24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,935
Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,935
Likes: 3
Quote
Another factor with E-bikes is that many of their operators are those who cannot get a driver's license or are otherwise precluded from operating a motor vehicle.

Show proof of that broad assertion.


GOA

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,860
Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,860
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by 257Bob
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by GeoW
Move the friggin wheels off the highways and walking paths.

I looked to see if I could identify this path. It was likely a multi-use path designed for pedestrians and cyclists. It's likely the kind of path that motorists believe cyclists should be relegated to. Now we have a goddam moron shouting that cyclists shouldn't be on the path that was designed and provided for them.

Suck it up buttercup. Cyclists can be in both places no matter how big of a tantrum you throw.

This thread is interesting in that the majority believe that the cyclist is at fault. Almost all believe that due to the vulnerability of the pedestrian, the cyclist has a moral duty to exercise due care. Nobody has suggested that the pedestrian got their due comeuppance for daring to defy the law of gross tonnage with a cyclist. Flighty values are never not funny.

This thread is interesting in that the majority believe that the cyclist is at fault - yes, the cyclist is 100% at fault for not controlling their actions and causing loss of life!

And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right?

And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right? - if the motorist is negligent or "at fault" then yes. Most roads in the US were designed for autos, not bikes. Just because the law says you "can" ride on the road doesn't mean you "should"!

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Originally Posted by 257Bob
We walk our dogs on a local multi-use trial for hikers/bikes/horses and the bikers come out of nowhere and make little effort to slow, mostly if we are really alert we have just enough time to pull our dogs aside and make way for the spandex bunch who have the attitude that they have the right of way, they don't! Before Paul tells me how biased I am, I've bought five bikes from local shops over the last decade but have mostly given up riding due to the azzwipes that fancy it in my city and they dangers of riding on the road. As far as I know, they rules for biking on multi-use trails suggest that they must ride under control and yield to horses and walkers.

The trails I often ride on have signs that say cyclists must yield to pedestrians and horses. That's common sense to me.

When I walk on multi-use paths, I do some things that I wish were standard practices. I walk facing the direction of travel of bicyclists. Most pedestrians don't. When I walk my dog, I keep it toward my edge of the path. Most pedestrians let their dogs walk on the bicyclist side of them. Well, with their backs to the cyclist, the cyclist now has to contend with an oblivious pedestrian and their dog.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Originally Posted by 257Bob
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by 257Bob
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by GeoW
Move the friggin wheels off the highways and walking paths.

I looked to see if I could identify this path. It was likely a multi-use path designed for pedestrians and cyclists. It's likely the kind of path that motorists believe cyclists should be relegated to. Now we have a goddam moron shouting that cyclists shouldn't be on the path that was designed and provided for them.

Suck it up buttercup. Cyclists can be in both places no matter how big of a tantrum you throw.

This thread is interesting in that the majority believe that the cyclist is at fault. Almost all believe that due to the vulnerability of the pedestrian, the cyclist has a moral duty to exercise due care. Nobody has suggested that the pedestrian got their due comeuppance for daring to defy the law of gross tonnage with a cyclist. Flighty values are never not funny.

This thread is interesting in that the majority believe that the cyclist is at fault - yes, the cyclist is 100% at fault for not controlling their actions and causing loss of life!

And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right?

And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right? - if the motorist is negligent or "at fault" then yes. Most roads in the US were designed for autos, not bikes. Just because the law says you "can" ride on the road doesn't mean you "should"!

Umm, no. They were not designed FOR motorists. They were designed for multi-modal transportation. Period. Laws and signage make this abundantly clear. They were designed with passengers vehicles as the most common denominator. Why wouldn't they be?

How does this sound? Just because you "can" walk on the mult-use path doesn't mean you "should."

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,869
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,869
Originally Posted by Colorado1135
Does that mean we can hit cyclists as long as we honk our horns first and/or yell?
I bought one of the loudest most obnoxious bike alarm that I could find. I don't race up sidewalks, I'll give them a warning blast when I'm about 100' away. Kinda funny to watch them jump out of their skin. I'm usually out riding when it’s just breaking daylight so seeing walkers/joggers is fairly rare.
And if someone wants to get obnoxious with a walking stick there's a can of bear spray within arm's reach...

IC B2

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Originally Posted by Mr_TooDogs
Quote
And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right?

Deflection ALLERT

This thread is about a selfish 62 YO bicyclist that killed a 81 YO woman pedestrian.

Retard alert. Another retard has chimed in.

Show me proof of the broad assertion that the OP wanted to limit the discussion to that. It's certainly not in the OP nor is it a norm in internet discussions to keep the conversation very narrowly focused. Given that you have flighty values, I can certainly see why my comment made you uncomfortable.

Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,025
Likes: 21
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,025
Likes: 21
Why must pedestrians give way to cyclists?
Can't the cyclists ride behind them, until safe to pass ?


Roy

What this world needs is a few more Rednecks.

