BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Dear frfx4l1iii,

When you get stuck behind a cyclist, I know it is frustrating, but it may be helpful to remember that sometimes you also get stuck behind other cars, and also have to wait and exhibit patience and safety.

A lot of cyclists are also drivers

Cars and Cyclists are both expected to follow rules but both sometimes break them. I am not justifying this behavior, just pointing out that a dash of patience on your part will make the roads safer and possibly spare some lives. It does not usually add more than a few seconds to your route to wait for a safe passing opportunity.

Cars should not be on public roads! Period!

It is unsafe for the 30,000+ people killed and 2+ million people injured. Cars belong in a landfill not our roadways!

@frfx4liii : hope you feel better now after getting that off your chest, you should give riding a bike a chance, bet a little exercise wouldn't hurt ya!

Don't feed the troll.

What stefb said

If I had that much free time I would have

fallen into a pyramid scheme or something

already!

Lots of standard responses to trolls such as this, but, no.

I especially like the part...."not our roadways!"

I suggest that the boards terms of use should be modified to allow the public notification of the personal information of people who post garbage like that.

frfx4lii was probably texting this while driving... fortunately, there are meds available for people suffering from road rage.

But if you're serious about all the DOT stuff, then I think that public parking should be made private as well. If you want to park on our public streets and take up space that could be a bicycle lane, you should have to pay to reserve that space each day. I hope you have a garage or driveway.

His name is Mike, he lives in Pittsburgh, and his license plate, at one point, was YJH-8036.

http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/1813/4921/4532460109_large.jpg

(Gonads & Strife)

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/weeee

Mike has also changed the exhaust on his Maurader because his drag pipes were too loud...

How considerate?

Opinions are like ass-holes, everyone's got one.

Here's mine: even a modest lift of 2" creates a hazard for drivers in cars who can't see dangers on the road ahead because the truck/suv in front of the driver blocks visibility. Lifted trucks have no place on roads, keep them in the mud!

But hey, MIke is entitled to his opinion. As long as he values human life and wouldn't run down a cyclist or otherwise intimidate based on his opinion... then I have no problem!

frfx4lii,

The roads are a public good. You or I don't own them, we use them. Funding comes from many sources of which gas taxes are only part. So first off, you can thank cyclists INCLUDING those that don't drive, for subsidizing your driving while not putting any comparable wear on the roads.

Unsafety comes from heavier motorized vehicles as they have the heft and speed to be deadly implements. This is expressed in rather grim statistics. It shouldn't have to be that way, with safe driving habits, accident rates could be near zero. But such as it is, cars are regulated both for the safety of the driver and occupants and for others. And that is the primary reason for enforcement of traffic laws and regulations and the reason the other vehicles you cite are not allowed on the roadways.

Based on the statistics, you could make a strong argument that those should be more stringent, or at least more stringently enforced. Especially speed limits. But I rather doubt that's what you came here looking for, you want to go full speed to your destination and you see bikes as an impediment.

So then, if you feel delayed, then seeing them move past you again at the next stop triggers a sense of righteous injustice. I get that, I really do, and going through a stop full speed is irresponsible regardless of vehicle. No thinking person would say otherwise. But very few bicyclist actually do this.

Going through stops slowly which is the common case (even for cars) is more debatable. I consider a bike like a pedestrian when moving at pedestrian speeds and while jaywalking is technically a crime, it's not enforced because it's clearly not worth the effort. Bikes can also see into intersections better than cars. If that asymmetry in enforcement bothers you, then perhaps you should ride rather than drive since, being less of a danger to others, you'd be a little more free to exercise your judgement in these scenarios.

Righteous indignation is a dangerous emotion, doubly so when you have a deadly implement at your fingertips. If the idea of getting on a bike doesn't strike your fancy, you need to at least cool your jets. And it's actually very easy.

You mentioned that this bicyclist you passed later passes you. So then, the average speeds are pretty close, no? Great, so just ditch the road race mentality entirely and stay behind the bike. Will be kinder to your car, less gas, less brake, kinder to yourself, less stress, less feeling of futility, kinder to the environment, and hey, incidentally, kinder to the bicyclist too.

Give it a try and let me know if you change your mind and want to ride some time.

Cheers,

Ben

The truck in the photo is not his current truck. He now own's a 2006 ford f-150.

The plate may or may not be current.

Actually his name is Mike Schneider and he lives in Hampton township. It's amazing how un-anonymous the Internet is when you use the same username everywhere for a decade or so. Actually, I m being nice, as I managed to find his home address, phone number age and all sorts of other stuff in about ten minutes using publicly available information. All based on s screen name.

Hampton, eh? Then there's a fair chance we could be sharing the same piece of asphalt from time to time.

OK, then, I will chip in a couple of cents worth. When I'm *not* on my bike, I'm the guy driving at or perhaps even a couple of ticks below the speed limit. I've learned, from cycling, that getting around by bike isn't that much slower than driving provided you drive the speed limit. You will occasionally see me biking down McKnight Road, taking the entire right lane. Cars go flying past me in those other two lanes, only to have me catch up with everyone at the next light.

One other thing: Since you have a license and operate a vehicle, perhaps a refresher of the rules is in order. Here's Chapter 33.

Alison Park to be specific. I also found what I'm 95% sure is his Facebook page, even though its locked down. Amazing how many old wannabe hippies turn into real jackasses.

If any of you damn bikers can share with me how you get out from paying taxes a "normal" driving person does, please tell me. I have never even had a permit. But god damn i am robbed in taxes every week.

"How many times do you get stuck behind a cyclist [...]"

This doesn't happen as much when you ride a bike

Yeahhhh, i've many times pulled up next to one of those cyclists,smiled,nodded,chatted,rode together or carried on with my day.

I never in my life want to know the horrors of having to slightly turn my steering wheel from 10-2 to 11-1 and apply a few more pounds of pressure to a gas pedal and pass one of those monsters. Ughhh.How do you do it?!

I never have figured out why pushing my foot down an inch or so against mild resistance while sitting in an easy chair in a sealed, climate controlled environment with music playing in a great stereo system makes me more of a badass and more manly in general than moving under my power and being exposed to the extremes of weather with only my clothing and beard to protect me.

