BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I think it's "automatically the vehicle driver's fault" when THEY hit you, no matter what the circumstance. Nothing gives you the RIGHT to hit somebody with your car. (Not that this guy is advocating hitting cyclists).

I mostly empathize with these legitimate concerns. I don't think that's a bad thing, there's still much work to be done, by both "sides".

5 mph? get real...

As for not stopping at stop signs, as a driver i look at yielding to bicyclists as a courtesy considering that it can be tiring having to stop and start a lot, as opposed to myself just hitting the brake and gas pedals.

It's called not being a jagoff

It's a speed limit, not a minimum speed. It says so right on the sign.

They are from Baldwin. Surprise?

I am going to send this letter as a follow up.

From what I understand, anyone driving a car in the streets is to follow the rules of the road -- stop at red lights, no turn on red, yield, etc.

I see these guys/ladies running red lights, not even stopping, breaking the law. It's like they do whatever they want, and when they hit someone it's automatically the other persons fault for being in their way!

I don't understand how you're supposed to share the road with a person in a car going 55 mph in a 35 mph zone. It's idiotic, and you should not be able to drive a on the street if you can't follow the law and drive safely.

It's a danger to other drivers, pedestrians and themselves if they can't just slow down for five seconds of their day.

Sent!

I always refer people to this article when I see responses like that.

Sounds good to me.

I think we need to advocate to change the law like they've done in other states.

For bikes: stop signs = yield signs, stop lights = stop signs.

That not only makes sense but also would stop drivers from thinking we are a bunch of scofflaws, thereby assuaging the driver-cyclist rift that seems to be getting worse not better lately.

You can post your rants here too!

http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/openletters/archive/2009/08/15/road-rules.aspx

Dang, this letter made me mad. I read it at work this morning and couldn't wait to get home and link it here. But y'all are on top of things. This usually wouldn't make me to upset but, last night I almost bought it when a lady ran a red while talkin on the phone. I could of touched her car. This happened after I waited for the light. So we do stop at reds Mr.Hentosz, if that is your real name!

If you read the letter in the blog posts section of the P-G, the comments on this are far more infuriating than the actual LTE. Aside from some steel restraint showed by the level-headed pro-bike commenters, it's pretty bad.

The thing about her letter is, I can sympathize for a couple of reasons:

A. There are some asshole/bad riders out there. I've almost hit a few with both my car and my bike. Bikes are the exception to cars on the road and the ones who do stupid things in front of her stick out in her mind. It's unsurprising.

B. As she says, she "[doesn't] understand how you're supposed to share the road" with cyclists. People get upset when they're confused and drivers don't have nearly enough education or practical experience in this area.

The solution to both of these issues of course is to get out there and give her a little more practice dealing with responsible bicyclists.

Yeah, you keep throwing facts, laws and regulations at these people, but they just don't want to accept it.

Then when I reveal that I commute by bike everyday, she declares that I'm justifying unsafe cycling! HA!

I love that PghGirl thinks that BIKES are what are causing the congestion! What a gas!

That part is absolutely priceless.

Although, she definitely has a point about people riding N-abreast on the trails. Especially the wooded section of the southside trail, that is aggravating and dangerous. But even in general, the number of people who don't move over in a head-on situation, it boggles my mind.

Maybe im biased, but it seems to me that as many "problems" that she has had with cyclist, that she is probably not paying attention. Yes as a pedestrian you have right of way when crossing the street, but it doesn't mean you still shouldn't look both ways first. if there is something coming, car bike whatever.. then you probably shouldn't step out. Not saying it wasn't the cyclists fault, but anticipating what will happen when would walk in front of a moving vehicle should be common sense.

Salty, It is. But it has nothing to do with them being cyclists, it has to do with them being ignorant and inconsiderate people.

Just saw your comment. Well said, I sent one too.

I also love that she now says she walks to work which is awesome but who the heck pays for the sidewalks? There is no walking tax or insurance to pay. She doesn't have to register herself or get herself inspected to be allowed to walk on the sidewalks.

netviln, I addressed that in my reply. It has to be an exaggeration. I have never been in any accident in over 16 years of driving.

Autodominionists often use the "these are OUR roads," canard.

Last week, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the first paved road. And who agitated to pave those roads? The League of American Wheelmen. Since 1880 bicyclists had been pushing hard to have rutted, dirt roads paved for safety. They are OUR roads, stolen from us by upstart drivers.

Less for safety than for comfort and speed, I think. They were horse roads first, and the bicycle dominionists stole them from the horses. Not that I disagree with you, but you can't fight "ours" with "ours" nearly as well as with "not yours, and not mine, neither, but everyone's"

+crcd's last sentence, especially in the suburbs.

But also true, the laws are out of date with respect to reality. Stop-sign-is-a-yield, red-light-is-a-stop-sign, and some official allowance for group riders' need for "corkers" (think Critical Mass), would be very welcome changes.

Put another way, a real handy comeback to someone yelling "You're breaking the law!" is to say "Because the law is wrong!" ("wrong" might not be the best word here, but it's close)

Now, how do we get there?

> They are OUR roads, stolen from us by upstart drivers.

Should have added some smileys, I suppose.

But, the "ours" argument backed up with a mountain of data doesn't work against people like that. They are already assured of their righteousness and reason has nothing to do with it. They KNOW that their progress is slowed by cyclists hogging the road. They KNOW that they are good drivers and everyone else is incompetent. They KNOW that they can talk on the cell phone while driving without any impairment.

I prefer to use the equestrian card in these discussions.

I prefer the horse card because deep down, everyone knows that's true. They think bicycles were invented after cars, but they know that horse-riding was invented by the Indians, who were here before Henry Ford invented the automobile.

I believe horse domestication occurred in Asia and Europe well before the new world. It was the Spanish who brought horses over here.

this is kind of inappropriate to print right after a cyclist was killed by a hit and run. imagine if someone wrote a letter about police mistakes right after the three officers were killed in stanton heights.

I think they printed this to drum up controversy. This isn't a particularly well written or insightful letter.