I suppose most Microsoft programmers are fundamentally honest, so they surely don't want to produce bad code. But they do, so they must possess a certain degree of incompetence. Do I trust incompetents to correct their own mistakes? If they could, they wouldn't have made them in the first place.
What cereal box did you get your CS degree from? Making a mistake does not make on incompetent. All complex systems have some flaws.
I'd take it to mean their paying to use the streets. But this is largely a matter of semantics, unless you have some relevant law on hand that says otherwise, this point is not ever resolvable. Other taxes besides gas taxes go towards streets (sales and state income taxes, mostly here, thanks to idiotic congressmen).
Well you take it wrong. Peds are't allowed to walk down the streets at all, and most peds also own cars too. Are you complaining about that? More to the point, your tax pay for military bases, and you're not allowed on those at all. The fact remains that the funds are used to build roads for cars, end of story.
To continue the argument though; you dislike cyclists, so therefore building infrastructure to keep them off roads would benefit you, since I doubt anyone would ever ban bicycles, or regulate them to the point of complete uselessness. Keeping this in mind, we have a simple equation, are bicycles on the streets/sidewalks a bigger nuisance than paying a marginal amount of extra taxes to remove the nuisance.
Or, we can simply ban them from streets, and not provide infrastructure. There really isn't any demand for it, after all. This benefits me the most; I don't have to pay taxes because yet another minority wants something and thinks everyone else should pay, and it eliminates the problems of bikes being on the road. There are plenty of other places to ride your bike that isn't a road or sidewalk.
I personally have noticed very few bicyclists breaking the law of late (no hard numbers). This, though, is colored by their relative scarcity here. Even when I lived in a town heavy with bikes, and with the infrastructure, I hardly noticed people breaking the law.
What does this mean? Not much. It might vary by region, or what existant infrastructure there is.
Noticing and recording hard counts are two different things. And I am in a place that is bike friendly and has plenty of bike lans / seperate bike paths.
If I can't ride on the street, where else would I be? If there is an existant bike route/trail this is a bad thing to do, if not it is the safest thing to do. Pick one or the other, since as stated, bikes are probably here to stay. Maybe they should, or shouldn't be, but that has nothing to do with reality.
On designated trails, in fields, parks. You act as if its a right to ride a bike to begin with.. it's not. They need to be off the roads, and off the sidewalks. if that means you can't bike in the city.. oh well. Move to the country then.
So, if your impromptu stats are true, go petition your local government, if other people noticed the same thing you could get something done. Nothing stopping you from this. When it comes to larger issues, your impromptu stats don't matter, since it might vary.
I would love for a more in depth study, but sadly our polititians want bike friendly to promote tourism. In other words, like many things involves autos, money trumps anything else.
It probably isn't as small as you think. Your forgetting the fact that every kid in America probably owns a bicycle. A lot of young adults own them. It probably tapers off with age, but there still is a large amount of people with them, even if they are not used as primary transportation. Judging from most cases like this, even if there was some big nasty federal law restricting their use, a lot of people will still ride them. Hell, I would.
So where are they? I see some around, sure. But I see way more cars, and way more people walking around. Where do you get this idea that "every kid probably owns a bike?" I seriously doubt that... lots of kids are around, I rarely see any on bikes. I want to point out that in my informal study, none of the bikers were kids.
I'm tired of dealing with LOTS of assholes, but annoyance is not grounds for legislation. If my every annoyance was law, most things would be banned. On a visceral level I'm sad this isn't true, but on a rational level I'm ve
Its simply the same game which is available for all systems, so it makes a useful way to compare the consoles.
The aninverasy wii version played just fine... and I imagine the code is the same for input because you play both with the same controls. So something else caused the game to not play as well, and I certainly noticed that latest versions' game world was significantly more complex than the aniversary one.
But please, feel free to point out another new game which is released on all systems so we can compare those.
so I don't see why Microsoft couldn't technically allow another browser to provide the rendering engine.
Probably because by allowing it, they are going to end up with more support calls when things don' work right. At least by including their own, they can be sure everything else on the OS works with it.
I'd say 95% of people who ride bikes past the age of 18, also own and drive cars. Its not either/or, so most bikers are paying for roads by taxes/fees.
They're paying to use thier CAR on the street, not their bikes.
Ah... here is the meat. Arguing about our opinions on financing things is rather boring, and meaningless.
Really? Discussion on how my tax money is spent is meaningliess? Sorry you find it boring, but I feel I pay enough as it is, and am working on ways to CUT what I pay, not increase it. Certainly not pay more for a minority of people.
You can't easy claim that all cyclists break these laws. A portion of them do, obviously (as do a portion of drivers completely ignore traffic laws), as to what that portion is, neither of us have any idea. Yes, you can say it is a large on, but that isn't a valid study, since your more likely to notice the idiots.
I actually have more of an idea, since I am doing my own informal study. As it stands now (I've been doing this about 8 months now), 92% of cyclists are breaking important laws; they're on sidewalks, not yielding, running red lights and stops signs. I simply tick down when I see a cyclist, and another tick in another column if they do something illegal. Most of it is running stop signs and red lights, if you're interested. If as many cars were running lights and stop signs as bikes, our roads would look like a demolition derby.
And people on Motorcycles are often guilty of many of these things, as well. But more dangerously, since they weave about within the main flow of traffic more.
Actually no, most motorcylists I've seen actually obey the law. I am nervous around them because they can be harder to see, and of course I wouldn't want to hit one for fear of injuring the rider, but for the most part they're doing what they're supposed to.
Besides, whether or not there are SOME cars or motocycles that break the rules is irrlevent; it's whether or not the majority do, and they do. The same can't be said of cyclists, hence my anti-cyclist sentiments.
Yes, and if there was proper infrastructure this wouldn't be a problem.
In the meantime, we shouldn't have cylists on the streets. Of course I'm skeptical about even building said infrastructure, again to benefit a very small minority.
I just don't see how someone can be so annoyed by something so mundane. I personally don't care one bit about what people choose to get around, though I'd prefer more people using bikes/feet/public transportation, where possible, but not enough to mandate it, or really have any sort of emotional response.
Because it affects me on pretty much every trip I make in my car, and I'm tired of dealing with these assholes.
Its a bike, they've been part of the public landscape longer than cars
This is 100% irrelevent. They have no place on roads designed for cars. Horses have been around longer than cars too, shall we start letting them down any road they want?
they aren't really an inconvenience
Clearly I disagree. As I said, I have to deal with this almost every time I drive... much less so in winter, but even then some morons feel the need to ride in the street (when they can't even keep from slipping).
Sure, I'd like my car commute to be easier, but in the end that is nothing but an egotistical statement, I'd also like my bike/foot/public transit commute to be easier. I'd like a lot of things, but none of them will, or should happen, since other people have the right to their preferences as well, so compromise happens.
No, no one has a right to ride thier bike on the road.. I thought we went over that already. Its not just a matter of preference, it's a matter of safety and cost. Bikes on the road costs everyone more by making everyone in a car or truck waste more gas as they slow traffic.
I don't even bicycle much, I was just stepping in because it was odd that someone was so adamant against them. I c
no, it's not lack of design creativity.. it's that the PS3 or xbox allow much more detailed, larger worlds, that the wii simply can't handle. I'm going to pick up the latest Tomb Raider on the PS3 to compre it to the Wii version, which was very disappointing. And I played the GC tomb raiders on the wii and had a great time.. i think the wii just couldn't handle the larger, more complex world the newest tomb raider is played in.
Ya, ok. Try playing the latest Tomb Raider on Wii, and then on PS3 or Xbox 360. The Wii very IS simplier, the controls are crappier (that is, it's slow to respond) and there are every things you can't do in the Wii version. Its pretty much a different game.
Wow, welcome to the land of ad hominem. Am I allowed to ride bikes there?
Ideally, not in the street. Elsewhere is fine.
That was in reply to funding proper bike paths, which you are adamantly against.
Fine. Then use the registration and licensing for riding bikes to fund their paths. As I said, most funding comes from gas taxes, so if you're not using your car you're not helping to fund the roads.
Notice the words "at some times", which is very different than "all the time".
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that for five minutes after 8PM made a difference in your argument.
Agreed. But why should I need license and registration for the ability to kill myself? The point is that cars can kill OTHERS when handled by morons.
You can still hurt others on a bike. My wife is a good example. Also, you selfishly think that a driver, even if its not their fault, wouldn't feel bad for killing someone, even if accidently. I don't want to run you over anymore than you want me to run you over.
How many people are killed or injured by people on bikes, as opposed to people in cars?
What, is google broken for you?
So, no bikes on the streets, or trails, leaving only the sidewalk...
Where did I say bike trails wouldn't allow bikers? I only complained about funding something for an activity a minority do.
Actually some people do. If enough people decided to pick houses by bicycle availability, it creates more localized growth. Obviously this isn't the only factor, but it helps.
Maybe in 2007 that was true... but now with mass unemployement, I think people are going to take whatever they can get. Your "localized growth" is nonsense. There are businesses on my way to work I stop at and use that I wouldn't if I had a shorter route to work. So you're just shifting growth from one part of the city to another, or from one town to another. Doesn't seem like growth at all... just shifting who shops where.
And bike lanes are a bad idea, why?
Well it'd be nice if they actually stayed in them, but they don't. It'd also be nice if they obeyed the stop sign on their path where it crosses an interstate on ramp (where the cars have no yield or stop signs)... but they don't. Oh, and then there's the problem where you need to make a right turn across the bike lane. No where else does a driver have to look completely behind him before making a turn. It creates a dangerous situtation, since you're basically making a right turn when you're not in the right most lane (because the rightmost lane is a bike lane). Of course, passing on the right is illegal.. but again I have yet to see a cyclist obey that law (or most of the others, for that matter).
How so? Riding a bike in no way adversely affects your productivity, unless you live 10 miles from work.
I live 30 miles from work, a twenty minute drive. Of course part of that is in the city, which is crowded, and a bike can easily add 10 more minutes to my drive, because they are slowing an entire lane of traffic. So I spend more time in my car than I need to, meaning I have less time to get other things done.
You must be the most popular guy on your block.
I have plenty of friends, thanks. Not that I'm here to please others.. I really don't care if I'm popular or not. But I guess some people just need to be accepted by everyone... although that sounds pretty lame to me.
Naw. I don't want to deal with the modern world any more than you want to deal with the past -- thanks.
Then I suggest you hop in your Delorian and depart.
I'm afraid I just don't understand what you're trying to say here with the text that I've bolded. In Ohio, for instance, one is required only to have liability insurance in order to operate a car on a public road, and this coverage will do nothing for the driver insured by it but limit their liability toward others. Why should bicyclists be required to go above and beyond that standard and insure themselves?
Because they are chosing to use the roads in a way that is much much more dangerous for them. The same reason that people who regularly sky dive or smoke pay more in life insurance premiums. Addintionaly, they are the ones most likely to be hurt in an accident with a car than the driver of a car. Why should I pay more for insurance because you chose to do something dangerous?
Well, then, move someplace else where folks are more hostile toward bikes, and perhaps you'll see a different attitude emerge.
Unfortunately people like you tend to demonize drivers, and this attitude is spreading.
I was issued a ticket for "failure to yield," with the little "resulting in an accident" checkbox ticked, while I was in the hospital getting fixed up after being hit by a truck on my bike.
Good. Oh, and I don't find that to be "more hostile towards bikes," I find that perfectly reasonable. YOU didn't follow the rules, you should be punished, even if you ended up hurting yourself.
It went about how you describe, except it was more like 4,600 pounds than 2,000 pounds. I was twelve at the time. I should've been paying more attention, and it certainly wasn't the driver's fault (who was not cited for anything), and nobody was demonized (though I did get to go to juvenile court over the incident). A few months after that, a friend of mine was killed on his bike, and nobody was demonized -- he should've been paying more attention, too.
