Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Desubot wrote:
Ah well then yeah still gonna wait for a full report before designating victims and crime enabled peoples.

Now as to cyclists not gona lie they really shouldn't be on the roads as much as possible. if only because its dangerous for everyone involved and there is a perfectly good side walk right there. besides no one walks anymore. (this is partial sarcasm)

^ this poster doesn't understand that sidewalks are for walking and cyclists are required to ride in the street, not the sidewalk.

Further, cyclists have the same right of way on the road as cars.

Finally, learn to share the road or stay home.

"Finally, learn to share the road or stay home."
-But I am a Texan, birthed from Spanish conquistadores and the Comanche Empire. It is my natural right to demand more than my fair share. Don't make us invade Canada! We'll do it!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Even if it's legal, I doubt it's recommended for a group of nine cyclists to cycle together on the pavement.

Certanly not at 20mph. By their name I would guess they were not hanging around (chain gang is a term used for cycling in a close group for drafting).

Also, bucyclist grates... It should be cyclist.

Round where I live we get a lot of road race cyclists practising. They usually do 20 to 30 mph and for obvious reasons go on the road, particularly as most of the local roads are rural and don't have any pavements.

In my local area a policeman got into (minor) trouble for telling a cyclist to ride on the sidewalk....

It was explained to the officer by the judge that riding on the sidewalk is illegal in the State of Maine.... And that giving a ticket to cyclist for obeying the law is frowned upon....

The problem is that a lot of the roads in the area are rather narrow, and there are few bike lanes at all.

The Auld Grump

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Even if it's legal, I doubt it's recommended for a group of nine cyclists to cycle together on the pavement.

Happens all the time and there is no way for a cyclist club to avoid it.

One of my coworkers does weekend-long and week-long bike rides. Some of these draw hundreds, if not over a thousand, cyclists. They travel in large groups on rural roads. Nothing they are doing is illegal, and traveling in groups/packs is highly recommended, in fact.

I think he meant sidewalk. He's still using that "King's English thing" and our English to Texan translator may have missed it.

 kronk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Even if it's legal, I doubt it's recommended for a group of nine cyclists to cycle together on the pavement.

Happens all the time and there is no way for a cyclist club to avoid it.

One of my coworkers does weekend-long and week-long bike rides. Some of these draw hundreds, if not over a thousand, cyclists. They travel in large groups on rural roads. Nothing they are doing is illegal, and traveling in groups/packs is highly recommended, in fact.

I think his point was that it's probably not a good idea to cycle on the pavement (i.e. Sidewalk, UK generally refers to it as pavement or path), not a comment against cycling as a group.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think he meant sidewalk. He's still using that "King's English thing" and our English to Texan translator may have missed it.

Oh, I see. I took pavement to mean street.

Weirdo UK Slang!

I know right. Don't you people know-You're in America now! Speak...Spanish!

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

The problem is that a lot of the roads in the area are rather narrow, and there are few bike lanes at all.

The Auld Grump

This is a problem in much of the US.


@Frazz... as I said in a later post to the one you quoted... it isn't that cyclists become snowflakes that are allowed to break the law, it's that they are granted under special circumstance, a title/category they wouldn't normally be: that of "motor vehicle." That means that there are things they are allowed to do, but that there is also a reciprocal relationship that they must also follow the the laws of the road in the same way an actually motorized vehicle does.

Wait,are you saying that when they are groups they are classed as motor vehicles?

Er..in both Texas and California cyclists are classed as that irrespective of group size. My comments were made assuming that.
If thats your statement you need to pay off your legislators better like we do, and get that regardless of size!

EDIT: Although it helps with the PoPo it doesn't do anything for safety, plus it actually makes issues with pedestrians.

In Michigan, when riding on the road, cyclists are basically expected to act and be treated like any other motor vehicle, whether in "a group" or not.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
In Michigan, when riding on the road, cyclists are basically expected to act and be treated like any other motor vehicle, whether in "a group" or not.

Exactly!

Also, please note, where they were riding there were no sidewalks .

In Michigan there is no actual law against riding on the sidewalk, but as a general sense of politeness, you don't.

This driver was driving erratically, where the cyclists were not doing anything wrong. The driver was all over the road, and even into people's yards before he hit the cyclists, who, once again, did nothing wrong. So the issue here isn't cyclists but the driver and his own driving abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is a Google maps view of the road they were on.

I used to ride my bike to work during college. I rode the wrong way down a one way back road and on the sidewalks after too many close calls trying to do the right thing. All it takes is one good smack and you'll be bankrupt from medical bills in this country. Drivers can't pay attention enough to avoid hitting other cars, much less a bike.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

The problem is that a lot of the roads in the area are rather narrow, and there are few bike lanes at all.

The Auld Grump

This is a problem in much of the US.


@Frazz... as I said in a later post to the one you quoted... it isn't that cyclists become snowflakes that are allowed to break the law, it's that they are granted under special circumstance, a title/category they wouldn't normally be: that of "motor vehicle." That means that there are things they are allowed to do, but that there is also a reciprocal relationship that they must also follow the the laws of the road in the same way an actually motorized vehicle does.

It's a big problem where I live too. Our county is more like subrural than suburban so we get lots of cyclists who like our scenic country roads but our roads are very narrow with virtually no shoulder with lots of hills and blind curves and 55mph speed limits. With 55 being the posted limit and long time residents who are used to the county having less people/traffic (we're growing pretty fast) lots of people drive 60+ on the roads which makes cycling on them pretty dangerous.

