How To Get Killed On A Bicycle

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/how-to-get-kill...



I always thought I was most likely to get killed by a "right hook", where a car blithely turns the corner without looking and the cyclist goes under the wheels. I lost a rowing buddy that way. Or the "door prize" where a driver opens a car door without looking to see if anyone is coming up beside them. But a new study of accidents in Fort Collins, Colorado, covered by Cyclelicious, tells a very different story.

In fact, what they call a "broadside" is far more common. They are defined as " any crash when a bicyclist hits or is hit by a car on a perpendicular road." Yokota at Cyclelicious clarifies it as "That's when a motorist goes straight through an intersection even when there's a bike right in front of him". 60.5% of the accidents were caused that way, compared to only 13% by the right hook.

But what is more disturbing, well over half of the broadsides happened with the cyclist riding against traffic. As Cyclelicious points out, you can imagine what all the drivers are saying in the comments in the Coloradoan.





And while only 8.5% of the accidents are "sideswipes" or "hit from behind", all the fatalities but one came from this- drivers just not looking where they are going and ploughing into the rear of cyclists. Although the report defines this as "Accidents where a bicyclist hits or is hit by a vehicle traveling in the same direction or opposite direction as the bicyclist or car is changing lanes, passing or weaving." and notwithstanding the image, only 4 out of 30 cyclists were travelling against traffic.

More at the link..

I'll probably go out riding tomorrow. Good stuff to know.

trucks have blind spots where the windshield meets the front door posts. It is very easy to miss seeing a bicyclist in the split second that one glances to check for oncoming traffic or pedestrians. Hell, I've even missed seeing full-sized cars if the angle and the light were just right (or just wrong, as the case might be).

I really appreciate the riders who wear yellow or orange because they stand out against the background and the other vehicles. Also appreciate the ones who use flashing head and tail lights at night.

Great post, fumesucker. You may have saved a life or two.

Rec.

cowards as well as bullies or just clueless.

Works every time.

YMMV of course.

So far I've been Ok...Maybe one day not...such is living in the land of the predator.

Once the driver has a six pack beside him on the front seat and a beer can in his hand. I gave the sheriff a heads up. Another clown explained that he ran me off the road because he was looking at the cows.

have been drivers puling out of driveways or from curbside parking spaces. I've seen the case in he third diagram way too often and usually the driver was looking right at me like I wasn't supposed to be there.

Be prepared to take evasive maneuvers on instantaneous notice, always assume that drivers are going to do the absolute stupidest thing they could possibly do.

Part of the problem in the US, a big part, is the "fog mirror, get license" test we have in most (all?) states.

When you're going the wrong way down a street, the car has a lot less time to react.

http://cnx.com/?p=389

RIDE WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC, NOT AGAINST IT!

Not only is it the law in the State of New Jersey, and most other states, too, but there are some basic, sensible reasons for doing this.

* I am bigger than you.
* I am faster than you.
* I will suffer a lot less damage than you in our collision.

Thus it is infinitely more important that I see you than you see me!

If you are riding against the flow of traffic, you will be able to see the cars coming towards you, but you will be cutting down on both your own and the driver’s reaction times, believe it or not, which makes it more likely that a car will hit you before you can swerve out of its path.

Let me explain this somewhat scientifically. Here you are:



…and here I am:



(In the interests of verisimilitude, the surly guy hanging on to the back quarter panel may not be riding along with me all the time.)

Now, let’s say you come turning our of a driveway, right into my line of traffic, going five miles an hour (not unreasonable with some of the people I’ve seen on bikes). I’m proceeding at 25 miles an hour. You are 50 feet ahead of me.



Normally, if you were sitting still, this would give me a little over one and a quarter seconds to swerve and avoid you. However, your forward motion during that same time would carry you ten feet closer to me, shaving a quarter second off the time available to me. Any driving instructor will tell you that more than half of that will be eaten up by my eyes telling my brain you are there, and then my brain telling my foot to slam the brake or my hands to swerve.

Now, let’s pretend that you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing, and travelling WITH the flow of traffic, and we’re going the same speeds.



With 50 feet between us, I have my second and a quarter. But, by the time I get to where you were, you’ll be an extra ten feet ahead of me. Thus, more reaction time, more margin for error.

It’s that simple. Riding with the flow keeps you alive. Riding against the flow, you’re taking a big risk. Keep yourself alive. Follow the law.