Sounds about right to me... unfortunately as you said this is when you were tweleve. Assuming you're in your 30s now, times have drastically changed. Roads are littered with signs saying "slow down!" while mothers yell at you to slow down... even though you're doing the speed limit. So while things used to be reasonable, this is 2009, and I suggest you lookup what's going on now, and perhaps you'll understand my anger.
I am sorry you lost your friend, but times have drastically changed. Do you really think the attitude I'm describing isn't everywhere? Stories abound about kids yelling at college teachers that dare fail them, parents never saying it's their kids fault, etc. Seriously... look around you, the times you grew up in are no more. Its now "society is responsible to ensure my kids saftey, not me or my kid."
Yes, fixing the problem prevents it from coming back again. Now, consider that we don't know how much time it will take to track down the problem, and that even if we do track it down, how much time will it take to fix it... to me a reboot three times a year is the better way to go. I can even be done as the user is walking out the door for the night, so it's ready the next day.
What about when it's dark and you're not driving the car ? You need reflectors on the back to stop other vehicles driving into them. It's even law !
There are none required, because the car that IS moving has its lights on. The reflection is how the lens is designed.. its meant for the bulb in the car which is not running, but it works both ways if you shine light into it.
That's why you're supposed to park facing the direction of travel (the correct side of the road).
No, that law is so that you're merging with the flow of traffic, not pulling out head on. It has nothing to do with visiblity. Oh, and in VT, that's not even the law... your car can park along the side of the road and face either direction. So your "law" isn't even a law everywhere.
I agree that cyclists should be held more responsible for their conduct on the road, but the rest of your post is pure shite.
Sorry, just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong.
The costs of roads are covered by taxes from gasoline and otherwise (income, gst, etc), meaning the roads that you drive on are subsidized by non-drivers as well.
Non-drivers don't contribute much to roads in the US. Gasoline tax pays a large share, and private companies (they must pay for their impact on the area) pay much of what's left. Also, non-drivers benefit from roads; shipping companies get food, electronics, mail and all sorts of physical items into stores close by. Fire and police can reach your house. You cannot argue that everyone isn't benefiting from public roads (built for cars and trucks), so it's one of the few public works projects I support.
However leaving the cost of roads aside, people that cycle are leaving their cars at home, reducing traffic congestion not using fossil fuels and reducing emissions
No, they increase it. Riding in the road, they are slowing EVERYONE down, meaning it takes longer to get through lights, people are going slower. That increases congestion and pollution, not reduce it.
getting healthy reducing the strain on the health system
No, already healthy people are choosing to find a new way to be healthy. No fat people are hopping on bikes. And you can't exercise your way out of a shitty diet.
reducing the need for parking in metropolitan areas
Nope.. there's always someone else willing to take the spot.
only cost of this to you is the 30 seconds at the most that you'd have to slow down for before you could drive around a cyclist before speeding up again
You assume they're only in the way a small amount of the time. I've had bikes slow down two lanes of traffic for two miles.... there was no shoulder for the bike to move off of, so he was in the lane, and there's another lane of traffic in the smae direction to the left... so you're stuck. Oh, and slowing down and speeding up uses more gas... so every car that needs to do that its polluting more than they would have had the bike not been on the road.
What is it that really bothers you?
Well, in addition to the above problems with your logic, I also hate cyclists atittude that they can do whatever they like, and they are always right. They can break laws at will, and when they get too close to ME they give ME the dirty look.
So... Let me see if I got this straight, bikes shouldn't be allowed on roads. Bikes shouldn't have trails unless bike people pay for them (since no one with a car would EVER buy a bike, and no one would ever use them for any other purpose, I suppose), but people with bikes should have to hemorrhage money for them like people with cars do.
No, if they're not on the roads, I don't care if they have insurance, regs, etc. But they currently are, so they should have the same requirements to be on the road as cars. I fail to see what your point about owning both a car and a bike is supposed to be; if I own two cars, I have to insure both, register both, and if someone else is driving my second card, they need to be licensed as well.
You'd hate a lot of smaller college towns. In Flagstaff, at times, bikes can outnumber cars on the roads. Bikes have turning lanes just for them, and you can get nasty tickets for ignoring general traffic laws while riding them. Actually, I've known people getting tickets or warnings for riding them on sidewalks when there was a perfectly good road lane for them. Would have been hell for you, I suppose. Flagstaff also had an AWESOME system of urban trails and bike paths, and easy access to a bike trail that bisects the state vertically (if your really hardcore).
I seriously doubt bikes every out number cars. Suprise, I AM in a small college town (but most cyclists are adults here, so I fail to see any direct link between college and biking).. and bikes NEVER outnumber cars. AS far as ticketing goes, if they WERE ticketed as much as drivers were, I suspect we'd have higher compliance with the bike laws. As it is, they literally do whatever they want... even in front of cops.
Cars require licensing, and registration because idiots can kill people when they use them. Cars are heavy fast moving complex machines, bikes are small slowish moving simple machines. If I hit you on my Schwin, I might hurt you slightly, even at full speed. If I hit you going at a moderate speed with a car, your dead. If you don't see the difference, then I really don't think you deserve the privilege of driving on my streets.
Idiots on bikes can get themselve killed by stupid riding habits. Really here, why someone chooses to ride a bike in around all these heavy machines is beyond me. Its not safe.
If I hit you on my Schwin, I might hurt you slightly, even at full speed.
Nope, you can cause serious injury. Oddly, some jackass kids on bikes were riding on the sidewalk, aimed at my wife, and in her jumping out of the way broke her ankle and is now in crutches. There wasn't even a collision. So please, spar me your "bikes can't hurt anyone" garbage. As for bikes being on the road... hey, its your life. I won't stop you from rockclimbing or skydiving either.
I have nothing against you gas dollars subsidizing my riding a bike. I'm doing you a favor.
No,you're not.