The Dildō Of Consequence Rarely Arrives Lubed

Waterboarding isn't illegal if you use diesel





Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,925
Likes: 11
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,925
Likes: 11
I thought that the law that came down the mountain with Moses clearly stipulated that ANY and ALL traffic was ordered (under pain of death) to be aware of and yield to anythingt that was moving faster.


Not a real member - just an ordinary guy who appreciates being able to hang around and say something once in awhile.

Happily Trapped In the Past (Thanks, Joe)

Not only a less than minimally educated person, but stupid and out of touch as well.
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1
M
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
M
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by slumlord
Typical 81 yr old when “on your left” is yelled

“….huh!! Duhhh….where am I, why I am here….I’m no Jack Kennedy, I like ice cream, our La Salle ran great….


By then….. it’s


[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]

A lot of micro processes have to occur in the oldster’s cob webbed synapses

Just one less boomer, who cares

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Originally Posted by Mr_TooDogs
Quote
Another factor with E-bikes is that many of their operators are those who cannot get a driver's license or are otherwise precluded from operating a motor vehicle.

Show proof of that broad assertion.

Well golly Sparky, try this. Type "Ride E-bike no driver's license" into the search engine of your choice and read the returns 'til your heart's content. You'll find that people with suspended licenses often turn to them. You'll find that people too young to get a license turn to them. Twist the search a little and and you'll see that people who cannot afford a car often use an E-Bike as primary transportation.

I look forward to another goddam stupid response. If nothing else, you are predictable in your dumbassery.

IC B3

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Originally Posted by LRoyJetson
Why must pedestrians give way to cyclists?
Can't the cyclists ride behind them, until safe to pass ?

I certainly do.

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,155
Likes: 9
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,155
Likes: 9
If I am the approaching vehicle and someone legally on the road ahead of me is travelling slower than me (bicycle or pedestrians included) and I run into or over the one in front of me it is almost assured that I am at fault. Bicyclists use this to their advantage all the time.

I have investigated many boating accidents and in every case the boat that was approaching from behind and collided with a watercraft going the same direction the overtaking boat operator was at fault.

I haven't read this whole discussion but I'm assuming the old woman didn't jump out in front of the bicycle when she turned to look. Sounds as if the bicycle was going to barely miss her at best if she hadn't turned to look.


Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Jesus: "Take heed that no man deceive you."
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 18,348
Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 18,348
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by slumlord
Typical 81 yr old when “on your left” is yelled

“….huh!! Duhhh….where am I, why I am here….I’m no Jack Kennedy, I like ice cream, our La Salle ran great….


By then….. it’s


[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]

A lot of micro processes have to occur in the oldster’s cob webbed synapses



I sure hope Slum is still here and posting in his eighties (and I'm here to see it).


Carpe' Scrotum
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,609
Likes: 19
Originally Posted by Hastings
If I am the approaching vehicle and someone legally on the road ahead of me is travelling slower than me (bicycle or pedestrians included) and I run into or over the one in front of me it is almost assured that I am at fault. Bicyclists use this to their advantage all the time.

I have investigated many boating accidents and in every case the boat that was approaching from behind and collided with a watercraft going the same direction the overtaking boat operator was at fault.

I haven't read this whole discussion but I'm assuming the old woman didn't jump out in front of the bicycle when she turned to look. Sounds as if the bicycle was going to barely miss her at best if she hadn't turned to look.

I pulled the path up on Google street view. It's winding, narrow and tree lined. It also has stair access from the homes on the bluff above it. It's a horrible place to go fast on a bicycle.

The Louisiana maritime attorneys that I have discussed accidents with are quick to tell you that when the accidents get litigated, fault is almost always apportioned. The vessel being overtaken will always be the stand-on vessel, so that does put the brunt of the responsibility on the give-way/overtaking vessel. It does not however, absolve the stand-on vessel of attending her responsibilities as prescribed by the navigation rules. Maintaining course, maintaining speed, maintaining a lookout, taking action to avoid collision even if it involves departure from the navigation rules. There's a standing joke among maritime attorneys that an island would be apportioned some fault in a collision.

When the Coast Guard conducts investigations, we don't even assign fault. We find facts and measure them against the Navigation Rules.

Most road users do use the law to their advantage. It tends to make for good order.

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,935
Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,935
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by Mr_TooDogs
Quote
And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right?

Deflection ALLERT

This thread is about a selfish 62 YO bicyclist that killed a 81 YO woman pedestrian.

Retard alert. Another retard has chimed in.

Show me proof of the broad assertion that the OP wanted to limit the discussion to that. It's certainly not in the OP nor is it a norm in internet discussions to keep the conversation very narrowly focused. Given that you have flighty values, I can certainly see why my comment made you uncomfortable.

Photo below that you posted of yourself is a retard on full display. Paul digging in the nose.

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]


GOA
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,594
Likes: 8
L
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
L
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,594
Likes: 8
no farm subsidies no social security mentioned that this thread is about entitlement all right!!

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,860
Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,860
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by 257Bob
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by 257Bob
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by GeoW
Move the friggin wheels off the highways and walking paths.