Thank you.

... while the driver was pulling out of his driveway at a full clip. Crunched the hell out of my bike and I, thankfully, landed on top of the car's trunk with only a bad bruise where the handlebars hit my arm.

Wall street.

Oh shoot. I ain't got no email list neither.

('Cuz I'm a pothole.)

Which is why in my city I legally ride on the sidewalk (except for a section of downtown where it is illegal and there is a lot of pedestrian traffic) whenever possible. My city is long and narrow and I have ridden on the sidewalk across town for 6 miles and only twice encountered any pedestrians (I can also encounter pedestrians on the rails to trails pathways).

My goal for staying safe while riding my bicycle is to avoid interaction with motor vehicles whenever possible whether it is riding on the sidewalk, or lightly traveled side streets that are marked as bikeways or on actual bike trails.

Came across one such genius the other night. I really don't know what people are thinking 99.9% of the time.

Dark clothes and no reflectors on his bike. I only saw him because I saw his silhouette from a half block away.

Last summer I rode my bike across town in the dark (I have a headlight and a flashing tail light) and I was either on the sidewalk or on the sidestreets and in 6 miles from one end of the city to the other I only was on a street once when a car was there. It was a safe and nice ride on a beautiful night.

I don't know if he was all in black, but there was nothing reflective about him and the road was dark so I barely saw him.

I don't know if he was all in black, but there was nothing reflective about him and the road was dark so I barely saw him.

than once on my way to work. I'm lit up like a friggin' Christmas tree when I commute in the dark and man, I hate it when I come across those types. We used to call them "Ninja cyclists" but decided that name was too cool and might only encourage that type of behavior so we coined the term "darkwads" for them instead. I think it's more fitting.

My dad always told me to give cyclists lots and lots of room, not to cut them off. It was sage advice.

we need more bike lanes! Also Drivers and cyclists who pay attention

Cars, trucks, bicycles, scooters, motorcycles, taxis, buses, and pedestrians. I think the only thing that holds it together is the one rule that apparently exists - don't hit anyone and don't get hit.

because when the city goes to the trouble of encouraging bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk you just KNOW that riding on the road is a very bad idea.

I also make it a practice to dismount and act like a pedestrian at busy, complex intersections with pedestrian controls.

There are plenty of bike lanes around here and I think that drivers are more attuned to bicyclists on those roads than on the ones without them. I'd still rather be on the paved bike trails but they're not without hazardous because of the intersections. Oddly enough the small side street intersections are the most dangerous because drivers aren't pay attention on these low traffic roads.

3 x right hook
- 2 x SUV
- 1 x cargo van

3 x broadside
- 1 x SUV rolling through a stop sign
- 1 x car rolling through a stop sign
- 1 x mini-van lurching out of a blind alley into traffic

1 x door prize
- I'm very careful to avoid these, but hard to see right after you turn a corner

It's amazing I'm still so pretty after all the time I've spent sliding on the asphalt.

Automobile Apartheid! How dare you sir!

A friend of mine had a cyclist come through their windshield about six years ago, asshole was riding on the wrong side of the road at dusk. According to the CHP the same moron had been hit two years earlier on the PCH doing the exact same thing and had successfully sued a driver who hit him once earlier!

A darwin award if there ever was one, but my friend is still fucked up from the accident years later.

bicyclists are required to use the same rules of the road as car-drivers.

ahead of the car and maybe acting like aprt of the lane.

luckily, it never resulted in me flattening anyone. what happens is that the bike-rider zips along the right-hand side of the rode, totally oblivious to the idea that cars might turn right.
if the bicyclist in the picture were ahead of the car as pictured, he wouldn't be hit, as the car would have to slow to turn, and the bike, already ahead of the car would continue on, even farther ahead.

i lived on a one-way street, with a stop sign on the corner, at the intersection of another one-way street where i would make a right-hand turn just about anytime i left the house in the car. the biggest danger, and the thing you really had to be careful of- were the bicyclists that would pass on the right, and then blow thru the stop sign. for some reason, a lot of bicyclists don't seem to think that stop signs apply to them, too.

