Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Another Cycling Thread

I moved from NJ to S Fla in the early 70’s. Around 1975 or ‘76 a couple buddies decided to visit me and their mode of transportation was doubling up on a Honda SL350 I couldn’t imagine 2 guys riding 1200 miles on that small of a bike or doubling up at all for that matter but it wasn’t uncommon back then. I guess any mode of transport works when you’re 16 or 17. They said it wasn’t too bad because they were able to draft a semi for most of the trip. I couldn’t imagine riding the bumper of any car let alone a semi, especially not being able to see more than 5 foot ahead.
Their visited and never went back to NJ.

LOL, bullshìt. It implies pedestrians are willing to share the trail with cyclists and show a little common courtesy

Common sense, get some..

Laws pertaining to risk are all relative, and can vary with locales. Just the other day did 80 across West Texas. If I got in a collision at 90 I could be held at fault because I was travelling in a manner legally deemed to be unsafe.

Likewise I am legally obliged to buckle my seatbelt, and in some places wear a helmet depending on mode of transportation because of relative risk.

Motor vehicles cannot legally be sold without expensive design features intended to protect the occupants in the event of a collision.

Likewise, slow moving vehicles such as Amish buggies and farm machinery are in many locales deemed a risk to other travelers in motor vehicles and are required to have large reflective triangles and warning lights to protect both the occupants and the occupants of other vehicles.

When I presume to ride a bicycle on a public roadway I accept the fact that I am assuming an egregious level of risk to myself and would not be inclined to hold others responsible for injuries I suffered as a result.

I also recognize the fact that merely by being out there I present a distracting road hazard to motorists and put them at risk of a collision they do not want.

You believe motorists should be held liable for not seeing something as often hard to see as a cyclist traveling at an enormous disparity in speed. I do not.

When I’m out there, it’s all on me.

Seems logical to me.

Bicycles should stay OFF roadways with cars. Period, end of story!

What design features on a Scooter protect the passengers in a collision?

When driving, I have never been "distracted" by a bicyclist. I negotiate them like I do any other law abiding motorist or pedestrian.

Bicyclists are not hard for me to see, assuming daylight conditions. If they are hard for anyone to see, it's time to get corrective lenses or get the hell off the road.

Using your logic, pedestrians are hard to see, so they go in the same group of "at fault" when some dipschidt hits them.

Are you suggesting that pedestrians are less courteous than cyclists? Cyclists as a group are among the biggest d$ckheads we have.

Common courtesy does go a long way of course, and is often lacking, far more often among cyclists.

Pedestrians keeping to the right? You know and I know all the Lance Armstrong wannabees would be flying by.

I’d support a regulation that cyclists come to a full stop before passing pedestrians.

Pedestrians are hard to see and are distracting to bicyclists. When they get hit, it's their fault.

Brakes, lights and tires subject to annual inspection do make collisions less likely. Also the disparity in speed between them and motor vehicles is less.

If they cannot maintain certain highway speeds they are banned on some highways specifically due to the disparity in speed, yet many of these same roads are legal for bicycles, go figure.


This is exactly the sort of presumptive statement that gets ‘Fire members PO’d at you and further besmirches the image of all cyclists


If a pedestrian were walking where a road cyclist rides it would be called “jaywalking” and the motorist would probably not be held liable as long as they did not leave the scene.

The trauma suffered by the motorist and the vehicle could be significant however.

Whoops! you’re all out of arguments I see.

Do you Ned corrective lenses?

That's some seriously stiff competition for darwin awards... 😁

LOL, you can't make this shìt up.

Do you wear a helmet when you go out to get the mail?

The point was this; if it was put to a vote, how would the pedestrians vote, and why?


250,000 miles on motorcycles, most without a helmet. I dunno, maybe 12,000 miles on bicycles, no helmet.

Once again, if the pedestrians on those bike trails got to vote on a bicycle stop before passing pedestrian rule, how would they vote, and why?

They would vote for you to always wear a helmet, everywhere. So you don't get hurt

My bicycle has brakes, lights, and tires. You are right though. I am without the benefit of the protection that an annual inspection provides. LOL.

I DGAF if a 'fire member is POd at me for holding motorists accountable for a standard of attention. Let's play with the "hard to see" cop out, and make no mistake about it, it's a cover for not paying attention. In those thousands of miles of riding you have done, you have ridden roads where dozens if not hundreds of motorists have seen you and taken proper action. Had one not seen you, what was it that magically made you "hard to see" to that driver? Hint. inattention.

It's good to finally get you to acknowledge that a pedestrian's "right of way" is not absolute.

It doesn’t matter what you GAF about or not, humans are innately fallible, which is why pilots have checklists, and why even larger and easier-to-see slow-moving vehicles are required to have conspicuous lights and large red, reflective triangles. This is because such vehicles pose a significant collision risk to other vehicles moving at usual highway soeeds.


Are you seriously suggesting that a hike/bike trail is the same, either actually or in the eyes of the law, as a public roadway?

Hike/bike trails were created to give both cyclists and pedestrians a space AWAY from the hazards of public roadways

On a hike/bike trail it is the cyclists impinging silently upon the pedestrians, often from behind, the cyclist who has the simple opportunity to slow down or stop. This is why pedestrians on such paths have the right of way.

Once again I will observe that the majority of cyclists on such paths, since so many of them are d$cks, will fly by pedestrians in a totally inconsiderate manner.

Which is part of the reason so many dislike cyclists.

The first part of your response seemed disconnected from my central question.

In those thousands of miles of riding you have done, you have ridden roads where dozens if not hundreds of motorists have seen you and taken proper action. Had one not seen you, what was it that magically made you "hard to see" to that driver?

Again... pedestrians have right of way and bicyclists don't like it... ironic...

Kent