I looked to see if I could identify this path. It was likely a multi-use path designed for pedestrians and cyclists. It's likely the kind of path that motorists believe cyclists should be relegated to. Now we have a goddam moron shouting that cyclists shouldn't be on the path that was designed and provided for them.

Suck it up buttercup. Cyclists can be in both places no matter how big of a tantrum you throw.

This thread is interesting in that the majority believe that the cyclist is at fault. Almost all believe that due to the vulnerability of the pedestrian, the cyclist has a moral duty to exercise due care. Nobody has suggested that the pedestrian got their due comeuppance for daring to defy the law of gross tonnage with a cyclist. Flighty values are never not funny.

This thread is interesting in that the majority believe that the cyclist is at fault - yes, the cyclist is 100% at fault for not controlling their actions and causing loss of life!

And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right?

And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right? - if the motorist is negligent or "at fault" then yes. Most roads in the US were designed for autos, not bikes. Just because the law says you "can" ride on the road doesn't mean you "should"!

Umm, no. They were not designed FOR motorists. They were designed for multi-modal transportation. Period. Laws and signage make this abundantly clear. They were designed with passengers vehicles as the most common denominator. Why wouldn't they be?

How does this sound? Just because you "can" walk on the mult-use path doesn't mean you "should."

How does this sound? Just because you "can" walk on the mult-use path doesn't mean you "should." - that's a stretch when comparing bikes and people to bikes on roads built for high speed travel and vehicles weighing two tons or more. Most roads in the US were simply not designed for cyclist safety, they have been modified with extra shoulders and lines but it's not like Europe where they've been integrated in the planning.

I make every effort to get out of the way when a cyclist approaches but it's a wooded trail and often they come up fast and by the time you hear "on your left" you only have moments to collect yourself.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,860
Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,860
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by AJ300MAG
Originally Posted by Colorado1135
Does that mean we can hit cyclists as long as we honk our horns first and/or yell?
I bought one of the loudest most obnoxious bike alarm that I could find. I don't race up sidewalks, I'll give them a warning blast when I'm about 100' away. Kinda funny to watch them jump out of their skin. I'm usually out riding when it’s just breaking daylight so seeing walkers/joggers is fairly rare.
And if someone wants to get obnoxious with a walking stick there's a can of bear spray within arm's reach...

My personal favorite is a walker with ear plugs/headphones on, they are in the outdoors and completely eliminate their sense of hearing and respond with shock when you pass them running, biking, etc... Can't imagine why a woman would walk/run a wooded trail with her hearing blocked???

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,094
Likes: 1
D
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,094
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by OldmanoftheSea
Bicyclist blames Pedestrian...

A man on a bike hit an 81-year-old woman walking on the Four Mile Run trail, ARLnow reports, and the woman subsequently died of the injuries. Do we need better consensus on how to alert pedestrians to passing cyclists?

The 62-year-old cyclist was heading down a hill and shouted “on your left” to warn the woman. Instead of either moving right or just being alert, she apparently turned around in a way that moved to the left, while exclaiming “what?” The cyclist then struck her, she fell, and her head hit the ground.

Update: ARLnow is now also reporting that the cyclist rang a bell as well as calling out. (and that means the bicyclist has no culpability says our resident vegan bicyclist)

Whether or not this particular cyclist did something wrong, the first rule always must be that people riding bikes need to be careful around pedestrians. Daniel Hoagland, WABA’s Bicycle Ambassador, wrote in an email:
Pedestrians are unpredictable and vulnerable, which is a bad combination (and doesn’t even get into things like pets and children and the mobility-impaired), and bicyclists should be prepared to slow down to whatever speed is necessary to ensure that they can react safely to whatever a pedestrian does.

Pretty interesting. I spent three years stationed in Germany. They have a strange rule concerning pedestrian's over there. Pedestrians have the right of way.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,860
Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,860
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by Mr_TooDogs
Quote
Another factor with E-bikes is that many of their operators are those who cannot get a driver's license or are otherwise precluded from operating a motor vehicle.

Show proof of that broad assertion.

Well golly Sparky, try this. Type "Ride E-bike no driver's license" into the search engine of your choice and read the returns 'til your heart's content. You'll find that people with suspended licenses often turn to them. You'll find that people too young to get a license turn to them. Twist the search a little and and you'll see that people who cannot afford a car often use an E-Bike as primary transportation.

I look forward to another goddam stupid response. If nothing else, you are predictable in your dumbassery.

I think a fat-tired e-bike would be pretty cool on our local trails but that kind of defeats the purpose of riding as I do for exercise. If it has a motor, I don't want to pedal. If I could use one for local commutes or a run to the store I would but only if there was some elevation in the terrain.

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24

573 members (10gaugemag, 1beaver_shooter, 1lesfox, 12344mag, 1badf350, 204guy, 65 invisible), 2,364 guests, and 1,293 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,193,511
Posts18,509,390
Members74,002
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 


Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.077s Queries: 54 (0.014s) Memory: 0.9282 MB (Peak: 1.0400 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-05-13 22:08:31 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS