• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Which side do you pass on?

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Wow, two ad hominem attacks in one post. I expected better from you. And you just regurgitated the same garbage that's been addressed.

Let me break it down for you: bike vs pedestrian = at worst, a few broken bones & lacerations.

bike vs car = at worst, DEATH!

Bicycles are a road hazard. They belong on the SIDEWALK with the other PEDESTRIANS. It's powered by human feet, therefore it's a pedestrian as far as *I'm* concerned.

I'll say it again. 99% of the time when a cyclist gets hurt, IT'S THE CYCLIST'S DAMN FAULT!

nyah. :p

Yeah, I'd turn that off too, because you're being an idiot. First, a bicycle is a vehicle, not a pedestrian mode of transportation. Second, being on the sidewalk is downright DANGEROUS to the bicyclist, to real pedestrians, and to the cars' liability insurances.

I bike between 15-25 miles per hour. Pedestrians walk or jog between 2.5 and 7 miles per hour. That means people I would be passing tend to be, at best, half my speed. Moreover, the sidewalk is not a bicycle-friendly place. There are hundreds of bumps, you have to turn on and off pedestrian ramps, etc.

When a car sees a bike on the sidewalk, they often are not aware of the speed it is traveling, leading to the infamous "turn right and smash a bike" situation. When I was younger, before I learned that riding on the street is the right place, I was mere centimeters from being hit by a driver, twice, because they sped up from behind me, passed me, and then turned right without looking for people crossing.

Look, I know you think you're important shiat, but the truth is, you can wait the minute or two it takes off your life to pass a cyclist safely. Your definition of harm puts you right at home with the Brady bunch, since it seems your mere frustration and ignorance harm you.

Try actually biking sometime, and perhaps you can show a little more patience for your fellow man.

*edit* I know a number of cyclists who have been hit, some killed. Every single time it was some jackass in a car who wasn't paying attention. Also, every single time it's been in a place with bike lanes, because, I guess, drivers decide they can just drive past when bikes have a "lane" - even if the lane is only a foot and a half wide and full of broken glass and branches.

Every cyclist I know who was hit was hit from behind. Those who have come close to being hit have generally had the right turn of death or a left turn in front of them. The fact is, I think more arsehole cyclists get close encounters that you remember, but the majority of people who actually get hit are hit because they are being polite, and "disappear" to the driver. Motorcyclists get the same thing - drive like a car (polite, consistent, etc), and you become invisible to the arsehole on the cell phone in his multi ton death machine.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
That's actually the right place to run, because you can see what's coming and get out of the way as needed. Who's preternaturally stupid, again?

Sorry, no. On the road it is, with cars. On a multi-use trail everyone should stay right. Cyclists have to yield to peds or faster traffic yields to slower (except for horses who have the right-of-way over both).

The signs said peds, walkers, runners, cyclists stay right and had a white stripe down the middle. Everyone passed on the left just like in a road and you wait for runners to be clear before passing. There's no edict to signal, ring a bell, have a bell on the bike or anything. Some people run faster than I'm riding at any moment given the terrain (like a steep gravely hill).

If you run facing then you risk a head-on going around a left bend on a MUT.

In fact all the walkers did walk on the right. The dog walkers walked on the right and most of the runners. A handful seemed to not get it into their heads not to run on the left, just like some cyclists ride against traffic when all cyclists must ride with (same direction as) car traffic on the road.

Every once in a while a person in black no lights gets slammed into by a cyclist going the wrong way in traffic. I don't know how Seattle is, but maybe the state should make bike only parallel roads to major routes and not just 'bike lanes', IDK. Believe me, if I could get everywhere in a city using a bike rail-to-trail type route and a sidewalk here and there I'd do it and be thrilled.
 
Last edited:

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
1. I walk the way we drive. I stay to the right, pass on the left.

2. Bicycles belong on the road, BUT they MUST obey the traffic laws and rules just like other motorists. Most of the time I watch cyclists run red lights and stop sighs. I don't care if a cyclist wants to claim that a motorist hit them because they didn't see the bike but if the bike wasn't running a stop sign or payed attention themselves to not try and ride in front of a car turning, then maybe there would be fewer accidents.

When motorcyclists ride, they follow the rules and do their best to ride in a manner that helps the cars see them. Then they pay extra attention to the cars around them because they know that a car is likely to NOT see them. I see more bicyclists take dangerous risks in traffic and on the sidewalks than anyone else.
 
Last edited:

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
when motorcyclists ride, they follow the rules and do their best to ride in a manner that helps the cars see them. Then they pay extra attention to the cars around them because they know that a car is likely to not see them. I see more bicyclists take dangerous risks in traffic and on the sidewalks than anyone else.

this!
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I don't know how Seattle is, but maybe the state should make bike only parallel roads to major routes and not just 'bike lanes', IDK. Believe me, if I could get everywhere in a city using a bike rail-to-trail type route and a sidewalk here and there I'd do it and be thrilled.

Why don't you come out here and become a taxpayer that has to provide these facilities to the bicyclists.

Oh wait. Let's see. They don't pay any gas tax so they wouldn't be contributing to the funds that are needed for these parallel roadways so you wouldn't be really contributing to them. Any sales tax paid on your bicycle, only a portion of which would go to the local government, would be dwarfed by that paid by the auto/truck purchase sales tax yet the facilities you suggest would be almost as expensive (extra right of way, special traffic controls, etc).

We're faced with this logic every day out here in the PNW. Bicyclists want more and more but so far don't have to pay for any licenses or fees associated with their activity. Roads in this State are provided for by the Gasoline Tax which is paid by those who drive motor vehicles. Maybe it's time to start extracting some money from those with the big demands and no contribution, the bicycle riders.

I do find it interesting how people who live elsewhere have so many suggestions on how we should spend our money here.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Sorry, no. On the road it is, with cars. On a multi-use trail everyone should stay right. Cyclists have to yield to peds or faster traffic yields to slower (except for horses who have the right-of-way over both).

The signs said peds, walkers, runners, cyclists stay right and had a white stripe down the middle. Everyone passed on the left just like in a road and you wait for runners to be clear before passing. There's no edict to signal, ring a bell, have a bell on the bike or anything. Some people run faster than I'm riding at any moment given the terrain (like a steep gravely hill).

If you run facing then you risk a head-on going around a left bend on a MUT.

In fact all the walkers did walk on the right. The dog walkers walked on the right and most of the runners. A handful seemed to not get it into their heads not to run on the left, just like some cyclists ride against traffic when all cyclists must ride with (same direction as) car traffic on the road.

Every once in a while a person in black no lights gets slammed into by a cyclist going the wrong way in traffic. I don't know how Seattle is, but maybe the state should make bike only parallel roads to major routes and not just 'bike lanes', IDK. Believe me, if I could get everywhere in a city using a bike rail-to-trail type route and a sidewalk here and there I'd do it and be thrilled.
It depends on the trail. If the trail is wide enough, or has a soft side where pedestrians can step off but bikes cannot, then runners and walkers should be going opposite bicycles. If not, they should go with. Different trails have different rules, and make sense in different conditions. When pedestrians are on the left and there's, say, gravel on the side, they can see oncoming bikers and step to the left into gravel. Conversely, oncoming bikers can see people coming from the other direction and decide how far is safe to move over. When that's not an option, or the trail is narrow, yeah, everyone stay right makes sense. I've seen both types of trails around here, though it seems everyone stays right. When you have two people jogging side by side on the right, both wearing headphones on a busy trail... Well, at least if they were on the left they'd see people coming from ahead.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
A small car outweighs a fat man on a bicycle by at least 100 times. It "generates far more energy than" a bicycle does by orders of magnitude. Bicycles belong on the sidewalk.

So your best justification is "car bigger, bike on sidewalk"?

Does that mean that people on motorcycles shouldn't be allowed on the road with trucks? How about mopeds or similar scooters? They are definitely vehicles, but are they not allowed on your roads because in a fit of irrational road rage you might run them over and murder them? If your best justification for why bicycles, which are vehicles, should stay on the sideWALK is because of the weight difference, why do you not make differentiations for other lower weight devices?
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Seattle bike riders even have rush hour "rallies" where they arm themselves with big chains and padlocks (ostensibly to secure their bikes) and go riding in packs during rush hour. At intersections one or two of their riders will block the intersection while the rest of the pack blows through the lite. Any driver that gives them any crap gets to find out what the real reason is that they are carrying that security chain. The chain gets swung like a whip and the padlock takes out a windshield, side window, or leaves a $1,000 dent in a hood.


