Cyclist riding in crosswalk

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 03 Oct 2006 18:02:31
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

Date: 11 Oct 2006 19:42:46
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> jpastore@nettaxi.com wrote:
> >
> > The very first crosswalk I encounter on my route is at an intersection
> > controlled by a traffic light. A light which, from green, turns to red
> > faster than a bike, from a standstill, can fully cross the four lanes.
> > Pedestrians routinely get caught midway having to watch traffic passing
> > them at their fronts and backs within inches while persons in
> > wheelchairs can't get across at all.
> >
> > Bus drivers will not even drop off persons in wheelchairs anymore at
> > this particular intersection if the person in the wheelchair has to
> > cross the intersection, and instead keep the passanger on the bus until
> > having returned to the other side of the street on the buses return run
> > along its route.
>
> Sounds to me like this deserves some action. That might include
> calling the streets department, county engineer, or whoever has
> jurisdiction, to point out the problem and ask for a longer pedestrian
> green signal. Back it up with a (registered?) letter pointing out the
> public hazard.
>
> Letters to city council, county trustees, etc. including the local
> newspaper could follow if necessary. If there's an association that
> can lend its name to the effort, that might help - say, a association
> that supports the handicapped, or that supports kids. Even an MD who
> is concerned might carry some authority.
>
> We've had some luck addressing traffic lights that don't detect bikes.
> It's often taken only a phone call to get the sensitivity of loop
> detectors increased. Traffic light timing should be no more difficult
> to fix.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I think you've fallen prey to the poster's hyperbole, Frank. A four
lane road with standard 12.5' wide lanes and a 2' wide center median is
approximately 54' across and that's adding an extra foot on either side
for the curbing. I'm assuming a narrow median only because the OP
claims pedestrians are routinely stranded in the middle with traffic
mere inches from them, both front and rear. Given all that, just how
long does it take the average cyclist or pedestrian to travel 54' from
a dead stop? Even at a leisurely pace of 2 mph it only takes a fraction
over 18 seconds to travel that distance. A pedestrian hits that pace
after just one step and even on a heavily loaded commuter bike it's not
exactly a speed that requires a lot of distance to achieve.
Remember too that the light isn't only there for pedestrians and
cyclists. It also allows motorized traffic to cross the intersection.
Even on a lightly traveled street can you imagine the traffic backups
caused by a light that had as short a cycle as the OP implies?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:53:19
From: Kristian M Zoerhoff
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

In article <1160620966.728368.258510@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
hunrobe@aol.com says...
>
> I think you've fallen prey to the poster's hyperbole, Frank. A four
> lane road with standard 12.5' wide lanes and a 2' wide center median is
> approximately 54' across and that's adding an extra foot on either side
> for the curbing. I'm assuming a narrow median only because the OP
> claims pedestrians are routinely stranded in the middle with traffic
> mere inches from them, both front and rear. Given all that, just how
> long does it take the average cyclist or pedestrian to travel 54' from
> a dead stop? Even at a leisurely pace of 2 mph it only takes a fraction
> over 18 seconds to travel that distance. A pedestrian hits that pace
> after just one step and even on a heavily loaded commuter bike it's not
> exactly a speed that requires a lot of distance to achieve.
> Remember too that the light isn't only there for pedestrians and
> cyclists. It also allows motorized traffic to cross the intersection.
> Even on a lightly traveled street can you imagine the traffic backups
> caused by a light that had as short a cycle as the OP implies?

Sadly, yes. I've seen lights where the cross street had roughly 6 seconds of
green followed by a 3 second yellow. A cyclist can hit the needed 4-5 mph fine,
but that's a pretty brisk walking pace, and there's no way for the elderly or
just plain slow to make it.

This sort of thing tends to occur where the cross street gets next to no
traffic, but needs a light to get across an otherwise endless stream of traffic
on the main road. It may not be as hyperbolic as you think. Horrible traffic
design, though.

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com
(_)/ (_)

Date: 11 Oct 2006 08:01:58
From:
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

jpastore@nettaxi.com wrote:
>
> The very first crosswalk I encounter on my route is at an intersection
> controlled by a traffic light. A light which, from green, turns to red
> faster than a bike, from a standstill, can fully cross the four lanes.
> Pedestrians routinely get caught midway having to watch traffic passing
> them at their fronts and backs within inches while persons in
> wheelchairs can't get across at all.
>
> Bus drivers will not even drop off persons in wheelchairs anymore at
> this particular intersection if the person in the wheelchair has to
> cross the intersection, and instead keep the passanger on the bus until
> having returned to the other side of the street on the buses return run
> along its route.

Sounds to me like this deserves some action. That might include
calling the streets department, county engineer, or whoever has
jurisdiction, to point out the problem and ask for a longer pedestrian
green signal. Back it up with a (registered?) letter pointing out the
public hazard.

Letters to city council, county trustees, etc. including the local
newspaper could follow if necessary. If there's an association that
can lend its name to the effort, that might help - say, a association
that supports the handicapped, or that supports kids. Even an MD who
is concerned might carry some authority.

We've had some luck addressing traffic lights that don't detect bikes.
It's often taken only a phone call to get the sensitivity of loop
detectors increased. Traffic light timing should be no more difficult
to fix.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 10 Oct 2006 22:34:06
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

>
> Although possible a matter of individual legislative writing, the
> common meaning of "yield" is exactly that - not "wait until there's a
> clear spot".

Right of way is not a static thing. It not only must be yielded, it
must also be *taken*. At a four way intersection with a yield sign, if
the individual that has the right of way chooses to wait then the
correct thing to do is proceed with caution because by waiting they are
yielding the right of way. Leo acted properly.
BTW, in the common meaning you speak of no one can "yield" to another
until or unless the other asserts themselves. You can no more yield to
someone that is "waiting for a clear spot" than you can yield and buy
your wife a diamond ring until or unless she *asks* for one. :-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 10 Oct 2006 22:12:13
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

jpastore@nettaxi.com wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> > Either the light is *extremely* short, you are *extremely*
> > slow, or you're exaggerating. Take your pick. ;-)
>
> The light is as "*extremely* short" as I described it.... (namecalling snipped)

10 seconds? 20? Just how slow are you?

Date: 09 Oct 2006 23:29:58
From:
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Bob wrote:

> Either the light is *extremely* short, you are *extremely*
> slow, or you're exaggerating. Take your pick. ;-)

The light is as "*extremely* short" as I described it---asshole.

Date: 09 Oct 2006 21:31:47
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

jpastore@nettaxi.com wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> > Don't be such an ass. That drivers (and cyclists) are supposed to yield
> > the right of way to pedestrians crossing a street in a crosswalk does
> > *not* mean that if a pedestrian is waiting for traffic to clear before
> > crossing (and this was quite clearly the case in the instance Leo
> > described)...
>
> "Quite clearly the case"?
>
> "A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he intended to ride across.

Yes, quite clearly the cyclist was *waiting*, not crossing. You're
mixing apples and oranges when you bring up...

> The very first crosswalk I encounter on my route is at an intersection
> controlled by a traffic light. A light which, from green, turns to red
> faster than a bike, from a standstill, can fully cross the four lanes.
> Pedestrians routinely get caught midway having to watch traffic passing
> them at their fronts and backs within inches while persons in
> wheelchairs can't get across at all.

If the pedestrians are "caught midway" then they are *crossing*, not
waiting. The difference is clear.
BTW, most four lane roads measure somewhere in the area of 50 to 60
feet from curb to curb. Exactly how short is this green light? At an
average speed of even one mph you'll cover that distance in less than a
minute. Either the light is *extremely* short, you are *extremely*
slow, or you're exaggerating. Take your pick. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 09 Oct 2006 19:25:17
From:
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Bob wrote:

> Don't be such an ass. That drivers (and cyclists) are supposed to yield
> the right of way to pedestrians crossing a street in a crosswalk does
> *not* mean that if a pedestrian is waiting for traffic to clear before
> crossing (and this was quite clearly the case in the instance Leo
> described)...

"Quite clearly the case"?

"A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he intended to ride across.
Should I have stopped for him? I did not...."

> all traffic must stop to allow them to do so.

Yes. They are sitting on their asses anyway while both pedestrians,
bicyclists and even wheelchairers are expected to wait sometimes
interminably for autos.

The very first crosswalk I encounter on my route is at an intersection
controlled by a traffic light. A light which, from green, turns to red
faster than a bike, from a standstill, can fully cross the four lanes.
Pedestrians routinely get caught midway having to watch traffic passing
them at their fronts and backs within inches while persons in
wheelchairs can't get across at all.

Bus drivers will not even drop off persons in wheelchairs anymore at
this particular intersection if the person in the wheelchair has to
cross the intersection, and instead keep the passanger on the bus until
having returned to the other side of the street on the buses return run
along its route.

And all the while all the drivers had to do was 'YIELD' the right of
way.

> To claim
> otherwise is simply stupid.

He said himself that the would have stopped if the cyclist was not
intending "to ride" across rather than "walk" his bike across.

He was being an ass.

