudge motorists, cyclists, or pedestrians (unless they give me a good reason to!). You can't let your frustration with some of them prevent you from driving safely and responsibly.

[lexapro]

How do we get this cop arrested and thrown in jail where he belongs? He's a menace to society.

[Salty]

Why are people arguing with Doofy? Isn't it common knowledge that his inadequate intelligence makes it nearly impossible to actually hold a conversation, he decided he was right before his first post and you're never gonna say anything to prove to him how wrong he is, because he's incapable of understanding that he's not half as smart as he thinks he is.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Why are people arguing with Doofy? Isn't it common knowledge that his inadequate intelligence makes it nearly impossible to actually hold a conversation, he decided he was right before his first post and you're never gonna say anything to prove to him how wrong he is, because he's incapable of understanding that he's not half as smart as he thinks he is.

So your argument is basically you were right before you made your first post and anyone who doesn't agree with you is lacking in intelligence? If you don't see your own circular logic here then you should probably stick to chatting up manwhores.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

No, I didn't. Horsepoo!!! did. Try reading sometime.

My bad.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by climber 

I have a license, I also have insurance

For a pushbike? Good. That's how it should be.

Originally Posted by climber 

I am not exactly sure what you mean by treating them as "lower class" users. If you mean that you fail to give them the space they need for safety

I mean I look at them with contempt, especially if they're acting like dicks (which most cyclists do since they don't seem to believe that the laws of the road apply to them).

Originally Posted by climber 

The problem is most drivers are ignorant of the driving laws about cyclists. Some think they are supposed to be on the sidewalk, others drive like their auto has the right of way.

Most cyclists seem to ride like they have right of way and are completely ignorant about any road laws. That's the problem - since they don't have to take a test to be there, they don't tend to read The Highway Code (or whatever it is which contains the rules of the road in your country) in order to pass that test.

Originally Posted by climber 

If you do not want cyclists on the street

You're misunderstanding. I don't mind cyclists on the street. I just want them to have to take a test before doing so to ensure that they know the rules of the road... ...and I want them carrying insurance.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Doof, your attack on me was so off topic, I'm not sure what your point was.

The point was that you shouldn't be making general off-topic remarks like

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

The ability to find vanishingly small outliers and use them to make general statements is key to internet arguments.

in order to attempt to bolster your side of the argument if you don't want them throwing back at you in some way.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Leave it to Doof to find the only exception to my "bikes don't kill" comment. I wonder how many other articles Doof can dig up. My guess would be one or two more at best.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Leave it to Doof to find the only exception to my "bikes don't kill" comment. I wonder how many other articles Doof can dig up.

Like I said, there was no digging involved - it was a big story a couple of weeks back.

The "bikes don't kill" mentality is probably what the perp in this story thought a couple of minutes before the event. Which is why all cyclists should be educated and tested - to ensure that they know that bikes can kill.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Like I said, there was no digging involved - it was a big story a couple of weeks back.

The "bikes don't kill" mentality is probably what the perp in this story thought a couple of minutes before the event. Which is why all cyclists should be educated and tested - to ensure that they know that bikes can kill.

Come on Doof...you're being a bit extremist. Anything can kill...but there are things that are less likely to kill you. Bumping into someone while walking could potentially knock someone to the floor and bust open his skull or kill the person. Do people need to get educated and tested on that?

Be realistic Doof.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Come on Doof...you're being a bit extremist. Anything can kill...but there are things that are less likely to kill you. Bumping into someone while walking could potentially knock someone to the floor and bust open his skull or kill the person. Do people need to get educated and tested on that?

This is true. However, pedestrians don't tend to whip through red lights at 20 mph. Nor do they, by default, use the same bit of roadway as other traffic.

If cyclists are as safe as everyone is making out, then there'll be no problem with them being able to pass a test, will there?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

This is true. However, pedestrians don't tend to whip through red lights at 20 mph. Nor do they, by default, use the same bit of roadway as other traffic.

If cyclists are as safe as everyone is making out, then there'll be no problem with them being able to pass a test, will there?

Hmm...you do have a point about cyclists going through red lights and using other roadways (like sidewalks or bike paths). They do have more responsibilities than a pedestrian would.

