Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do you agree with bike LAWS?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Here is why I disagree with your position.

Biking on main roadways is dangerous. To reduce this risk, our magnanimous government overseers have benevolently created special lanes for these bikes on some roads. These are not free to make.

Being a motorist who generally has to deal with people biking in my lane rather than on the shoulder on those roads that don't have bike lanes on them, I'm pretty irked at people riding their bikes to begin with.

Someone has to pay for the damn bike lanes. Motorists pay for roads with taxes (well, all of us do, really) and monies collected from bike fines can help local government put more of your precious bike lanes in.

My point: We need more bike lanes, and if you break the bike laws, you need to pay the fines that make that happen. To put it in short: Don't ride against traffic in the bike lane and you won't get fined.




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikell
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well it was a red light for the guy on the bike and he seemed to think it didn't matter. We all stood around waiting for the paperwork talking about the a hole who thought redlights were only for cars


Well it was a red light for the pedestrian I hit also.

I didn't stand around talking about the pedestrian who thought red lights were only for cars, or bicycles. I didn't call her an a hole, or even think of her that way. She did something stupid, and I'm sure learned from the lesson. It didn't make her an a hole. We all make mistakes, and do things we're not supposed to.

Point is, attitude towards other road users. You see one cyclist make a mistake and get hurt, and your opinion of cyclists is based on your one experience.

How about all the cars that run red lights, and hit cyclists? When driving a car everyone becomes an a hole, I know that from experience as a bike messenger. Driving a vehicle gives you a false sense of superiority over cyclists and pedestrians, as well as a false sense of security and entitlement.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
If having to purchase a license and pay for registration,insurance were a federal requirement then i would say it is not fair. However, the city you are in was apparently petitioned to build bike trails, etc, by the citizens that wanted the infrastructure for it. That cost money and the bikers should shoulder the responsibility for that cost. Not the people who don't ride bikes.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


Your license insurance etc., do not pay for the roads. They are required because you operate a vehicle that is essentially dangerous.


There’s an urban myth that only motorists pay for roads, therefore implying that bicyclists and pedestrians don’t belong on them. Is it true?

Not according to the 1995 study Crossroads: Highway-Finance Subsidies in New Jersey, which found that motorists only pay 77%. The rest ($733 million in 1995) is subsidized by the general taxpaying public.


wwbpa.org...


Motorists pay for roads, yes? No. All tax payers pay for roads, not just motorists. Those who pay income tax and those who pay council tax are the ones who pay for roads, and that’s not just motorists.


ipayroadtax.com...

Road tax was abolished in 1937. Everyone has a right to use the road, not just you and your motorised conveyance.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


He is talking about bike trails that his city built at the bikers behest. Not roads for cars. Obviously there would have to be modifications/line painting/signs/lights to accomodate bikes using roads. Those costs should be passed on to the bikers since they would not be needed otherwise.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by mikell
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well it was a red light for the guy on the bike and he seemed to think it didn't matter. We all stood around waiting for the paperwork talking about the a hole who thought redlights were only for cars


Well it was a red light for the pedestrian I hit also.

I didn't stand around talking about the pedestrian who thought red lights were only for cars, or bicycles. I didn't call her an a hole, or even think of her that way. She did something stupid, and I'm sure learned from the lesson. It didn't make her an a hole. We all make mistakes, and do things we're not supposed to.

Point is, attitude towards other road users. You see one cyclist make a mistake and get hurt, and your opinion of cyclists is based on your one experience.

How about all the cars that run red lights, and hit cyclists? When driving a car everyone becomes an a hole, I know that from experience as a bike messenger. Driving a vehicle gives you a false sense of superiority over cyclists and pedestrians, as well as a false sense of security and entitlement.


Your distaste for motor vehicles continues to perplex me. Especially as the legend in your avatar translates to Ankara Automobile Sports Club.

Translated:
translate.google.com...://www.anok.org.tr/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dankara%2Botomobil%2Bsporlari%2Bkulubu%2Btranslation%2Be nglish%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DYCH%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US
fficial&sa=X&ei=zxMwUbWZJbT9iQKNqYHACA&ved=0CF8Q7gEwBQ

Original:
www.anok.org.tr...

You are painting with a wider brush than anyone disagreeing with you.
I do not believe anyone would disagree that there are bad drivers in this world. You however seem to believe there are only perfect cyclists. Which has been pointed out to be blatantly false by many anecdotes, as well as laws.

Will you concede the point that some cyclists break laws and do things that are unsafe for everyone on the road?
edit on 28-2-2013 by randomtangentsrme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


But why should the expense be passed onto the cyclists, when the cyclists are already paying for the roads that you drive on? Whether that is bike lanes on roads, or bike trails off road.

Cyclists already pay for the roads they do not use, so why should only they pay for the roads cars can't use?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


For the same reason that people who send their children to private school still have to pay for public schools.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
If having to purchase a license and pay for registration,insurance were a federal requirement then i would say it is not fair. However, the city you are in was apparently petitioned to build bike trails, etc, by the citizens that wanted the infrastructure for it. That cost money and the bikers should shoulder the responsibility for that cost. Not the people who don't ride bikes.


Hey jimmiec, I like the boxer pic in your avatar, we got one and she is the best dog we ever had!

I'm quoting you here only to illustrate my point and not to disagree with you or to single you out.

IMO, it seems to me that when government, be it city, county, state, federal, whatever, collects revenue (taxes and tickets) for specific projects it just tosses it into the general fund where it eventually gets misappropriated. No proof on my part, just opinion based on what I've seen on the news and heard from other people that claimed to know.

Basically they use any excuse (like bicycle lanes) to keep the general fund full and then borrow from it for other projects that go over budget. I doubt that the government is reporting exactly how the money gets used when they issue a report, but how it should have been used based on how they said they were going to use it.

Sorry, no pics or proof here, just my personal opinion.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck
 


I totally agree. It is however impossible to effect common sense in a bureaucracy. It is akin to slamming your head against a wall repeatedly and hoping for a good result.

My sister had a boxer too. It was really smart. They live in the country and when she would pull up into the driveway the boxer would do a safety check all the way around the house before she got out of the car.
edit on 1-3-2013 by jimmiec because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I have two big problems with bike laws:

1) Cops have no #ing clue what they are

2) Drivers have no #ing clue what they are

I cant even count how many times I've been yelled at by cops to "get out of the road, use the sidewalk!!" or how many times drivers yelled at me for taking the lane in a turn or speed limit situation.

When a cop or a driver claims I am not following the law it usually means I'm not following their wrong assumption of the law.
edit on 1-3-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


It is the same with cars. A friend got a ticket for running a stop sign. He actually stopped. The cop told him that he had to be at a complete stop for 7 seconds before he took off. The law here is 3 seconds. Bikers have no monopoly on injustice.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
HELL YES

I drive 100 miles a day, and idiotic bikers riding 3 across or in the middle of a lane to avoid tiny puddles causes me close calls once a week

get a clue or get off the road





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join