Bikes combat against urban sprawl
Nope. People ride bikes because they happen to live close to where they work... but planning it that way? Sorry, it doesn't work out like that.
pollution, middle eastern oil dependency
Fail again here, sorry. Your stupid ass going 10mph on a bike while holding up a line of cars behind you ISN'T lowering pollution. Most of the fuel being burned by those cars is being wasted... because of you.
obesity
Please. Fat people aren't hopping on bikes. Already active and fit people choose to bike, not the other way around.
If more people rode them, the world would be a better place.
Typical cyclist snobbery. Nothing would change, except we'd be less productive than before.
I agree with a lot of European cities, cars should be banned from the city center (or have to pay a huge fee).
Ahh, so you agree that government should do whatevet it wants in stealing even more money from its citizens. Guess what? If a majority DID start biking, you'd hav
First, there were people. They walked with their feet. The common routes were cut or trampled into paths. Later, the paths were paved. And a long time later, we got bicycles. And sometime after that, we got cars.
I skipped a few steps in the evolution of the road, obviously, preferring to stick to the high points and just to show that bikes and pedestrians were here first (for various definitions of "here"), before Henry Ford changed everything.
Yes, what came first however is now irrelevent. The roads are built with cars in mind. Sidewalks are for people. I really don't care that the first roads in human history people walked upon... we're in the modern world now, deal with it.
Regarding insurance and taxation: Bikes don't weigh 3,800 pounds, and aren't generally moving very fast. There's just not very much damage one can do with one. And they aren't as destructive on the pavement as cars are, again because of their reduced weight. (And not every state requires insurance for cars, anyway.)
Basic car insurance is for MEDICAL purposes, not property damage. It's so that if you hit someone with your car, THIER medical bills are paid if they are hurt. Insurance for bikers should cover their own medical bills; they are CHOOSING to take a huge risk in roads not built for them. As for "not every state requires insurance" nonsense, only two don't, but in those you must prove finanical responsiblity if you don't.
As far as damage goes, it's irrelevent. The tax is what pays for the maintence, I fail to see why cyclists should get a free ride, especially with the additional hazards their presense causes.
And, er, uh: I do generally have a right to use the roads with my bicycle, on the basis that the right to do so has not yet been taken away. No, it's not a Constitutionally-protected right; it's not inalienable and it can be taken away. But the simple fact that it generally hasn't been stripped means that it's still my right to ride my bike on the street wherever it's legal to do so. (Which isn't quite everywhere; it is illegal to ride a bike on an Interstate Highway, for instance, and therefore I have no right to do it.)
Rights are not laws, and laws are not rights. Rights by definition cannot be taken away without due process of law, and as you state, your privledge to use the road with a bike can be revoked at any time, and for no reason. Therefore it's not a right.
And, if I'm riding my bike in traffic, it is my responsibility to use proper hand signals to communicate my intentions with others using the roadway, follow traffic signals, and use lanes properly.
Yup, and here cyclists fail miserably. And yet there's no way to report them for violations, nor are they ever seemingly held to the same standards as drivers.
I do understand that it seems that nobody ever gets cited for a traffic offense on a bicycle, and I believe that this is probably unfair. But I have been cited for a traffic offense while riding a bicycle, so plainly it's possible.
Probably unfair? Given what I see peds and cyclists do here, they are never ticketed. If an accident involves a ped or cyclist, the driver is instantly demonized for not being able to stop 2000 lbs of metal and plastic in half a second because the ped or cyclists blasts right out in front without even looking. And that's the norm here.
So forgive me if I seem exteremly hostile to cyclists; I'm tired of a double standard and their snotty attitude.
I realize this may not be convenient for you, but they aren't "motorways". With the exception of highways cyclists have as much right to use them as motorists.
I realize you're not in touch with reality, but they ARE motor ways. They are designed for cars, maintained largely by tax on gasoline, and whatever idiot convienced our idiot leaders that letting bikes on the road is a good idea should be hung.
You actually DON'T have a right to use them. The roads are built for the common mode for transportatin of the day; a while back, it was horse and carrage. Now it's cars. You're free to use the road in some kind of motor vechicle... not in whatever you choose.
Cyclists should indeed be using reflectors and lights (as should the cars).
Cars don't need reflectors; either it's light outside, or they have LIGHTS which everyone can see from any angle around the vehicle.
That said, I'll be happy to take my bike off the streets as soon as there are sufficient bike paths to get me where I'm going. Of course, the same anti-cyclist interests that want us off the streets, also keep blocking initiatives to get those trails built. Funny that.
I have no problem with bike trails, provided I don't have to pay for them. They benefit a small minority that thinks they should be able to take public tax money to fund a project only they have an interest in. If you like, fund bike trails yourself, I won't object.
While we are on the subject, how about bikes kick in more. If I need a license, insurance, a plate, and registration to drive my car on the road, I fail to see why cyclists shouldn't face the same requirements as well. After all, FAR more cyclists run right lights, turn without signaling, pass on the right, and hop onto sidewalks whenever convient.. and such requirements would force bikers to comply. In my own driving around, I've recorded cyclists breaking the rules.. the rate is that about 90% of those i've encountered have done one of the things I mentioned. If 90% of drivers drove that way, the streets would be nothing but a demolision derby.
Um, you know people can post to twitter via their cell phone, right? So yes, they really can do those things, because all you need to do is send a text message to twitter.
It all depends on who you follow. Maybe Bree Olson would be more interesting to you.
As for not listening, I'm not sure that's true. I use facebook mainly as a photo album for family and friends, but while I usually don't reply to their status updates, I check them out to see what they're up to. Sometimes I reply, and sometimes they reply to me, but no replies doesn't mean no one is reading.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose most Microsoft programmers are fundamentally honest, so they surely don't want to produce bad code. But they do, so they must possess a certain degree of incompetence. Do I trust incompetents to correct their own mistakes? If they could, they wouldn't have made them in the first place.
What cereal box did you get your CS degree from? Making a mistake does not make on incompetent. All complex systems have some flaws.