They're dangerous roads for everyone, I once got my car totalled when I was rear ended by a pickup truck after I had to stop at a flag man for a tree clearing crew that was standing around a curve in the road. I'm confident that I;m not going to plough through a flock of cyclists but the danger of driving along at 15mph behind them when an F150 comes around the bend behind me doing 60mph is a constant concern this time of year. I've also seen plenty of impatient people do some pretty stupid and dangerous driving to get around cyclists or just people driving the posted limit.

So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

My car got hit by an uninsured migrant cyclist and I'm not going to take it any more.

That literally what happened to my cousin while I was in his car. Kid comes riding down the street, doesnt see the car, causes a giant dent in his new truck and rips off the side mirror. That is like 1000$ worth of damage. it was the kids fault. but my cousin has to pay for it? But they want to be treated like motorists?
Only when they have insurance and Licenses and registration can they IMO

Hey you voted the legislators in that did that. Ask Gerry Brown, and then ask him why he's building a bullet train to nowhere.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

Is this a serious question?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That literally what happened to my cousin while I was in his car. Kid comes riding down the street, doesnt see the car, causes a giant dent in his new truck and rips off the side mirror. That is like 1000$ worth of damage. it was the kids fault. but my cousin has to pay for it? But they want to be treated like motorists?
Only when they have insurance and Licenses and registration can they IMO

Nothing stopping them from taking the kid's parents to court to pay for damages.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

Is this a serious question?

Assuming it is, they are treated as motor vehicles for the purposes of conduct on the road, i.e. cyclists must obey all traffic laws and motorists must give them space, yield when appropriate, etc.

They are not motor vehicles for licensing, insurance and registration purposes, and are not treated as motor vehicles when used anywhere but public roads.

 Frazzled wrote:
Hey you voted the legislators in that did that. Ask Gerry Brown, and then ask him why he's building a bullet train to nowhere.

HAH, gary brown got voted in before I could vote.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

Is this a serious question?

Assuming it is, they are treated as motor vehicles for the purposes of conduct on the road, i.e. cyclists must obey all traffic laws and motorists must give them space, yield when appropriate, etc.

They are not motor vehicles for licensing, insurance and registration purposes, and are not treated as motor vehicles when used anywhere but public roads.

That is because a Bicycle can only cause minor cosmetic damages to a car, while a vehicle can easily kill another motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian. The reason you have to have insurance is because of the fear of being in a horrific car accident with high medical bills you are responsible for. Not to fix minor cosmetic changes. (Although it is covered)

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

Is this a serious question?

Assuming it is, they are treated as motor vehicles for the purposes of conduct on the road, i.e. cyclists must obey all traffic laws and motorists must give them space, yield when appropriate, etc.

They are not motor vehicles for licensing, insurance and registration purposes, and are not treated as motor vehicles when used anywhere but public roads.

Yes, exactly!

I thought this was obvious?

In the HSM1 example though, the bicyclist would still be liable for the damages he caused - you'd just have to go a different route to collect them.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because cyclists are classed as motor vehicles why are they exempt from Insurance, licensing, regeristing, and all the stuff cars have to do.

Is this a serious question?

Assuming it is, they are treated as motor vehicles for the purposes of conduct on the road, i.e. cyclists must obey all traffic laws and motorists must give them space, yield when appropriate, etc.

They are not motor vehicles for licensing, insurance and registration purposes, and are not treated as motor vehicles when used anywhere but public roads.

I'm not against cyclists using the roads in general but I think there are definitely some roads where it's very dangerous to be cycling on them, in the path of traffic, at a speed that is significantly lower than the posted speed limit. I think it's just as dangerous in terms of potentiall causing severe accidents as when motorists drive at speeds that are drastically lower or faster than the posted limits.

I took some time and read this: http://www.lmb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21&Itemid=38
So, other than the various beefs aside, I think the driver of the pickup truck had no business running over people on bikes or otherwise...
Even riding two abreast is allowable so no arguments there.
It appears the driver of the truck had some sobriety issues or at least something affecting normal judgement.

I on occasion ride a bike and tend to get a little upset by people on both sides who do not understand the law.
The cyclist zipping along the right side of a bunch of cars cued up at a turn and I try to take a right and I think the guy is not stopping... irritating and dangerous for them.
Lots of clearance is good, sometimes those potholes or crevasses around a storm drain could flip a rider so then need some room.

Creaming a bunch of cyclists is inexcusable, I do not care if they stopped to hold a campfire in the middle of the road.

I'm not against cyclists using the roads in general but I think there are definitely some roads where it's very dangerous to be cycling on them, in the path of traffic, at a speed that is significantly lower than the posted speed limit. I think it's just as dangerous in terms of potentiall causing severe accidents as when motorists drive at speeds that are drastically lower or faster than the posted limits.

indeed.

 Talizvar wrote:
I took some time and read this: http://www.lmb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21&Itemid=38
So, other than the various beefs aside, I think the driver of the pickup truck had no business running over people on bikes or otherwise...
Even riding two abreast is allowable so no arguments there.
It appears the driver of the truck had some sobriety issues or at least something affecting normal judgement.

I on occasion ride a bike and tend to get a little upset by people on both sides who do not understand the law.
The cyclist zipping along the right side of a bunch of cars cued up at a turn and I try to take a right and I think the guy is not stopping... irritating and dangerous for them.
Lots of clearance is good, sometimes those potholes or crevasses around a storm drain could flip a rider so then need some room.

Creaming a bunch of cyclists is inexcusable, I do not care if they stopped to hold a campfire in the middle of the road.

Has anyone the thread said that the cyclists were at fault in any way? Nobody is making excuses for the driver who was clearly in the wrong.