I know this gets really, really, really old to respond to each time, but let's acknowledge one thing:

This perspective is very, very common.

I believe THAT is why the thread wasn't killed in spite of being started in a counterproductive way. For that same reason, I tried to put out a real response.

Too long? Yeah, I know I do that. Total waste of time? Likely yes, but someone might read and think about what we say even if perhaps not the poster himself, things have a way of getting linked to if they stand out.

And at least it's not actively harmful. Sarcasm often is, even if it's fun, and making things personal always is.

Let's just put out the better argument. It's so easy.

Good night folks.

Well byogman, I've done a lot of "putting out the better argument" on this forum to seemingly no avail.

People are going to do what they want to do, and make a biased argument that supports their existing behavior

I'm going to assume this is the guy's only real issue:

"Most of all they should have to obay all the same traffic laws as other vehicles on the road. How many times do you get stuck behind a cyclist where you can't pass because of oncoming traffic then you finally pass them only to be passed by the cyclist at the next stop sign that they just blew through."

This used to happen to me all the time when I was coming home in Moringside on Morningside Ave. Cars would blow by me, then have to stop at a stop sign ten feet ahead, and I was basically coasting and would keep up with them. They started behind me, yet I would have to hit my brakes five feet later because they got in front of me and then had to come to a stop. And this would go on for blocks. Sometimes I would get sick of that and just coast through stop signs as they kind of yielded to the stop signs.

There is a disagreement in the cycling community as to whether or not bicycles should follow all vehicular laws. I don't think they should. If I'm going slow enough to safely check an intersection before entering it, why should I come to a complete stop?

I also feel like there's a double or higher standard being made of cyclists. Why do cyclists have to obey all the laws when the vast majority of cars don't for example, come to a complete stop at stop signs, don't follow the speed limit and are often doubling it, run red lights waaay after the yellow, initiate left hand turns waaaaay after the red light (often multiple cars do this in a single light change), etc.

To me, that seems a) less courteous and b) more dangerous than me coasting through some neighborhood stop signs.

With the present infrastructure, we have to interact with each other there's not much I can do about that. I need to get to work and get groceries and go places and my bicycle is the most economical and often fastest way to do it.

It's not my intention to slow you down or get in your way. Myself and the majority of other cyclists on here have no interest in getting in an accident and ride accordingly. Sometimes us riding safety might slow you down, but we're doing it for a reason, explained in detail here:

http://cyclingsavvy.org/hows-my-driving/

So I guess thanks for waiting to safely pass and we don't appreciate or support unsafe cycling either. At the same time, we're also a diverse group, and just as I'm sure you've seen questionable motor vehicle operating, some cyclists do the same thing.

I think everyone's responses have been wonderfully rational and reasoned, pseudacris kicked it off very nicely.

It seems like the original post was some kind of calculated inflammatory grenade hoping to elicit emotional and irrational responses, rather than being an actual impassioned sentiment. Perhaps with some intent of demonstrating how wacky and irrational those crazy bikers are? If so, that's been a complete failure. Bravo everyone!

Also mr frfx4ayeayeaye, yes, they do. Buhbye. !

I thought the discussion was good, but the tracking down of whoever the guy is, his truck, etc. was a little harassing. He has a right to his opinion, repellent as it is, and we don't need to try to suppress it, even by posting his name, etc. There's something of a threat in that.

At least BYOGMAN tried to put up an arguement the rest of the cry babies couldn't even defend themselves. Your not going to change my mind on the subject. You all are right as far as cyclists are a hazard as well as deer, pedestrians,and other vehicles. I try to get around cyclists as soon as possible to eliminate such a hazard and distraction.

I understand the commuting and I applaud the effort. I still don't see why you don't feel that you have to obay the traffic laws and get special considerations. Back to the golf cart or riding tractor, why don't they have the same rights. Should we talk about the bicycle messangers downtown? If I drove like they do I would loose my licence, what about them? Oh wait, they don't need licence to ride on public roads.

I concur that Pseudacris started it off nicely. I don't think that the responses orthogonal to the original post help the cause. And there was some middle ground between the two, but on the whole I was disappointed.

It's hard to tell whether it's an actual sentiment or someone just saying something to rile us up. Statistics say it is trolling, but the thing is, a hypothetical subsequent reader linked in from pro or con source doesn't know or care. Since it's such a common sentiment I thought it was important to address without cynicism.

Pierce, I agree with the examples you cite, the site you cite, and the feeling of making the argument making no difference. But that feeling is misleading. It's true there will always be a lot of folks who have exactly this perspective but the only way to chip away at that is at least try to reach people. Best way is get them on a bike, but when we can't do that, putting good stuff out here, even in response to trolling, is a start. And btw thanks for contributing to that.

"Your not going to change my mind on the subject."

So, if you are not interested in dialogue, if you have already made up your mind, if nothing we say will change your mind, then why are you even here? Why do you ask us questions and then say explicitly that you don't care about the answer?

In common parlance, that is a troll.

Response to my PM to frfx4lii

"

Short of an editorial in the paper which nobody will read, I feel this is a good place to voice my opinion. Whether to strike up a discussion or better yet get this out in the open. I feel strong about what I said and I am not a cyclist of course but I still don't see why cyclist get special privileges and considerations. If I have to follow the rules of the road then cyclists should too.

"

So hey guys, here's someone putting out a common sentiment and thankfully for once it's not directly on the heels of a car hitting a cyclist and various blame the victim responses. We should ENCOURAGE this.

frfx4lii,

You may be sure I'll never change your mind. It's hard to do that until you get someone on a bike. Honestly my perspective is worlds different than it was just 4 months ago.

But let's approach this with less cynicism, ok? Just to get down to brass tacks, what parts of your initial statement do you feel my argument didn't address and why?

To frf4xlii's point, I see the issue of cyclists disobeying (note sp.) the traffic laws as somewhat akin to civil disobedience. We have the inherent right to safe transport, but this right is being denied to us by infrastructure designed for cars (and car parking) instead of including bike lanes, etc., by laws designed for automobiles, and by the attitudes of drivers like him. (On average about one cyclist a day dies due to this in this country.) We are under no obligation to follow unjust laws, so long as we take responsibility for our actions, and don't endanger others.

Ooh, "crybabies", that's the way to ramp up the civility.

frfx, you seem to be mixing up a whole stew of concerns that are a little difficult to address as a stew, bikes don't belong on the roads, but you applaud the commuting effort, but you're unhappy that you think that we think that we don't have to obey the laws, then, messengers, aagh! Phew!! I can see why you're unhappy, it's a mess in there!

On top of that you seem to think that everything beyond your own nose is a hazard. That must be scary! But no, it's not you, of course.

You do however need to change your opinion about one thing - bikes do belong on the road. It's the law. Deal with it.

frfx4lii, talk to your city councilman or state representative about licensing and insurance for bicyclists. Bottom line, it's too expensive.

Personally I see drivers speeding, running red lights, not yielding to pedestrians, etc. Disobeying traffic laws is not unique to people on bikes.

If you want to drive your golf cart or tractor on the road feel free to contact your state legislators. There are certainly places in this country where it is legal to drive a golf cart on the road. That has nothing to do with bicycles which already have a legal right to use the road. Who exactly is asking for "special considerations" here?

BTW, are you claiming you never exceed the speed limit, roll through stop signs, etc. or are you just a hypocrite?

I'm sure I've followed tractors on the road in Western PA.

What strikes me is the complaint that deer, bikes, and pedestrians are the hazards listed.

I offer that other motorized vehicles are the main hazards- Mr. Schnieder is in much more danger from other motorized traffic except for the case where he puts himself in danger by his reckless driving fueled by his own impatienece.

It's like complaining about the possibility of getting eaten by a shark while driving to the beach. Your life is in much more danger from the latter.

Calling bicyclists and pedestrians "hazards" is a pretty sure sign that our hero lacks the level of maturity required to safely operate a motor vehicle.

I don't expect you to have an answer for why cyclists get special privileges over lawn tractors or golf carts... that's up to the lawyers and law enforcement.

"Pennsylvania law holds bicycles to the same rules as automobiles, along with a few supplemental rules specific only to bikes. The laws governing bicycles are outlined in Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. Obey Pennsylvania’s regular vehicle laws as well as its bicycle laws to ensure your safety and the safety of fellow travelers."

If you don't stop at stop signs it is dangerous and you are breaking the law (I believe the new PA law states that bicycles are now considered vehicles). If you DO stop then it takes extra effort and time to cross and can be dangerous. I get it.

I don't drive on train tracks but I am allowed to cross them at my own risk. Kind of the same thing. Think about it.

" I try to get around cyclists as soon as possible to eliminate such a hazard and distraction."

THAT, is just subjective opinion. Once in a while, you probably even go over the speed limit to make such a pass; that's no different than a cyclist rolling through the occasional stop sign. I'm not defending the practice, but if I'm spinning along at 5-10mph, a full stop is not always necessary. It depends on the intersection, road conditions, my speed, etc. It's a judgement call and a subjective opinion on the part of the cyclist.

Having a licence doesn't change much. I once had an idiot pass me on a motorcycle at 80+ mph on the shoulder. I know his speed b/c I was driving at close to 70mph myself. Sometimes, often, people do stupid things. Does having a licence change that? Most of us already drive in addition to cycling. We are better drivers because we cycle; most of us already have a license.

Cyclists are a hazard? It sounds like anything that inconveniences you meets the criteria for a "hazard." Well, if you want your own private road where you set the rules, best to start saving some money. Those of us who live in a society recognize that those who inconvenience us have just as much of a right to the space in question. Again, if you want to talk trash on some of the apparent negative attributes of cycling... lets talk about the true cost of driving a car, starting with the FREE parking that the city provides along the shoulder! Then we can discuss the TRUE cost of gasoline after removing all the hidden subsidies for gasoline consumption in this country. There's no such thing as a one-sided argument and every position has its cons.

When we are talking about pedestrians, are we talking about jaywalking (which is illegal) or merely walking from Point A to Point B along the side of the road? I do far more of the latter than cycling, usually in the dark, often in rotten weather, often enough when piles of snow along the roadway push me out into the driving lane. Yes, I am a hazard, but I also have a legal right to be there. I try as best I can to jump out of the driving lane into the nearest snowbank, or run or dive for a driveway, so as to arrive in one piece.

You, as a driver, must anticipate road hazards, be they pedestrians, cyclists, deer, downed branches, the mailman, whatever. Our being there is not an issue to be discussed. Your respect of the rules of the road, is.

Go back to that link I posted above, and pay particular attention to 3301(a)(2) and 3307(b)(1).

If this guy is going to fail to engage in a conversation, then this thread should be locked. He said that he isn't going to change his mind. we aren't going to Change his mind. Everyone's responses are intelligent but he doesn't want to her them. We all know the things we are telling him. Please consider locking this thread? There is no constructive conversation when someone doesn't want to listen.

"I don't expect you to have an answer for why cyclists get special privileges over lawn tractors or golf carts... that's up to the lawyers and law enforcement."

Well, if your attitude is that the law is the law which seems to be the source of frustration at stops, then we're not talking special privileges, we're talking law.

Conversely, if we're talking about what SHOULD be, I think there are plenty of neighborhood streets golf carts could be allowed on. You see it a lot in Florida. But I want something with bumpers once you're going more than 15mph with the added weight of an engine. My 2c.

"If you don't stop at stop signs it is dangerous and you are breaking the law (I believe the new PA law states that bicycles are now considered vehicles). If you DO stop then it takes extra effort and time to cross and can be dangerous. I get it."

Well, neither should be dangerous as long as the bike exercises caution when entering the intersection. But that requires car drivers keeping calm and giving the bicyclist enough space. And there's plenty of law to support this too, starting with the 4 foot rule but really it's just common sense.

"I don't drive on train tracks but I am allowed to cross them at my own risk. Kind of the same thing. Think about it."

I'm loosing the analogy here. If you want to clarify it might be interesting.

"Pennsylvania law holds bicycles to the same rules as automobiles, along with a few supplemental rules specific only to bikes. The laws governing bicycles are outlined in Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. Obey Pennsylvania’s regular vehicle laws as well as its bicycle laws to ensure your safety and the safety of fellow travelers."