I'd take it to mean their paying to use the streets. But this is largely a matter of semantics, unless you have some relevant law on hand that says otherwise, this point is not ever resolvable. Other taxes besides gas taxes go towards streets (sales and state income taxes, mostly here, thanks to idiotic congressmen).
Well you take it wrong. Peds are't allowed to walk down the streets at all, and most peds also own cars too. Are you complaining about that? More to the point, your tax pay for military bases, and you're not allowed on those at all. The fact remains that the funds are used to build roads for cars, end of story.
To continue the argument though; you dislike cyclists, so therefore building infrastructure to keep them off roads would benefit you, since I doubt anyone would ever ban bicycles, or regulate them to the point of complete uselessness. Keeping this in mind, we have a simple equation, are bicycles on the streets/sidewalks a bigger nuisance than paying a marginal amount of extra taxes to remove the nuisance.
Or, we can simply ban them from streets, and not provide infrastructure. There really isn't any demand for it, after all. This benefits me the most; I don't have to pay taxes because yet another minority wants something and thinks everyone else should pay, and it eliminates the problems of bikes being on the road. There are plenty of other places to ride your bike that isn't a road or sidewalk.
I personally have noticed very few bicyclists breaking the law of late (no hard numbers). This, though, is colored by their relative scarcity here. Even when I lived in a town heavy with bikes, and with the infrastructure, I hardly noticed people breaking the law.
What does this mean? Not much. It might vary by region, or what existant infrastructure there is.
Noticing and recording hard counts are two different things. And I am in a place that is bike friendly and has plenty of bike lans / seperate bike paths.
If I can't ride on the street, where else would I be? If there is an existant bike route/trail this is a bad thing to do, if not it is the safest thing to do. Pick one or the other, since as stated, bikes are probably here to stay. Maybe they should, or shouldn't be, but that has nothing to do with reality.
On designated trails, in fields, parks. You act as if its a right to ride a bike to begin with.. it's not. They need to be off the roads, and off the sidewalks. if that means you can't bike in the city.. oh well. Move to the country then.
So, if your impromptu stats are true, go petition your local government, if other people noticed the same thing you could get something done. Nothing stopping you from this. When it comes to larger issues, your impromptu stats don't matter, since it might vary.
I would love for a more in depth study, but sadly our polititians want bike friendly to promote tourism. In other words, like many things involves autos, money trumps anything else.
It probably isn't as small as you think. Your forgetting the fact that every kid in America probably owns a bicycle. A lot of young adults own them. It probably tapers off with age, but there still is a large amount of people with them, even if they are not used as primary transportation. Judging from most cases like this, even if there was some big nasty federal law restricting their use, a lot of people will still ride them. Hell, I would.
So where are they? I see some around, sure. But I see way more cars, and way more people walking around. Where do you get this idea that "every kid probably owns a bike?" I seriously doubt that... lots of kids are around, I rarely see any on bikes. I want to point out that in my informal study, none of the bikers were kids.
I'm tired of dealing with LOTS of assholes, but annoyance is not grounds for legislation. If my every annoyance was law, most things would be banned. On a visceral level I'm sad this isn't true, but on a rational level I'm ve
Its simply the same game which is available for all systems, so it makes a useful way to compare the consoles.
The aninverasy wii version played just fine... and I imagine the code is the same for input because you play both with the same controls. So something else caused the game to not play as well, and I certainly noticed that latest versions' game world was significantly more complex than the aniversary one.
But please, feel free to point out another new game which is released on all systems so we can compare those.
so I don't see why Microsoft couldn't technically allow another browser to provide the rendering engine.
Probably because by allowing it, they are going to end up with more support calls when things don' work right. At least by including their own, they can be sure everything else on the OS works with it.
I'd say 95% of people who ride bikes past the age of 18, also own and drive cars. Its not either/or, so most bikers are paying for roads by taxes/fees.
They're paying to use thier CAR on the street, not their bikes.
Ah... here is the meat. Arguing about our opinions on financing things is rather boring, and meaningless.
Really? Discussion on how my tax money is spent is meaningliess? Sorry you find it boring, but I feel I pay enough as it is, and am working on ways to CUT what I pay, not increase it. Certainly not pay more for a minority of people.
You can't easy claim that all cyclists break these laws. A portion of them do, obviously (as do a portion of drivers completely ignore traffic laws), as to what that portion is, neither of us have any idea. Yes, you can say it is a large on, but that isn't a valid study, since your more likely to notice the idiots.
I actually have more of an idea, since I am doing my own informal study. As it stands now (I've been doing this about 8 months now), 92% of cyclists are breaking important laws; they're on sidewalks, not yielding, running red lights and stops signs. I simply tick down when I see a cyclist, and another tick in another column if they do something illegal. Most of it is running stop signs and red lights, if you're interested. If as many cars were running lights and stop signs as bikes, our roads would look like a demolition derby.
And people on Motorcycles are often guilty of many of these things, as well. But more dangerously, since they weave about within the main flow of traffic more.
Actually no, most motorcylists I've seen actually obey the law. I am nervous around them because they can be harder to see, and of course I wouldn't want to hit one for fear of injuring the rider, but for the most part they're doing what they're supposed to.
Besides, whether or not there are SOME cars or motocycles that break the rules is irrlevent; it's whether or not the majority do, and they do. The same can't be said of cyclists, hence my anti-cyclist sentiments.
Yes, and if there was proper infrastructure this wouldn't be a problem.
In the meantime, we shouldn't have cylists on the streets. Of course I'm skeptical about even building said infrastructure, again to benefit a very small minority.
I just don't see how someone can be so annoyed by something so mundane. I personally don't care one bit about what people choose to get around, though I'd prefer more people using bikes/feet/public transportation, where possible, but not enough to mandate it, or really have any sort of emotional response.
Because it affects me on pretty much every trip I make in my car, and I'm tired of dealing with these assholes.
Its a bike, they've been part of the public landscape longer than cars
This is 100% irrelevent. They have no place on roads designed for cars. Horses have been around longer than cars too, shall we start letting them down any road they want?
they aren't really an inconvenience
Clearly I disagree. As I said, I have to deal with this almost every time I drive... much less so in winter, but even then some morons feel the need to ride in the street (when they can't even keep from slipping).
