It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 04:29 AM

reply to post by Cabin

The modern roads were primarily designed with cars in mind. There has been some retro fitting to add bike lanes. This is the basic facts. Therefore if your a cyclist recognise there is greater risk for injury even death being on the roads

Modern roads - how do you define a modern road?

Motorists are the johnny-come-latelies of highway history. The coming of the railways in the 1830s killed off the stage-coach trade; almost all rural roads reverted to low-level local use. Cyclists were the first group in a generation to use roads and were the first to push for high-quality sealed surfaces and were the first to lobby for national funding and leadership for roads. Without cyclists, motorists wouldn't have hit the ground running when it came to places to drive this new form of transport. 'Roads Were Not Built for Cars' is a history book, focussing on a time when cyclists had political clout, in Britain and especially in America. The book researches the Road Improvements Association - a lobbying group created by the Cyclists' Touring Club in 1885 - and the Good Roads movement organised by the League of American Wheelmen in the same period.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 04:35 AM
If god had meant people to ride bikes he would have given them lycra covered legs.

So.. in the best interest of continued evolution.. it would be at least polite to have at least one on your tally.

I don't drive, hopefully will be soon.. there is hope for me yet !!!!


*I kid I kid... someone get the cyclists a valium quick!!!*

edit on 15-11-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 04:44 AM
It's funny the different attitudes people have towards cyclists depending on location.

Europe appears to be very progressive, with a lot of infrastructure put in place for cyclists, who certainly are not a minority. Unfortunately down here in Australia there is a very regressive attitude toward cyclists. Constant calls for bicycles to be registered, and simultaneous justifications for constant negative attitudes regarding bike riderws. For instance I discovered that all cyclists are Lycra wearing hipsters who constantly break the rules of road while slowing traffic down to a crawl.

As an avid (non-Lycra wearing) cyclist, there are so many misconceptions about cyclists. Perhaps the biggest lie propagated is that we slow down traffic in the inner cities. I find I am usually faster than traffic, and I'm also fairly considerate of those people sitting inside a tonne of enclosed metal compared to my much less secure environment.

Bicycles are traffic, and are considered to be such by the laws that legislate the usage of our roads, as well as by law enforcement officers. No doubt there are cyclists who break the road rules and do dangerous stuff on the roads, but this is certainly not a phenomena unique to those on self-propelled two wheel conveyances. Most cyclists I know are also owners/drivers of automobiles (I drive occasionally, but do not currently own a vehicle, and am all the happier and wealthier for it).

A city designed for cycles is a city that cares about its environment and the well-being of its citizens, The city I live in, Melbourne, is fortunate in that it is flat, has reasonably good public transport (that one can take a bike on), and a semi-decent infrastructure in place for bicycles. All it takes is one article about something happening involving a cyclists (good or bad), and all the trolls emerge on the local newspaper websites and I could almost put odds on where the first comment about Lycra is, the first comment about how ignorant of road rules cyclists are, and the one that gets debunked over and over (but the trolls never listen), the first posts about cyclists 'should have to pay registration'.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 04:44 AM
there are a lot of bad drivers on the road....if you want to ride your bike on the road whether it be power or pedal be aware that many drivers cannot see trucks coming near them so so its not surprising that a little bike get hit more than to the conditions... bike riders should realise they fall into the same amount of brightly coloured Lycra is going to make a difference and then take into account all the stressed out drivers......

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 04:48 AM
Seems like you could correct this (or at least some of it) if roads and sidewalks were designed differently.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:57 AM
reply to post by Cabin

what the article doesn't mention is the sheer maliciousness of some drivers towards cyclists. i've had glass bottles thrown at me out of car windows, i've been run off the road (the person literally paced my speed, got next to me, and drove me into the grass. i'm not ashamed to say i punched the side of the minivan.)

my dad told me about a ticket he got while biking on the road. the officer told him that bikes weren't allowed on the road, and when my dad pointed out the sign that clearly said "bikes sharing highway", the officer gave him a ticket for obstructing traffic. it was thrown out in court.

when i pass someone who is cycling, i give them a wide and respectful berth because i've been there done that.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:32 AM
I suppose I've seen a good bit of both sides to this. First as a trucker all over the place, to see how it's handled around the nation in general and then local where I'm now living among several Colleges/Universities within a several square mile area.

In cities where there are safe means to mix bicycles and cars? Well, it's a mutual thing for staying safe and it really has to be. Bicyclists can insist on being right ..and they'll be dead right. Every time. Physics determines which party needs to watch closer, law totally aside for it.

In cities where there is NOT accomodation made, like where I live now? Well... I'll say I LOVE this time of year. Nothing better than the crisp smell of the winter mornings approaching and the break of a fresh day. Also, each day is one closer to when it won't be SAFE for the bikes to play in traffic with real vehicles, for at least a couple months. I've come to absolutely HATE the entitlement attitude of a 100lb nothing student on a 30lb nothing aluminum framed toy trying to get pushy, AGAINST traffic laws, with 3,000-5,000lb vehicles. It's an absolute example of the "I'm ME! I'm SPECIAL!..and you WILL bend to my WILL!" in action, in full color to see.

As far as I'm concerned, when a street has no sidewalk, no bike lane and little room for cars to maintain lanes without rubbing curbs for lack of space? Common sense should tell a bicycle to seek life elsewhere....not act as though personal entitlement can force the laws of mass in physics to alter for them, just that once. (rolls eyes)

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 07:23 AM
reply to post by Cabin

First, that was not a news article it was an OPINION piece in the NYT.

Second, it states that "studies" in three states, but does not link the studies, results, or who conducted them and their raw data. Please provide links.

Third, it states that "more than half". Well was it 50.01% or was it 99%? "more than half is too wide of a designation to be of any help in making a conclusion.

When I see someone (the writer of this OPINION piece) not list specifics I start to wonder WHY he is not backing up his statements with real data. And why would you believe anything someone at the NYT would say in an opinion piece without any evidence, except of course if you already agree with his opinion and just want to puppet the same idea.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 07:40 AM
Cabin, from the responses in this thread I would have to say yes, Americans do think it's OK to kill cyclists.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 07:53 AM
Biker's annoying the sht out me when they ride in non bike zones....because you don't expect them and they are there.

There was one making a LEFT TURN on a busy intersection, another one refuse to let cars by on single lane road (80km/h), one wore a full black cloths with no blinkers on at 9pm(winter time).
edit on 11/15/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by luciddream

The largest problem we have with the kids in the colleges on their bicycles is the apparent belief that traffic laws are only there for cars. Things like stop signs, turn laws and ..even RED lights..are just suggestions and ideas they 'may' consider following. Surely not something to be taken as seriously as they demand others observe them.

Some days I've really wished I went a different path to the traffic division of my local Police Department. I'd balance the whole city budget inside a year by my ticket book alone.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 09:56 AM
I wouldn't consider myself a "cyclist" as I don't typically share the road with cars, but I do ride BMX and occasionally ride through areas where cars and trucks are driving. I'm always fully alert and just assume they won't see me. On the other hand, when I'm driving my car, I assume cyclists aren't always paying attention to what's around them and just keep my distance.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 10:56 AM
Wow! Awesome thread title

And super biased OP That's great....Even better the posts to this thread.

It makes me very happy to see most of my ATS bretheren feel as I do...

American roads were made for cars.

Now they are trying to retrofit a lot of those roads for bikes and that's great, if there is a bike lane...then please bikers (not Freds...I learned a new word today...btw I think I know and like a lot of Freds...its the cyclists I am concerned about) use those special provisions for your sport.