100% correct sir. Despite the illogic of having a 200 to 300 lb bike/rider held to the same standards as 4,000 to 5,000 lb potential deadly weapon, most folks in this group will entirely agree, and follow those laws. On that issue you will be largely preaching to the choir. And while "cyclists" are not some monolithic community that meets in basements where we all decide which law to break that week, this group (and others) does/do take steps to educate others in appropriate road behaviour. Some people don't follow the laws, some ride bikes.

Bottom line, the number of cyclists using the roads is going to continue to increase. Please drive carefully, that cyclist that annoys you so is someones son, daughter, brother, sister, father mother, aunt, uncle, or grandparent.

I'm with StefB on this one. The thread should be locked--these are the same arguments that we get into with the morons who post comments after the newspaper articles on the web. Bringing the post here, but then not being open to reasonable and intelligent discussion means this guy is a troll, and should be dismissed as such.

Why lock the thread? Ignore it and it will drop away. It's not like the guy is posting 50x a day or anything like that.

I would echo the 'start riding and it will change your outlook'.

Cycling makes an immense amount of sense to me, and it didn't all come together until I started riding. It changes the way you look at many things in your life, and I would highly recommend giving it a shot.

I think we're beating a dead horse trying to justify it with laws and statutes. Just try it and even if you absolutely hate it, I'm almost certain you will be better off for it.

frfx has not attacked anyone on the board, he's stated an opinion (he just happens to be wrong ). I don't see any reason to quash discussion or aggressively censor just because the thing has been hashed and re-hashed before.

I have come to the realization that a lot of people watch the board for information, learning, who never actually comment. Folks who are new cyclists are going to encounter frfx-y types occasionally. I think it's an example of - here's what you're going to run into, and here's how you do that. Knowing how to respond to this type of thing is no less valuable than learning how to change a flat, or select gearing.

(edit; anyway, just because someone says their mind won't be changed, doesn't make it so. Chipping at the hard soil of prejudgement and sowing the seeds of doubt is fun!)

By posting here, and following up we know that he's willing to engage. Why should we be the ones to step away? It would be one thing if it were cut/paste spam but I don't see that here.

Even if he did make some rather telling choices in verbiage if he's talking and not racking up GTA points it's all to the good.

This is an opportunity people, don't shut it down.

Last night on the Simpsons, Moe pulled out a shotgun and stated it was a no acronym bar (then someone said "OK").

What are GTA points? Greater Theatricals Anonymous? Good Times, All?

Grand Theft Auto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_(series)

its super fun to play.

I'm with edmonds and byogman on this. While there is at least some level of trolling in the OP's posts, he is engaging in conversation; I dare say, he's even being at least somewhat constructive "I understand the commuting and I applaud the effort." Of course, this is easily lost in light of calling us "crybabies" and "hazards." I'd say he's being a good sport in light of the personal info that was posted (just b/c it's publicly available doesn't make it fair game, imho).

Besides, this site is searchable. Mike may not be willing to consider our arguments (and who's to say that he won't?)... but, others might stumble on this thread and gain from it. This type of trolling hardly necessitates closing a thread; if anything, suggesting as much is only going to confirm his accusation of being cry-babys. If you feel that participating in this discussion is a waste of your time, no one is forcing you to follow it or contribute to it.

Gah, I'm a victim of my own game!

Grand theft auto. You drive over pedestrians and get points. Really, you drive over anything and get points, the worse the better.

I need to hesitate truncating for understanding.

The OP lives in the same general part of town I do, and thus faces the same challenges to transportation cycling as I do.

Maybe that's a useful thought in & of itself: the concept of "transportational cycling", i.e., I am not riding for fun, I am riding to get from Here to There. In the not-close-in suburbs, it is somewhat heretical to use Anything But The Car to get around. (Regular readers will note that this is the name of my blog.

I say that to say this: While Mike is not likely ever to get on a bicycle, no matter what prodding and invitations we proffer, if he or anyone physically close to him ever does, he is going to run into what I run into every time I pull out of my own driveway: An infrastructure built around and for the automobile.

To some extent, Mike is right; yes, it is difficult to learn how to drive in a multi-modal community. The roads were built for cars, and 10 miles out into the 'burbs, they're not likely ever to change. People like me are a rarity, probably 1 in 1,000 -- possibly 1 in 10,000 -- who seriously try NOT to use a car to do routine transportation.

Mike, if you're paying attention still, I used to own four cars. Twenty years ago, I made a conscious decision to downsize the fleet to one, and to try to use buses and bicycles to get around. In that time, I saved $100,000+ in transportation costs. That's real money. Money I used to give my family a better standard of living, money I used to put myself through grad school, money I used to pay off my mortgage early.

That also means I am occasionally on a bicycle riding around the North Hills, "getting in your way". Lifestyle choices, man.

I am glad that the original poster has come back and is following this thread. He is clearly being educated in the process.

He is right. Bicycles are considered vehicles under the PA Code. However, neither bicycles nor horses (also a vehicle per PA Code) are defined as "motor vehicles." As vehicles, cyclists and horse operators are required to obey the rules of the road - same as motor vehicles - other than some special provisions that have been referenced elsewhere in this thread.

Note that in his original statement, the poster raised the question of why he cannot drive his golf cart or ATV on local roadways, if cyclists can operate their bikes on those same roadways. That goes to the definition of vehicle and motor vehicle. In order to be titled in PA, a motor vehicle must meet certain criteria for lighting, braking, safety equipment, etc. ATVs and golf carts do not meet those standards (neither do motorized stand up scooters, by the way). Therefore, they cannot be operated on the roadways in Pennsylvania, except in very certain circumstances. Snowmobiles are also prohibited from using public roadways in PA, in part at least because they are registered and titled by DCNR, not by PennDOT. Note that the operation of a titled and registered vehicles on PA roads requires a statement of financial responsibility, a license, insurance, etc.

If the original poster has an issue with what TYPES of vehicles are permitted to legally use Pennsylvania roadways, Cburch is correct -- he should contact his local legislators. The section of the PA Code he should reference in Chapter 75.

If he has a problem with the manner in which a vehicle (motorized or otherwise) is being operated, he should contact local law enforcement and request enhanced traffic monitoring and control.