The group is called "critical mass". If I remember correctly they meet on the last Friday of every month in downtown Seattle at West Lake Park. They are a bunch of colossal pricks. I use to work Security near where they start their crime spree or "rally" as they call it.

I once saw them almost run over a little old lady in a cross walk. They cause a lot of problems out there.

One day I asked one of them why they hold these protests. His response to me was the height of irony. "we want cars to learn to share the road with cyclists". and "we have just as much right to use the road as they do". Apparently they don't feel that perfectly reasonable laws like stop signs and traffic lights should apply to them.

My job had me talking with SPD on a somewhat regular basis. I talked with a few of them once to see if there are plans to do anything about them.

Seems to me that a couple of dozen bicycle cops shadowing the group should put a damper on all the red-light running and such. When I talked to one of the SPD guys I use to see all the time, he told me that the City wants them left alone. He said that the city pretty much told SPD to leave them alone unless they actually witness an act of violence.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
, he told me that the City wants them left alone. He said that the city pretty much told SPD to leave them alone unless they actually witness an act of violence.

What a surprise. The Mayor, Mike McGinn is a bicyclist himself, and a colossal (what you called him) as well. Perhaps he rides in these Critical Mass rampages in disguise
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Why don't you come out here and become a taxpayer that has to provide these facilities to the bicyclists.

Oh wait. Let's see. They don't pay any gas tax so they wouldn't be contributing to the funds that are needed for these parallel roadways so you wouldn't be really contributing to them. Any sales tax paid on your bicycle, only a portion of which would go to the local government, would be dwarfed by that paid by the auto/truck purchase sales tax yet the facilities you suggest would be almost as expensive (extra right of way, special traffic controls, etc).

We're faced with this logic every day out here in the PNW. Bicyclists want more and more but so far don't have to pay for any licenses or fees associated with their activity. Roads in this State are provided for by the Gasoline Tax which is paid by those who drive motor vehicles. Maybe it's time to start extracting some money from those with the big demands and no contribution, the bicycle riders.

I do find it interesting how people who live elsewhere have so many suggestions on how we should spend our money here.
This is an old fallacy, and one you should research before ever pulling out again. Both from history and in the modern day, this is just a silly argument.

First, I own a vehicle and use it quite a bit, so I do pay all those fees and gas tax, etc. In fact, many people who bike a lot also use cars... But fuel tax is a very small part of the overall revenue, and it certainly does not pay for roads alone. Per this, the biggest contributor to the budget is sales tax, something I don't think you can claim is uniquely being paid by people who are driving. Secondary is business and occupation tax, another non-unique thing. Third is property tax, another thing I'm paying, as are many who bicycle. In fact, fuel and vehicle tax end up being a small slice of a small slice of the pie.

Since transportation costs make up 11.5% of the 75.5 billion dollar budget, that means 8.68 billion is spent on transportation. Assuming we had a balanced budget, and the entirety of "all other taxes/fees" were directly due to automobiles AND that all insurance premiums were due to automobiles that would mean that only 9% of the revenue came from vehicles. You're still looking at a 2.5% shortfall, even with those unsupportable assumptions about revenue. Now, certainly, a portion of that goes to public transit, but I'll get there in a minute...

... Before that, I'd like to point out you have bicyclists to thank for the fact we have nice roads. The Good Roads Movement was a bicyclist-led initiative to improve the quality of the roads to increase transportation, commerce, etc. It quite literally paved the way for the automobile revolution.

As for public transit, the cost of bike paths, etc, there are a few things you miss. First, due to the weight of a bike being so much lighter, the wear and tear they impart on the roads and the necessity for structural support is much lower. Moreover, bikes are narrower, and more people can ride in closer quarters, so much less space need be allocated to move the same number or more of people. Arguably, by getting more people onto bikes and out of vehicles, and shaping the roads and public transportation around that, the cost would go down without significantly affecting the revenue. Considering the cost of motor-vehicle capable roads are, in construction costs alone, $1 million per lane mile at minimum, it's hard to argue that more vehicle lanes are dollar for dollar the most effective use of revenue (comparatively, a 10 foot wide multiuse path can be approximated at well under 1/10th of the least expensive road). Consider, additionally, that multiuse paths generally do not require special traffic controls, and you see how much less expensive it is to have similar connectivity via increased multiuse paths.

You want to talk about big demands and no contribution, look at anyone driving a multiple thousand pound vehicle on the road to and from work... alone. Look at renters. Look at those who don't spend as much on things in state (pay less sales tax). However, if you're pointing fingers trying to implicate cyclists, you're should realize how far off the mark you really are.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
2. Bicycles belong on the road, BUT they MUST obey the traffic laws and rules just like other motorists. Most of the time I watch cyclists run red lights and stop sighs. I don't care if a cyclist wants to claim that a motorist hit them because they didn't see the bike but if the bike wasn't running a stop sign or payed attention themselves to not try and ride in front of a car turning, then maybe there would be fewer accidents.

Talk about inversion of right of way. When a vehicle is turning and another is going straight, do you expect the vehicle going straight to stop because of the person turning? Or do you expect the person turning to look for oncoming traffic before engaging in a turn? If a car doesn't want a bike taking up the entire right lane, that means they have decided to create another lane of traffic. On a right turn, that means they need to look out for other vehicles in that lane. You wouldn't turn right from the left lane and expect the vehicles in the right lane to stop for you, would you?

Geez, do you people even read what you write? Or are you in too much of a hurry getting your bike-hate-hardon going?
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
What a surprise. The Mayor, Mike McGinn is a bicyclist himself, and a colossal (what you called him) as well. Perhaps he rides in these Critical Mass rampages in disguise



LOL, in fairness though this conversation took place back in 2007 so McGinn wasn't the Mayor yet.


EDIT: Wasn't the Mayor caught by a news team getting out of a car a few blocks from city hall so he could then "bike to work"
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
You want to talk about big demands and no contribution, look at anyone driving a multiple thousand pound vehicle on the road to and from work... alone.
Theres a built in tax multiplier for these vehicles. Most average around 12-15 MPG so they buy far more gasoline than someone in a prius or the soon to be everywhere Volt/Leaf electrics. Every tank of 20 gallons amounts to about $10 in tax.
Look at renters.
You don't think renters pay tax? Property tax is collected in their rent. You don't think landlords just eat it, do you?
Look at those who don't spend as much on things in state (pay less sales tax).
Visitors to this state pay lots for the roads here in the gasoline they buy. You ought to go out and fill up a motorhome sometime. At some stations you'll have to run your card several times because each 1/4 tank could exceed the limits for a single purchase. That's another $30-40 in gas tax on a fill up that bike riders escape.

As it stands, bicyclists do not pay for the roadways they use. When they're riding, their cars (if they own one) are in the garage not generating any highway taxes. They still take up space so let's see them contribute something starting with a "vehicle" license so at least there would be some way of identifying those who can't play well with others on the highway. Maybe if this anonymity was stripped from them they'd change their antics.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
So your best justification is "car bigger, bike on sidewalk"?

Does that mean that people on motorcycles shouldn't be allowed on the road with trucks? How about mopeds or similar scooters? They are definitely vehicles, but are they not allowed on your roads because in a fit of irrational road rage you might run them over and murder them? If your best justification for why bicycles, which are vehicles, should stay on the sideWALK is because of the weight difference, why do you not make differentiations for other lower weight devices?


Yes, it is. Motorcycles are motorvehicles capable of keeping up with the flow of traffic. And as amlevin said, they pay the same taxes & fees as cars to SUPPORT those roads. And there you go accusing me of road rage again.

Y'know man I've tried to be civil with you, here & elsewhere, but I'm really sick of your know-it-all attitude. And here you've proven yourself to be just the epitome of the "my way IS the highway!" superior cyclist mentality we're decrying. You're a real smart guy, but unfortunately that gets entirely nullified when you behave like an all-knowing ass. Which I don't want to hear any more. So welcome to the ignore list.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Yes, it is. Motorcycles are motorvehicles capable of keeping up with the flow of traffic. And as amlevin said, they pay the same taxes & fees as cars to SUPPORT those roads. And there you go accusing me of road rage again.
Since we usually demand cites, and you seem to be trying to skirt it... A bicycle IS A VEHICLE:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.04.670

"Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles.

Moreover,
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61&full=true#46.61.755

(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in RCW 46.61.750 through 46.61.780 and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

Y'know man I've tried to be civil with you, here & elsewhere, but I'm really sick of your know-it-all attitude. And here you've proven yourself to be just the epitome of the "my way IS the highway!" superior cyclist mentality we're decrying.
Yeah, because I bring facts to the cyclist hate party. Go you guys, woo!

You're a real smart guy, but unfortunately that gets entirely nullified when you behave like an all-knowing ass. Which I don't want to hear any more. So welcome to the ignore list.
I don't need to be all-knowing to realize when I know more than you about a subject. The fact is, you started from a false premise, and acted like you own the road because you have a motor on the vehicle. You handily edited out questions about mopeds or other such vehicles, I guess because they just might show your logic to be faulty. If the only factor is weight, then why are we allowed to drive cars on the same roads as semis? Why are people on mopeds allowed to share the roads with cars? Your claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and it appears that your entire basis is cycle-hatred. Call me the epitome of whatever you want, but you started from a bad place and your logic went downhill from there. Beyond the other reasons previously stated, about 60 or so of the miles I did today had no sidewalks. Even if someone were to accept your premise, what should a bicycle do there, magically fly?
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Theres a built in tax multiplier for these vehicles. Most average around 12-15 MPG so they buy far more gasoline than someone in a prius or the soon to be everywhere Volt/Leaf electrics. Every tank of 20 gallons amounts to about $10 in tax. You don't think renters pay tax? Property tax is collected in their rent. You don't think landlords just eat it, do you? Visitors to this state pay lots for the roads here in the gasoline they buy. You ought to go out and fill up a motorhome sometime. At some stations you'll have to run your card several times because each 1/4 tank could exceed the limits for a single purchase. That's another $30-40 in gas tax on a fill up that bike riders escape.
I already demonstrated numerically, and I'll do so even further, to show that cars don't pay for themselves as you seem to want to think. According to this, motor fuel tax makes up 1.179 billion, rental cars make up .2277 billion, and hazardous substances, petroleum products and use tax (let's pretend 100% went to cars) make up .5087 billion. This totals to 1.915 billion dollars. I'll be generous and round up to 2 billion, because what's 85 million among forumgoers?

Per this, the 09-11 transportation budget allocates .054 billion for "ramp meters on I-5, reversible lane improvement on I-5 and I-90, and real-time traffic management", 1 billion for increasing road safety, .595 billion for I-90 snoqualmie pass improvements, a 3 billion dollar corridor program, and many, many other things I didn't list because it was just getting silly. Comparatively, improving bicycle and pedestrian traffic safety got a paltry .0193 billion.

There's just no way to make the numbers work out at current rates. The short of it is that we subsidize cars. You could arrive at that conclusion through any number of calculations, but the fact remains, apart from limited circumstances, our automobile infatuation does not net us greater benefits than cost.

As it stands, bicyclists do not pay for the roadways they use.
Again, that's false. Whether it's via the car that many bicyclists also own, or the spending of money on sales tax, or

The comparatively greater revenue stream from sales tax indicates that per mile, cyclists likely pay more than cars for the use of road, as they consume more retail products over the course of a ride. At 37.5 cents per gallon tax, and cars ranging from 7mpg to 55 mpg, that means a car produces a maximum of 5.35 cents per mile, and a minimum of .68 cents per mile. Compare that to a person on a bike. Over the course of 80 miles today (between $0.54 and $4.28 in tax for a vehicle), I consumed about 10-15 packs of energy gel, half a pizza, two beers, a cup of coffee, and a couple other snacks (was aiming for 4500 calories, but I think I fell a bit short based on when I bonked). At 10% retail sales tax, that's a minimum of $5 in tax revenue alone. Combine that with how little wear and tear a bicycle puts on the road, how much cheaper it is to construct a road that is capable of carrying bicycles/pedestrians/horses (but not cars), et cetera, and the math always comes out in favor of trying to get MORE cyclists on the road. That's even ignoring the externalities of cars, such as pollution, noise, congestion, and traffic fatalities. Think about how many cyclists fit in the space of a single car... Now think of how much that frees up congestion on the roads, requiring fewer lanes (less money spent) and providing all of the aforementioned monetary benefit.

No matter how I try to calculate it, bikes come out ahead. The only way I can make it go the other way is to assume bicycle riding requires the same amount of road space, produces the same road wear and tear, requires the same traffic controls, and that bike riders do nothing to contribute to state revenue. It just doesn't make sense, when you take the time to actually think about it.
 
Top