But roads with no shoulders blind corners steep hills narrow lanes have no place for bicycles:

Unless you NEED to use them for transport: aka you lost you liscence and have to bike to work
Otherwise your sport of getting exercise on these 'sceneric' matched by my sport of attempting to stay in my own lane with oncoming traffic and you too

Let the man with the most metal win!

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 10:58 AM

Cabin, from the responses in this thread I would have to say yes, Americans do think it's OK to kill cyclists.

oh definitely
the romans had their lares & penates, in the west the auto is one of many new gods [the best known one being the 1-eyed god:TV] and gods often demand sacrifices, especially mammon's kids. never mind bikes, PEDESTRIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY, but that's only "theory", in practice I've noted all the sick little games played by "The Driven" who call themselves "drivers" these often involve speeding up or slowing down in an effort to prevent pedestrians from crossing the streets and avenues at a dignified pace, or force them to run in panic when they're midway.

it's like these idiots think they're competing in DEATHRACE 2000 and will be receiving extra points if they run over the elderly or cyclists.

which is why, lately, I always put myself under the protection of Gaia, when crossing highways, the ritual involves holding up a pair of very large rocks in each hand, ready to hurl it at any fool that dares to try to force me to speed up when I'm crossing.

locally the hit and runs were so high some years ago there was an ad campaign by concerned pedestrians
the best remembered one was a radio spot wherein a whining b*tch whines in court to a bereaved mother:
"Look, I'm really, really, sorry I ran over and killed your boy, but if I hadn't made it to the beauty parlor in time, I would have lost my turn!"
edit on 15-11-2013 by Metaphysique because: law of boncho's homonyms correction

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 11:16 AM
Just so were clear
In deathrace 2000 women any age are worth 10pts more than men.
Teens are 40pts
Toddlers under 12 70pts
And everyone over 70 is 100pts

There was no added value if a bicycle was involved or not

There ya have it

Thanks for posting the video!


posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 11:43 AM

reply to post by luciddream

The largest problem we have with the kids in the colleges on their bicycles is the apparent belief that traffic laws are only there for cars. Things like stop signs, turn laws and ..even RED lights..are just suggestions and ideas they 'may' consider following. Surely not something to be taken as seriously as they demand others observe them.

Some days I've really wished I went a different path to the traffic division of my local Police Department. I'd balance the whole city budget inside a year by my ticket book alone.

Do you feel this belief is somehow unique to cyclists?

I can't say what it is like in the US (although my brother who lives in NYC abandoned a cross country bike ride as he felt it too dangerous to continue - just the slipstream of large trucks continually forced him off the road), but this type of assumption is broad and tars cyclists as being an entirely selfish group who 'all' act in just one way. I feel stereotyping is an inaccurate and highly partisan way to frame an argument.

I understand the laws of physics, especially where it pertains to several tonnes of metal moving at high velocity as opposed to a few kilograms of flesh and blood atop a lightweight alloy frame, and obviously there's no contest (unless you assume the consciousness responsible for controlling that tonnage is also aware of these laws and they behave appropriately), but the reality exists that the bicycle is an alternative mode of transport which is expected to adhere to the same road rules as automated vehicles, and is recognised not as an impediment to the rights of 'traffic', but actually is in fact 'traffic' itself.

Not in anyway to absolve cyclists from the myriad of sins of which they're accused, but do you not feel that if someone is in control of a deadly weapon, they should know how to use (as well as disarm) that weapon as safely as is possible?

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by Cabin

I could see the lawyers point if bikers actually followed the traffic laws themselves......

You can't have it both ways when you feel like it. Sometimes they want to act like pedestrians, other times they are trying to act like a vehicle.

Don't even get me started about them running stop signs and red lights.....

And yes....if that 16 year old daughter of yours runs that stop sign, it is NOT my fault if I kill her when I run her ass over!!! Period.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by cuckooold

Oh, I feel people driving a car should have control and responsibility for what it does and harms. The fact is, they don't though, and among all the activities in our nation? Driving a car is the least regulated, least trained and least capable area, on average, any amateur is allowed to partake in that may well lead to the deaths of others.