If he has a gripe about cyclists in general, he is welcome to his opiniopn. We all have opinions and that is our right as Americans. He has chosen to share that opinion in a community where I suspect he knows there will be some disagreement. He is either looking to be educated, or looking to stir up some emotion. On the first, he's been educated by knowledgable people on this board. On the second, well, you will win more friends with honey......

Welcome, Mike. We may never win you over to the point of making "friends" with you, but hopefully we can come to an agreement as to who has a right to use local roadway, and why; and the simple fact that all users are supposed to obey all traffic laws, but many don't.

"I don't drive on train tracks but I am allowed to cross them at my own risk. Kind of the same thing. Think about it."

I'm loosing the analogy here. If you want to clarify it might be interesting.

The point is that I could drive down the rail road tracks made for trains but I will probably loose in an accident with a train. After all I should stick to the roads that were made for cars.

Every time a cyclist is killed or hurt on the roadways you guys are up in arms(as you should be). Now look at the new PA law that says that autos have to give a 4' space and ARE allowed to cross the double yellow line in order to do so. To me this sounds like a "band aid" rather than the solution (the solution would be to remove "pedacycles" from the roadways all together). I know I ruffled feathers but hopefully this makes you think about the other side of the coin. I'm thinking that cyclists have the attitude that "we have the right to the road and autos have to get out of my way" rather than you are a guest and should assume most of the risk.

Out of curiosity (and I don't know the answer to this) how often are cyclists pulled over for blowing through a stop sign, not signaling, speeding or other violations?

"Out of curiosity (and I don't know the answer to this) how often are cyclists pulled over for blowing through a stop sign, not signaling, speeding or other violations?"

I feel like it's very rare, it's never happened to me, though I am quite cautious. Speeding would be an interesting one, I suppose the only place we would get pulled over is school zones.

The most illegal thing I do is ride in the bus lane. But I never impede the progress of buses and make sure to never pass them on the right. The police do not seem to care about this.

Yeah, here in America we've got lots of laws, but a lot of them don't get enforced. It's a tradition that runs right back to the Puritans -- they wanted to create their ideal society, with laws against working on Sunday, etc; but there were lots of folks who wanted to live out in the woods someplace and follow their own laws. So we still have those ideas around today.

It's not like that everywhere -- in places like Germany, I understand, they maybe have fewer laws (e.g., it's OK to sunbathe topless) but those they have do get enforced (cycle the wrong way up a one-way street and you'll get a ticket.)

This flexibility doesn't apply only to cyclists, of course.

@frfxlii:

again, I urge you to ask these same questions about your fellow motorists.

-is driving actually a right? I was taught from day one in driver's ed class that it is a privilege.

-where does the money actually come from that builds and maintains roads?

-do you ever get frustrated waiting for some jagoff to turn left?

-do you ever find other drivers to run lights, pass annoyingly close, tailgate, cross the double line or a median out of impatience?

-do you ever witness other drivers failing to signal or speeding?

-do you find it annoying to wait for old folks and mothers to cross the street?

As with my original [response to your] post, I don't intend to justify any particular behavior.

I think if you do a bit of accounting, you will find that cyclists are not actually holding you up all that much, frustrating as it may be on the occasions that they do.

Just try to smile and wave. Give yourself 60 seconds to see how a situation on the road plays out before blowing your lid and you may be surprised to find that you are on your way before a full minute has passed more often than not.

Finally, if you are a sports fan, please try biking to an event at one of the arenas, especially during the summer. Getting places by bike is a lot of fun: you will feel great and spare yourself the frustration of gridlock and paying for parking.

Here is a brief article explaining how, in fact, non-drivers are subsidizing the infrastructure that car-owners use & not the other way around. It is based on Pew Charitable Trust research.

^

^

Ok, there's so much wrong up there, let me attempt...

Roads are not made for cars. Roads are built so that the public can travel to where they need to go, conduct business, and do what society needs to do. Numerous user groups are allowed to use the roads, one of which is automobiles. So lose that assumption.

In fact, you probably didn't know this, but in the late 1800's it was cyclists groups that led the push for paved roads, and the modern transportation system we now enjoy. You're welcome.

Cyclists are not guests on the roads, that is blatant nonsense, they are permitted road users. Yes they are obligated to follow the laws, but they are no more required to defer to automobiles than is any other vehicle. And yes I'm pretty sure most cyclists are well aware of the risks of not traveling in a multi-ton protective cage, however they do have the reasonable expectation not to be injured, killed, or even simply harassed by the stupidity or impatience of motorists.

I have not seen any cyclists pulled over by the police for any of the insignificant infractions you mention. On the other hand, I can count on one hand the the number of motorists I have seen pulled over for speeding, running lights, not yielding to pedestrians, etc., and there are thousands more motorists. I am both a cyclist and a driver (and a motorcyclist), and the appalling driving behavior I see when I'm driving just amazes me. So tell all your driving friends to wise up and follow the laws.

@frfxlii:

again, I urge you to ask these same questions about your fellow motorists.

-is driving actually a right? I was taught from day one in driver's ed class that it is a privilege. IT IS A PRIVILEGE AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE, INSURANCE, INSPECTION, REGISTRATION,PLATES.

-where does the money actually come from that builds and maintains roads? 100% TAX MONEY... AT LEAST $.50 OF EVERY GALLON OF GAS GOES TO "ROAD TAX". i KNOW YOU BUY GAS FOR YOUR CAR BUT YOUR BIKE IS A SEPERATE VEHICLE.

-do you ever get frustrated waiting for some jagoff to turn left? IN FRONT, BACK, OTHER LANE, WHAT???

-do you ever find other drivers to run lights, pass annoyingly close, tailgate, cross the double line or a median out of impatience? OF COURSE -do you ever witness other drivers failing to signal or speeding? YES

-do you find it annoying to wait for old folks and mothers to cross the street? YES

As with my original [response to your] post, I don't intend to justify any particular behavior.

I think if you do a bit of accounting, you will find that cyclists are not actually holding you up all that much, frustrating as it may be on the occasions that they do.