In the picture the bicycle is in front of the car. The bicycle may have just passed the car on the right or the bicycle may have been in front of the car the whole time. Granted such an accident is much more likely to happen in the former case, but there are enough inattentive dickholes on the road that the latter case can easily happen too.

he would be continuing on thru the intersection, while the car would be doing a right hand turn, and would also most likely have to slow down to turn, which would put the bike even farther ahead.

you're right about the inattentive dickhole part, tho- they just pedal along, listening to ipods & blowing thru stop signs, totally oblivious to cars or pedestrians. some of them need to realize that a stryofoam brain-bucket and a titanium ally frame don't make you indestructible- just a menace.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I'll say it anyway:

I don't care what the law says, bicycles don't belong on the streets with cars, and people who choose to do it are taking their lives in their hands.

There needs to be more sidewalks or bicycle lanes. Bikes don't belong on streets. It's dangerous for the riders, and they hinder the normal flow of motorized traffic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zHpoHFAPjY

What a jerk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzoPTtTfcrA&feature=rela...

Making driving a pain is a good thing, it encourages high-density development, less sprawl, and more mass transit use.

I love California because I can have some fucking space.

The type of communities you imagine would be unaffordable to most of the population since most adults don't wish to live like broke college students their entire lives.

Self loathing fat slob.

Where I live you see one bicycle on the road for perhaps every 1000 or more cars.

What gives so few people the right to inconvenience everyone else on the road?

Yes, I know it's the law, but I don't think it's right.

The roads are for transportation. Most of that transport is by motor vehicle. That's the reality.

That's the future, or it better be, if there's gonna be a future.

In my future we use technology to satisfy our conveniences.

piloting big cars that use lots of resources.

Nothing very technological about lots of distracted and dim-witted drivers piloting big cars that use lots of resources.

So is the answer to go back to 18th century technology and pedal around on human-powered machines, or use technology to produce vehicles that give us the convenience we enjoy today while using renewable resources?

The individual conveyance that is operated by amateurs, takes up lots of space and uses massive amounts of resources is not a sustainable item, and also represents a society seriously out of balance.

Americans, like the people of most advanced countries have achieved a high standard of living by global standards for most citizens - this is NOT a bad thing.

I am not one of those "back to the woods" people who think humanity is a scourge on the earth.

There is no reason to give up the convenience of individual conveyance.

There is no reason why such conveyance need use up massive amounts of resources.

There is no reason why such conveyance can't be sustainable.

There is no reason why such conveyance can't be available in a society in balance.

Some folks just want to "go back to the woods" and forget the convenience of technology. Most people, myself included, will never stand for that.

driving a right, rather than a privilege. That means no more revocations of licenses for any particular offense, because there would be no licenses.

Because driving, under your scenario, would have to be a right and not a privilege, mandatory auto insurance for drivers would also have to be a thing of the past.

Why does driving have to a be a right, rather than a privilege, for your scenario to come true?

Because not everyone drives everywhere, but roads are paid for by everyone. Therefore, everyone driving a legal vehicle may use the roads, and in many cases pedestrians may as well. Now, if you want to talk about a very cheap bicycle license as a local ordinance, I might listen. Educated cyclists are living cyclists.

Because not everyone drives everywhere, but roads are paid for by everyone.

Roads are paid for by everyone, because nearly everyone drives everywhere. The last person I knew who never drove died 15 years ago.

So I say we take about 25% of the roads, kick the cars off of them, and dedicate them to either nonmotorized transport, or to transport with powerplants underneath a certain limit (I don't mind sharing bike roads with scooter riders).

It will also make less room for cars on the roads, which will make driving more unpleasant and thus encourage high-density development and mass transit. Easy driving = Sprawl = Bad.

the "urban lifestyle" is unworkable for the vast majority of people

Manhattan is the most Green place per-capita in the US. If we are to whip global warming in the bud we should try to live more like New Yorkers.

Manhattan shouldn't be a model for anything - if you think we have poverty now, just wait till you need to make $100,000 a year to live indoors AND afford your bus pass.

a quarter to a half mile? They can't bike a mile or 5? If I take you literally, then the vast majority of people are lazy fucks.

When I walk out my door, and I live in the heart of San Francisco, I have 8 books stores within 5 blocks of my apartment. Two hardware store and 2 other stores that sell hardware. I have 5 pharmacies. Two supermarkets. A produce market, 3 bakeries, a farmer's market on Wednesdays, a gazillion restaurants & cafes, a gazillion places to drink, a dozen churches/synagogues/mosques, 5 used furniture stores, 7 new furniture stores, 5 outrageously chi chi furniture stores, a paint store, a fabric store, 3 pet stores, a vet with a 24 hour hospital attached, a tool lending library, a book library, 3 bicycle shops, 4 laundramats, 7 dry cleaners... you get the picture.

