I took 4 buses where I could have ridden a bike

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Yep, four buses, two hours, for what I could have done in under an
hour in a bike and get a nice workout. With buses, you depend on a
BUREAUCRACY if you think about it. Socialism at its worst. Services
are down and fares are up. A loud public announcer comes up every so
often to startle you and remind you how much better it could be on a
bike with your MP3 on. Now I'm dreading to do the same thing and I'm
waiting for my partner to go in the car.

Why didn't I go in the bike? Because my life would be worth nothing,
my patience would be tested and my nerves would be rattled. Have you
paid attention to the roaring of SUVs as they accelerate past you? I
wonder why they make those roaring motors as if their sheer size and
mean looks weren't enough.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against Public Transportation. It can be
complementary with bicycling beyond so many miles. Actually I support
a system such as Curitiba along the facilities and room for bicycles.
No, I'm not asking for bike lanes anymore as some bureaucracy will
squander the money with lousy results. We have probably more bike
lanes per square mile than Holland... but are rarely connected.

I'M ASKING FOR THE RIGHT LANE TO BE GIVEN TO CYCLISTS. Cars must exit
the lane 30' before and after, where cyclists occupy the center of the
lane. Bright vest must be mandatory in daylight and lights at night.

Now I retire to my hammock for meditation about how to fix the jungle.
My frustration also dissipates in the garden.

--------------------------------------------------------

THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS

"A hammock is the perfect vehicle for dreaming"

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Jul 22, 5:41 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

On Jul 22, 5:21 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

On Jul 22, 1:21 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
I'M ASKING FOR THE RIGHT LANE TO BE GIVEN TO CYCLISTS. Cars must exit
the lane 30' before and after, where cyclists occupy the center of the
lane. Bright vest must be mandatory in daylight and lights at night.

Unsafe. A great way to get killed by cars making right turns across
bike lanes.

Place the blame on the driver like in Holland until found otherwise.

Not when the cyclist had the simple bad luck to be in the motorist's
blind spot. Or whatever the paramedics scraped from under
his car.

Are many cyclists faster than cars?

For a fit cyclist in city traffic, yes.

Granted, only in rush hour.

To be in their blind spot, you
would need to go at their speed. I would never expect a donkey in my
blind spot, let alone carrying Jesus.

A turning motorist's speed relative to an overtaking cyclist is
pretty much 0 mph.

Enough to bump you and kill you.

My main concern is drivers who don't give a shit about cyclists. Next
those on the phone. Third the drunk ones.

The cyclist should not worry about the driver over his shoulder.

Do you know how to handle a bike in traffic? Doesn't seem
so.

I don't have to handle traffic. They have to handle me because I'm a
sitting duck with no bumpers or speed to escape.

I never got that feeling.

Yes, you are at the mercy of the mad driver or stupid driver. Praying
is your only hope, and I guess it doesn't work for many here.

I have no control over a driver recklessly chatting on the phone or
drunk.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Pay attention and give the idiots plenty of room.

They have to give me room. The only position where I could be seen in
the center of the lane.

[Kevan Smith]

On 7/22/10 5:37 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:

<BIG SNIP>

It seems to me that you would benefit from a course that teaches
vehicular cycling. The League of American Bicyclists offers a few. Have
you ever taken one? You might also read the book Effective Cycling by
John Forrester. And check out his website, http://www.johnforester.com/ .

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Post by Kevan Smith
On 7/22/10 5:37 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
<BIG SNIP>
It seems to me that you would benefit from a course that teaches
vehicular cycling. The League of American Bicyclists offers a few. Have
you ever taken one? You might also read the book Effective Cycling by
John Forrester. And check out his website,http://www.johnforester.com/.

The beasts in Miami need to read it first. They don't take shit.
Probably I have to read Dog Whisperer first. ;)

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

We must face those issues that come from chaos, and most importantly
NO BIKES ON SIDEWALKS OR MIXED FACILITIES where they endanger other
people and themselves.

And yet, that's exactly what Amsterdam is peppered with (much to the
danger of pedestrians), and you seem to approve.

As is Japan, where bikes are very heavily used for local transportation
in many locations. Seems to work out OK in practice, even if there's a
bit of grumbling from pedestrians now and then -- people riding on the
sidewalk generally ride kinda slowly; people riding quickly tend to use
the street instead.