Sure, I'd like my car commute to be easier, but in the end that is nothing but an egotistical statement, I'd also like my bike/foot/public transit commute to be easier. I'd like a lot of things, but none of them will, or should happen, since other people have the right to their preferences as well, so compromise happens.
No, no one has a right to ride thier bike on the road.. I thought we went over that already. Its not just a matter of preference, it's a matter of safety and cost. Bikes on the road costs everyone more by making everyone in a car or truck waste more gas as they slow traffic.
I don't even bicycle much, I was just stepping in because it was odd that someone was so adamant against them. I c
no, it's not lack of design creativity.. it's that the PS3 or xbox allow much more detailed, larger worlds, that the wii simply can't handle. I'm going to pick up the latest Tomb Raider on the PS3 to compre it to the Wii version, which was very disappointing. And I played the GC tomb raiders on the wii and had a great time.. i think the wii just couldn't handle the larger, more complex world the newest tomb raider is played in.
Ya, ok. Try playing the latest Tomb Raider on Wii, and then on PS3 or Xbox 360. The Wii very IS simplier, the controls are crappier (that is, it's slow to respond) and there are every things you can't do in the Wii version. Its pretty much a different game.
I don't think the Wii could handle Doom 3.
Perhaps OSS doesn't have a good solution? While everyone bitches about Windows indexing, I'm not even sure I know the equivolent in the Linux world.
And whats wrong with paying money for a solution that works and can be implemented very quickly?
Humans are motivated only through self interest. Why is it suprising this solution is proposed, when it has a good chance of working?
Wow, welcome to the land of ad hominem. Am I allowed to ride bikes there?
Ideally, not in the street. Elsewhere is fine.
That was in reply to funding proper bike paths, which you are adamantly against.
Fine. Then use the registration and licensing for riding bikes to fund their paths. As I said, most funding comes from gas taxes, so if you're not using your car you're not helping to fund the roads.
Notice the words "at some times", which is very different than "all the time".
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that for five minutes after 8PM made a difference in your argument.
Agreed. But why should I need license and registration for the ability to kill myself? The point is that cars can kill OTHERS when handled by morons.
You can still hurt others on a bike. My wife is a good example. Also, you selfishly think that a driver, even if its not their fault, wouldn't feel bad for killing someone, even if accidently. I don't want to run you over anymore than you want me to run you over.
How many people are killed or injured by people on bikes, as opposed to people in cars?
What, is google broken for you?
So, no bikes on the streets, or trails, leaving only the sidewalk...
Where did I say bike trails wouldn't allow bikers? I only complained about funding something for an activity a minority do.
Actually some people do. If enough people decided to pick houses by bicycle availability, it creates more localized growth. Obviously this isn't the only factor, but it helps.
Maybe in 2007 that was true... but now with mass unemployement, I think people are going to take whatever they can get. Your "localized growth" is nonsense. There are businesses on my way to work I stop at and use that I wouldn't if I had a shorter route to work. So you're just shifting growth from one part of the city to another, or from one town to another. Doesn't seem like growth at all... just shifting who shops where.
And bike lanes are a bad idea, why?
Well it'd be nice if they actually stayed in them, but they don't. It'd also be nice if they obeyed the stop sign on their path where it crosses an interstate on ramp (where the cars have no yield or stop signs)... but they don't. Oh, and then there's the problem where you need to make a right turn across the bike lane. No where else does a driver have to look completely behind him before making a turn. It creates a dangerous situtation, since you're basically making a right turn when you're not in the right most lane (because the rightmost lane is a bike lane). Of course, passing on the right is illegal.. but again I have yet to see a cyclist obey that law (or most of the others, for that matter).
How so? Riding a bike in no way adversely affects your productivity, unless you live 10 miles from work.
I live 30 miles from work, a twenty minute drive. Of course part of that is in the city, which is crowded, and a bike can easily add 10 more minutes to my drive, because they are slowing an entire lane of traffic. So I spend more time in my car than I need to, meaning I have less time to get other things done.
You must be the most popular guy on your block.
I have plenty of friends, thanks. Not that I'm here to please others.. I really don't care if I'm popular or not. But I guess some people just need to be accepted by everyone... although that sounds pretty lame to me.
Naw. I don't want to deal with the modern world any more than you want to deal with the past -- thanks.
Then I suggest you hop in your Delorian and depart.
I'm afraid I just don't understand what you're trying to say here with the text that I've bolded. In Ohio, for instance, one is required only to have liability insurance in order to operate a car on a public road, and this coverage will do nothing for the driver insured by it but limit their liability toward others. Why should bicyclists be required to go above and beyond that standard and insure themselves?
Because they are chosing to use the roads in a way that is much much more dangerous for them. The same reason that people who regularly sky dive or smoke pay more in life insurance premiums. Addintionaly, they are the ones most likely to be hurt in an accident with a car than the driver of a car. Why should I pay more for insurance because you chose to do something dangerous?
Well, then, move someplace else where folks are more hostile toward bikes, and perhaps you'll see a different attitude emerge.
Unfortunately people like you tend to demonize drivers, and this attitude is spreading.
I was issued a ticket for "failure to yield," with the little "resulting in an accident" checkbox ticked, while I was in the hospital getting fixed up after being hit by a truck on my bike.
Good. Oh, and I don't find that to be "more hostile towards bikes," I find that perfectly reasonable. YOU didn't follow the rules, you should be punished, even if you ended up hurting yourself.
It went about how you describe, except it was more like 4,600 pounds than 2,000 pounds. I was twelve at the time. I should've been paying more attention, and it certainly wasn't the driver's fault (who was not cited for anything), and nobody was demonized (though I did get to go to juvenile court over the incident). A few months after that, a friend of mine was killed on his bike, and nobody was demonized -- he should've been paying more attention, too.
Sounds about right to me... unfortunately as you said this is when you were tweleve. Assuming you're in your 30s now, times have drastically changed. Roads are littered with signs saying "slow down!" while mothers yell at you to slow down... even though you're doing the speed limit. So while things used to be reasonable, this is 2009, and I suggest you lookup what's going on now, and perhaps you'll understand my anger.
I am sorry you lost your friend, but times have drastically changed. Do you really think the attitude I'm describing isn't everywhere? Stories abound about kids yelling at college teachers that dare fail them, parents never saying it's their kids fault, etc. Seriously... look around you, the times you grew up in are no more. Its now "society is responsible to ensure my kids saftey, not me or my kid."
Yes, I've used just over 100, but that was over a five year period.
Yes, fixing the problem prevents it from coming back again. Now, consider that we don't know how much time it will take to track down the problem, and that even if we do track it down, how much time will it take to fix it... to me a reboot three times a year is the better way to go. I can even be done as the user is walking out the door for the night, so it's ready the next day.
As someone else pointed out technology makes people feel stupid
I think the heart of the matter is that most people ARE stupid, and don't like to come to that realization.
They have released patches out of band before for high risk exploits.
What about when it's dark and you're not driving the car ? You need reflectors on the back to stop other vehicles driving into them. It's even law !
There are none required, because the car that IS moving has its lights on. The reflection is how the lens is designed.. its meant for the bulb in the car which is not running, but it works both ways if you shine light into it.
That's why you're supposed to park facing the direction of travel (the correct side of the road).
No, that law is so that you're merging with the flow of traffic, not pulling out head on. It has nothing to do with visiblity. Oh, and in VT, that's not even the law... your car can park along the side of the road and face either direction. So your "law" isn't even a law everywhere.
I agree that cyclists should be held more responsible for their conduct on the road, but the rest of your post is pure shite.
Sorry, just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong.
The costs of roads are covered by taxes from gasoline and otherwise (income, gst, etc), meaning the roads that you drive on are subsidized by non-drivers as well.
Non-drivers don't contribute much to roads in the US. Gasoline tax pays a large share, and private companies (they must pay for their impact on the area) pay much of what's left. Also, non-drivers benefit from roads; shipping companies get food, electronics, mail and all sorts of physical items into stores close by. Fire and police can reach your house. You cannot argue that everyone isn't benefiting from public roads (built for cars and trucks), so it's one of the few public works projects I support.
However leaving the cost of roads aside, people that cycle are leaving their cars at home, reducing traffic congestion not using fossil fuels and reducing emissions
No, they increase it. Riding in the road, they are slowing EVERYONE down, meaning it takes longer to get through lights, people are going slower. That increases congestion and pollution, not reduce it.
getting healthy reducing the strain on the health system
No, already healthy people are choosing to find a new way to be healthy. No fat people are hopping on bikes. And you can't exercise your way out of a shitty diet.
reducing the need for parking in metropolitan areas
Nope.. there's always someone else willing to take the spot.
only cost of this to you is the 30 seconds at the most that you'd have to slow down for before you could drive around a cyclist before speeding up again
You assume they're only in the way a small amount of the time. I've had bikes slow down two lanes of traffic for two miles.... there was no shoulder for the bike to move off of, so he was in the lane, and there's another lane of traffic in the smae direction to the left... so you're stuck. Oh, and slowing down and speeding up uses more gas... so every car that needs to do that its polluting more than they would have had the bike not been on the road.
What is it that really bothers you?
Well, in addition to the above problems with your logic, I also hate cyclists atittude that they can do whatever they like, and they are always right. They can break laws at will, and when they get too close to ME they give ME the dirty look.
So... Let me see if I got this straight, bikes shouldn't be allowed on roads. Bikes shouldn't have trails unless bike people pay for them (since no one with a car would EVER buy a bike, and no one would ever use them for any other purpose, I suppose), but people with bikes should have to hemorrhage money for them like people with cars do.
No, if they're not on the roads, I don't care if they have insurance, regs, etc. But they currently are, so they should have the same requirements to be on the road as cars. I fail to see what your point about owning both a car and a bike is supposed to be; if I own two cars, I have to insure both, register both, and if someone else is driving my second card, they need to be licensed as well.
You'd hate a lot of smaller college towns. In Flagstaff, at times, bikes can outnumber cars on the roads. Bikes have turning lanes just for them, and you can get nasty tickets for ignoring general traffic laws while riding them. Actually, I've known people getting tickets or warnings for riding them on sidewalks when there was a perfectly good road lane for them. Would have been hell for you, I suppose. Flagstaff also had an AWESOME system of urban trails and bike paths, and easy access to a bike trail that bisects the state vertically (if your really hardcore).
I seriously doubt bikes every out number cars. Suprise, I AM in a small college town (but most cyclists are adults here, so I fail to see any direct link between college and biking).. and bikes NEVER outnumber cars. AS far as ticketing goes, if they WERE ticketed as much as drivers were, I suspect we'd have higher compliance with the bike laws. As it is, they literally do whatever they want... even in front of cops.
Cars require licensing, and registration because idiots can kill people when they use them. Cars are heavy fast moving complex machines, bikes are small slowish moving simple machines. If I hit you on my Schwin, I might hurt you slightly, even at full speed. If I hit you going at a moderate speed with a car, your dead. If you don't see the difference, then I really don't think you deserve the privilege of driving on my streets.
Idiots on bikes can get themselve killed by stupid riding habits. Really here, why someone chooses to ride a bike in around all these heavy machines is beyond me. Its not safe.
If I hit you on my Schwin, I might hurt you slightly, even at full speed.
Nope, you can cause serious injury. Oddly, some jackass kids on bikes were riding on the sidewalk, aimed at my wife, and in her jumping out of the way broke her ankle and is now in crutches. There wasn't even a collision. So please, spar me your "bikes can't hurt anyone" garbage. As for bikes being on the road... hey, its your life. I won't stop you from rockclimbing or skydiving either.
I have nothing against you gas dollars subsidizing my riding a bike. I'm doing you a favor.
No,you're not.