What's unworkable?

The only ordinary people I know who live in SF are living in houses they inherited and Proposition 13 keeps them from being taxed out of.

Only 30% of the people who live in San Francisco own their house or condo. The rest of us are renters. All my friends are ordinary people. They are bar tenders and car mechanics, school teachers and city gardeners, bookkeepers and artists. I've lived here for 20 years and I've only hung out with one person who inherited property.

Anywhere else in the country outside of NY that 30% would be considered a crisis.

I've raised one (she's 19 now). She has oodles of friends who were born and raised here and happily so in housing much smaller than 1500 square feet.

And there is a butt load of people who own property right now who consider doing so, a crisis. The last time I looked, there were a lot of folks being evicted or being upside down on their loans.

There is a lot more to happiness than a quarter of an acre of land and a lifetime of maintenance.

To folks who enjoy living in an apartment in a city, my hat is off to them.

Me? I can't stand living jammed in with so many other people.

the costs, the population density, and the living space, for starters.

my garden alone has more square footage than most city apartments.

and they make almost $100,000 a year

whether alongside regular roads that are lightly traveled or on full blown bike paths.

I always try to stay away from congested areas. And, if I am going to ride where there are cars, confine it to the weekends anymore. I try and use bike paths other times, although Reno's aren't very good.

Southern Oregon has a pretty good bike path along the Greenway, which is way better than anything in Reno, and runs I believe about 24 miles one way (it might be a little bit shorter) from Central Point to Ashland. I used it a lot when I was in Oregon these past six months and will be using a lot more often when I finally moved out of Reno for good.

If 25% of the current vehicle traffic was made up of bicycles, I could see doing that. But it's about 1 bicycle for every 1000 cars at the moment. Your plan makes no sense.

This is a serious question.

My office is 3 miles from my house.

Walking it would take much more time and would require considerably more exertion since bicycles are remarkably efficient machines.

And no, mass transit is not an option in my town.

I look forward to your wise reply.

I don't care how you get to work, as long as you don't inconvenience others doing it.

I could drive to work at 90+ mph and get there 90 seconds faster.

If there was no one else on the road.

And when I fly it would be much easier to get through airport security.

If there was no one else in line.

But wouldn't it be cool?

YMMV

Obviously

I could drive to work at 90+ mph and get there 90 seconds faster.

If there was no one else on the road.

And when I fly it would be much easier to get through airport security.

If there was no one else in line.

Just because things would be better if there was no other traffic does not justify traffic that is far slower than every other motor vehicle on the road.

What the hell; I've had a few.

I find it "inconvenient" that we're slaughtering countless innocents in oil wars.

Why?

So that people can get work a few seconds faster while they wait for a safe opportunity to pass me while I'm riding my bike.

In the grand scheme of things what's more important:

Getting to work a few seconds earlier or a world where people didn't kill each other over oil?

I find it "inconvenient" that we're slaughtering countless innocents in oil wars.

Why?

So that people can get work a few seconds faster while they wait for a safe opportunity to pass me while I'm riding my bike.

In the grand scheme of things what's more important:

Getting to work a few seconds earlier or a world where people didn't kill each other over oil?

I also hate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Make no mistake - these wars aren't about ENERGY, they are about MONEY and CONTROL.

If we had invested the amount of money we spent on wars to secure access to oil instead on clean, renewable energy we wouldn't have to choose between convenience and war.

In the end, it's a self-solving problem. Squished bicycle riders.

3 miles to and from work every day. I don't have that option. I have to take my baby to day care that is at least 15 miles from my home, then drive another 5 or so to get to work. But if it is feasible, it is a great way to help the planet while getting exercise. What needs to be done is to make it easier for those who want to use a bike. Everyone wins.

There need to be more roads for bicycles.

you wouldn't be inconvenienced. It's been a process in San Francisco but with our expanded bike lanes and well marked bike routes and bike racks on buses, more people have started riding their bikes to work and for pleasure.

If there was one car for every 1000 cyclists, I could see how we would expect the people in cars to put up with it.

But since it's one cyclist for ever car, I expect the cyclists to put up with it.

just like better/more roads = more cars.

the current situation is a historical policy choice, not a mandate either from consumers or from god.

There needs to be more bicycle lanes and sidewalks.

