Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! - Page 28 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-13-2004, 06:53 PM

"Daniel T." <postmaster@eathlink.net> wrote in message
news

ostmaster-9D9EDC.18364512062004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> "Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> wrote:
>
> >"Daniel T." <postmaster@eathlink.net> wrote in message
> >news

ostmaster-C0C7A5.11023712062004@news6.west.earthlink.net...
> >> In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406120010490.8911@alumni.engin.umi ch.edu>,
> >
> >> I'm new to this car vs bicycle debate, yet is sounds very familliar to
> >> the debate over in rec.boats; there it's motor-boat vs sailboat.
> >> Different vehicles, but the same facts. How much property damage can a
> >> bicycle do compaired to a car? Can DUI bicyclests ram through the wall
> >> of the local McDonald's killing and injuring happy meal eaters?
> >
> >A DUI bicyclist could pull many types of idiotic maneuvers that could cause a
> >car
> >operator to lose control of his vehicle and plow into a McDonalds.
>
> And a DUI driver could pull many types of idiotic maneuvers that could
> cause a bicyclest to lose control and plow into a McDonalds... Oops
> actually that's not the case is it, the bicyclest *can't* plow into a
> McDonalds.
>
> Your ignoring the central fact; a bicyclist simply *cannot* do the kind
> of damage that an auto driver can do. Because of this central fact,
> there really isn't as much need to ensure that bicyclests are skilled
> compared to auto drivers.

And you are ignoring the fact that while the bicyclist can not actually *do* the
damage, the cyclist can set in motion the events that *cause* the damage. i.e.: a
cyclist darts out into traffic from between two parked vehicles and an oncomming car
swerves to avoid the cyclist and hits one of those vehicles. The cyclist did not
physically do the damage, but was the cause of the damage.

At a bare minimum, bicyclists should be required to know the rules of the road and
should be required to obey them with the same consequences if they disregard the
rules of the road.

--
Paul

06-13-2004, 07:30 PM

"Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> wrote:

>And you are ignoring the fact that while the bicyclist can not actually *do*
>the
>damage, the cyclist can set in motion the events that *cause* the damage.

No, I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm asserting that it doesn't matter
because this isn't something unique to bicyclists.

>i.e.: a
>cyclist darts out into traffic from between two parked vehicles and an
>oncomming car
>swerves to avoid the cyclist and hits one of those vehicles. The cyclist did
>not
>physically do the damage, but was the cause of the damage.

In reality, of course, if a cyclist does dart out into traffic, it will
happen too fast for any of the cars to react, he'll either get hit or
make it across.

The problem I'm having here is the implication that a bike rider is just
as dangerous to others as a car driver is, and that is why he should
have to get a "bike rider license". No matter what a bike rider does,
less damage will ensue than if a car driver did the exact same thing.
And there are many very dangerous things a car driver can do, that a
bike rider simply can't do, no matter how hard he tries.

06-13-2004, 07:30 PM

"Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> wrote:

>And you are ignoring the fact that while the bicyclist can not actually *do*
>the
>damage, the cyclist can set in motion the events that *cause* the damage.

No, I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm asserting that it doesn't matter
because this isn't something unique to bicyclists.

>i.e.: a
>cyclist darts out into traffic from between two parked vehicles and an
>oncomming car
>swerves to avoid the cyclist and hits one of those vehicles. The cyclist did
>not
>physically do the damage, but was the cause of the damage.

In reality, of course, if a cyclist does dart out into traffic, it will
happen too fast for any of the cars to react, he'll either get hit or
make it across.

The problem I'm having here is the implication that a bike rider is just
as dangerous to others as a car driver is, and that is why he should
have to get a "bike rider license". No matter what a bike rider does,
less damage will ensue than if a car driver did the exact same thing.
And there are many very dangerous things a car driver can do, that a
bike rider simply can't do, no matter how hard he tries.

06-13-2004, 07:30 PM

"Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> wrote:

>And you are ignoring the fact that while the bicyclist can not actually *do*
>the
>damage, the cyclist can set in motion the events that *cause* the damage.

No, I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm asserting that it doesn't matter
because this isn't something unique to bicyclists.

>i.e.: a
>cyclist darts out into traffic from between two parked vehicles and an
>oncomming car
>swerves to avoid the cyclist and hits one of those vehicles. The cyclist did
>not
>physically do the damage, but was the cause of the damage.

In reality, of course, if a cyclist does dart out into traffic, it will
happen too fast for any of the cars to react, he'll either get hit or
make it across.