Just try to smile and wave. Give yourself 60 seconds to see how a situation on the road plays out before blowing your lid and you may be surprised to find that you are on your way before a full minute has passed more often than not.IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE TIME AS THE FACT THAT IF A CYCLIST SWERVES TO AVOID A POTHOLE OR CARCASS INTO MY PATH AND i KILL OR INJURE SOMEONE, I AM THE ONE THAT HAS TO LIVE WITH IT.

Finally, if you are a sports fan, please try biking to an event at one of the arenas, especially during the summer. Getting places by bike is a lot of fun: you will feel great and spare yourself the frustration of gridlock and paying for parking. I'M NOT AGAINST CYCLING BUT WITH ANY SPORT OR ACTIVITY THERE IS A TIME AND PLACE, FOR CYCLING I BELIEVE PARKS, ARENAS, NEIGHBORHOODS, TRACKS (WASHINGTON BLVD) OR WHERE THERE IS A BIKE LANE.

Ok, there's so much wrong up there, let me attempt...

Roads are not made for cars. Roads are built so that the public can travel to where they need to go, conduct business, and do what society needs to do.

Roads are made for cars, bike lanes are made for bikes. If roads were made for bikes they would be 2' wide with a "cyclist" symbol.

Cyclists are not guests on the roads, that is blatant nonsense, they are permitted road users.

Then why are golf carts, dirt bikes, ATVs, or riding tractors subject to the same rules? just because they have engines? My whole point of this to to promote safety and awareness and to be honest the safest solution is to remove the cyclist from the roadways, even if you don't want to admit it.

I'M NOT AGAINST CYCLING BUT WITH ANY SPORT OR ACTIVITY THERE IS A TIME AND PLACE,...

100%. Bikes are vehicles per the law. Biking is transportation. Biking is done where and when transportation is needed. QED.

And saying roads are made for cars repeatedly does not make it so. It is not.

From post #1: "Bicycles should not be on public roads! Period!"

From above: "...OR WHERE THERE IS A BIKE LANE."

Progress!

wow.

this keeps going?

I'm going to ride my bike. Later.

Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes contains the laws which govern the operation of vehicles on Pennsylvania roads. In Pennsylvania, a bicycle is considered a vehicle and, as such, is governed by a general set of rules (common to all vehicles) and a specific set of rules (designed for bicyles.) Section 3501. Applicability of traffic laws to pedacycles. (a) General Rule-every person riding a pedacycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title...

3505 (a) General Rule-except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), every person operating a pedacycle upon a highway shall obey the aplicable rules of the road as contained in this title. (c) Slower than prevailing speeds.-A pedacycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of Section 3301 (b), unless it is unsafe to do so. (3301 (b) states that slower vehicle should keep to the right, which is the normal expectation of all road users, while permitting bicyclists to make movements consistent with their intended route)

Section 3508 Pedacycles on sidewalks and pedacycle paths.Subsection b) Business districts- a person shall not ride a pedacycle upon a sidewalk in a business district unless permitted by official traffic-control devices, nor when a useable pedacycle -only lane has been provided adjacent to the sidewalk.

Blah Blah Blah. Bicyclists are not "guests". They have equal rights to use the roads as drivers of cars. They must obey the laws. Should a bicyclist ride in the middle of the road of a highway when they are not even close to the speed limit and it is unsafe? Sure sounds like they should not and common sense should be used as to the route taken. The sidewalk is NOT the place where bicyclists should/must be and they in particular are not supposed to ride on the sidewalks in a business district ( entire downtown???)

Bicyclist are subject to being cited for traffic violations. Bicyclists should respect the rights of vehicle drivers and obey the law. Vehicle drivers do not have the right to assume bicyclists must get out of the way, which happens frequently and with fatal consequences. Otherwise good people that I know do not have a clue about bicycle law and presume that car drivers have absolutely greater rights than bicyclists and always get angry when they are behind a person who is just trying to get from A to B by way of a different mode of travel. They really do not know!!

Pbeaver, do you mean in this instance or on a societal basis? Yes.

Oh yes, and the old "but what if I kill one of 'you people' and you screw up my life by dying" approach...

A. Exactly the same thing happens as if you kill another driver or (gasp!) a pedestrian - the law looks at the circumstances and decides if any punishment is warranted.

Actually the odds of any driver facing any consequences for killing someone are incredibly remote, it's pretty much a free pass. So just keep driving your little toy and don't worry your pwetty wittle head.

You should really worry much more about killing or being killed by one of your fellow motorists, that is much more likely to happen, that would be much more effective use of your worryin' time.

this guy is really boring. I'm going to bed.

faulty premise + faulty logic = faulty conclusions.

shocker.

Actually Swalfoort has the right answer "motor vehicles" vs. "vehicles" this is why cyclists are able to transverse our highways and byways.

Ride safe.

@salty - I just noticed you're a moderator - has it been long?

And related, but not related, frfx4lii should be a freewheeler soon.

"My whole point of this to to promote safety and awareness and to be honest the safest solution is to remove the cyclist from the roadways, even if you don't want to admit it."

Even if you don't want to admit it, the safest solution is no motor vehicles, motor vehicles that in addition to running into cyclists, run into large stationary object (cars running into buildings is fun thread here), run into each other, run into pedestrians and from their mass and speed are the cause all the death out there. It's obvious on the face of it even if it's more convenient to blame the victim.

"Roads are made for cars, bike lanes are made for bikes. If roads were made for bikes they would be 2' wide with a "cyclist" symbol."

If the road were made for cars it wouldn't go directly alongside where people live work and play and thus put them at risk, it would be left to countryside and race track recreation and have a little “car” symbol.

So see, you can do this both ways. Both are ignorant of reality and fundamentally stupid as a result. We've both gotta get where we're going we've got the roads we've got. Improvements are possible, segregated infrastructure can be built, and if you want to advocate for it please be my guest, but it's not going to be a complete answer. We have to learn to get along out there.

Having heard all of these no cyclists on roads before let me offer the suggestion to Mr. Schneider that to limit his frustration with "hazards" that are slower than him, he should limit his driving to limited access highways only. However there might be the occasional heavy truck doing the legal lower limit, so you will just have to wait a bit in those instances.