So, with that in mind, it's not the car who will die by insisting on right of way, whether they have it or not. It's not the car who can go right up under another vehicle, get people killed and not even leave the one who did it aware anything has happened. (Even my truck was impossible to hit without feeling it from a car ...a bike, isn't so certain a thing and they need to always remember that).

So, by sheer necessity and reality, it IS on the Bicyclist, and not the car, for who lives and dies on the street they share. It shouldn't be that way, perhaps and it isn't that way for the LAW...but the LAW isn't what gets an ambulance called out with no need for lights running.

In cities where there ARE options for safe coexistence with cars? More power to them and I always tried to show courtesy in my truck for both bikes in the city and bikes on the open highway. Where they do NOT have any choice but to mix directly IN with traffic going far more than their 5-10mph is capable of, perhaps other forms of transportation would lead to better longevity in life.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I'm not in disagreement with a lot of what you say. However I do take exception to an attitude that surfaces over and over again, that the roads are made for cars and cars only. As I've mentioned previously, some European cities have large amounts of cyclists and corresponding facilities to support them.‎

In Australia whenever cycling comes up for debate one of the main things discussed over and over is a combination of a superior attitude and a disregard for road rules by cyclists (2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad). If a cyclist disobeys the rules of the road in Australia, they are liable for the same penalties as those driving automated vehicles. Yes, I agree that these cyclists do not encourage a positive attitude, and I feel they should be treated in the same way that anyone else acting in a potentially disruptive or dangerous way on the roads is. Having said that, for every cyclist I see disregarding road rules (I cycle about 30 km every day, so plenty of time for observation), I would estimate there is at least double that (if not more - I'm being conservative here) rate of cars breaking the same road rules, but in ways that are far more dangerous.

I'm a conservative (at the same time very confident, and aware of the rules of the road and my own rights) bike rider, and I try to minimise any possible aggression between myself and cars. In over 25 years of riding I have personally had one incident that scared me to any large degree. I generally have few issues with the majority of drivers. However, at least once a week I will be cut off by a driver not watching what they are doing, have to yell at some fool trying to talk or send an sms while driving, or potentially cause danger myself due to having to swerve to avoid some fool opening the door of their car without checking to see if anyone is coming (yes, partly the fault of where cycling lanes are put, but regardless of opinions about said lanes, people should be aware of their existence and act accordingly).

People should remember a few things. One, most cyclists are drivers as well (not that this affects attitudes, but it enables me to be more aware of bikes when I am driving), and if they ride badly, chances are they drive badly and should be made aware of this (hopefully non-aggressively, as there's enough of that from both sides already). Two, cyclists are not going away - they are an increasing minority that will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. A technology that is largely non-polluting that contributes to the livability of our cities should be encouraged. There are studies done (in a rush but if anyone needs links pm me) that show that cities where people are free to walk, ride, use skateboards, and other non-motorised forms of transport tend to have greater interaction between people, less crime (due to the public being free to use public spaces), more desirable neighborhoods, and (not sure if this is good or not), higher property values. I don't know about anyone else, but give me the choice between a community where people feel safe, neighbours talk to one another, and people are not so scared of the 'other' so-as to create big schizms in society or not, and I know where I would prefer to live.
edit on 15-11-2013 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:00 PM
Just this past 4th of July, a woman was killed in my area while biking through a relatively calm part of the city. Ever seen those "Neighborhood Watch" signs? That's the kind of area I'm talking about. It was all over the news. They even put up a "Ghost Bike" near where she was hit.

I posted the second picture because it shows the sign explaining the presence of the bicycle.

In short: Hell. NO. It is NOT okay to kill cyclists. The lady for which this bike was erected was dragged for about a block before finally dislodging from the vehicle that had snagged her.

There'a a special place in hell for people who hit cyclists. You may as well hit a kid using the cross walk.
edit on 15-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in