The problem I'm having here is the implication that a bike rider is just
as dangerous to others as a car driver is, and that is why he should
have to get a "bike rider license". No matter what a bike rider does,
less damage will ensue than if a car driver did the exact same thing.
And there are many very dangerous things a car driver can do, that a
bike rider simply can't do, no matter how hard he tries.

06-13-2004, 07:30 PM

"Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> wrote:

>And you are ignoring the fact that while the bicyclist can not actually *do*
>the
>damage, the cyclist can set in motion the events that *cause* the damage.

No, I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm asserting that it doesn't matter
because this isn't something unique to bicyclists.

>i.e.: a
>cyclist darts out into traffic from between two parked vehicles and an
>oncomming car
>swerves to avoid the cyclist and hits one of those vehicles. The cyclist did
>not
>physically do the damage, but was the cause of the damage.

In reality, of course, if a cyclist does dart out into traffic, it will
happen too fast for any of the cars to react, he'll either get hit or
make it across.

The problem I'm having here is the implication that a bike rider is just
as dangerous to others as a car driver is, and that is why he should
have to get a "bike rider license". No matter what a bike rider does,
less damage will ensue than if a car driver did the exact same thing.
And there are many very dangerous things a car driver can do, that a
bike rider simply can't do, no matter how hard he tries.

06-13-2004, 07:30 PM

"Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> wrote:

>And you are ignoring the fact that while the bicyclist can not actually *do*
>the
>damage, the cyclist can set in motion the events that *cause* the damage.

No, I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm asserting that it doesn't matter
because this isn't something unique to bicyclists.

>i.e.: a
>cyclist darts out into traffic from between two parked vehicles and an
>oncomming car
>swerves to avoid the cyclist and hits one of those vehicles. The cyclist did
>not
>physically do the damage, but was the cause of the damage.

In reality, of course, if a cyclist does dart out into traffic, it will
happen too fast for any of the cars to react, he'll either get hit or
make it across.

The problem I'm having here is the implication that a bike rider is just
as dangerous to others as a car driver is, and that is why he should
have to get a "bike rider license". No matter what a bike rider does,
less damage will ensue than if a car driver did the exact same thing.
And there are many very dangerous things a car driver can do, that a
bike rider simply can't do, no matter how hard he tries.

06-13-2004, 08:04 PM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> I have lived in California and currently in Washington...both states
> require adherance to motor vehicle laws by cyclists and both states
> actively enforce these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling
> vary from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride.
>
> People get stopped routinely for running traffic lights/stop signs,
> failure to yield to pedestrians/etc. People have evne been stopped
> and prosecuted for DUI while riding bicyles, with the same penalties.
>
> B

That's what I thought too, until a bike ran into the front
of my car going against traffic fast down a hill. My
insurance paid, weenies.

Bernard

06-13-2004, 08:04 PM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> I have lived in California and currently in Washington...both states
> require adherance to motor vehicle laws by cyclists and both states
> actively enforce these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling
> vary from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride.
>
> People get stopped routinely for running traffic lights/stop signs,
> failure to yield to pedestrians/etc. People have evne been stopped
> and prosecuted for DUI while riding bicyles, with the same penalties.
>
> B

That's what I thought too, until a bike ran into the front
of my car going against traffic fast down a hill. My
insurance paid, weenies.

Bernard

06-13-2004, 08:04 PM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> I have lived in California and currently in Washington...both states
> require adherance to motor vehicle laws by cyclists and both states
> actively enforce these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling
> vary from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride.
>
> People get stopped routinely for running traffic lights/stop signs,
> failure to yield to pedestrians/etc. People have evne been stopped
> and prosecuted for DUI while riding bicyles, with the same penalties.
>
> B

That's what I thought too, until a bike ran into the front
of my car going against traffic fast down a hill. My
insurance paid, weenies.

Bernard

06-13-2004, 08:04 PM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> I have lived in California and currently in Washington...both states
> require adherance to motor vehicle laws by cyclists and both states
> actively enforce these laws. Some specific laws relating to cycling
> vary from state-to-state...ie. where you can and cannot ride.
>
> People get stopped routinely for running traffic lights/stop signs,
> failure to yield to pedestrians/etc. People have evne been stopped
> and prosecuted for DUI while riding bicyles, with the same penalties.
>
> B

That's what I thought too, until a bike ran into the front
of my car going against traffic fast down a hill. My
insurance paid, weenies.

Bernard