Date: 08 Oct 2006 23:16:49
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Pat in TX wrote:
> > If he was stopped while you were not it seems pretty clear to me that
> > you both did the right thing. "Yield to pedestrians" doesn't mean come
> > to a stop because there are pedestrians *approaching* the crosswalk.
> > It's more of a reminder to not run them over if they are *in* the
> > crosswalk. It's too bad there are some (not you, Leo) that need that
> > kind of reminder.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob Hunt
>
> There is a college not too far from me where there are crosswalks with signs
> indicating a car should yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk (a major city
> road bisects the college's campus). Fair enough. But the danged college
> students won't get IN the crosswalk! They will stand 5 or 6 feet away, still
> on the sidewalk, and look wistfully across the road. Sometimes, I feel like
> writing a letter to the editor of the college newspaper and writing: "The
> reason cars aren't stopping for you is because you aren't IN the crosswalk.
> They don't have to stop for pedestrians 6 feet away on the sidewalk. Get IN
> the crosswalk!" Am I right or wrong here, Bob?
>
> Pat in TX

I don't know the Texas statute but I'd say as a matter of common sense
that you're correct.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 08 Oct 2006 23:14:59
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

jpastore@nettaxi.com wrote:
> Leo Lichtman wrote:
> > This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
> > sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
> > ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
> > intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not....
>
> Clearly you prefered, though sitting on your ass, being an ass.
>
> You could have hit the rider. Would that have made you feel more
> justified?
>
> > Had he
> > been pushing the bike, I would have stopped....
>
> C'mon. That's when the chances of hitting him, if not yielding, would
> have been practically nil.
>
> Would you have expected someone in an electric wheelchair to get out
> and push too?
>
> > My reasoning is, he does not
> > deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta....
>
> In my city, there are more bicyclists, and even electric wheelcharis,
> on the excellent and wide sidewalks than persons walking, yet auto
> drivers still expect to have the right of way.
>
> If you think bicyclists, at cross-sections, don't have anything to
> complain about, you should hear the wheelchairers!
>
> > (I
> > don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)
>
> Then why couldn't you?

Don't be such an ass. That drivers (and cyclists) are supposed to yield
the right of way to pedestrians crossing a street in a crosswalk does
*not* mean that if a pedestrian is waiting for traffic to clear before
crossing (and this was quite clearly the case in the instance Leo
described) all traffic must stop to allow them to do so. To claim
otherwise is simply stupid.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 10 Oct 2006 08:41:50
From:
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

On 8 Oct 2006 23:14:59 -0700, "Bob" <hunrobe@aol.com > wrote:

>> > don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)
>>
>> Then why couldn't you?
>
>Don't be such an ass. That drivers (and cyclists) are supposed to yield
>the right of way to pedestrians crossing a street in a crosswalk does
>*not* mean that if a pedestrian is waiting for traffic to clear before
>crossing (and this was quite clearly the case in the instance Leo
>described) all traffic must stop to allow them to do so.

Although possible a matter of individual legislative writing, the
common meaning of "yield" is exactly that - not "wait until there's a
clear spot".

Date: 08 Oct 2006 23:48:01
From: Joshua Putnam
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

The law in Washington State, at least, does require motorists to yield
to pedestrians or cyclists who are about to enter a crosswalk,
pedestrians don't have to step into moving traffic before motorists are
required to yield to them. Seattle police run occasional stings to
ticket motorists who fail to yield to pedestrians who are still on the
sidewalk but clearly want to use the crosswalk.

But the law also says that pedestrians and cyclists have to give
motorists a fair chance to stop -- it's illegal to leave the sidwalk or
shoulder when a car is too close to stop.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html >

Date: 08 Oct 2006 22:32:39
From:
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
> sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
> ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
> intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not....

Clearly you prefered, though sitting on your ass, being an ass.

You could have hit the rider. Would that have made you feel more
justified?

> Had he
> been pushing the bike, I would have stopped....

C'mon. That's when the chances of hitting him, if not yielding, would
have been practically nil.

Would you have expected someone in an electric wheelchair to get out
and push too?

> My reasoning is, he does not
> deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta....

In my city, there are more bicyclists, and even electric wheelcharis,
on the excellent and wide sidewalks than persons walking, yet auto
drivers still expect to have the right of way.

If you think bicyclists, at cross-sections, don't have anything to
complain about, you should hear the wheelchairers!

> (I
> don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

Then why couldn't you?

Date: 08 Oct 2006 17:29:05
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

In article <dcfWg.556$8C4.65@tornado.socal.rr.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <BOeWg.842$zy2.831@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes:
>>> Pat in TX wrote:
>>>> I thought you were in yland. Am I confusing you with someone
>>>> else?
>>>
>>> Who? Huh?
>>
>> I think whuzz-his-name might've been a Baltimorian.
>> Oh yeah -- good ol' Eric Sande. I miss the guy.
>> I sure hope he's doin' okay. Him 'n David Reutler.
>
> I'm from Silver Spring...and I'm confused with someone else.

I'm from somewhere embarrassing, too.

> Or am I?

Anyways, Eric & David are the salt & pepper o' the earth.

You 'n me are just chunks of the earth. Which ain't
half bad, either.

I guess.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 08 Oct 2006 15:36:48
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

In article <BOeWg.842$zy2.831@tornado.socal.rr.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > writes:
> Pat in TX wrote:
>> I thought you were in yland. Am I confusing you with someone else?
>
> Who? Huh?

I think whuzz-his-name might've been a Baltimorian.
Oh yeah -- good ol' Eric Sande. I miss the guy.
I sure hope he's doin' okay. Him 'n David Reutler.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 08 Oct 2006 22:45:29
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <BOeWg.842$zy2.831@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes:
>> Pat in TX wrote:
>>> I thought you were in yland. Am I confusing you with someone
>>> else?
>>
>> Who? Huh?
>
> I think whuzz-his-name might've been a Baltimorian.
> Oh yeah -- good ol' Eric Sande. I miss the guy.
> I sure hope he's doin' okay. Him 'n David Reutler.

I'm from Silver Spring...and I'm confused with someone else.

Or am I?

Date: 04 Oct 2006 21:08:30
From:
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

On Oct 4, 9:44 pm, "Daryl Hunt" <d...@celticommnospam.com > wrote:
>
>
> Besides, the Bike Laws are pretty good here. They work for me and most
> others quite well. To give you an idea on the power that Bicyclists have as
> a group, Denver has over 615 miles of Bike Paths....

Bike laws that work for people riding on separate paths are not, IMO,
sufficient. As a general rule of thumb, I think a person should be
able to ride to whereever he likes on a bike. That's going to mean
getting off the bike path. And in that situation, some states laws are
better than others.

> Have I ever been hassled on the convention bike? Never.

If you mean "hassled by cops," I've been hassled only once in nearly 35
years of riding - and I was eventually able to talk sense into that
asinine cop. However, I know of other cases where people were
prosecuted and fined for behavior which was perfectly reasonable, and
_should_ have been perfectly legal. I do think it's important to get
the laws correct.

> Does the traffic get stupid sometimes? Yes, but I don't get stupid back.

I agree with that. However, I suspect your definition of "stupid"
would include things like riding far enough into the lane to prevent
being doored or brushed by passing cars. To me, it would be stupid to
put myself at risk by riding too far right.

(I like this rule of thumb: "Ride far enough right to be couteous, if
possible. But ride far enough LEFT to be safe."

> Now, you are a purist bicyclists. By contributing to Bike Clubs that are
> actually thinly veiled Lobbyists organizations, you hurt bicyclists more
> than all the 4 wheelers put together.

I'm in Ohio. I contribute to the Ohio Bicycling Federation. It's not
a "thinly veiled" lobbying organization; it is a very forthright
lobbying organization, and it's done some significant good. See
http://www.ohiobike.org/hb389info.html and
http://www.ohiobike.org/cyclist-friendly-files/hb389.pdf

Before this, there were incidents like people being hassled for using a
left turn lane to make a left turn. (Not "as far right as
practicable," in the eyes of some.) There were ordinances requiring
cyclists to walk bikes across all intersections. Removing such
insanities certainly doesn't hurt cyclists!

> Like I said, we have been our own worst enemy.

I've long believed that the worst enemies, or the ones who do cyclists
the most harm, are those who are quick to wail that bicycling is
dangerous. These people are prone to sayings like "Be afraid, be REAL
afraid." And "You must be one of
the ones that don't ride in the far right. We'll be reading your obits
one of these days. " And "The law of physics says you are going to
lose."

That's fearmongering. It leads to dangerous behavior, it takes away
cyclists' legal rights, and it scares people away from a healthful,
beneficial and SAFE activity.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 08 Oct 2006 15:05:32
From: Pat in TX
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

I thought you were in yland. Am I confusing you with someone else?

Pat in TX

Date: 08 Oct 2006 22:18:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Pat in TX wrote:
> I thought you were in yland. Am I confusing you with someone else?

Who? Huh?

Date: 08 Oct 2006 20:29:03
From: Pat in TX
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:BOeWg.842$zy2.831@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Pat in TX wrote:
>> I thought you were in yland. Am I confusing you with someone else?
>
> Who? Huh?

I was asking Frank Krygowski

Pat
>
>

Date: 05 Oct 2006 09:07:07
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160021310.337947.47970@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Oct 4, 9:44 pm, "Daryl Hunt" <d...@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Besides, the Bike Laws are pretty good here. They work for me and most
>> others quite well. To give you an idea on the power that Bicyclists have
>> as
>> a group, Denver has over 615 miles of Bike Paths....
>
> Bike laws that work for people riding on separate paths are not, IMO,
> sufficient. As a general rule of thumb, I think a person should be
> able to ride to whereever he likes on a bike. That's going to mean
> getting off the bike path. And in that situation, some states laws are
> better than others.
>
>> Have I ever been hassled on the convention bike? Never.
>
> If you mean "hassled by cops," I've been hassled only once in nearly 35
> years of riding - and I was eventually able to talk sense into that
> asinine cop. However, I know of other cases where people were
> prosecuted and fined for behavior which was perfectly reasonable, and
> _should_ have been perfectly legal. I do think it's important to get
> the laws correct.

No problem here.

>
>> Does the traffic get stupid sometimes? Yes, but I don't get stupid back.
>
> I agree with that. However, I suspect your definition of "stupid"
> would include things like riding far enough into the lane to prevent
> being doored or brushed by passing cars. To me, it would be stupid to
> put myself at risk by riding too far right.

No problem here.

>
> (I like this rule of thumb: "Ride far enough right to be couteous, if
> possible. But ride far enough LEFT to be safe."
>
>> Now, you are a purist bicyclists. By contributing to Bike Clubs that are
>> actually thinly veiled Lobbyists organizations, you hurt bicyclists more
>> than all the 4 wheelers put together.
>
> I'm in Ohio. I contribute to the Ohio Bicycling Federation. It's not
> a "thinly veiled" lobbying organization; it is a very forthright
> lobbying organization, and it's done some significant good. See
> http://www.ohiobike.org/hb389info.html and
> http://www.ohiobike.org/cyclist-friendly-files/hb389.pdf

There are some really good Bicycle nonprofits out there. I just found one
that was was miusing funds to fight a battle they should never have been in.
Even the best of intention groups can go a way that we may not agree with
and we need to let them know that we are watching. But continue to support
as long as they work for the Good of bicycling.

>
> Before this, there were incidents like people being hassled for using a
> left turn lane to make a left turn. (Not "as far right as
> practicable," in the eyes of some.) There were ordinances requiring
> cyclists to walk bikes across all intersections. Removing such
> insanities certainly doesn't hurt cyclists!

I saw some really stupid laws go by the way as well. One is the one you
noted about walking your bike across all intersections.

>
>> Like I said, we have been our own worst enemy.
>
> I've long believed that the worst enemies, or the ones who do cyclists
> the most harm, are those who are quick to wail that bicycling is
> dangerous. These people are prone to sayings like "Be afraid, be REAL
> afraid." And "You must be one of
> the ones that don't ride in the far right. We'll be reading your obits
> one of these days. " And "The law of physics says you are going to
> lose."
>
> That's fearmongering. It leads to dangerous behavior, it takes away
> cyclists' legal rights, and it scares people away from a healthful,
> beneficial and SAFE activity.
>
> Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

I don't see it as dangerous. But through stuipidity by all, it can be made
that way. If it takes a bit of fear to ensure safety then that's what we
must do. I am not fearful to ride anywhere. I ride on roads that many say
I am nuts to be on. But I pay attention to the rules and get by just fine.
What's dangerous is to remove those rules or have everyone totally ignore
them.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 13:31:15
From:
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Wayne Pein wrote:

<snip >

Colorado is pure hell on earth for cyclists.
Seriously, it's a wonder how anybody rides here while
getting ground into the dirt by the steel-toed boot
of The Man.

Stay strong, my brothers!

Robert

Date: 04 Oct 2006 21:23:09
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

r15757@aol.com wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Colorado is pure hell on earth for cyclists.
> Seriously, it's a wonder how anybody rides here while
> getting ground into the dirt by the steel-toed boot
> of The Man.
>
> Stay strong, my brothers!
>
> Robert
>

CO may be a nice place to ride a bike IN SPITE of it's crappy laws. Note
that some states are even crappier.

- Mandatory shoulder use if usable. Who decides if it is usable?
- Mandatory right lane use and side of road use irrespective of
bicyclist speed.
- Single file requirement unless poor motorists aren't impeded
- Nuisance laws of keeping one hand on bar and signaling continuously
- Bad law that considers bicyclists on sidewalks as pedestrians.

Wayne

Date: 04 Oct 2006 16:13:00
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:1DVUg.1397$gL.361@southeast.rr.com...
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Colorado is pure hell on earth for cyclists.
>> Seriously, it's a wonder how anybody rides here while
>> getting ground into the dirt by the steel-toed boot
>> of The Man. Stay strong, my brothers!
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
> CO may be a nice place to ride a bike IN SPITE of it's crappy laws. Note
> that some states are even crappier.
>
> - Mandatory shoulder use if usable. Who decides if it is usable?
> - Mandatory right lane use and side of road use irrespective of bicyclist
> speed.
> - Single file requirement unless poor motorists aren't impeded
> - Nuisance laws of keeping one hand on bar and signaling continuously
> - Bad law that considers bicyclists on sidewalks as pedestrians.

Please comply with the No Whine Lane.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 22:25:03
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Daryl Hunt wrote:

>
> Please comply with the No Whine Lane.
>

I could give a shit what CO law is. I am simply trying to educate you.

Wayne

Date: 04 Oct 2006 18:50:28
From: Set
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:25:03 GMT, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote:

>Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Please comply with the No Whine Lane.
>>
>
>
>I could give a shit what CO law is. I am simply trying to educate you.
>
>Wayne

Though I make small Russian joke, I found your analysis strangely
empowering.

Imagine a world where all cars had to slow down. Max speed would be 55.
City traffic, no faster than 30 mph. Neighborhoods (kids everywhere) would
be 20 mph or less (old folks' homes, school for the blind, etc.)

That's plenty fast. Then bikes would probably be tolerated better since
they'd largely be able to keep up with the 20 mph limits in neighborhoods
and could ride in the middle of the lane, just like a car. (why not?)

Of course, I'm just dreaming... ;-)

Date: 05 Oct 2006 00:52:13
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Set wrote:

> Imagine a world where all cars had to slow down. Max speed would be 55.
> City traffic, no faster than 30 mph. Neighborhoods (kids everywhere) would
> be 20 mph or less (old folks' homes, school for the blind, etc.)

This is largely my world. I ride using a sufficient proportion the lane
that motorists are compelled to slow down and be cautious. The vast
majority of motorists are courteous.

Wayne

Date: 04 Oct 2006 19:50:54
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk (correction)

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:1HYUg.1409$gL.230@southeast.rr.com...
> Set wrote:
>
>> Imagine a world where all cars had to slow down. Max speed would be 55.
>> City traffic, no faster than 30 mph. Neighborhoods (kids everywhere)
>> would
>> be 20 mph or less (old folks' homes, school for the blind, etc.)
>
> This is largely my world. I ride using a sufficient proportion the lane
> that motorists are compelled to slow down and be cautious. The vast
> majority of motorists are courteous.

Try that here and you will be ticketed and rightly so. The only time that a
Bicyclist should take total command of a lane is when we are turning
****LEFT*****
and have to to get the cars to allow it. Thanks for holding up traffic and
pissing off the other drivers.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 16:58:20
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk (correction)

Date: 05 Oct 2006 11:02:46
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk (correction)

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:MQaVg.1735$gL.224@southeast.rr.com...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>This is largely my world. I ride using a sufficient proportion the lane
>>>that motorists are compelled to slow down and be cautious. The vast
>>>majority of motorists are courteous.
>>
>>
>> Try that here and you will be ticketed and rightly so. The only time
>> that a
>> Bicyclist should take total command of a lane is when we are turning
>> ****LEFT*****
>> and have to to get the cars to allow it. Thanks for holding up traffic
>> and
>> pissing off the other drivers.
>>
>
> Go back to school and get some reading comprehension.

Do you mind if I get with an old Motorcycle Safety Instructor for that
class? Would that work?

Date: 05 Oct 2006 17:59:09
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk (correction)

Daryl Hunt wrote:

> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>Go back to school and get some reading comprehension.
>
>
> Do you mind if I get with an old Motorcycle Safety Instructor for that
> class? Would that work?
>

No. You need a reading instructor, not a motorcycling instructor.

Wayne

Date: 05 Oct 2006 12:39:14
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk (correction)

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:NJbVg.1744$gL.771@southeast.rr.com...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
>> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>Go back to school and get some reading comprehension.
>>
>>
>> Do you mind if I get with an old Motorcycle Safety Instructor for that
>> class? Would that work?
>>
>
> No. You need a reading instructor, not a motorcycling instructor.

Well, now. Since you are the only one that reads quite like you do, why
don't you get on your bicycle and come give me that lesson. That way, I
will know what a real fruitcake looks like on your arrival.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 01:50:50
From: bill
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Set wrote:
>
>> Imagine a world where all cars had to slow down. Max speed would be 55.
>> City traffic, no faster than 30 mph. Neighborhoods (kids everywhere)
>> would
>> be 20 mph or less (old folks' homes, school for the blind, etc.)
>
> This is largely my world. I ride using a sufficient proportion the lane
> that motorists are compelled to slow down and be cautious. The vast
> majority of motorists are courteous.
>
> Wayne
>
Counterpoint,
It only takes one non-courteous driver to run over you.
Bill Baka

Date: 05 Oct 2006 16:55:45
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

bill wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> Set wrote:
>>
>>> Imagine a world where all cars had to slow down. Max speed would be 55.
>>> City traffic, no faster than 30 mph. Neighborhoods (kids everywhere)
>>> would
>>> be 20 mph or less (old folks' homes, school for the blind, etc.)
>>
>>
>> This is largely my world. I ride using a sufficient proportion the
>> lane that motorists are compelled to slow down and be cautious. The
>> vast majority of motorists are courteous.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
> Counterpoint,
> It only takes one non-courteous driver to run over you.
> Bill Baka

So?

Wayne

Date: 04 Oct 2006 19:53:38
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"bill" <bbaka@syix.com > wrote in message
news:_xZUg.11413$6S3.2439@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Set wrote:
>>
>>> Imagine a world where all cars had to slow down. Max speed would be 55.
>>> City traffic, no faster than 30 mph. Neighborhoods (kids everywhere)
>>> would
>>> be 20 mph or less (old folks' homes, school for the blind, etc.)
>>
>> This is largely my world. I ride using a sufficient proportion the lane
>> that motorists are compelled to slow down and be cautious. The vast
>> majority of motorists are courteous.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
> Counterpoint,
> It only takes one non-courteous driver to run over you.
> Bill Baka

Sounds to me that Wayne isn't too courteous himself. That's the bad news.
Now for the good news, it's self eliminating sooner or later.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 01:55:36
From: bill
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Daryl Hunt wrote:
> "bill" <bbaka@syix.com> wrote in message
> news:_xZUg.11413$6S3.2439@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>> Set wrote:
>>>
>>>> Imagine a world where all cars had to slow down. Max speed would be 55.
>>>> City traffic, no faster than 30 mph. Neighborhoods (kids everywhere)
>>>> would
>>>> be 20 mph or less (old folks' homes, school for the blind, etc.)
>>> This is largely my world. I ride using a sufficient proportion the lane
>>> that motorists are compelled to slow down and be cautious. The vast
>>> majority of motorists are courteous.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>> Counterpoint,
>> It only takes one non-courteous driver to run over you.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Sounds to me that Wayne isn't too courteous himself. That's the bad news.
> Now for the good news, it's self eliminating sooner or later.
>
>
>
>
>
Go Darwin, Go.
Need I say more?
Bill Baka

Date: 04 Oct 2006 19:46:39
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:1HYUg.1409$gL.230@southeast.rr.com...
> Set wrote:
>
>> Imagine a world where all cars had to slow down. Max speed would be 55.
>> City traffic, no faster than 30 mph. Neighborhoods (kids everywhere)
>> would
>> be 20 mph or less (old folks' homes, school for the blind, etc.)
>
> This is largely my world. I ride using a sufficient proportion the lane
> that motorists are compelled to slow down and be cautious. The vast
> majority of motorists are courteous.

Try that here and you will be ticketed and rightly so. The only time that a
Bicyclist should take total command of a lane is when we are turning right
and have to to get the cars to allow it. Thanks for holding up traffic and
pissing off the other drivers.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 16:54:44
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Date: 04 Oct 2006 23:01:30
From: bill
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Set wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:25:03 GMT, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Please comply with the No Whine Lane.
>>>
>>
>> I could give a shit what CO law is. I am simply trying to educate you.
>>
>> Wayne
>
> Though I make small Russian joke, I found your analysis strangely
> empowering.
>
> Imagine a world where all cars had to slow down. Max speed would be 55.
> City traffic, no faster than 30 mph. Neighborhoods (kids everywhere) would
> be 20 mph or less (old folks' homes, school for the blind, etc.)
>
> That's plenty fast. Then bikes would probably be tolerated better since
> they'd largely be able to keep up with the 20 mph limits in neighborhoods
> and could ride in the middle of the lane, just like a car. (why not?)
>
> Of course, I'm just dreaming... ;-)
>
>
Have you EVER driven cross country in a car???
55 MPH makes just Texas an all day drive and there is only so much of
Texas any sane person can take. I prefer 95 MPH and Texas behind me.
Thank God for highway 40.
Bill Baka

Date: 04 Oct 2006 16:34:30
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:3xWUg.1402$gL.806@southeast.rr.com...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Please comply with the No Whine Lane.
>>
>
>
> I could give a shit what CO law is. I am simply trying to educate you.

Oh, you have. Let me utilize the education you have imparted to me.

qawerkrjt lkwert werjllkjwer qarjtqweltrweq Hospitization lkjasdlkjf
welrkjl lwqkejrlwker Wake lkajsdlkl

I think that about covers it. Thanks for the gibberish.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 00:48:05
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Daryl Hunt wrote:

>
> qawerkrjt lkwert werjllkjwer qarjtqweltrweq Hospitization lkjasdlkjf
> welrkjl lwqkejrlwker Wake lkajsdlkl
>
> I think that about covers it. Thanks for the gibberish.
>

Daryl,

Grow up.

You're offended that I point out that CO law sucks for bicyclists, and
that you are complict in the discrimination bicyclists are subject to.
In fact, you aspire to such discrimination because for you, it is better
than how badly CO treats electric bikes.

Wayne

Date: 04 Oct 2006 19:44:41
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:9DYUg.1408$gL.1008@southeast.rr.com...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
>>
>> qawerkrjt lkwert werjllkjwer qarjtqweltrweq Hospitization lkjasdlkjf
>> welrkjl lwqkejrlwker Wake lkajsdlkl
>>
>> I think that about covers it. Thanks for the gibberish.
>>
>
> Daryl,
>
> Grow up.

It's a bit late to worry about that.

>
> You're offended that I point out that CO law sucks for bicyclists, and
> that you are complict in the discrimination bicyclists are subject to. In
> fact, you aspire to such discrimination because for you, it is better than
> how badly CO treats electric bikes.

We just won the Low Speed Electric Bike battle. And it wasn't normal
people. It was the bicycle purests pouring in money in lobbyist actions and
the Politicians bellying up to the trough. An small handful of those
Politicios did come to the rescue. It seems it an election year and we came
up with our own Political game. We threatened to take away that trough and
send the next group of pigs to Denver. Now, all that money spent by the
Bicycle Purists just went down the drain. It would have been better spent
on fighting for Bike Paths instead of this nonsense.

We are our own worst enemies.

Besides, the Bike Laws are pretty good here. They work for me and most
others quite well. To give you an idea on the power that Bicyclists have as
a group, Denver has over 615 miles of Bike Paths. You can ride from east of
Aurora to Golden and only have to be in traffic for a couple of blocks.
When a new construction of a road goes into work, a bikepath will be added.
Colorado is working to make room for us and that includes Bicycle Purists
and Low Speed Electric Bicycles. We won one fight but will continue to get
what is ours by law. Yes, I said by law.

I ride both a low speed electric bike and a Mountain Bike. It all depends
how I feel first thing in the morning. I haven't purchased gas since Nov of
2005 for a car. In Grand Junction, Co. we can ride bicycles almost every
day since the snow is usually melted completely on the roads by no later
than 10 AM after a snowfall. (Fenders, gotta have fenders) Flex time is a
wonderful thing. On days that it's not possible till later on in the day,
the busses all have bike racks. And the stop is about 100 feet from where I
work and about 50 feet from where I live.

Have I ever been hassled on the convention bike? Never. In the last month,
have I been hassled on the Low Speed Electric Bike? No. I even dare cops
to ticket me. They won't anymore. Am I worried about the Cops anymore?
Nope. I even suggested that I assist in their training. Talk about a lead
balloon. But that was one of the deciding factors for them to stop hassling
Low Speed Electric Bicycles. Having one of us train them is about the worst
thing they can think of.

Does the traffic get stupid sometimes? Yes, but I don't get stupid back.

Can I ride on any hiway or road except for the Interstate? Of course.

All I have to do is follow the law, simple as that. And I understand why
most of the laws are what they are.

Now, you are a purist bicyclists. By contributing to Bike Clubs that are
actually thinly veiled Lobbyists organizations, you hurt bicyclists more
than all the 4 wheelers put together. I noticed that some here do
contribute to some really good things that directly work at giving
recreational get togethers for us and I applaud that and hope more do that
as well. There are some pretty fine organizations that do some good. But
for the last 4 years, a few have went after the Low Speed Electric Bicycle
with a vengence when they could have been using the same "Donations" to
promote bicycles in general. Let's not do that anymore and let the various
bike clubs know that we won't tolerate it.

Like I said, we have been our own worst enemy.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 23:01:25
From: Kristian M Zoerhoff
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

In article <452436a9$1@news.i70west.com >, dhunt@celticommnospam.com says...
>
> qawerkrjt lkwert werjllkjwer qarjtqweltrweq Hospitization lkjasdlkjf
> welrkjl lwqkejrlwker Wake lkajsdlkl

Am I the only one who was really hoping for some ROT-13'ed zingers in there?

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com
(_)/ (_)

Date: 04 Oct 2006 23:28:53
From: bill
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
> In article <452436a9$1@news.i70west.com>, dhunt@celticommnospam.com says...
>> qawerkrjt lkwert werjllkjwer qarjtqweltrweq Hospitization lkjasdlkjf
>> welrkjl lwqkejrlwker Wake lkajsdlkl
>
> Am I the only one who was really hoping for some ROT-13'ed zingers in there?
>
No. I would think they might rattle Mr. Dolan a bit.
Bill Baka

Date: 04 Oct 2006 16:11:43
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Kristian M Zoerhoff <kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com > wrote:
> In article <452436a9$1@news.i70west.com>, dhunt@celticommnospam.com says...
>>
>> qawerkrjt lkwert werjllkjwer qarjtqweltrweq Hospitization lkjasdlkjf
>> welrkjl lwqkejrlwker Wake lkajsdlkl
>
> Am I the only one who was really hoping for some ROT-13'ed zingers in there?

No, you weren't.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

Date: 04 Oct 2006 18:06:18
From: Set
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:23:09 GMT, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote:

>r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Colorado is pure hell on earth for cyclists.
>> Seriously, it's a wonder how anybody rides here while
>> getting ground into the dirt by the steel-toed boot
>> of The Man.
>>
>> Stay strong, my brothers!
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
>CO may be a nice place to ride a bike IN SPITE of it's crappy laws. Note
>that some states are even crappier.
>
>- Mandatory shoulder use if usable. Who decides if it is usable?
>- Mandatory right lane use and side of road use irrespective of
>bicyclist speed.
>- Single file requirement unless poor motorists aren't impeded
>- Nuisance laws of keeping one hand on bar and signaling continuously
>- Bad law that considers bicyclists on sidewalks as pedestrians.
>
>Wayne

So you think you are better than Farm Tractor, Comrade? ;-)

Date: 04 Oct 2006 16:20:32
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Set" <@setnet.com > wrote in message
news:80c8i2hv2sa7ghqimtb167gjh8hruenlmp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:23:09 GMT, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>r15757@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Colorado is pure hell on earth for cyclists.
>>> Seriously, it's a wonder how anybody rides here while
>>> getting ground into the dirt by the steel-toed boot
>>> of The Man.
>>>
>>> Stay strong, my brothers!
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>>CO may be a nice place to ride a bike IN SPITE of it's crappy laws. Note
>>that some states are even crappier.
>>
>>- Mandatory shoulder use if usable. Who decides if it is usable?
>>- Mandatory right lane use and side of road use irrespective of
>>bicyclist speed.
>>- Single file requirement unless poor motorists aren't impeded
>>- Nuisance laws of keeping one hand on bar and signaling continuously
>>- Bad law that considers bicyclists on sidewalks as pedestrians.
>>
>>Wayne
>
> So you think you are better than Farm Tractor, Comrade? ;-)

He just entered a 'No Whine' zone. I have one bike setup with Electric
Lights (front and rear), Turn Signals and Stop Lights. I am not required to
hand signal as long as the lights are functioning. Just like a Car. Now, a
Model T only has head and tail lights and you DO have to hand signal for
turns and stop unless they have been added later.

If it's good enough for a Model T then it's good enough for me (grin)

Date: 03 Oct 2006 20:58:14
From: Tom The Great
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:02:31 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote:

>This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
>sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
>ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
>intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
>been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
>deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
>don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)
>

I had to look up Pedestrian to be sure, Merriam-Webster says "a
person going on foot". Now I'm even more confused, can on foot mean
moving going about on the power of foot, or physcally was do you need
to be on your feet?

Did the biker have his foot down on the ground, because that seems to
make him 'on foot' and you might be in the wrong.

later,

tom @ www.NoCostAds.com

Date: 03 Oct 2006 20:53:27
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Tom The Great" <Post@here.com > wrote in message
news:jl16i29gtu6afrqmm8o2r970i4b1mva56k@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:02:31 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
> <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
>>sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is
>>CLEARLY
>>ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
>>intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had
>>he
>>been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
>>deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta.
>>(I
>>don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)
>>
>
>
> I had to look up Pedestrian to be sure, Merriam-Webster says "a
> person going on foot". Now I'm even more confused, can on foot mean
> moving going about on the power of foot, or physcally was do you need
> to be on your feet?
>
> Did the biker have his foot down on the ground, because that seems to
> make him 'on foot' and you might be in the wrong.
>

The dictionary has no validity in this discussion. Local laws decide what
is appropriate. In Washington a cyclist has the same rights as a pedestrian
in a crosswalk.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 15:09:39
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
> sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
> ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
> intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
> been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
> deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
> don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

If he was stopped while you were not it seems pretty clear to me that
you both did the right thing. "Yield to pedestrians" doesn't mean come
to a stop because there are pedestrians *approaching* the crosswalk.
It's more of a reminder to not run them over if they are *in* the
crosswalk. It's too bad there are some (not you, Leo) that need that
kind of reminder.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 08 Oct 2006 15:12:27
From: Pat in TX
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

> If he was stopped while you were not it seems pretty clear to me that
> you both did the right thing. "Yield to pedestrians" doesn't mean come
> to a stop because there are pedestrians *approaching* the crosswalk.
> It's more of a reminder to not run them over if they are *in* the
> crosswalk. It's too bad there are some (not you, Leo) that need that
> kind of reminder.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt

There is a college not too far from me where there are crosswalks with signs
indicating a car should yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk (a major city
road bisects the college's campus). Fair enough. But the danged college
students won't get IN the crosswalk! They will stand 5 or 6 feet away, still
on the sidewalk, and look wistfully across the road. Sometimes, I feel like
writing a letter to the editor of the college newspaper and writing: "The
reason cars aren't stopping for you is because you aren't IN the crosswalk.
They don't have to stop for pedestrians 6 feet away on the sidewalk. Get IN
the crosswalk!" Am I right or wrong here, Bob?

Pat in TX
>

Date: 03 Oct 2006 15:03:02
From: Jim Boyer
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:XAxUg.18887$QZ1.18170@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
> sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is
> CLEARLY ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and,
> clearly, he intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I
> did not. Had he been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My
> reasoning is, he does not deserve better treatment just because he is
> doing what he ain't sposta. (I don't blame him. He was waiting patiently
> for traffic to clear.)

What if it was a kid on skates, or a person in a wheelchair?

jb

Date: 03 Oct 2006 21:49:15
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Jim Boyer" wrote: What if it was a kid on skates, or a person in a
wheelchair?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A person in a wheelchair is clearly to be treated as a pedestrian--I would
stop. A kid on skates--legally I would say it depends on whether skating is
allowed on that walkway. As a practical matter, I would stop, because we
make allowances for kids. And because they should be taught courtesy by
example. For the same reason, I would stop for a kid on a bike. I would
also stop for a mother pushing a stroller.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 17:43:48
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:03:02 -0500, Jim Boyer wrote:

> "Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:XAxUg.18887$QZ1.18170@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>> This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
>> sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is
>> CLEARLY ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and,
>> clearly, he intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I
>> did not. Had he been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My
>> reasoning is, he does not deserve better treatment just because he is
>> doing what he ain't sposta. (I don't blame him. He was waiting patiently
>> for traffic to clear.)

> What if it was a kid on skates, or a person in a wheelchair?

Exactly. Appropriate speed is the issue, not whether one is walking or
rolling. So I have no problem with it either, or sidewalk riding, as long
as the cyclist is traveling at pedestrian speed -- as with young children,
timid casual cyclists, etc.

About whether one should stop for a someone, anyone, in a crosswalk:

Positive people look for opportunities to extend courtesies, deserved or
not.

Negative people are concerned with what they should or shouldn't "hafta"
do.

Matt O.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 19:05:27
From: mark
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
> sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
> ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
> intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
> been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
> deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
> don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)
>
>
Here in Colorado it is legal to bicycle on the sidewalk (unless
prohibited by local ordinance) and to bicycle through a crosswalk. A
bicyclist on the sidewalk is considered a pedestrian with the rights and
obligations of a pedestrian. It is also legal to bicycle on a roadway
(unless prohibited by signs, as on an urban Interstate), in which case
the bicycle is a vehicle with the rights and obligations of a vehicle
operator. So in Colorado you would be breaking the law by not stopping
for the cyclist in question.

Colorado law was recently changed, sidewalk cyclists were previously
required to walk their bicycles through crosswalks. My own opinion is
that anyone who lacks the skills to ride in the roadway should get off
and walk through crosswalks.

k

Date: 05 Oct 2006 11:51:58
From: Buck
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Daryl Hunt wrote:
> What you described is responsible riding. I don't have a problem with this
> and neither do most state laws. Sometimes, you have to take command of a
> lane. Other times, you don't. What the other guy is saying is that he
> resents having to be courteous to the 4 wheelers by going to the extreme
> right most of the time.

Just what do you mean by the "extreme right most of the time"? I
typically ride in the right tire track. This keeps me out of the door
zone, far enough out to encourage safe passing, far enough out for
motorists at intersections to see me and recognize that I am moving
fairly fast, and far enough out to avoid the typical road edge dangers
such as debris and gutters.

I only relinquish that position if there is a wide, improved shoulder,
or if I have to move further left. I have not yet needed to move over
to allow traffic to clear from behind me. They always manage to get
around me with little delay.

So, again I ask, what do you mean by "extreme right most of the time"?
What I picture when I read this phrase seems downright dangerous in
most of the places I have ridden (big cities like Houston, smaller
towns, and rural Oklahoma and Arkansas).

-Buck

Date: 05 Oct 2006 15:38:09
From: Set
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

On 5 Oct 2006 11:51:58 -0700, "Buck" <bicyclebuck@gmail.com > wrote:

>Daryl Hunt wrote:
>> What you described is responsible riding. I don't have a problem with this
>> and neither do most state laws. Sometimes, you have to take command of a
>> lane. Other times, you don't. What the other guy is saying is that he
>> resents having to be courteous to the 4 wheelers by going to the extreme
>> right most of the time.
>
>Just what do you mean by the "extreme right most of the time"? I
>typically ride in the right tire track. This keeps me out of the door
>zone, far enough out to encourage safe passing, far enough out for
>motorists at intersections to see me and recognize that I am moving
>fairly fast, and far enough out to avoid the typical road edge dangers
>such as debris and gutters.

IMO, one of the most risky maneuvers when riding is being in that right
tire track, then seeing a large truck or car and moving closer to the
gutter to let them by more easily, instead of making -them- move over into
the other lane.

Why?

Because the impulse is to pull back into that tire track after the car has
gone by and -resume- your pedaling. It's a subtle movement and if there's
not a lot of traffic, one's attention can lapse a little.

It's only happened a few times because I "always" check, but if another car
is trying to 'sneak' through tailgating this guy that just passed me, I'm
gonna get crunched.

I've had this 'chilling' feeling a few times where, trying to be courteous
I'll move right, and then come back and realize in that nanosecond that I
-didn't- check that time. Maybe a little oxygen debt going on. Fortunately
there's never been a car there...

Yikes! Not fun.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 13:07:05
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Buck" <bicyclebuck@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160074318.399716.76100@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>> What you described is responsible riding. I don't have a problem with
>> this
>> and neither do most state laws. Sometimes, you have to take command of a
>> lane. Other times, you don't. What the other guy is saying is that he
>> resents having to be courteous to the 4 wheelers by going to the extreme
>> right most of the time.
>
> Just what do you mean by the "extreme right most of the time"? I
> typically ride in the right tire track. This keeps me out of the door
> zone, far enough out to encourage safe passing, far enough out for
> motorists at intersections to see me and recognize that I am moving
> fairly fast, and far enough out to avoid the typical road edge dangers
> such as debris and gutters.

For the most part, same here. Cars still have enough clearance to pass.

>
> I only relinquish that position if there is a wide, improved shoulder,
> or if I have to move further left. I have not yet needed to move over
> to allow traffic to clear from behind me. They always manage to get
> around me with little delay.

True.

>
> So, again I ask, what do you mean by "extreme right most of the time"?
> What I picture when I read this phrase seems downright dangerous in
> most of the places I have ridden (big cities like Houston, smaller
> towns, and rural Oklahoma and Arkansas).

As to the right as safely possible. It's a judgement call that we all have
to make.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 08:20:32
From: Buck
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Daryl Hunt wrote:
> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > This is largely my world. I ride using a sufficient proportion the lane
> > that motorists are compelled to slow down and be cautious. The vast
> > majority of motorists are courteous.
>
> Try that here and you will be ticketed and rightly so. The only time that a
> Bicyclist should take total command of a lane is when we are turning right
> and have to to get the cars to allow it. Thanks for holding up traffic and
> pissing off the other drivers.

I believe you meant to indicate that when a cyclist is turning *left*
he should take the lane, Mr. Hunt. Unless you are talking about the
U.K.

I am of a different opinion. Many of the roads I ride are two-lane with
no shoulder and plenty of hills. When I don't take the lane in the no
passing zone going up the hills, many more drivers try to pass me by
sharing my lane. This is dangerous for everyone. When I take the lane,
passing motorists are more cautious about passing because it means they
have to completely move into the opposing traffic lane to do so. I
rarely hold anyone up for more than 30 seconds.

Once we are over the hill, I move right. I often have two or three cars
pass me where it is legal and safe.

In the city, my speeds are very close to the speed limit. Riding out of
the door zone keeps me safe and is perfectly legal.

So, your knee-jerk reaction is based on assumptions about other
people's riding conditions and how people are adapting to those
conditions. This is one of the problems with generalization. We could
make some assumptions about you if you like. Perhaps you are weak and
lack the strength to keep up with traffic in normal, low-speed
situations. Perhaps you lack the fortitude to interact with the normal
flows of traffic. Perhaps your cycling skills are questionable and you
need separate facilities to remain safe.

No matter what your real situation is, please don't drag the rest of us
down by supporting laws that are unncessary and make it difficult for
us to practice something we find perfectly reasonable and safe -
vehicular cycling.

-Buck

Date: 05 Oct 2006 11:02:01
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Buck" <bicyclebuck@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160061632.238957.35630@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > This is largely my world. I ride using a sufficient proportion the lane
>> > that motorists are compelled to slow down and be cautious. The vast
>> > majority of motorists are courteous.
>>
>> Try that here and you will be ticketed and rightly so. The only time
>> that a
>> Bicyclist should take total command of a lane is when we are turning
>> right
>> and have to to get the cars to allow it. Thanks for holding up traffic
>> and
>> pissing off the other drivers.
>
> I believe you meant to indicate that when a cyclist is turning *left*
> he should take the lane, Mr. Hunt. Unless you are talking about the
> U.K.
>
> I am of a different opinion. Many of the roads I ride are two-lane with
> no shoulder and plenty of hills. When I don't take the lane in the no
> passing zone going up the hills, many more drivers try to pass me by
> sharing my lane. This is dangerous for everyone. When I take the lane,
> passing motorists are more cautious about passing because it means they
> have to completely move into the opposing traffic lane to do so. I
> rarely hold anyone up for more than 30 seconds.
>
> Once we are over the hill, I move right. I often have two or three cars
> pass me where it is legal and safe.
>
> In the city, my speeds are very close to the speed limit. Riding out of
> the door zone keeps me safe and is perfectly legal.
>
> So, your knee-jerk reaction is based on assumptions about other
> people's riding conditions and how people are adapting to those
> conditions. This is one of the problems with generalization. We could
> make some assumptions about you if you like. Perhaps you are weak and
> lack the strength to keep up with traffic in normal, low-speed
> situations. Perhaps you lack the fortitude to interact with the normal
> flows of traffic. Perhaps your cycling skills are questionable and you
> need separate facilities to remain safe.
>
> No matter what your real situation is, please don't drag the rest of us
> down by supporting laws that are unncessary and make it difficult for
> us to practice something we find perfectly reasonable and safe -
> vehicular cycling.

What you described is responsible riding. I don't have a problem with this
and neither do most state laws. Sometimes, you have to take command of a
lane. Other times, you don't. What the other guy is saying is that he
resents having to be courteous to the 4 wheelers by going to the extreme
right most of the time.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 19:41:45
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

k wrote:

> Here in Colorado it is legal to bicycle on the sidewalk (unless
> prohibited by local ordinance) and to bicycle through a crosswalk. A
> bicyclist on the sidewalk is considered a pedestrian with the rights and
> obligations of a pedestrian.

Can you cite a statute for that?

Wayne

Date: 03 Oct 2006 20:25:41
From: mark
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Wayne Pein wrote:
> k wrote:
>
>> Here in Colorado it is legal to bicycle on the sidewalk (unless
>> prohibited by local ordinance) and to bicycle through a crosswalk. A
>> bicyclist on the sidewalk is considered a pedestrian with the rights
>> and obligations of a pedestrian.
>
> Can you cite a statute for that?
>
> Wayne

Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1412. Paragraph (1) refers to bicycles
operated on a roadway, paragraph (10) refers to bicycles on a sidewalk.

http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/63d2d/64ea2/64ea4/65ee0/65fb7?f=templates&fn=fs-main-doc.htm&q=bicycles&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1

Date: 03 Oct 2006 21:26:00
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

k wrote:

> Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1412. Paragraph (1) refers to bicycles
> operated on a roadway, paragraph (10) refers to bicycles on a sidewalk.
>
> http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/63d2d/64ea2/64ea4/65ee0/65fb7?f=templates&fn=fs-main-doc.htm&q=bicycles&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1
>
>

That's amazing. Really bad stuff in CO. No matter where a bicyclist
rides, road or sidewalk, the bicyclist is a second class user on that
facility.

Wayne

Date: 04 Oct 2006 09:54:57
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:IzAUg.666$gL.99@southeast.rr.com...
> k wrote:
>
>> Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1412. Paragraph (1) refers to bicycles
>> operated on a roadway, paragraph (10) refers to bicycles on a sidewalk.
>>
>> http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/63d2d/64ea2/64ea4/65ee0/65fb7?f=templates&fn=fs-main-doc.htm&q=bicycles&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1
>
> That's amazing. Really bad stuff in CO. No matter where a bicyclist rides,
> road or sidewalk, the bicyclist is a second class user on that facility.
>
> Wayne

I don't see anything wrong with the way that the LAW treats Bicyclists. It
appears that CRS 42-4-1412 is well written and we are adding it to the
"Emergency Kit" for our Low Speed Electric Bicycles to be carried in a pouch
on the bike itself.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 05:53:08
From: mark
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Wayne Pein wrote:
> k wrote:
>
>> Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1412. Paragraph (1) refers to bicycles
>> operated on a roadway, paragraph (10) refers to bicycles on a sidewalk.
>>
>> http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/63d2d/64ea2/64ea4/65ee0/65fb7?f=templates&fn=fs-main-doc.htm&q=bicycles&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1
>>
>>
>
> That's amazing. Really bad stuff in CO. No matter where a bicyclist
> rides, road or sidewalk, the bicyclist is a second class user on that
> facility.
>
> Wayne
>
How is the cyclist a second class user?

k

Date: 04 Oct 2006 16:47:52
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

k wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> That's amazing. Really bad stuff in CO. No matter where a bicyclist
>> rides, road or sidewalk, the bicyclist is a second class user on that
>> facility.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
> How is the cyclist a second class user?
>
> k

"5) Any person riding a bicycle shall ride in the right-hand lane."

What if the bicyclist is traveling the speed limit?

"When being overtaken by another vehicle, such person shall ride as
close to the right-hand side as practicable."

This shows no concern that it is the bicyclist's lane or any concern for
the bicyclist's safety. The only concern is that motorist convenience is
more important.

"Where a paved shoulder suitable for bicycle riding is present, persons
operating bicycles shall ride on the paved shoulder."

Apparently the authorities don't recognize that a shoulder is for the
purpose of preventing run-off-road collisions and providing a buffer
from roadside elements. It is not intended for vehicular travel. Making
shoulder use mandatory is clearly demoting bicyclists to second class
road users.

"These provisions shall apply, except under any of the following situations:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
the same direction;

(b) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
road or driveway;

(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions, including,
but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
pedestrians, animals, or surface hazards."

Bicyclists have to justify how they ride.

"(6) (a) Persons operating bicycles on roadways shall ride single file;
except that riding no more than two abreast is permitted in the
following circumstances:

(I) When riding two abreast will not impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic; or"

Allowing motorists to drive abreast of bicyclists in the bicyclist's
lane is more important than bicyclists' right to use the road as they
see fit.

"(7) A person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand on the
handlebars at all times."

Nanny state.

"(b) A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be
given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet
traveled by the bicycle before turning and shall be given while the
bicycle is stopped waiting to turn. A signal by hand and arm need not be
given continuously if the hand is needed in the control or operation of
the bicycle."

Stick your arm out while stopped? What retard is going to do that?

"(10) (a) A person riding a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway
or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall yield the
right-of-way to any pedestrian...."

How does a bicyclist yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian?

"(c) A person riding or walking a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or
pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all
the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same
circumstances, including, but not limited to, the rights and duties
granted and required by section 42-4-802."

Yet they are required to yield to pedestrians? Further, it is a bad idea
to consider a wheeled vehicle user a pedestrian just because he is
operating on a sidewalk.

Wayne

Date: 04 Oct 2006 13:07:45
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:YARUg.1367$gL.286@southeast.rr.com...
> k wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>> That's amazing. Really bad stuff in CO. No matter where a bicyclist
>>> rides, road or sidewalk, the bicyclist is a second class user on that
>>> facility.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>> How is the cyclist a second class user?
>>
>> k
>
> "5) Any person riding a bicycle shall ride in the right-hand lane."
>
> What if the bicyclist is traveling the speed limit?

And the motorist must give you adequate room as well. You must be one of
the ones that don't ride in the far right. We'll be reading your obits one
of these days.

>
>
> "When being overtaken by another vehicle, such person shall ride as close
> to the right-hand side as practicable."
>
> This shows no concern that it is the bicyclist's lane or any concern for
> the bicyclist's safety. The only concern is that motorist convenience is
> more important.

And you aren't showing any concern for both the motorist (3500 lbs at least)
and the Bicyclist (200 apprx lbs). Care to bet which one wins?

>
> "Where a paved shoulder suitable for bicycle riding is present, persons
> operating bicycles shall ride on the paved shoulder."
>
> Apparently the authorities don't recognize that a shoulder is for the
> purpose of preventing run-off-road collisions and providing a buffer from
> roadside elements. It is not intended for vehicular travel. Making
> shoulder use mandatory is clearly demoting bicyclists to second class road
> users.

Paved Shoulder. Read it. And newsflash: A bicycle is NOT a Motorized
Vehicle and can be barred from even going on any stretch of hiway. Play by
the rules and we keep "Motoring". Don't and we walk.

>
>
> "These provisions shall apply, except under any of the following
> situations:
>
> (a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
> the same direction;
>
> (b) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
> road or driveway;
>
> (c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions, including,
> but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
> pedestrians, animals, or surface hazards."
>
>
> Bicyclists have to justify how they ride.

The options are.......

>
>
> "(6) (a) Persons operating bicycles on roadways shall ride single file;
> except that riding no more than two abreast is permitted in the following
> circumstances:
>
> (I) When riding two abreast will not impede the normal and reasonable
> movement of traffic; or"
>
> Allowing motorists to drive abreast of bicyclists in the bicyclist's lane
> is more important than bicyclists' right to use the road as they see fit.

As we see fit? Now, that really makes sense. (sarcasm)

>
>
> "(7) A person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand on the
> handlebars at all times."
>
> Nanny state.

It's the same with a Motorcycle. And I suggest, when you are operating that
4 wheeled bemamoth that you have at least one hand on the steering wheel as
well.

>
>
> "(b) A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be
> given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled
> by the bicycle before turning and shall be given while the bicycle is
> stopped waiting to turn. A signal by hand and arm need not be given
> continuously if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the
> bicycle."
>
> Stick your arm out while stopped? What retard is going to do that?

It's the law even for 4 wheelers. And your point is? Be retarded and get
to use your bike. Don't be retarded and ride the bus.

>
>
> "(10) (a) A person riding a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway
> or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall yield the
> right-of-way to any pedestrian...."
>
> How does a bicyclist yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian?

Crosswalks are for Pedestrians. Bikes are allowed there as a courtesy. You
yield to the pedestrian who is ill equipped to jump out of your
inconsiderate way in time.

>
>
> "(c) A person riding or walking a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or
> pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all the
> rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances,
> including, but not limited to, the rights and duties granted and required
> by section 42-4-802."
>
> Yet they are required to yield to pedestrians? Further, it is a bad idea
> to consider a wheeled vehicle user a pedestrian just because he is
> operating on a sidewalk.

Do you have a reading problem? (c) is not for someone riding a Bike. They
are walking their bike and ARE pedestrians.

>
> Wayne
>
>

Date: 04 Oct 2006 20:13:27
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Daryl Hunt wrote:

>>
>>"5) Any person riding a bicycle shall ride in the right-hand lane."
>>
>>What if the bicyclist is traveling the speed limit?
>
>
> And the motorist must give you adequate room as well. You must be one of
> the ones that don't ride in the far right. We'll be reading your obits one
> of these days.

You obviously have little knowledge of the typical mechanism of
bicycling collisions. Read more about it and get back to us. And quit
with the fear mongering.

>
>
>>
>>"When being overtaken by another vehicle, such person shall ride as close
>>to the right-hand side as practicable."
>>
>>This shows no concern that it is the bicyclist's lane or any concern for
>>the bicyclist's safety. The only concern is that motorist convenience is
>>more important.
>
>
> And you aren't showing any concern for both the motorist (3500 lbs at least)
> and the Bicyclist (200 apprx lbs). Care to bet which one wins?

Irrelevant fear mongering. Traffic law is not based on weight and speed.
Are operating laws for small cars and heavy trucks different?

>
>
>
>>"Where a paved shoulder suitable for bicycle riding is present, persons
>>operating bicycles shall ride on the paved shoulder."
>>
>>Apparently the authorities don't recognize that a shoulder is for the
>>purpose of preventing run-off-road collisions and providing a buffer from
>>roadside elements. It is not intended for vehicular travel. Making
>>shoulder use mandatory is clearly demoting bicyclists to second class road
>>users.
>
>
> Paved Shoulder. Read it. And newsflash: A bicycle is NOT a Motorized
> Vehicle and can be barred from even going on any stretch of hiway. Play by
> the rules and we keep "Motoring". Don't and we walk.

I did read. You apparently do not understand what a shoulder is for. And
more fear mongering.

>>"These provisions shall apply, except under any of the following
>>situations:
>>
>>(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
>>the same direction;
>>
>>(b) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
>>road or driveway;
>>
>>(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions, including,
>>but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
>>pedestrians, animals, or surface hazards."
>>
>>
>>Bicyclists have to justify how they ride.
>
>
> The options are.......

Uh, to not have to justify their position because the discriminatory
laws are not in place.

>
>
>>
>>"(6) (a) Persons operating bicycles on roadways shall ride single file;
>>except that riding no more than two abreast is permitted in the following
>>circumstances:
>>
>>(I) When riding two abreast will not impede the normal and reasonable
>>movement of traffic; or"
>>
>>Allowing motorists to drive abreast of bicyclists in the bicyclist's lane
>>is more important than bicyclists' right to use the road as they see fit.
>
>
> As we see fit? Now, that really makes sense. (sarcasm)

Listen Bub, motorist lateral position is not micromanaged to the extent
bicyclists' is. That's discrimination. If you like it, keep doing it. If
you don't, then work to change it. But apparently you like it.

>>"(7) A person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand on the
>>handlebars at all times."
>>
>>Nanny state.
>
>
> It's the same with a Motorcycle. And I suggest, when you are operating that
> 4 wheeled bemamoth that you have at least one hand on the steering wheel as
> well.

Nanny. Fortunately, you don't write the rules.

>>"(b) A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be
>>given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled
>>by the bicycle before turning and shall be given while the bicycle is
>>stopped waiting to turn. A signal by hand and arm need not be given
>>continuously if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the
>>bicycle."
>>
>>Stick your arm out while stopped? What retard is going to do that?
>
>
> It's the law even for 4 wheelers. And your point is? Be retarded and get
> to use your bike. Don't be retarded and ride the bus.

I didn't know 4 wheelers had to stick their arm out when stopped.

And more fear mongering.

>>"(10) (a) A person riding a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway
>>or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall yield the
>>right-of-way to any pedestrian...."
>>
>>How does a bicyclist yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian?
>
>
> Crosswalks are for Pedestrians. Bikes are allowed there as a courtesy. You
> yield to the pedestrian who is ill equipped to jump out of your
> inconsiderate way in time.

That doesn't explain how to yield to pedestrians. Try again.

>>"(c) A person riding or walking a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or
>>pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all the
>>rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances,
>>including, but not limited to, the rights and duties granted and required
>>by section 42-4-802."
>>
>>Yet they are required to yield to pedestrians? Further, it is a bad idea
>>to consider a wheeled vehicle user a pedestrian just because he is
>>operating on a sidewalk.
>
>
>
> Do you have a reading problem? (c) is not for someone riding a Bike. They
> are walking their bike and ARE pedestrians.

YOU can't read. It says, "A person riding....." Get it?

Wayne

Date: 04 Oct 2006 16:12:08
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:HBUUg.1377$gL.811@southeast.rr.com...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>"5) Any person riding a bicycle shall ride in the right-hand lane."
>>>
>>>What if the bicyclist is traveling the speed limit?
>>
>>
>> And the motorist must give you adequate room as well. You must be one of
>> the ones that don't ride in the far right. We'll be reading your obits
>> one of these days.
>
> You obviously have little knowledge of the typical mechanism of bicycling
> collisions. Read more about it and get back to us. And quit with the fear
> mongering.

Junior, there was a saying that I used years ago when I was a Motorcycle
Safety Instructor. "Ride like your life depends on it because it does".
The same goes for the Bicycle. The law of physics says you are going to
lose. That is, unless you are riding an 85,000 lb bike.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"When being overtaken by another vehicle, such person shall ride as close
>>>to the right-hand side as practicable."
>>>
>>>This shows no concern that it is the bicyclist's lane or any concern for
>>>the bicyclist's safety. The only concern is that motorist convenience is
>>>more important.
>>
>>
>> And you aren't showing any concern for both the motorist (3500 lbs at
>> least) and the Bicyclist (200 apprx lbs). Care to bet which one wins?
>
> Irrelevant fear mongering. Traffic law is not based on weight and speed.
> Are operating laws for small cars and heavy trucks different?

Be afraid. It takes 99.9% of sane drivers to get one bicyclist safely to
their destination. It only takes 1 careless oaf driver to be charged with
vehicular homocide and you are just as dead.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Where a paved shoulder suitable for bicycle riding is present, persons
>>>operating bicycles shall ride on the paved shoulder."
>>>
>>>Apparently the authorities don't recognize that a shoulder is for the
>>>purpose of preventing run-off-road collisions and providing a buffer from
>>>roadside elements. It is not intended for vehicular travel. Making
>>>shoulder use mandatory is clearly demoting bicyclists to second class
>>>road users.
>>
>>
>> Paved Shoulder. Read it. And newsflash: A bicycle is NOT a Motorized
>> Vehicle and can be barred from even going on any stretch of hiway. Play
>> by the rules and we keep "Motoring". Don't and we walk.
>
>
> I did read. You apparently do not understand what a shoulder is for. And
> more fear mongering.

Be afraid, be REAL afraid. And I turn.........

>
>>>"These provisions shall apply, except under any of the following
>>>situations:
>>>
>>>(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
>>>the same direction;
>>>
>>>(b) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
>>>road or driveway;
>>>
>>>(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions, including,
>>>but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
>>>pedestrians, animals, or surface hazards."
>>>
>>>
>>>Bicyclists have to justify how they ride.
>>
>>
>> The options are.......
>
> Uh, to not have to justify their position because the discriminatory laws
> are not in place.

They discriminate against you. They help me get safely to my destination.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"(6) (a) Persons operating bicycles on roadways shall ride single file;
>>>except that riding no more than two abreast is permitted in the following
>>>circumstances:
>>>
>>>(I) When riding two abreast will not impede the normal and reasonable
>>>movement of traffic; or"
>>>
>>>Allowing motorists to drive abreast of bicyclists in the bicyclist's lane
>>>is more important than bicyclists' right to use the road as they see fit.
>>
>>
>> As we see fit? Now, that really makes sense. (sarcasm)
>
> Listen Bub, motorist lateral position is not micromanaged to the extent
> bicyclists' is. That's discrimination. If you like it, keep doing it. If
> you don't, then work to change it. But apparently you like it.

It could be a damned site worse. Like, not requiring a Motor Vehicle to
give X number of feet clearance to a bicyclist. Gee, to get that right, I
must ride to the far right on my bike. Sounds like the buffer is a good
thing. Like I said, it takes 99,000 decent drivers to allow me to get to my
destination but it takes only one to make sure I don't get there.

>
>
>>>"(7) A person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand on the
>>>handlebars at all times."
>>>
>>>Nanny state.
>>
>>
>> It's the same with a Motorcycle. And I suggest, when you are operating
>> that 4 wheeled bemamoth that you have at least one hand on the steering
>> wheel as well.
>
> Nanny. Fortunately, you don't write the rules.

I agree with the rules. It's you that disagrees with them.

>
>
>>>"(b) A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be
>>>given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet
>>>traveled by the bicycle before turning and shall be given while the
>>>bicycle is stopped waiting to turn. A signal by hand and arm need not be
>>>given continuously if the hand is needed in the control or operation of
>>>the bicycle."
>>>
>>>Stick your arm out while stopped? What retard is going to do that?
>>
>>
>> It's the law even for 4 wheelers. And your point is? Be retarded and
>> get to use your bike. Don't be retarded and ride the bus.
>
> I didn't know 4 wheelers had to stick their arm out when stopped.

If they are driving a classic that didn't come with stop lights then they
MUST. Or, if their stop lights are not working, they are rquired to by law
to stick out the arm and show the stop signal. Then again, I have an
Electric Bike with stop lights, tail lite and turn signals. They are also
available for conventional bicycles. If you have that setup, you don't have
to hang your arm down either.

>
> And more fear mongering.

Ride like your life depends on it because it does.

>
>>>"(10) (a) A person riding a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway
>>>or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall yield the
>>>right-of-way to any pedestrian...."
>>>
>>>How does a bicyclist yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian?
>>
>>
>> Crosswalks are for Pedestrians. Bikes are allowed there as a courtesy.
>> You yield to the pedestrian who is ill equipped to jump out of your
>> inconsiderate way in time.
>
> That doesn't explain how to yield to pedestrians. Try again.

No, that doesn't explain how YOU yield to pedestrians. You don't, the gist
I am getting here.

>
>
>>>"(c) A person riding or walking a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or
>>>pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all the
>>>rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same
>>>circumstances, including, but not limited to, the rights and duties
>>>granted and required by section 42-4-802."
>>>
>>>Yet they are required to yield to pedestrians? Further, it is a bad idea
>>>to consider a wheeled vehicle user a pedestrian just because he is
>>>operating on a sidewalk.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you have a reading problem? (c) is not for someone riding a Bike.
>> They are walking their bike and ARE pedestrians.
>
> YOU can't read. It says, "A person riding....." Get it?

I entered the Pedestrians world, I yield to them. If you can't figure out
how to yield to a pedestrian when you are required to then you need to take
the bus and sell your bike.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 12:01:02
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Leo Lichtman <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
> sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
> ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
> intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
> been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
> deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
> don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

It depends on local rules and regulations. In Seattle (and I believe
all of Washington), cyclists are treated just like pedestrians at
crosswalks. And yes, it's perfectly legitimate to cycle across the
crosswalk (assuming you're not being a jerk and trying to plow through a
crowd of pedestrians).

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"Sleeping alone, except under doctor's orders, does much harm. Children
will tell you how lonely it is sleeping alone. If possible, you should
always sleep with someone you love. You both recharge your mutual
batteries free of charge. " --lene Dietrich, lene Dietrich's ABC, 1962

Date: 03 Oct 2006 14:09:51
From: Joshua Putnam
Subject: Re: Cyclist riding in crosswalk

In article <ekoav3-mrb.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org >,
dane@unseen.edu says...
> Leo Lichtman <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
> > sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
> > ked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
> > intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
> > been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
> > deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
> > don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

In Washington, you could be ticketed for failing to yield. How likely
it is varies by jurisdiction -- Seattle has a habit of running
occasional crosswalk-enforcement campaigns, ticketing lots of drivers
for failing to yield at crosswalks. Other towns seem not to know they
have crosswalks on their streets.

> It depends on local rules and regulations. In Seattle (and I believe
> all of Washington), cyclists are treated just like pedestrians at
> crosswalks. And yes, it's perfectly legitimate to cycle across the
> crosswalk (assuming you're not being a jerk and trying to plow through a
> crowd of pedestrians).

Correct, this is a Washington State law.

It's still illegal to enter the crosswalk if approaching traffic
(whether a motorist or a bicycle on the roadway) is too close to stop
for you, so if you're going to ride through the crosswalk you should
still be approaching at a pedestrian pace and be prepared to stop.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html >