Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's great that you're biking. But do you have to be completely taking over a spot in a lane slowing down all the traffic? You are going 20 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone. There is a walk/bike path that you could be using, but in your mind, you are a car.
I just saw the car in front of me almost have a head-on collision, because they are trying to get around you.
This is an intervention. You are not a car.
The driver of that car should learn how to drive safely, before they hurt someone. "Don't pass unless it's safe to do so" is a basic driving rule.
Wait. You are blaming the cyclist because an impatient car made a probably illegal but definitely idiotic pass (he didn't check for oncoming traffic first?). Come on. You have to be kidding me.
If I am behind Grandma in her Olds who is cruising, it is still up to ME to pass safely. No matter who I am passing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here we go again...
If that cyclist is really going 20 miles per hour, do you know how dangerous it would be for him to be riding on that walking path? No matter how much you object, he's riding where he is supposed to be.
Why can't the cyclist slow down when riding around walkers? It's the same thing you're asking drivers to do (slow down when driving around cyclists). You're basically saying that cyclists shouldn't have to slow down for anyone, but drivers (and everyone else) have to slow down for them?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here we go again...
If that cyclist is really going 20 miles per hour, do you know how dangerous it would be for him to be riding on that walking path? No matter how much you object, he's riding where he is supposed to be.
Why can't the cyclist slow down when riding around walkers? It's the same thing you're asking drivers to do (slow down when driving around cyclists). You're basically saying that cyclists shouldn't have to slow down for anyone, but drivers (and everyone else) have to slow down for them?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They shouldn't be on the road if they can't go the minimum speed. Annoying.
That's not what the law says.
So you're okay with cyclists riding on 495 or 66 or 95 in the lane in front of you?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They shouldn't be on the road if they can't go the minimum speed. Annoying.
That's not what the law says.
So you're okay with cyclists riding on 495 or 66 or 95 in the lane in front of you?
Anonymous wrote:Here we go again...
If that cyclist is really going 20 miles per hour, do you know how dangerous it would be for him to be riding on that walking path? No matter how much you object, he's riding where he is supposed to be.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here we go again...
If that cyclist is really going 20 miles per hour, do you know how dangerous it would be for him to be riding on that walking path? No matter how much you object, he's riding where he is supposed to be.
People walk 3-4 miles per hour, so if the cyclist is going 20 mph, there is a 17 mph differential. There is a 25 mph differential on the road in this scenario. Personally, I don’t think either scenario is safe — bikes need their own lanes or they don’t belong on the road.
The other day I spent 5 minutes trying to get past a biker in my neighborhood who was blocking the road despite the multi-use trail on the side. He was going 10-15 mph, but due to cars parked on the street I couldn’t get around him. Finally, I got around him, only to have him blow by me at the next stop sign because he didn’t stop at it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They shouldn't be on the road if they can't go the minimum speed. Annoying.
That's not what the law says.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's great that you're biking. But do you have to be completely taking over a spot in a lane slowing down all the traffic? You are going 20 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone. There is a walk/bike path that you could be using, but in your mind, you are a car.
I just saw the car in front of me almost have a head-on collision, because they are trying to get around you.
This is an intervention. You are not a car.
The driver of that car should learn how to drive safely, before they hurt someone. "Don't pass unless it's safe to do so" is a basic driving rule.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here we go again...
If that cyclist is really going 20 miles per hour, do you know how dangerous it would be for him to be riding on that walking path? No matter how much you object, he's riding where he is supposed to be.
People walk 3-4 miles per hour, so if the cyclist is going 20 mph, there is a 17 mph differential. There is a 25 mph differential on the road in this scenario. Personally, I don’t think either scenario is safe — bikes need their own lanes or they don’t belong on the road.
The other day I spent 5 minutes trying to get past a biker in my neighborhood who was blocking the road despite the multi-use trail on the side. He was going 10-15 mph, but due to cars parked on the street I couldn’t get around him. Finally, I got around him, only to have him blow by me at the next stop sign because he didn’t stop at it.
Anonymous wrote:Here we go again...
If that cyclist is really going 20 miles per hour, do you know how dangerous it would be for him to be riding on that walking path? No matter how much you object, he's riding where he is supposed to be.
Anonymous wrote:I don't care as long as they act like a car in all scenarios. I witnessed an accident the other day where a bike blew through a red light because he thought he had enough time to get through before the other light turned green. He didn't and was clipped by a car. Thankfully they had just started moving when he went through and the bicyclist appeared ok. I stayed behind to make sure the cops knew whose fault it was.