Fair enough—point taken.
At least in my state, you don't have the right of way to cross unless the drivers have time to slow down for you:
On a bicycle or running, that's pretty much going to require you to stop and look both ways. A car doesn't have to yield unless you were already in the intersection early enough for the car to then react and slow down. If you aren't in the intersection yet, a car can zoom right by even if you were about to take your first step or pedal - so be careful!
Yes, i think that's commonly true, but it's true for pedestrians, runners, and cyclists, alike. I'm saying cyclists aren't second-class crosswalk users in this regard, which i think was implied, if unintentionally, by your earlier post. For legal purposes, they are pedestrians.
Yes, definitely be careful!
Where it is legal, cyclists should yield at crosswalks, as they're not pedestrians and should have no expectation that cars should stop for the unexpected high-speed traffic.
Cyclists and pedestrians should use caution at crosswalks. Generally, where cyclists are entitled to use sidewalks, however, they have the same rights as pedestrians on sidewalks and crosswalks, and do not need to yield the right of way any more than pedestrians do, except to actual pedestrians. So, yes, be cautious with speed (runners need to also), but don't accept relegation to second-class status.
Yes, there is. Come here and trying riding on some random sidewalk and see if you don't get stopped by the cops.
Random? Sure, stochastically speaking, choosing a random sidewalk in California carries some small probability that one will be in violation of a municipal law, a much smaller probability one will get cited, and an almost infinitesimal probability that some ignorant pipsqueak will try to pick a fight, although, in the last case, cycling will almost certainly be legal on that particular sidewalk, because, as has already been established, the pipsqueak is ignorant.
If you're in the L.A. area, you can review this to figure out what areas you can pick fights in without yourself being arrested for Being So Wrong That the Law Must Intervene:
In fact, one of the reasons some cyclists blow lights is to take advantage of the relatively car-free segment of the road that lies on the other side of the light.
So I guess it's also okay that I like to follow ambulances because I can zoom through the red lights.
Of course not. Nor is it okay to run red lights in an unsafe manner. But when there's actually no traffic coming in any direction, and it's plain as day to a person on a bicycle that there is no risk, it is, in fact, safe to run a red light. In some places, it's even legal. Idaho is one such place, and Virginia is another, if the cyclist has waited a full cycle of the light.
I would have to strain to understand how in your straw man scenario you could safely follow an ambulance. But it's so absurd and disingenuous, i won't bother.
Because, let's face it--the whole world needs to be set up for my convenience.
Your argument is that you take the risk of going through the stop light for the added safety on the other side. The problem is, when you go through the red light and get hit, well it certainly isn't your fault.
I think the problem is that you are mistaking some sort of distorted rattling in your head for my argument. Just go back and actually read the essay, and stop wasting my time.
Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal throughout all of California (where I live), unless specifically posted
Learn to read.
Indeed, you should. There is no specific posting requirement. It is generally legal throughout all of California, unless specifically outlawed by a municipality. How that municipality chooses to inform people is up to them. So you're pretty much exactly wrong.
Here's the real problem: you've been starting fights with people for doing something perfectly legal, laboring under the false belief that they were breaking the law and OMG! Now you, understandably, feel like a douche, but instead of saying, "Hey, you know, i really should check, and if i was wrong, well, i wish there were a way to apologize to those people i was hassling for no good reason, but live and learn—I stand corrected," you're doubling down.
This way lies madness. Repent.
Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal throughout all of California (where I live), unless specifically posted. In all of the circumstance when I've told people to ride in the road, they were areas where bicycles aren't allowed. On a couple of instances, people were actually riding on a very narrow (think one walking person's width) on a freeway overpass.
That is not correct. See, for example: http://la-bike.org/resources/california-bicycle-laws
"Each city in California has its own rules about riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. Some cities allow sidewalk riding, some don’t. Check with your city’s municipal code."
Generally the state code allows it, but allows municipalities to outlaw it. Many have done so in their business districts.
Next time, try not to jump to conclusions.
Next time, try to be right.
Actually riding on the sidewalk is much more dangerous.
As i said, whether it's dangerous depends on a lot of things. There are plenty of places in my area where there are long stretches of sidewalk without driveways or crosswalks. There are people who ride at more or less a walking pace, which incurs no more danger than walking itself. There are places such as open beachfront areas where there are enough cyclists on sidewalks that drivers are conditioned to look for them. There are places where a roadway is grooved, or has badly placed drainage grates that make a sidewalk a safer option. And so on.
I'm a regular bike commuter. I generally avoid sidewalks, unless trails are routed over them. My post was primarily to correct the misinformation that cycling on the sidewalk is illegal; this is one of several commonly held myths about cycling law (another one, absurdly, being that cyclists must ride on sidewalks). In some places sidewalk cycling is illegal, and some places it's dangerous. It is not, however, universally both of these.
Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is both illegal and dangerous. I've actually almost gotten into fights with people because they were riding on the sidewalk and I instructed them to ride in the road.
That could because riding on a sidewalk was not illegal.
That is, it is illegal in some places, but it's far from a universal law. In Washington, D.C., it is legal to ride on the sidewalk in most of the city, excluding a high-traffic area in the downtown. In Northern Virginia it is generally legal unless signed otherwise; in fact some of the trails in Arlington, just outside D.C., are routed over sidewalks.
Whether it's dangerous depends on a lot of things, including the expectations of the other sidewalk users. In the D.C. area, i can tell you, injuries to pedestrians from cyclists riding on the sidewalk are exceedingly rare.
Check your local laws, and please don't misinform.
But a cyclist running a stop sign has a much better read on the situation because he can actually see and hear what is around him.
I always love this theory.
I drive a convertible with the top down, meaning I can see and hear what is around me. So do I get to run stop lights, too?
Get to? I don't think so—nobody "gets to". But it is substantially less dangerous when you do it than it is when someone in an SUV does it, yes, altho your engine noise, lower position, and limited movement still put you at a significant observational disadvantage compared to a cyclist or pedestrian.
But idiots who run stop signs and get hit by cars? I have no pity for them. They could have saved their own life by following the law.
You are mistaken if you think a cyclist stopped at a light is safe from being struck by a vehicle. In fact, one of the reasons some cyclists blow lights is to take advantage of the relatively car-free segment of the road that lies on the other side of the light.
I guess maybe you should read the essay again. There's no point in my trying to explain it; it's perfectly clear if you bother.
From your link:
So bikers complied with stop signs at a rate nearly 1/20th of the average of all vehicles. And you were trying to disprove them about bikers consistently riding through stop signs?
I don't think you read the essay very thoroughly. The point was not that cyclists do not run stop signs; it is that pretty much everyone runs stop signs. The difference is that, when a cyclist does it, it's very rarely dangerous to anyone, and when it is dangerous, the danger is usually to the cyclist. But a cyclist running a stop sign has a much better read on the situation because he can actually see and hear what is around him. Similarly, people jaywalk constantly but very rarely get killed, because they aren't encased in soundproof glass and metal when they do so.
Meanwhile, the "1/20" you cite is a rather absurd abstraction; the average compliance for all vehicles in the study you refer to was only 22.8%. So fewer than 1 in 4 people in general are stopping at stop signs, but you think cyclists are somehow the problem when they're only 1-5% of the road population?
The essay doesn't say that cyclists should run stop signs (although in Idaho, stop signs are relaxed to yield signs for cyclists). It points out that there's nothing unique about their doing so, and compliance with stop signs is not a logical prerequisite for extending sympathy or protection to any particular population of road users. The irrational way drivers tend to respond when they see cyclists break a minor law is, in most cases, deeply hypocritical. Drivers annually kill in excess of 30,000 people in the U.S. alone. Cyclists kill a couple. The risk profile is several orders of magnitude different, but drivers don't seem to recognize that when they get all pissy because they just saw a cyclist run a stop sign.
If someone on a bike runs a red light or stop sign and they get hit, that's their bad and that's on them; they'll get no sympathy from me.
Go hang out at a stop sign one day and count the percentage of cars you see actually stop. Pot, kettle, black.
Yea, OK, so if you and your cyclists buddies want to get together and raise the money to pay for dedicated bike paths, I'll support using public land to build them.
However, if you're like many of the d-bags around these parts who want their private bike streets paid for with my road and fuel taxes... You can go piss up a rope.
You know that most cyclists have cars, and drive, too, so they're paying fuel taxes right alongside you, right? But when they're riding their bikes, they're using up a lot less space on the roads, reducing congestion and leaving more room for you to get around. Compared with cars, bikes contribute virtually no wear on roads, and areas paved for bike traffic cost a fraction of what regular rated roads cost, because of the dramatically reduced load requirements. When cyclists get where they're going, they will lock up to a bike rack that fits 20 vehicles in the area of a parking space, leaving more parking for you to put your car in. They're also reducing gasoline demand, which might slightly lower the price you pay at the pump. As a driver, you stand to gain in numerous ways from others' cycling.
And fuel taxes don't cover the cost of the roads, anyway, mainly because they've been essentially stagnant while the cost of fuel increased fivefold. Drivers' use of the roads is heavily subsidized now by general taxation, so you don't get to point at cyclists and say they're the freeloaders.
what part of 'unlimited' don't you understand ?
The part where it's limited by definition by having a 300 Mb/s downstream bandwidth. Clearly it is not in any sense "unlimited".
And then there's the stuff everyone else has already said regarding Verizon ToS, which is true.
Stan is not a girl: "né".
Happy birthday, Stan!