That's the problem. You have to slow down so much that it's better
walking. Plus all the dangers you face on the sidewalks such as poles
and driveways.

I suppose that's not really germane to the GP's argument, as he seems to
be talking about using bikes for "medium distance" transportation, where
you want some speed just to make it practical. While I'd certainly
enjoy better support for bikes on the road networks (whatever that
actually means), I'd wager that for many such cases, many people would
prefer better public transport instead.

Our urban sprawl is conceived for cars. Routes struggle to cover the
widest area but then it adds to the expense and you see the empty
buses pitifully running around... SOLUTION?

A combination of Curitiba and bike, with mega-buses shuttling out
people and bikes from the centers. Then you take off on your bike to
your final destination (home, go-go place for happy hour,
whatever). ;)

The good thing is this is still practical with the lousy
transportation system we got in place. The bus doesn't show up? You
take off on your own!

The problem is the SPACE, WE NEED SPACE, SPACE, SPACE...

("In Brazil we have space, you know")

[Opus]

On Jul 22, 5:37 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock

On Jul 22, 5:41 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

On Jul 22, 5:21 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

On Jul 22, 1:21 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
I'M ASKING FOR THE RIGHT LANE TO BE GIVEN TO CYCLISTS. Cars must exit
the lane 30' before and after, where cyclists occupy the center of the
lane. Bright vest must be mandatory in daylight and lights at night.

Unsafe.  A great way to get killed by cars making right turns across
bike lanes.

Read again, the proposal isn't for the outside lane to be a bike lane,
rather a shared lane with bicycle priority. Drivers must leave the
lane to pass a bicycle at least 10 meters (that's the SI closest whole
measurement to 30') before and not re-enter until 10 meters past the
bicycle. I think this is a great idea if it could be enforced somehow.
The only way I see that happening would be "stings" of unmarked police
bicyclists with video cameras and laser measuring devices.

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
snip<
Yes, you are at the mercy of the mad driver or stupid driver. Praying
is your only hope, and I guess it doesn't work for many here.

Well praying and a 12ga derringer with AP slugs. ;)

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Post by Opus
On Jul 22, 5:37 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock

On Jul 22, 5:41 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

On Jul 22, 5:21 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

On Jul 22, 1:21 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
I'M ASKING FOR THE RIGHT LANE TO BE GIVEN TO CYCLISTS. Cars must exit
the lane 30' before and after, where cyclists occupy the center of the
lane. Bright vest must be mandatory in daylight and lights at night.

Unsafe.  A great way to get killed by cars making right turns across
bike lanes.

Read again, the proposal isn't for the outside lane to be a bike lane,
rather a shared lane with bicycle priority. Drivers must leave the
lane to pass a bicycle at least 10 meters (that's the SI closest whole
measurement to 30') before and not re-enter until 10 meters past the
bicycle. I think this is a great idea if it could be enforced somehow.
The only way I see that happening would be "stings" of unmarked police
bicyclists with video cameras and laser measuring devices.

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
snip<
Yes, you are at the mercy of the mad driver or stupid driver. Praying
is your only hope, and I guess it doesn't work for many here.

Well praying and a 12ga derringer with AP slugs. ;)

I'm ALL for it, the problem is we do NOT exist for the police and fall
under their radar. It's all about money.

Only hope is something vaguely defined as "democracy," which could be
put to use if we make enough NOISE...


Any change needs BIG NOISE, COORDINATION AND SOLIDARITY, not unlike...

http://mybignoise.blogspot.com/2007/08/solidarity-law-of-jungle.html

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

[irrelevant local groups snipped]
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-

(This is taking place in Miami Beach, and I do propose the Dutch and
Curitiba models for the world's transportation problems)
Yep, four buses, two hours, for what I could have done in under an
hour in a bike and get a nice workout.

Miami has to have one of the worst transit systems in the country for
a city its size.
I was recently in the area, and looked into going from the Palm Beach
area to Miami Beach by public transit. I knew that Miami has terrible
sprawl, but I thought they'd at least run some decent transit to busy,
walkable areas like the beach.
The commuter rail doesn't go anywhere useful in Miami, just to various
stations in the middle of nowhere, where you have to transfer to other
transit. The frequent and quick buses to Miami Beach, such as route S
(also known as route 119) don't connect to the commuter rail -- you
have to take the MetroRail (which only runs every half hour on
Sundays) *and* the MetroMover.
Google Transit has other recommendations, such as an express bus from
the airport to the beach (which also doesn't stop at the commuter rail
station, requiring another bus in between), or a local bus from a
northern station that takes more than an hour. But it's still hours
longer than it has to be, due to poor route and schedule planning.
And they no longer give *any* discounted transfers unless you have
their smart card, which costs $2 and isn't available on buses.
I don't see why anyone wouldn't drive if they had the choice.
Jimmy

That's exactly why EVERYBODY drives. But the same situation is found
in every sprawl. They make it nearly impossible to go anywhere except
by car.