This thread is all incredibly unique. Could you imagine 20,000 of us cycling in Pittsburgh? The horror, the traffic! Why someone would cry foul and demand we register our menacing conveyances!

It's like trolleys, motor vehicles and cyclists will never get along... I'd ask you to mind this child while driving, but he's probably died of old age.

Southside, Summer of '35

Out of curiosity (and I don't know the answer to this) how often are cops pulled over for blowing through a red light?

Just wondering because on my commute home tonight, all the other motor vehicle drivers I encountered while in contention for shared transportation resources seemed to be able to follow the law pretty well and stop when the bright red things were in the air.

This was heading outbound on Friendship at N. Aiken tonight around 7:20. You can see sharrows around :06.

Ya, I know, I ran it too, but only to try to catch up with the plate. At least they did cross the double yellow to pass and give me the required 4 feet. I'll applaud them for that. But I mean come on. The light was clearly yellow before they began to pass.

I guess they don't like waiting around behind cyclists as they should legally? No lights, sirens, no emergency. Why not wait for 30 seconds?

@frfx4lii: What do you think of drivers who create hazards by not following the laws? Do me a favor. While you're out driving, count the number of infractions you see drivers committing vs. the number you see cyclists committing. Include running red lights, not coming to a full stop at a stop sign, and texting while driving (Section 3316). Include cyclists riding without lights at dark (Section 3507). Do this for a week and post your numbers on who is creating the most hazards on our roadways.

Since it has not been specifically mentioned here, I will point out that in Idaho, cyclists may treat stop signs as yield signs, and red lights as stop signs. That law has been in place for years, and seems not to be a problem. Paris France is testing a similar ordinance.

@frfx4lii - I am assuming you are old enough to have been driving prior to 1992. You certainly held to the 55 mph speed limit in that 1974-1992 period, right? I say that less to point fingers and more to point out that laws can be changed to suit the needs of the people the laws serve.

If you are upset about cyclists rolling stop signs, we fix that by changing the law.

-where does the money actually come from that builds and maintains roads? 100% TAX MONEY... AT LEAST $.50 OF EVERY GALLON OF GAS GOES TO "ROAD TAX". i KNOW YOU BUY GAS FOR YOUR CAR BUT YOUR BIKE IS A SEPERATE (sic) VEHICLE.

Oooh, ohh. Let me at this one.

The "Gas Tax" was instituted to pay for roads, that much is true. However, the tax has not kept pace with costs to the point now that most of the funding for the construction, maintenance and repair of roads come from the general funds. That means that even if I don't have a car and do not buy gas, I am still paying for most of the roads that you use.

You're welcome.

But lets say, for example, that the tax did pay for the road and, as you suggest, since I use the road then I should also pay my share for it. I think that's fair.

What I also think is fair would be that the amount of wear and tear put on the road should be comparable to the amount of tax paid. Big heavy trucks cause a lot more damage than something like a compact car and so it's fair that they pay more. This is somewhat reflected in the gas tax in that larger vehicles have poorer gas mileage and thus end up paying more in taxes. Of course, that means electric cars and bicycles are going to get off scott-free, as it were. So, let's talk about a mileage tax. When you fill out your registration or get your car inspected, the state looks at your mileage. It seems fair then to pay on a per mile basis.

So, what should we pay per mile? Well, since heaver vehicles cause more damage, there should be a formula to balance that. Mini Coopers pay less, M1 Abrams tanks pay a lot. Highway engineers use just such a formula when they are building roads. They use the speed of the vehicles multiplied by the axle weight to the 4th power.

So, let's do some math.

Though cars can go very much faster than a bicycle, lets just talk about city or suburban driving. A car on city street might go about 25-30 mph while a bicycle tends to run at around 10 to 15 mph. Let's just say for simplicity that the car goes twice as fast as a bike. (remember that number)

Cars and bikes have the same number of axles (2) so we can ignore that number.

Now here's the big one. The average car in the US weighs 4,000 pounds. The average assumed weight of a person (used by engineers) is 180 pounds and a typical bicycle weighs around 30 pounds for a total of 210 pounds. That means the car is 19 times heavier than a bicycle and bicyclist.

Now, let's put it all together. Remember the formula: road damage equals speed times weight to the 4th power. That means 2 (the number of times faster that the car goes) times (19 (the number of times that the car is heavier) times 19 times 19 times 19) That means that the car causes 260,642 times more damage to the road than the bicyclist. Thus, to be fair, the car driver should pay 260,642 times the road tax.

What does the typical driver pay now? Well, the average number of miles driven per year (12,000) divided by the average gas mileage (25 mpg) equals 480 gallons of gas used per year. Multiply that by the 50 cent a gallon gas tax and the average car driver is paying only $240 a year in gas taxes. Personally, I think you're getting that on the cheap. But, if we insert the number we calculated above, the driver is causing 260,000 times the damage so the cyclist should be paying 260,000 times less. That's something less than a dollar every thousand years.

That's fair, right?

I'll very happily pay that tax, all 1000 years, up front, if we can institute it across the board!

Would be a beautifully appropriate incentive that would be for people to drive a vehicle that's not a tank and might allow the other guy to survive in case of a crash. Stop the roadway arms race, support the axle weight tax now!

Also from Bikeyface,

Edit: BTW one of the peculiar results of the analysis is that people should pay a lot more to ride on buses. A lightly loaded city bus weighs 12 tons and has two axles, so causes 6**4 as much damage as a 2 ton car, i.e., 1296 times as much damage. The average ridership on a bus is 10 people, but even heavily loaded with 60 people (and not taking into account the additional weight) that would mean over 20 times as much damage per person as an average car carrying one person. So bus riders should pay far more than car riders for road maintenance.

Given the quality of the roads where a lot of buses run, that's an unsurprising outcome to me.

Perhaps considering maintenance costs, over the long haul rail isn't a boondoggle after all?

re: "The "Gas Tax" was instituted to pay for roads, that much is true. However, the tax has not kept pace with costs to the point now that most of the funding for the construction, maintenance and repair of roads come from the general funds. That means that even if I don't have a car and do not buy gas, I am still paying for most of the roads that you use."

Also, don't forget that the largest chunk of the Federal and State general funds that we all pay into go toward building/maintenance of limited access highways that bikes can't even use! Aggh! Unfairness!

Now don't weep too hard because the trucks that bring our food and clothes and obsolete vintage ebay bike component purchases use those roads, so we all use them indirectly.

The bottom line is we live in a complex web of relationships and we all need to get along and help one another, and b. bikes do belong on the (non-limited access) roadways.

bussing is an economic loss leader. it is and should be subsidized.

i pay taxes that pay for a lot of things i dont use. i also use a lot of things that my portion of taxes barely puts a dent in. thats kind of the point of taxes. we all pitch in and have more than we could alone.

My whole point of this to to promote safety and awareness and to be honest the safest solution is to remove the cyclist from the roadways, even if you don't want to admit it.

If we wanted to use "it's dangerous" as a reason to remove anyone from the roadways there would be no cars.

http://sillydrivers.tumblr.com/

You keep asking why you can't drive a golf cart on the road and you can't because it's illegal. Perhaps you can start a membership driven golf cart advocacy group to work towards getting the laws updated.

"So bus riders should pay far more than car riders for road maintenance."

I won't say my reasoning is perfect, or even preferable as tax policy, but such an argument easily destroys the "You don't pay your fair share" argument of autodominionists.

This guy is sure self centered and selfish. Goodness, there are a lot of people these days that don't have a car and can't afford one, but need to get to and from work. I guess this moron feels they should stay at home and live off the taxpayers? Many can't get a bus due to many factors. I can't take a bus because I work in the middle of the night and there are no buses at those hours to and from my home to work. Get over yourself moron, you aren't that important.

And, ironically, it turns out that auto drivers subsidize every other road user (trucks, buses) by paying for wear and tear disproportionately -- EXCEPT for bicyclists! Cyclists are the only road user who pays more, proportional to their wear and tear on the road, than auto users.

[working from @gg's comment, above] I do work, I do bus a lot, but have to walk most of a mile on a suburban two-lane road, in the dark, with no sidewalk and no lighting, to get to that bus. I do this five times as often as I bike. You, as a driver, have to avoid me. I, as a pedestrian, am pretty good at avoiding getting hit. I am less sure about my neighbors who walk that road. But that's par for the course for any 35 mph road in Hampton and McCandless.

But I do have a legal right to be there, and you have the responsibility to see me in time to slow down and/or move over. If you cannot or will not do that, you have no business driving.

Replace "pedestrian" with "cyclist". Same argument, same result. YOU need to change your mind about cyclists being on the road.

Just a side note, but the PA gas tax "The OCFT was

originally enacted in 1981 as a response to energy concerns."

So, it wasn't enacted to fund our highways and bridges! It was enacted to reduce gasoline consumption.

I'm still trying to figure out if that revenue is even a drop in the bucket of the city streets that cyclists use, vs the highways that we aren't even allowed to ride on. Of course, it's a moot point seeing as the real share of revenue from gasoline taxes that we take advantage of are for mass transit and recreation projects. So again, if a person has an issue with the way funds are raised and used... let your representatives know instead of picking fights on an internet forum where your politics are not likely to be embraced.

This is a pretty good read, btw, for any policy wonks out there:

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/TFAC/Transportation%20Funding%20Study%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

if the gas tax is going for mass transit, why is all the hate on cyclists and not bus riders?

"The OCFT was originally enacted in 1981 as a response to energy concerns."

I knew that in Europe, road use taxes were inflated specifically to discourage driving. In the US it was created for the same reason, apparently, but has been marketed as a way to build/repair roads. Additionally, since it has stagnated for so long, everyone has forgotten the real reason. Even me.

So, yes. Contact your legislator and convince them to create legislation that locks in the gas tax as a either a percentage of the wholesale price of gasoline or links it to the rate of inflation.

" IF A CYCLIST SWERVES TO AVOID A POTHOLE OR CARCASS INTO MY PATH AND i KILL OR INJURE SOMEONE, I AM THE ONE THAT HAS TO LIVE WITH IT."

Substitute "another driver" or "a pedestrian" or "a baby carriage" for "a cyclist" in this rant. Maybe if you have better control of your vehicle, none of those "swerves" would endanger life.

If your whole point is truly to promote safety and awareness, then slow down and be safe and aware.

" IF A CYCLIST SWERVES TO AVOID A POTHOLE OR CARCASS INTO MY PATH AND i KILL OR INJURE SOMEONE, I AM THE ONE THAT HAS TO LIVE WITH IT."

also, this is the point of the 4 foot law, as well as more general laws about safe passing and following. if you are in a position to harm me because i went around a road hazard, you were the one breaking the law.

also, try the "i have to live with it" excuse on the person who you crippled, or the family of the person you killed. i bet they'll feel real sorry for you.

" IF A CYCLIST SWERVES TO AVOID A POTHOLE OR CARCASS INTO MY PATH AND i KILL OR INJURE SOMEONE, I AM THE ONE THAT HAS TO LIVE WITH IT."

I have found, during my transition from assholemoron driver to cyclist and driver, that leaving adequate room for scenarios such as this will allow time. It will be a difficult concept for you to grasp but I hope if you give it your all you might be able to understand it.

I occasionally find myself getting annoyed at pedestrians or cyclists when I'm behind the steering wheel. It's just something that happens to a person when they drive, I think. But I almost always catch myself doing it and laugh. After all, what's my big hurry? Why am I more important than they are? Why shouldn't I have to be patient for a few seconds, so that the person can move safely on with their day? I remember those things, and that I'm not so important, and I laugh at myself for being an impatient asshole. It's strange, the animosity that so many seem to possess for cyclists. The sight of a grown man on a bicycle seems to positively enrage some rednecks, and if you're wearing spandex, they get so mad they get double vision. Why is that? I bet it's some residual angst from a bikeless childhood. Stewing resentment at the kids whose parents bought them a bike. That must be it. Is there any chance this bike-hater would agree to go riding and drink a few beers?

He' probably be shocked to discover that he seems like a bleeding heart pinko liberal commie wussbag compared to you, the "Cyclist" too.

My point being that treating all cyclists as on homogenized group is stupid.

I am not important enough to cause someone to fear for their life. I also realize that the brief period driving at a lower speed does not impact my arrival time.