I live too far from work to ride a bike and tonight, as I was driving on the highway, my car was struck by another driver. I walked away from it but I don't feel much like a fan of cars right at the moment.

It must not apply in my jurisdiction -- various people inconvenience me every hour of the day. Having to pass a cyclist from time to time is pretty low on my list of concerns.

Sidewalks and even bike trails have the potential to be even more dangerous, for various reasons, but most notably because they still have to cross the traffic lanes at some point and when doing so they are in an even more precarious position than they would be if they were in the traffic lane. As the OP illustrates, the vast majority of accidents happen at intersections. Your response is typical of the misunderstandings that surround bike riding in that you think they will be safer if they are off 'your' road.

Your response is typical of the misunderstandings that surround bike riding in that you think they will be safer if they are off 'your' road.

If they were off my road, and that includes intersections on my roads, they would be safer. So would the rest of us that have to weave and dodge and hit the brakes because of them.

That is, do you think that roads should be completely financed by taxes and fees paid by motorists and no one else?

How much do you think that would add to what it costs you to drive?

If it's "your" road would you be willing to pay for it?

I'll be willing to pay for it if the cyclists are willing to match the share paid by the motor vehicle users.

Otherwise, we'll keep paying for it the way we are, and I expect people who use the road not to cause traffic problems.

I have no idea. Nor do I care.

There are far more motorists than cyclists.

Please continue this discussion after you've passed a course in basic civics.

At least we've established that you think it's OK for one out of every 1000 people on the road to inconvenience everyone around them just because they can. Heaven forbid we have a "tyranny of the majority".

"I'm gonna do what I want and fuck everyone else!" - bicyclist mantra.

Using an automobile to travel three miles would be a vast waste of resources, both my own and the resources of the planet in general.

I'm one of those weirdos that likes things like clean air.

It also keeps me in decent physical condition which lowers the strain on our nation's health care system.

Lastly, I don't concede your claim that I'm inconveniencing anyone.

My commute has relatively wide roads and lots of stop lights. If I was in a car the lines at the lights would be longer and fewer people would make it through the lights. The time I save them by biking exceeds any few seconds that someone has to wait to pass me.

match the share of motorists? The toll exacted on pavement and the amount of pavement necessary to accommodate an automobile far exceeds what would be necessary to accommodate a bike. Not too mentions the savings in pollution control and related illnesses due to pollution.

Otherwise stay out of the way.

They only take up a small part of it and there's far more to road maintenance than space. There is wear & tear. Highways that have heavy semi use deteriorate at a much faster rate than roads that are mostly used by automobiles. Bicyclists should be taxed in proportion to their impact. And drivers should be, as well, for both the public space that they usurp and their environmental impact. If drivers were required to pay-as-they-go, gas would cost $7-$8 a gallon.

I'm not talking about wear and tear. Bicyclists demand equal use rights of the road on par with everyone else, despite the fact that they cannot move as quickly as everyone else, and despite the fact that there is like one of them for every thousand motorists.

If you are willing to require that each driver be assessed with a user fee equivalent to the cost of maintaining the roads and infrastructure. Walkers, bicyclists, & mass transportation users already do pay for the roads that we may not use. While gas taxes and fees support both auto and mass transit, much of the infrastructure is supported through general funds... things like policing, signs, pothole repair, traffic lights, etc. There is a great book called Asphalt nation that itemized the subsidies towards go towards our highway infrastructure. Individual drivers pay as little as 40% but only as much as 65% (depending where you live) to cover the costs necessary to provide the with individual transportation.

comes from the general funds. I don't have a link handy and it's rather late so I'm not inclined to hunt one down but that's the figure that I've always seen.
Also, many people that ride bikes also own a car and pay the same vehicle fees and gas taxes as others. Of course, cyclists use less gas than people that drive all the time and thus their gas bill is lower but they still pay gas taxes every time they fill the tank.