Miami Beach has better public transportation than Miami itself being a
serviceable long narrow area. But bicycling is nearly nonexistent,
except for a few mixed paths by the beach, very fancy indeed, but
poorly designed.

Most people ride on sidewalks and a few daredevils ride on the roads.

Still we could cover wide areas with road bikes given the space.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock

As is Japan, where bikes are very heavily used for local transportation
in many locations. Seems to work out OK in practice, even if there's a
bit of grumbling from pedestrians now and then -- people riding on the
sidewalk generally ride kinda slowly; people riding quickly tend to use
the street instead.

That's the problem. You have to slow down so much that it's better
walking.

No, this is not true, not even close. Speed is not constant, of course
-- cyclists riding on the sidewalk slow down when necessary to navigate
very crowded sections, but in most areas, many sections are not
particularly crowded, and they speed up there. Even if they're "slow"
by some measure, still their average speed is much higher than that of a
pedestrian.
As I said, it basically works out OK. All of this his based on
observation of (many) real cyclists.
[Note that as an American, I'm also used to riding in the street, and
sidewalk riding feels a little bit weird to me -- but it clearly works
pretty well in appropriate circumstances.]

I understand, but that situation is only an escape from the deadly
roads. Tame traffic and then ban bicycles on sidewalks. But the TAKE
THE LANE LAW itself would tame everybody but the worst beasts. That's
when we use the whip.

I hear the Parisian Velib basically means 10,000 people riding on the
streets. SAFETY IN NUMBERS is the name of the game.

[george conklin]

"Opus" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4f95666f-5a80-4008-bd89-***@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Read again, the proposal isn't for the outside lane to be a bike lane,
rather a shared lane with bicycle priority. Drivers must leave the
lane to pass a bicycle at least 10 meters (that's the SI closest whole
measurement to 30') before and not re-enter until 10 meters past the
bicycle. I think this is a great idea if it could be enforced somehow.
The only way I see that happening would be "stings" of unmarked police
bicyclists with video cameras and laser measuring devices.

00-0-0-0

Slowing down auto traffic to 10 mph for a bicycle is a vast waste of
capital.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Post by Opus
Read again, the proposal isn't for the outside lane to be a bike lane,
rather a shared lane with bicycle priority. Drivers must leave the
lane to pass a bicycle at least 10 meters (that's the SI closest whole
measurement to 30') before and not re-enter until 10 meters past the
bicycle. I think this is a great idea if it could be enforced somehow.
The only way I see that happening would be "stings" of unmarked police
bicyclists with video cameras and laser measuring devices.
 00-0-0-0
Slowing down auto traffic to 10 mph for a bicycle is a vast waste of
capital.

You don't have to slow down traffic. It is more so by chaotic driving
and not observing the passing lane. ONE BICYCLE MEANS ONE FEWER CAR,
AND ONE PERSON DOING SOMETHING FOR THE PLANET. The cars do slow
anyways for cyclists, doing some half-ass effort to pass the bicycle,
but leaving too little space.

This TERRORIZES the cyclists and INTIMIDATES the rest.

[george conklin]

"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock"

Post by Opus
Read again, the proposal isn't for the outside lane to be a bike lane,
rather a shared lane with bicycle priority. Drivers must leave the
lane to pass a bicycle at least 10 meters (that's the SI closest whole
measurement to 30') before and not re-enter until 10 meters past the
bicycle. I think this is a great idea if it could be enforced somehow.
The only way I see that happening would be "stings" of unmarked police
bicyclists with video cameras and laser measuring devices.
00-0-0-0
Slowing down auto traffic to 10 mph for a bicycle is a vast waste of
capital.

