Our City Online

Messageboard - Transportation

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Feds Deem Pedestrians, Cyclists and Motorists Equals

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Transportation Feds Deem Pedestrians, Cyclists and Motorists Equals

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 55 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #355714

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    Rockmastermike wrote >>

    futureman wrote >>
    Of the $18.4 million in bonding authority voters authorized in 2008, only $210,000 in bonds has been issued, said Rob Newman, with the city Finance Department. No money has been spent.[/i]
    READ MORE

    makes sense. The bonds are there to be issued, but the city doesn’t want to increase debt load at a time when tax receipts are in the toilet.
    In the mean time I think we’ll all be better off if everyone simply remembers rockmastermike’s prime directive:
    “Don’t be a dick”
    Bikes, TRY to be cool and not block people just because you legally CAN
    motorists, TRY to be cool and not run over bikes or get all mad because you can’t drive as fast as you can.
    pedestrians, just try not to get run over by the other two and for the love of god look before you cross the street right in front of me. We don’t want to kill you, really we don’t!

    Again, we aren’t trying to block the lane. We are riding as the law directs and upholds. We aren’t trying to be dicks and I wish people would get over this notion that our entire goal is to make their life more inconvenient. Of course these are often the same people who think it’s their god-given right to go over the speed limit, driving with their knees, while stuffing a double quarter pounder with one hand and texting with the other.

    To AK’s situation, the common advice I’ve seen is take the lane, but out ofcourtesy move to the side when it’s safe and let cars pass if they start stacking up.

    #355715

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels wrote >>
    To AK’s situation, the common advice I’ve seen is take the lane, but out ofcourtesy move to the side when it’s safe and let cars pass if they start stacking up.

    defensive much? yes that’s all I’m saying. Take the lane if you NEED to, but try not to be a dick about it. If I’m taking up a lane and I notice a car behind me, I *always* try to find a spot to duck over for a second and let the guy pass. It’s called being polite.

    #355716

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    But the problem is that it’s all perception and trying to read someone else’s mind. When you get behind a slow car, do you expect them to completely move over and out of your way? Or do you flick the blinker on and merge left to pass?

    Weaving in and out of traffic to let cars pass does not make you predictable, puts you in a situation where cross traffic may not see you and encourages drivers to pass way too closely.

    #355717

    cc
    Member

    Here is a very nice write up on the do’s and don’ts of vehicular cycling.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

    #355718
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels wrote >>
    When you get behind a slow car, do you expect them to completely move over and out of your way? Or do you flick the blinker on and merge left to pass?

    Given the speed differential, your analogy would be more apt if the slow car had it’s hazard lights on and was stuck in first gear.

    Then yeah, I’d expect them to get out of the way.

    #355719

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    cc wrote >>
    Here is a very nice write up on the do’s and don’ts of vehicular cycling.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

    A more reputable source than Wikipedia is probably LAB[/url].

    Or checking out one of many LAB course being offered by local instructors over April and May[/url].

    As someone pointed out earlier, you are screwed if you do and screwed if you don’t:

    Cyclist rides on sidewalk and gets yelled at by pedestrian.

    Cyclist rides on road, legally and center of lane, and gets yelled at by the same pedestrian, now driving.

    Cyclist cowers in the gutter, for the convenience of driver, and either gets hit by a motorist on the cross street turning or by someone behind them as they pass to close. Of course they couldn’t see the cyclist, so it’s the cyclist’s fault.

    And on the circle goes…

    #355720
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels wrote >>
    Cyclist cowers in the gutter, for the convenience of driver, and either gets hit by a motorist on the cross street turning or by someone behind them as they pass to close. Of course they couldn’t see the cyclist, so it’s the cyclist’s fault.
    And on the circle goes…

    hyperbole much?

    #355721
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    One possible solution to all this obnoxious bitching would be to man up and drive a car, preferably something with a big V8! YEEHAW~!

    #355722

    jackoh
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels wrote <a
    When you get behind a slow car, do you expect them to completely move over and out of your way? Or do you flick the blinker on and merge left to pass?

    Oh, believe me, it’s not the blinker that I flick at them!

    #355723

    labi
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels wrote
    Cyclist rides on sidewalk and gets yelled at by pedestrian.

    …and then given a $105 ticket.

    One of the very few times I’ve ridden my bike on a sidewalk, I was riding pretty slowly uphill through a green light and was hit by a car that didn’t stop before making a right on red. The cop actually followed me to the emergency room, gave me a lecture about riding on the sidewalk while I was lying there strapped to the spinal board waiting to see a doctor, and then gave me a ticket. The driver was not cited.

    I’ll take my ticket and pay it without bitterness just as long as the other asshole who broke the law gets one, too. But if that’s not the way it’s going to go, I’m going to follow the letter of the law when I’m in the road. And everyone else can just hold their horses.

    #355724

    Analogue Kid
    Participant

    labi wrote >>

    lifeontwowheels wrote
    Cyclist rides on sidewalk and gets yelled at by pedestrian.

    …and then given a $105 ticket.
    One of the very few times I’ve ridden my bike on a sidewalk, I was riding pretty slowly uphill through a green light and was hit by a car that didn’t stop before making a right on red. The cop actually followed me to the emergency room, gave me a lecture about riding on the sidewalk while I was lying there strapped to the spinal board waiting to see a doctor, and then gave me a ticket. The driver was not cited.
    I’ll take my ticket and pay it without bitterness just as long as the other asshole who broke the law gets one, too. But if that’s not the way it’s going to go, I’m going to follow the letter of the law when I’m in the road. And everyone else can just hold their horses.

    That sucks. I think its a terrible idea to ride on the sidewalk on say, High Street. However, on somewhere like Bethel Road where there aren’t many pedestrians or driveways and the vehicle traffic level is massive, I think the sidewalk is the better of two bad choices, provided you know to stop at each driveway and look for turning cars.

    #355725

    JedThorp
    Member

    A lot of this can be alleviated by having designated bike ROUTES (as opposed to bike lanes, or bike paths) with adequate signage. For the uninitiated: a bike lane is a special lane on the side of the road next to the car lanes where bikes can/are supposed to safely ride. A bike path is like the trail along the Olentangy, where only bikes (and runners, and strollers, and walkers with iPods on) can go. A bike ROUTE is a designated, clearly marked network of streets (often side streets) where bikes can safely ride IN THE STREET, with cars. (Vancouver has a great network of bike routes.) If the bike route needs to merge with a busy street (High St., Dublin Road, Summit St.) then, on those roads, there’s a designated bike lane…but the usual prefrence is to avoid having to do that. Cars know to avoid the streets that are part of the bike routes, and it isn’t much of annoyance for them, since the bike routes are generally on “side streets.” Like I’ve said before…I don’t need (or want) a bike LANE, or necessarily need a costly dedicated bike trail…I just need to have a safe route to get from point A to point B…and a nice network of bike routes may be the cheapest way to accomplish that. Thoughts?

    #355726

    cc
    Member

    Wouldn’t just taking side streets be similar? I guess painted sharrows would help though.

    #355727

    manticore33
    Participant

    Multi-use streets remind me of this video:

    It is from San Francisco in the early 1900s.

    #355728

    catnfiddle
    Participant

    Good news is that almost nobody was a dick today when I rode my bike to the grocery store and back. Everyone was respectful of my right to exist on 3rd Avenue and gave me plenty of room. In return, I kept as far to the right as I could so cars could pass me without veering too far across the yellow line.

    Now if we could all agree to the proper use of TURN SIGNALS, I would be truly happy as a driver, walker or cyclist.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 55 total)

The forum ‘Transportation’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: