I knew this was an accident waiting to happen.

[Major Tom]

I love it when people who are texting and walk into a swimming pool! 8-)

[clintonhater]

I love it when people who are texting and walk into a swimming pool! 8-)

Much better than that when their car hits a tree, telephone pole, bridge abutment, etc.; one less public enemy.

[bruce]

Autonomous cars will come to the market. At some point, the technology will be cheap enough that it will be the norm. People will get used to it just like they did when they went from shift transmissions to automatics. Nowadays you can't hardly find a shift on a car lot. Virtually no one wants one. The automatics are now superior in just about every possible way. Even over the road tractors use automatic transmissions. When we headed out on a call the other night the pumper we were on had a automatic transmission. It'll be the same with autonomous vehicles.

As to bicycles ... can't see the problem. You yield the right of way to them just like you would a pedestrian. Vehicle does not have the right to the road over the pedestrian. The bicyclist who is obeying the rules of the road is absolutely no different than the man on a motorcycle. As more people use bicycles and motorcycles, everyone best just get used to them and get along with them. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[clintonhater]

As to bicycles ... can't see the problem.

CLEARLY, you do NOT live in an area where they CLOG the roads! Winding, hilly, 2-lane roads, usually with no shoulders! Don't lecture me about "getting along" with these yuppie FAHs until you do!

[JB White]

CLEARLY, you do NOT live in an area where they CLOG the roads! Winding, hilly, 2-lane roads, usually with no shoulders! Don't lecture me about "getting along" with these yuppie FAHs until you do!

You got that right! Cyclists I can deal with so long as the cycle weenies could be kept from the streets. Darting about with the mindset that motorized vehicles must stop for them. Sure, we can stop. Is that before or after they get run over? Sadly the laws giving right of way to bicycles and pedestrians don't make allowances for things like human reaction time and laws of physics. As if a 2 ton car can drop from 30 to 0 mph in only four feet.
Then there are the cycle weenies who think following traffic laws means following the motorized traffic patterns. Instead of crossing with the lights like pedestrians at major intersections, they believe it's correct for them to be out across 2 or more lanes into the left turning lane. Oh, some perch out there giving a proper hand signal as if that shows how correct they are while on their way to sip a latte.

Recently our area passed some stricter pedestrian laws making it tougher for cars to turn in traffic. They now dawdle through crosswalks intentionally knowing cars cannot turn once they step off the curb. Or...they step off the curb just to stop traffic only to turn around and walk back. It's a new game. Others simply walk off into traffic intentionally looking off to who-knows-where any time they decide. Doesn't matter to them traffic is running in both directions at 35 mph. The law says drivers must stop until they step up the curb.
Stop-Look-Listen no longer applies. To some, walk/don't walk signals do not matter. I honestly believe they're listening closely awaiting the sounds of a rear end collision...or grounds for a law suit.

[clintonhater]

Then there are the cycle weenies who think following traffic laws means following the [B]motorized traffic patterns.

Actually, they don't--90% of the yuppie airheads will run stop signs without slowing down if there are no other cars waiting at the intersection.

[JB White]

Actually, they don't--90% of the yuppie airheads will run stop signs without slowing down if there are no other cars waiting at the intersection.

True, but not all are yuppies. I've done it myself at empty intersections. At least I slow down and am prepared to stop if need be. Heh heh...it actually bothers me a little when I do stop and a courteous driver waves me to go first. I'd rather they go because it takes me more time to get going again.

[Allen]

The highways are NO place for bicycles. Very few people actually need them for transportation. In Europe you see bike riders all over the place due to ancient narrow streets and lack of parking. My wife has relatives in Germany and she said that the bike riders travel at their own risk. Even if they hit or scratch a car they are responsible---the cars have right of way, period. Here in the states things are opposite, the bike riders are considered pedestrians and it is up the auto driver to give the bicycle right of way. Some riders will deliberately take a small bump from a car driver in order to sue. The highways, regardless of federal, state or county were paid for with taxes from car tags and gasoline taxes. I see no connection between these taxes and allowance of bicycle usage. If bikes are to be allowed then tricycles, skate boards, roller skaters, kids playing marbles, kids playing basketball, hop scotch, go carts and all other crap that would otherwise obstruct traffic should be allowed.

[clintonhater]

The highways are NO place for bicycles. Very few people actually need them for transportation.

99% of them are used for joy riding pure & simple. What's more, the idiots riding them usually DRIVE to the places they do their joy riding, ADDING to the number of cars on the road, not diminishing them.

And how can they NOT be required to be licensed & insured, if using a public highway??? In this state, even ATVs, prohibited from use on roads, have to be licensed & insured!

[bruce]

With respect, I live in a area of two lane roads. Cyclist are common. It is common to see groups of cyclist riding along the road even out a good way from cities, etc. In my area little children even ride their bicycles and skate boards on the walking path which (horrors!!!) some would prefer to see used only for walking, i.e., no runners, no one walking dogs, etc. Just ... walking. None of this is a problem for anyone. Never saw a sign on the back of a bike or car or pick-up identifying the operator as to politics, profession, etc. If they run a stop sign, it's no different than when a car runs a stop sign. We get along with motorcyclist. No reason we will not get along with cyclist.

As designed, most roads are intended for vehicles. Fine. Retrofit them for bicycles. As far as right of way, pedistrians are rightly presumed to have right of way. No one is so important that they have to drive so fast that they kill/injure someone just because they want to get somewhere fast.

Objections about taxes, supposing that cyclist are looking for ways to force a driver to pay for a accident, etc. are just simply irrelevant. The same goes for objections b/c cyclist are only using the roads for pleasure rather than "business." It is completely irrelevant. It just doesn't matter at all. The big issue behind all those sorts of objections boils down to the simple fact that there are folks who want to do as they please while driving a vehicle without any concern for how it might affect anyone else. They resent people who they don't like getting in their way. They would also complain if those same folks were driving a Corvette ... at 45 MPH in a 65 MPH zone. Complaining that they don't pay enough taxes are in the same class ... just trying to find a rational by which to exclude these people from using the pubic highways/roads/streets.

When vehicles were first beginning to come to common use, pedestrians were not required to cross streets at corners. The idea of jaywalking came into being as a way to adapt city streets for large numbers of vehicles. It was purposed to protect the automobile industry, not to protect pedestrians. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.