You don't have to slow down traffic. It is more so by chaotic driving
and not observing the passing lane. ONE BICYCLE MEANS ONE FEWER CAR,
AND ONE PERSON DOING SOMETHING FOR THE PLANET. The cars do slow
anyways for cyclists, doing some half-ass effort to pass the bicycle,
but leaving too little space.

This TERRORIZES the cyclists and INTIMIDATES the rest.

One bike can slow down 50 cars to 10 mph.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock

Post by Opus
Read again, the proposal isn't for the outside lane to be a bike lane,
rather a shared lane with bicycle priority. Drivers must leave the
lane to pass a bicycle at least 10 meters (that's the SI closest whole
measurement to 30') before and not re-enter until 10 meters past the
bicycle. I think this is a great idea if it could be enforced somehow.
The only way I see that happening would be "stings" of unmarked police
bicyclists with video cameras and laser measuring devices.
00-0-0-0
Slowing down auto traffic to 10 mph for a bicycle is a vast waste of
capital.

You don't have to slow down traffic. It is more so by chaotic driving
and not observing the passing lane. ONE BICYCLE MEANS ONE FEWER CAR,
AND ONE PERSON DOING SOMETHING FOR THE PLANET. The cars do slow
anyways for cyclists, doing some half-ass effort to pass the bicycle,
but leaving too little space.
This TERRORIZES the cyclists and INTIMIDATES the rest.
One bike can slow down 50 cars to 10 mph.

Or it speeds up pedestrians to 10 mph. More often than not distances
under 5 miles are doable by bike. You can leave home without the car.

What's the speed of life, 50 or 10?

[Opus]

Post by george conklin
snip<
One bike can slow down 50 cars to 10 mph.

Actually it takes one bike and the first driver behind the bike not
wanting to pass, passing 2 vehicles (bike and the car behind) is
illegal so it takes 1 bike, one driver afraid or unwilling to pass and
the next driver to be one of those rare "by the book" legal drivers
that always does 5 under the speed limit, stops at all stop signs,
never turns right on red if there is a pedestrian still in the
crosswalk... and never passes more than one vehicle at a time. After
you get those 3 together you have a parade.

But the proposal would not create 50 car parades, all it would do is
codify following distances behind a bike and limit how close you could
get when passing. It wouldn't prohibit passing, just where passing
wasn't safe.

Besides, do you know what kind of gas mileage you get in high gear at
10 MPH? My 1972 Ford LTD station wagon with a 400 CI engine got 40 MPG
when we did that test in college back in 1976. Modern fuel injected
cars do even better than that.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Post by Opus
But the proposal would not create 50 car parades, all it would do is
codify following distances behind a bike and limit how close you could
get when passing. It wouldn't prohibit passing, just where passing
wasn't safe.

The point is that they are slowed down the way it is (a few seconds)
while they look for clearance in the adjacent lane. What this does is
only MANDATE that they give PROPER, SAFE DISTANCE to cyclists.

If we wanted to compensate for that slower speed (if any) all we would
have to do is BAN THE STUPID PHONES that have no place in driving.

[Opus]

On Jul 22, 12:14 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
snip<
I'M ASKING FOR THE RIGHT LANE TO BE GIVEN TO CYCLISTS. Cars must exit
the lane 30' before and after, where cyclists occupy the center of the
lane. Bright vest must be mandatory in daylight and lights at night.

And cars have to be painted what colors? I totally agree with lights
at night, but why insist that cyclist have to wear bright/reflective
clothing? If a driver "can't see" a human being on a bicycle, what
guarantee is there that they can see the stripes painted on the road,
which are much smaller than even the tiniest toddler? No, the problem
isn't visibility during the day, it's perception. Until and unless we
adopt the European model for assigning blame when hitting a cyclist,
we won't be perceived as a danger and can therefore be ignored. But if
hitting a cyclist is an automatic loss of driving privileges for a
year, then cyclists become a "threat" and are avoided.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Post by Opus
On Jul 22, 12:14 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
snip<
I'M ASKING FOR THE RIGHT LANE TO BE GIVEN TO CYCLISTS. Cars must exit
the lane 30' before and after, where cyclists occupy the center of the
lane. Bright vest must be mandatory in daylight and lights at night.

And cars have to be painted what colors? I totally agree with lights
at night, but why insist that cyclist have to wear bright/reflective
clothing? If a driver "can't see" a human being on a bicycle, what
guarantee is there that they can see the stripes painted on the road,
which are much smaller than even the tiniest toddler? No, the problem
isn't visibility during the day, it's perception. Until and unless we
adopt the European model for assigning blame when hitting a cyclist,
we won't be perceived as a danger and can therefore be ignored. But if
hitting a cyclist is an automatic loss of driving privileges for a
year, then cyclists become a "threat" and are avoided.

Opus, I know you are a true survivor, and as such you deserve more
respect than anyone here who hasn't been hit by an enraged driver and
let to bleed.

Think of A BEAST THAT IS OUT OF CONTROL, totally wild and
unpredictable. What do you need as the tamer? A TREAT and a WHIP,
right? Well, that threat is a good whip, but at the same time we must
reward them and make them think. A BICYCLE MEANS ONE FEWER VEHICLE ON
THE ROAD, more space, someone that could be him...

It would be a tough fight for survival unless we coordinate a
worldwide campaign to take our own share from the lion's share. ;)

We are not asking for the lane, ONLY if we are there.

I don't see a big issue with wearing a vest, and it could take away
the excuse so often heard of "I didn't see him." Remember, the speed
differential could be too great and they may be talking on the phone
(another problem to solve).

[Simon Lewis]

Post by Opus
On Jul 22, 12:14 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
snip<
I'M ASKING FOR THE RIGHT LANE TO BE GIVEN TO CYCLISTS. Cars must exit
the lane 30' before and after, where cyclists occupy the center of the
lane. Bright vest must be mandatory in daylight and lights at night.

And cars have to be painted what colors? I totally agree with lights
at night, but why insist that cyclist have to wear bright/reflective
clothing? If a driver "can't see" a human being on a bicycle, what
guarantee is there that they can see the stripes painted on the road,
which are much smaller than even the tiniest toddler? No, the problem

You're an idiot.

Its quite obvious why. Lines dont meander about or get blown into the
middle of the road or suddenly take a left/right turn.

Do try and think before posting your nonsense.

Post by Opus
isn't visibility during the day, it's perception. Until and unless we
adopt the European model for assigning blame when hitting a cyclist,

What European model?

Post by Opus
we won't be perceived as a danger and can therefore be ignored. But if
hitting a cyclist is an automatic loss of driving privileges for a
year, then cyclists become a "threat" and are avoided.

It takes a dick of some level to somehow think wearing bright colours or
reflectors when on a bike is some sort of invasion of their liberty.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Post by Simon Lewis
What European model?

I'm assuming it would be the Dutch or even the new Parisian Velib, but
not the Greek. ;)

Last year they promised one such Velib for Miami Beach with a 1,000
bikes for this summer, but of course, you shouldn't take things
seriously around here.

Post by Simon Lewis

Post by Opus
we won't be perceived as a danger and can therefore be ignored. But if
hitting a cyclist is an automatic loss of driving privileges for a
year, then cyclists become a "threat" and are avoided.

It takes a dick of some level to somehow think wearing bright colours or
reflectors when on a bike is some sort of invasion of their liberty.

Last night I could have killed a cyclist while driving. Black guy,
dark clothing, no reflectors, he merged into the road out of the blue.

We must be responsible for the stupidity of NOT being visible at all
times. One thing, TAKING THE LANE IS THE MOST VISIBLE as opposed to
riding to the right of the road.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

I still say the bike is #1, while public transportation may be... the
worst.

"Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking
public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says
a new US study.

In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to
drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups --
rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and
the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport."

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-best-u.s.-transit-systems/P1

[Opus]

Post by Simon Lewis

Post by Opus
On Jul 22, 12:14 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
snip<
I'M ASKING FOR THE RIGHT LANE TO BE GIVEN TO CYCLISTS. Cars must exit
the lane 30' before and after, where cyclists occupy the center of the
lane. Bright vest must be mandatory in daylight and lights at night.

And cars have to be painted what colors? I totally agree with lights
at night, but why insist that cyclist have to wear bright/reflective
clothing? If a driver "can't see" a human being on a bicycle, what
guarantee is there that they can see the stripes painted on the road,
which are much smaller than even the tiniest toddler? No, the problem

You're an idiot.
Its quite obvious why. Lines dont meander about or get blown into the
middle of the road or suddenly take a left/right turn.
Do try and think before posting your nonsense.