My commute by car is 12 miles each way. By bike, it's 15 each way. I bike most of the time but in the winter when they don't plow the bike lanes and/or it's below zero, I take the bus. I obey all traffic laws and always always always ride defensively. I'm very fortunate in that I have a great route to work. About 5 miles is dedicated bike path, 7 miles is on roads with bike lanes, and the rest is on roads with no bike lanes. In my experience, 99% of the drivers are absolutely fantastic. They are extremely courteous and very considerate of sharing the road. I always get the feeling that they see my panniers and know that I'm just going to and from work like they are and that they fully respect my chosen mode of transportation. In the event that I need to "take the lane" in order to go around a utility truck or whatever that is blocking the bike lan, I look over my shoulder and signal my intent to move left. If there is a car coming up, they invariably slow down to let me take the lane. I get around the obstruction as quickly as possible, move back into the bike lane, and give a friendly wave and thumbs-up to the car behind me. I never ever fail to receive a friendly wave back. If I need to make a left turn, same thing. Bikes and cars can indeed co-exist peacefully. Everyone just needs to chill out and share the road.

Now as for the other 1%, in my experience, lots them are just inattentative drivers. They're often talking on their cell phones while eating fast food and fiddling with the radio. They just can't be bothered to look at the road. But I've found that the biggest danger is often caused by a driver misjudging the speed of a cyclist. The see a bike and think "Oh, it's just a bike. They're probably going like 3 MPH" and then make a left in right front of me. Since I'm actually traveling anywhere from 15-20 MPH, I have to slam on the brakes in order to avoid smacking directly into the passenger side of the car. Usually by the time I'm stopped, there is anywhere from 1-3 feet from my front tire to the passenger door of the car and the driver has a very surprised look on his/her face. Aside from those types of drivers, there is a very, very small percentage of drivers that intentionally try to run cyclists off the road. Those are the scary ones. They would kill you in a heartbeat for being on "their" road if they thought they could get away with it. Best thing to do with those kind is to memorize their license plate and report them if your state provides a means by which to do so.

So, while there is that 1% out there that can kill me, it's the 99% that are extremely courteous drivers that I always choose to remember. Maybe I'm just really lucky but I've logged many thousands of miles and have never been hit. Or maybe it's just that the drivers where I live totally rawk. Or maybe it's a bit of both.

I wish other cyclists had it as good as I do. I really feel for those that don't.

It ain't your road anymore than it's their road. If you lack the skills and ability to share it safely, then I would suggest you stay at home and stay off everyone's road, but I don't hold out any hope for that one either.

If you lack the skills and ability to share it safely, then I would suggest you stay at home and stay off everyone's road, but I don't hold out any hope for that one either.

It's all about mutual respect. When you pedal along at 20 MPH stacking up traffic and causing people to weave into oncoming traffic to get around you you are showing no respect for motor vehicle drivers. Why, then, should I respect you?

If you can't keep up with the flow of traffic and not cause traffic problems, then I suggest you stay at home and stay off everyone's road, but I don't hold out any hope for that one, either.

I've only been driving for north of 30 years now and I've never once seen a cyclist holding up traffic for more than a few seconds.

So it has a lot more to do with maturity than it ever will about your claim of mutual respect. If you can't learn to live with being occassionally inconvenienced for the time of one good beer fart, you should probably better evaluate yourself or seek professional help. That type of Type A bullshit mentality leads to road rage or at the very least your own shortened life span and has no place on the road. Find some music you like and sit back and enjoy the ride instead of worrying about getting to work 20 seconds sooner and winning your rat race.

If you can't learn to live with being occassionally inconvenienced for the time of one good beer fart, you should probably better evaluate yourself or seek professional help. That type of Type A bullshit mentality leads to road rage or at the very least your own shortened life span and has no place on the road. Find some music you like and sit back and enjoy the ride instead of worrying about getting to work 20 seconds sooner and winning your rat race.

It's not about the length of the inconvenience. It's the attitude that you somehow have the right to inconvenience everyone and we all just have to deal with it. The very fact that you think it's acceptable to inconvenience other drivers at all is extremely arrogant.

You can die of congestive heart failure at a relatively early age if you like.

I drive everywhere. When I encounter bicyclists, I have to deal with it. Not sure what this has to do with congestive heart failure.

Obviously you have no idea how much you're revealing about yourself.

Symptoms of Type A Behavior

1. An intrinsic insecurity or insufficient level of self-esteem, which is considered to be the root cause of the syndrome. This is believed to be covert and therefore less observable.
2. Time urgency and impatience, which causes irritation and exasperation.
3. Free floating hostility, which can be triggered by even minor incidents.

...

Health implications

Type A behavior was first described as a potential risk factor in coronary disease in the 1950s by cardiologists Meyer Friedman and R. H. Rosenman. After a nine-year study of over 3000 healthy men, aged 35-59, Friedman & Rosenman estimated that Type A behavior doubles the risk of coronary heart disease in otherwise healthy individuals. This research had an enormous effect in stimulating the development of the field of health psychology, in which psychologists look at how a person's mental state affects his or her physical health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_personality#Health_...


Have a nice day.

At least I'm not inconveniencing others while risking my life.

You call bike riders fools for riding on public roads even though the reality is their risks are only slightly higher than smug fools who think they are safe inside their rolling cage. Apparently you lack the ability to understand that it's only the Type A douchebags who see it as an inconvenience in the first place. So chances are the bike rider will be bouncing his great grandchildren on his lap well into his 80s or beyond, the Type As will have been worm food long ago.

So feel free to express your righteous indignation all you want. At least there's some entertainment value involved.

Cheers!

You call bike riders fools for riding on public roads even though the reality is their risks are only slightly higher than smug fools who think they are safe inside their rolling cage.

Mmmhmm. Have any other bridges for sale?

Apparently you lack the ability to understand that it's only the Type A douchebags who see it as an inconvenience in the first place.

I'm sure everyone who weaves around them in traffic finds it all fine and dandy, and they smile happily as they try and judge oncoming traffic while not knocking the widdle pedewer off the side of the road.

So chances are the bike rider will be bouncing his great grandchildren on his lap well into his 80s or beyond, the Type As will have been worm food long ago.

Squish.

If you factor out bicycle accidents with kids, those who ride against traffic, on sidewalks, at night without lights, and drunk, bicycling on public roads becomes a relatively safe activity which is at least comparable with driving a motorcycle and arguably safer. So believe whatever you want to believe. I'm not selling you anything. I do all sorts of things people think are risky, but I prefer to make my decisions based on reality and reason rather than irrational fear. Obviously YMMV. I'd also rather actually get out and enjoy living my life rather than sitting inside a cage with a false sense of security getting so upset over shit that most people don't give a 2nd thought about. Obviously, YMMV.

Have a nice life.

Whew!

I simply adopted MajorChode's terminology. He said they were my roads.

You ridiculously suggested that cars have more entitlement to roads than bikes when such flies in the face of the laws of every state in the union and you also ridiculously suggested that bikes use sidewalks when such is illegal in probably every locality in the US (for good reason). So your implication was quite clear and you were more than happy to run with it.

Glad I could clear that one up for you.

to get into an accident on a bike path than on the road. Bike paths have pedestrians, people walking dogs, joggers, rollerbladers etc., many of whom are listening to their iPods and thus don't hear you call out "on your left" when passing. They also tend to be rather inattentive. I've had a lot of close calls with pedestrians that are walking towards me, listening to tunes, and staring at the ground while wandering all over a 6-foot-wide bike path. It's even more annoying considering there is a dedicated pedestrian path 3 feet over but they can't bother to read the signs. That said, while a cyclist is mroe likely to get in a accident on a bike path, the injuries tend to be minor whereas if they're in an accident on the road, the injuries are often more serious for reasons which should be obvious.

Road crossings on a bike paths are definite danger spots. Luckily, the bike path I take for 5 miles of my commute has only a couple of road crossings. It's actually better than the road in that respect as the road has a number of traffic lights but the bike path is between the road and the river and thus is straight-through whereas traffic on the road has to stop for the lights. It's kind of like a freeway for bikes.

If you consider Huntsville Alabama bumfuck nowhere, I guess so.

are a DOUCHE!!!

The "streets with cars" were desinged for ALL acceptable modes of trasporation.

I know you "don't care what the law says" beacuse YOU are special...prick!!!

The "streets with cars" were desinged for ALL acceptable modes of trasporation.

That may be. Nonetheless, most of us drive in cars, and expect to be able to drive within the speed limit and capabilities of such vehicles.

know you "don't care what the law says" beacuse YOU are special...prick!!!

I'm not the one asking everyone to drive specially to meet my special needs.

The minimum is based on the conditions of the road. If there is a bicyclist ahead, the minimum rules apply. Where I grew up, after an ice storm and before the road crew cleared the road, those who drove the maximum allowed would either be dead from an accident, or dead from being beaten up by their very irate neighbors.

The minimum is based on the conditions of the road. If there is a bicyclist ahead, the minimum rules apply.

As I already said, I understand the laws. This does not change the fact that less than 1 out of every thousand people on the road are altering the usual driving conditions for everyone else. It's very inconsiderate.