[OreoCookie]

@Doof
Most cyclists also have a driver's license and thus they have been tested. If you do something illegal, at least where I'm from, you will get fined and you might get points on your license.

The reason why cyclists don't need a license is because of the typical speeds they can reach. In that respect, they're no different from certain specially designed `pseudocars' you see old people drive in.

[ghporter]

Basic instruction in traffic laws SHOULD be part of every bicyclist's required preparation. Why? They use streets, just like automobile drivers. If they don't know the rules, how can they protect themselves, let alone behave predictably so drivers can avoid them? And at least when there is any other traffic around, bicyclists should be held to the same requirements for traffic management as everyone else. In the US, there's something called the "Uniform Vehicle Code", which is the basis for just about every state's traffic laws. It used to be called the "Uniform Motor Vehicle Code", but it was recognized that this meant bicyclists got a pass on behaving predictably, and were basically allowed to put themselves and others at risk by not being accountable for their actions on the road.

As for me, when vehicle traffic behaves according to the law, I stop at stop signs, stay on the road, signal turns, etc. Around here there are often times when none of those is safe to do, mainly because the drivers wantonly/blatantly/negligently/idiotically violate the state laws and local ordinances on traffic-with a regularity that is both disgusting and scary. So when necessary for my own safety I get up on the sidewalk, make a quick right instead of stopping at the stop sign, and so on. I should also point out that San Antonio has one of the most fragmented bicycle lane systems ever created. Most drivers don't know what that sign means, it's often parked in (in spite of the curb being prominently marked as a no-parking area), and so on. If our beloved SAPD would enforce traffic regulations in general, it would be much easier for all bicyclists to comply with those regulations too. If I ever get cited for a bicycle violation, the local judge will get an earful about the driver that went UN-cited and caused me to have to do something to save my own skin.

...pant.....pant......pant......

Ok, rant over. Mostly. grrrrrrr..........

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Doof
Most cyclists also have a driver's license and thus they have been tested.

This doesn't appear to be the case here. Almost everyone I know with a cycle has one because they don't have a driver's licence. Of course, the US will be different due to the requirement to drive at some point (unless you never leave NYC or something).

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If you do something illegal, at least where I'm from, you will get fined and you might get points on your license.

If you do something illegal, short of body-checking you how do the police catch you to issue the ticket/fine? It's not like cycles have licence plates (and there's something else they should all have!).

[ghporter]

I'm with Doof on the "doing something illegal vs. getting caught" issue. Not half a mile away from my house is a "right turn only" lane at a light. I have seen countless idiots drive straight through, endangering drivers in the intersecting street who are turning right themselves, because the other driver has no reason to believe that they'll go straight. And I have NEVER seen anyone even stopped for this behavior. It's dangerous, impolite and dumb, but nobody ever does anything about it. And this is a busy intersection, so it's not like it's an occasional thing way out in the middle of nowhere.

For rules to work, they need to be enforced. There are two ways to do that: by having a social pattern of always following those rules due to social pressures (mom & dad, peers, etc.) or by having some authority figure standing by, ready to drop the mallet on your noggin when you screw up. Since most moms and dads today are ineffective at being parents, I think we need more "Officer Johnson" authority figures bopping more people for their blatant scofflaw behavior.

[OreoCookie]

But how does this pertain to cyclists being a problem? Traffic rules are broken all the time by anyone on the road (and I agree that this is bad), but I don't think cyclists deserve to be singled out. On the contrary, some car drivers break the rules just because they think cyclists slow them down. I often get overtaken in a 30 (km/h) zone doing 30-35 myself just because the driver thinks I slow him down.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

If you do something illegal, short of body-checking you how do the police catch you to issue the ticket/fine? It's not like cycles have licence plates (and there's something else they should all have!).

Most traffic lights don't have a camera, so it doesn't make a difference whether you have a license plate or not. Most traffic violations (except for speeding which is, arguably, not really the main problem with cyclists) are caught by the police, so the problem of enforcing the traffic regulations is no more or less difficult than with cars.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But how does this pertain to cyclists being a problem? Traffic rules are broken all the time by anyone on the road (and I agree that this is bad), but I don't think cyclists deserve to be singled out.

