- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 122,659
- Reaction score
- 27,418
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Your specific residence is not relevant, at all, to the general nation-wide claim you made.
I didn't make a nation-wide claim....
Your specific residence is not relevant, at all, to the general nation-wide claim you made.
There isn't always a sidewalk, and when there is, there's usually a law forbidding cyclists from using it.
I ride a motorcycle so I can keep up with vehicles or usually pass them.
I cannot stand to ride a bicycle in traffic. It seems like you're a sitting duck, and often invisible to distracted drivers.
Nothing you've said changes the fact that a lot of people don't have a choice.That doesn't change anything about the facts I stated. The fact that there aren't better options available doesn't make something a good idea.
The same with motorcycles. Since I believe 2013.. the most common way that motorcycles thre hit by cars is when the motorcycle is stopped and the car strucks the from behind while the motorcyclist is stopped.
This is certainly a resurrection of an old thread, but if a runner or cyclist causes an accident and they are at fault, their homeowners is what actually pays out.Why should I pay for jack asses on bikes?
Funny story. In ex-urban Michigan we had many heavy travelled winding two lane roads. It was not unusual to see lines of cars traveling in opposite directions pass by each other with only inches to spare between their door panels. Of course, I learned to drive on those roads, so it was no big deal.View attachment 67357975
Ennis bypass, Co. Clare.
Are the two large hard shoulders the best use of limited road breadth? Would lengthening and widening the space inside the two white lines between the left and right car lanes lead to a proportionately greater reduction in head-on collision risk if a car swerves? There's a raised footpath and so the pedestrians wouldn't be using the hard shoulder. It's easier for a cyclist to see a fellow cyclist than a rapid car and so only one of the large hard-shoulders might be sufficient to fit a two-way cycling system.
It was not unusual to see lines of cars traveling in opposite directions pass by each other with only inches to spare between their door panels.
No, they should just make special cycling paths. Also, if someone does not have their lights on but a reflector on the back of the bike, a driver has a chance to see them.Hi. I'm just inquiring about cycling and road safety.
Should cyclists travel against traffic? This would allow cyclists to see oncoming cars. They'd have a better chance of dodging any close vehicles. Any collision with a fast car, whether from behind or head-on, would be very dangerous. So we must choose the optimal one for avoiding the collision in the first place, rather than slightly reducing the impact of a potential collision.cr
In the Netherlands it is dependent mostly on whether or not there is a footpath at the side of the road, if there is no footpath you can use the cycling path, if there is also not a cycling path you can use the soft road shoulder or on the outer edges of the road.I live in a rural area; I cringe when I see pedestrians walking with the flow of traffic for the reasons you point out. Bicycles fall into another category, I think. I recommend checking with your local jurisdiction as to the laws pertaining to this.
In the Netherlands that is almost never an issue because we have cycling paths. And outside the city limits often the cycling paths are not directly connected to the road due to the speed of cars outside the city limits. That means there is a strip of land between the road and the cycling path. This increases the safety of the cyclist.Cyclists go with the flow of traffic, but I always hated it. Never liked having to trust my safety to others like that.
Hi. I'm just inquiring about cycling and road safety.
Should cyclists travel against traffic? This would allow cyclists to see oncoming cars. They'd have a better chance of dodging any close vehicles. Any collision with a fast car, whether from behind or head-on, would be very dangerous. So we must choose the optimal one for avoiding the collision in the first place, rather than slightly reducing the impact of a potential collision.
What we really need to is to enforce minimum speed limits on bikes so they’re not riding on streets with motor vehicle traffic. Bikes should be banned on any street with a speed over 35 and under that they need to be able to maintain 15 or they should be citedHi. I'm just inquiring about cycling and road safety.
Should cyclists travel against traffic? This would allow cyclists to see oncoming cars. They'd have a better chance of dodging any close vehicles. Any collision with a fast car, whether from behind or head-on, would be very dangerous. So we must choose the optimal one for avoiding the collision in the first place, rather than slightly reducing the impact of a potential collision.
In the Netherlands that is almost never an issue because we have cycling paths.
What is wrong with riding your bike on a sidewalk?
Because the sidewalk is for "walking".What is wrong with riding your bike on a sidewalk?
Yes there is. Bike riders need to travel with traffic, it is so much more safe, because people pulling out into traffic look left, and they seldom look right. Big, clearly marked bike lanes, and some common courtesy on both sides and things work out.I think there is no safe way to put bicycles and cars on the busy roads together. I am for making roads wider and a designated bike lane. I know a lot of people that would ride a bicycle if it wasn't so dangerous. Once you get out of the residential neighborhood and into the busy main roads it is just a crap shoot. Especially with texting and driving and all the other distractions in a car today. Mythbuster proved even trying to have a conversation while driving impairs a drivers ability to control their vehicle.