I suggest thinking yourself. Humans are elevated from the road surface
into the line of sight of the driver, the stripes on the road as just
that >on< the road, not raised up into the driver's line of sight.
Many times there is precious little contrast between the pavement
markings and the pavement itself, white stripes on concrete or
bleached asphaltic concrete, for example.

Post by Simon Lewis

Post by Opus
isn't visibility during the day, it's perception. Until and unless we
adopt the European model for assigning blame when hitting a cyclist,

What European model?

The model that says if you hit a cyclist or pedestrian, then the
driver is automatically at fault unless they can prove the cyclist was
1) neither a child nor a senior citizen, AND 2) was in gross violation
of a road law that caused the wreck. If statement 1 isn't true then
statement 2 doesn't apply and the driver is both criminally and
civilly liable for the wreck. I have been told that hit-and-run is
almost unheard of in the Netherlands because of severe penalties when
caught. Also there is an automatic license suspension whenever a
cyclist or pedestrian is hit. We need that in the US.

Post by Simon Lewis

Post by Opus
we won't be perceived as a danger and can therefore be ignored. But if
hitting a cyclist is an automatic loss of driving privileges for a
year, then cyclists become a "threat" and are avoided.

It takes a dick of some level to somehow think wearing bright colours or
reflectors when on a bike is some sort of invasion of their liberty.

Then why not a law that states what colors are allowed for cars? Only
Red, orange, bright yellow or white cars are allowed to be driven on
the roads, with a one year grace period to get the car painted, with
hefty fines for failure to comply and confiscation of non-compliant
cars after 3 years unless they are in a museum or other display or are
race cars not operated on public roads. How does that sound to you?

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Post by Opus

Post by Simon Lewis

On Jul 22, 12:14 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
snip<
I'M ASKING FOR THE RIGHT LANE TO BE GIVEN TO CYCLISTS. Cars must exit
the lane 30' before and after, where cyclists occupy the center of the
lane. Bright vest must be mandatory in daylight and lights at night.

And cars have to be painted what colors? I totally agree with lights
at night, but why insist that cyclist have to wear bright/reflective
clothing? If a driver "can't see" a human being on a bicycle, what
guarantee is there that they can see the stripes painted on the road,
which are much smaller than even the tiniest toddler? No, the problem

You're an idiot.
Its quite obvious why. Lines dont meander about or get blown into the
middle of the road or suddenly take a left/right turn.
Do try and think before posting your nonsense.

I suggest thinking yourself. Humans are elevated from the road surface
into the line of sight of the driver, the stripes on the road as just
that >on< the road, not raised up into the driver's line of sight.
Many times there is precious little contrast between the pavement
markings and the pavement itself, white stripes on concrete or
bleached asphaltic concrete, for example.

Post by Simon Lewis

isn't visibility during the day, it's perception. Until and unless we
adopt the European model for assigning blame when hitting a cyclist,

What European model?

The model that says if you hit a cyclist or pedestrian, then the
driver is automatically at fault unless they can prove the cyclist was
1) neither a child nor a senior citizen, AND 2) was in gross violation
of a road law that caused the wreck. If statement 1 isn't true then
statement 2 doesn't apply and the driver is both criminally and
civilly liable for the wreck. I have been told that hit-and-run is
almost unheard of in the Netherlands because of severe penalties when
caught. Also there is an automatic license suspension whenever a
cyclist or pedestrian is hit. We need that in the US.

For sure!

Those are the worst terrorists we can possibly have.

Post by Opus

Post by Simon Lewis

we won't be perceived as a danger and can therefore be ignored. But if
hitting a cyclist is an automatic loss of driving privileges for a
year, then cyclists become a "threat" and are avoided.

It takes a dick of some level to somehow think wearing bright colours or
reflectors when on a bike is some sort of invasion of their liberty.

Then why not a law that states what colors are allowed for cars? Only
Red, orange, bright yellow or white cars are allowed to be driven on
the roads, with a one year grace period to get the car painted, with
hefty fines for failure to comply and confiscation of non-compliant
cars after 3 years unless they are in a museum or other display or are
race cars not operated on public roads. How does that sound to you?

OK, let's talk about something revolutionary such as TAKING THE LANE,
where's a hefty SPEED DIFFERENTIAL, and the driver often argue "NOT
SEEN THE CYCLIST"... Is it too much to ask to wear BRIGHT VEST/LYCRA/
LIGHTS to be legally entitled to the lane?

Don't want to? Just "ride to the right" as it is now.