Nobody is saying that cyclists should be singled out. They should be treated equally. Test, licence, insurance, plates.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

On the contrary, some car drivers break the rules just because they think cyclists slow them down. I often get overtaken in a 30 (km/h) zone doing 30-35 myself just because the driver thinks I slow him down.

30 khp is simply ridiculous.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Most traffic lights don't have a camera, so it doesn't make a difference whether you have a license plate or not. Most traffic violations (except for speeding which is, arguably, not really the main problem with cyclists) are caught by the police, so the problem of enforcing the traffic regulations is no more or less difficult than with cars.

Car violates in front of cop = cop takes plate and sorts it out later.

Cycles violates in front of cop = cop has to take him out right there (with, say, a body check) or no punishment can be handed out, since there's no way of catching up with the rider later.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Basic instruction in traffic laws SHOULD be part of every bicyclist's required preparation.

You didn't get basic instruction in traffic laws in school?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Nobody is saying that cyclists should be singled out. They should be treated equally. Test, licence, insurance, plates.

They are: there are even motorized vehicles you don't need a driver's license for, for example. They are capped at 25 km/h here, I think (could be a tad slower even).

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

30 khp is simply ridiculous.

Well, that's a common speed limit in residential areas (it's a tad faster than 15 mph speed limits you see in suburbia of the US, for example). And I'm doing just the speed limit, not slower, even a tad faster. To overtake me, the driver has to be significantly faster than that, i. e. (s)he has to be speeding.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Car violates in front of cop = cop takes plate and sorts it out later.

Huh?
The cop would usually stop the driver and fine them on the spot. I haven't heard of cases where they actually let the driver go and just take the vin.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Huh?
The cop would usually stop the driver and fine them on the spot. I haven't heard of cases where they actually let the driver go and just take the vin.

You haven't heard of case where the cop is on foot and not in a position to stop the vehicle? I have. I'm from a cop family though.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

You haven't heard of case where the cop is on foot and not in a position to stop the vehicle? I have. I'm from a cop family though.

Haven't seen that yet, unless the cops are on patrol in the city or in parks. If they need to catch someone, they radio for help.
Again, nothing special about bikes here.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Haven't seen that yet, unless the cops are on patrol in the city or in parks. If they need to catch someone, they radio for help.

Then, of course, the cop they radioed to needs to somehow stop the perp. With say, a body check. And then zillions of hippies will whine about police brutality on YouTube.

Isn't there a no-chase rule in some states with regard to cars now? Don't chase, just send the ticket through the mail?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Again, nothing special about bikes here.

Other than the fact that you can't trace them once they're gone. Cars are easy - there's a registration database which links plate to address.

[paul w]

zillions of hippies? Jeez.

That cyclist did not need to be body checked in that manner. As a cyclist I'm not interested in defending critical mass. That particular cyclist, unless he presented a clear public danger, did not need to be attacked so severely. And the police apparently agrees (or at least is investigating this). Are they hippies too?

[andi*pandi]

I'm interested in the age restrictions bike licensing would have. Or would it only be in urban areas where children don't ride with traffic? Or do they?

Also, different states and even cities have different rules about bikes on the sidewalk.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by paul w 

That cyclist did not need to be body checked in that manner. As a cyclist I'm not interested in defending critical mass. That particular cyclist, unless he presented a clear public danger, did not need to be attacked so severely.

How do you know that this particular cyclist wasn't presenting a clear public danger? How do you know that he hadn't been attacking cars along the way?

This is like Rodney King all over again, isn't it? Loads of people whining about the police on the basis of a small snippet of film and without having the full story.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

How do you know that this particular cyclist wasn't presenting a clear public danger? How do you know that he hadn't been attacking cars along the way?

This is like Rodney King all over again, isn't it? Loads of people whining about the police on the basis of a small snippet of film and without having the full story.

Rodney King? You're on a roll....

I don't know anything other than what was publicly presented. The officer in question would have most likely mentioned his motives for shoving the cyclist in his report. Instead he appears to have denied the actual shoving. And we'll all wait and see what happens from here. If someone has evidence to the cyclist's prior axe weidling rampage I'm open to it.

[lexapro]

Page 1 was good discussion.

Page 2 is the regular MacNN bickering.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by paul w 

Rodney King? You're on a roll....

Just saying it's exactly the same kind of principle.

Originally Posted by paul w 

I don't know anything other than what was publicly presented. And we'll all wait and see what happens from here.

And that's all I'm saying.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

How do you know that this particular cyclist wasn't presenting a clear public danger? How do you know that he hadn't been attacking cars along the way?

Well, uh, I assume that if he had been doing that, he would have been charged with doing that by the cop. Instead, he got charged with trying to hit the cop with his bike, which from the video is clearly BS, and for resisting arrest.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, uh, I assume that if he had been doing that, he would have been charged with doing that by the cop. Instead, he got charged with trying to hit the cop with his bike, which from the video is clearly BS, and for resisting arrest.

I heard he got: damage to property, resisting arrest, failing to stop.

Do we know when the resisting arrest took place? Was it at this particular incident or was it from earlier?

It'll all come out in the wash.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

You didn't get basic instruction in traffic laws in school?

Yes I did. That was in the 1960s and 1970s. Today in Texas, I don't think ANY sort of traffic instruction goes on in the schools. To get a child a driver's license, parents have to send the child to a PRIVATE drivers' school, or provide an approved curriculum (which is not terribly easy to do if either parent works, let alone both). NO driver's ed in school. NONE at all. You can sort of see that in the way people around here point their cars drive. And no indication anyone even tells little kids to stay on the sidewalk and cross with the light, either.

But beyond that, anyone older than about 12 should have to have a formal introduction to the laws about traffic because by that age, kids should be able to independently travel far enough away from home for it to be an issue. Younger than that, from what I gather and have been told by other parents, most kids are supposed to stay really close to home when by themselves.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

I heard he got: damage to property, resisting arrest, failing to stop.

Wrong. If you'd actually read any of the news articles about this instead of just making assumptions based on your dislike of bicyclists, you'd see that he got: attempted assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct.

http://www.wnbc.com/investigations/17018177/detail.html

The "attempted assault" was supposedly from using the bike as a weapon against the poor, poor cop and causing him to have "lacerations" on his forearms. The other two are referring to the aftermath of the first. Since the video pretty clearly proves this policeman is a liar, I'd be really surprised if the charges weren't dropped.

Here's the entire police report, which you can read for yourself:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...9081bike1.html

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

How do you know that he hadn't been attacking cars along the way?

In case you lack an understanding of basic physics, bikers tend not to 'attack' people in cars, at least, not more than once! Give this one up - you've already shown that your attitudes on this issue put you on the wrong side of the law and make you a danger to others on the road.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Hmm...you do have a point about cyclists going through red lights and using other roadways (like sidewalks or bike paths). They do have more responsibilities than a pedestrian would.

A pedestrian also has a responsibility not to run through red lights. Different rules apply to different classes of vehicle / locomotion because of the different hazards each pose to the other. The idea that bikes and golf carts and pedestrians should need the same licensing as SUVs is laughable.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

In case you lack an understanding of basic physics, bikers tend not to 'attack' people in cars, at least, not more than once!

In case you haven't been paying attention, Critical Mass participants are well versed in attacking cars (usually by swinging their bike locks at them).

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

In case you haven't been paying attention, Critical Mass participants are well versed in attacking cars (usually by swinging their bike locks at them).

I don't think that is true as a rule. I am sure that there are occasions when road users have got into fights, including occasions when bike riders may have swung bike locks at cars, but this is far from the norm. Clearly on these rare occasions the perpetrators should be, and usually are, held accountable. I know that you love to find examples of the extreme and the bizarre and then try to generalize from them, but that doesn't really lend you any credibility.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Here's the entire police report, which you can read for yourself:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...9081bike1.html

There ya go then - it's in black and white: failure to stop for policeman. Since cycle wasn't plated, cop had no choice but to bring him down there and then.

You'll note that the second cop was walking in the direction of the cycle before the blow, hinting at their attempting to stop him.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

In case you haven't been paying attention, Critical Mass participants are well versed in attacking cars (usually by swinging their bike locks at them).

Really? Never seen that happen, myself.

[lexapro]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

There ya go then - it's in black and white: failure to stop for policeman. Since cycle wasn't plated, cop had no choice but to bring him down there and then.

You'll note that the second cop was walking in the direction of the cycle before the blow, hinting at their attempting to stop him.

Are you smoking crack, pot or on shrooms?