Bikes combat against urban sprawl
Nope. People ride bikes because they happen to live close to where they work... but planning it that way? Sorry, it doesn't work out like that.
pollution, middle eastern oil dependency
Fail again here, sorry. Your stupid ass going 10mph on a bike while holding up a line of cars behind you ISN'T lowering pollution. Most of the fuel being burned by those cars is being wasted... because of you.
obesity
Please. Fat people aren't hopping on bikes. Already active and fit people choose to bike, not the other way around.
If more people rode them, the world would be a better place.
Typical cyclist snobbery. Nothing would change, except we'd be less productive than before.
I agree with a lot of European cities, cars should be banned from the city center (or have to pay a huge fee).
Ahh, so you agree that government should do whatevet it wants in stealing even more money from its citizens. Guess what? If a majority DID start biking, you'd hav
First, there were people. They walked with their feet. The common routes were cut or trampled into paths. Later, the paths were paved. And a long time later, we got bicycles. And sometime after that, we got cars.
I skipped a few steps in the evolution of the road, obviously, preferring to stick to the high points and just to show that bikes and pedestrians were here first (for various definitions of "here"), before Henry Ford changed everything.
Yes, what came first however is now irrelevent. The roads are built with cars in mind. Sidewalks are for people. I really don't care that the first roads in human history people walked upon... we're in the modern world now, deal with it.
Regarding insurance and taxation: Bikes don't weigh 3,800 pounds, and aren't generally moving very fast. There's just not very much damage one can do with one. And they aren't as destructive on the pavement as cars are, again because of their reduced weight. (And not every state requires insurance for cars, anyway.)
Basic car insurance is for MEDICAL purposes, not property damage. It's so that if you hit someone with your car, THIER medical bills are paid if they are hurt. Insurance for bikers should cover their own medical bills; they are CHOOSING to take a huge risk in roads not built for them. As for "not every state requires insurance" nonsense, only two don't, but in those you must prove finanical responsiblity if you don't.
As far as damage goes, it's irrelevent. The tax is what pays for the maintence, I fail to see why cyclists should get a free ride, especially with the additional hazards their presense causes.
And, er, uh: I do generally have a right to use the roads with my bicycle, on the basis that the right to do so has not yet been taken away. No, it's not a Constitutionally-protected right; it's not inalienable and it can be taken away. But the simple fact that it generally hasn't been stripped means that it's still my right to ride my bike on the street wherever it's legal to do so. (Which isn't quite everywhere; it is illegal to ride a bike on an Interstate Highway, for instance, and therefore I have no right to do it.)
Rights are not laws, and laws are not rights. Rights by definition cannot be taken away without due process of law, and as you state, your privledge to use the road with a bike can be revoked at any time, and for no reason. Therefore it's not a right.
And, if I'm riding my bike in traffic, it is my responsibility to use proper hand signals to communicate my intentions with others using the roadway, follow traffic signals, and use lanes properly.
Yup, and here cyclists fail miserably. And yet there's no way to report them for violations, nor are they ever seemingly held to the same standards as drivers.
I do understand that it seems that nobody ever gets cited for a traffic offense on a bicycle, and I believe that this is probably unfair. But I have been cited for a traffic offense while riding a bicycle, so plainly it's possible.
Probably unfair? Given what I see peds and cyclists do here, they are never ticketed. If an accident involves a ped or cyclist, the driver is instantly demonized for not being able to stop 2000 lbs of metal and plastic in half a second because the ped or cyclists blasts right out in front without even looking. And that's the norm here.
So forgive me if I seem exteremly hostile to cyclists; I'm tired of a double standard and their snotty attitude.
So what? Times have changed. Whatever you call it, they are now designed for cars / trucks, NOT pedistrians. Sidewalks are for pedistrians.
I realize this may not be convenient for you, but they aren't "motorways". With the exception of highways cyclists have as much right to use them as motorists.
I realize you're not in touch with reality, but they ARE motor ways. They are designed for cars, maintained largely by tax on gasoline, and whatever idiot convienced our idiot leaders that letting bikes on the road is a good idea should be hung.
You actually DON'T have a right to use them. The roads are built for the common mode for transportatin of the day; a while back, it was horse and carrage. Now it's cars. You're free to use the road in some kind of motor vechicle... not in whatever you choose.
Cyclists should indeed be using reflectors and lights (as should the cars).
Cars don't need reflectors; either it's light outside, or they have LIGHTS which everyone can see from any angle around the vehicle.
That said, I'll be happy to take my bike off the streets as soon as there are sufficient bike paths to get me where I'm going. Of course, the same anti-cyclist interests that want us off the streets, also keep blocking initiatives to get those trails built. Funny that.
I have no problem with bike trails, provided I don't have to pay for them. They benefit a small minority that thinks they should be able to take public tax money to fund a project only they have an interest in. If you like, fund bike trails yourself, I won't object.
While we are on the subject, how about bikes kick in more. If I need a license, insurance, a plate, and registration to drive my car on the road, I fail to see why cyclists shouldn't face the same requirements as well. After all, FAR more cyclists run right lights, turn without signaling, pass on the right, and hop onto sidewalks whenever convient.. and such requirements would force bikers to comply. In my own driving around, I've recorded cyclists breaking the rules.. the rate is that about 90% of those i've encountered have done one of the things I mentioned. If 90% of drivers drove that way, the streets would be nothing but a demolision derby.
Oh, I didn't realize that you drove at night with the headlights on your car turned off. My mistake.
Um, you know people can post to twitter via their cell phone, right? So yes, they really can do those things, because all you need to do is send a text message to twitter.
It all depends on who you follow. Maybe Bree Olson would be more interesting to you.
As for not listening, I'm not sure that's true. I use facebook mainly as a photo album for family and friends, but while I usually don't reply to their status updates, I check them out to see what they're up to. Sometimes I reply, and sometimes they reply to me, but no replies doesn't mean no one is reading.
Why is it obnoxious? You don't need to go to those sites, so its not like anything is being forced on you.