🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: tx.general
Article #3270

Re: Bikes (was Re: GUN CONTROL)

#3270
From: Norman Richards
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:46
71 lines
5435 bytes
In article <D.Nash-1511941425170001@bubba.ots.utexas.edu>,
Donald L. Nash <D.Nash@utexas.edu> wrote:
>It is not safe for the pedestrians for you to ride on the sidewalk. 
>Speaking as a sometimes-pedestrian myself, I've been almost run over by
>bikers on the sidewalks before.  
  It is safe for the pedestrians.  Only a rude idiot rides at high speeds 
on the sidewalk, especially when pedestrians are near.   We are not talking
about riding stupidly or riding at the risk of others.  Some bikers do that.
They are ignorant and shouldn't be doing it.  But, riding on the sidewalk does
not need to be unsafe and isn't when done appropriately.  I have met plenty
of pedestrians who THOUGHT they were about to get run over by someone on a
bike though.  All I can say is they have very little understanding of bikes.
When a good rider rides, he has control of his bike and has less chance of
hitting a pedestrian than a car does of hitting one.   When I am on a sidewalk
and I approach a pedestrain, I slow to pedestrian speed.  When I am not
around them, I ride slightly faster, but not so much so that it can cause 
problems with cars entering or exiting driveways.  If there is a driveway or
a place for cars to suddenly turn in then of  course you slow to pedestrian 
speeds and approach with caution. Simple elegant and safe.  

> And do you think it is safe to ride
>between the lanes of traffic like I've seen many bikers do?
 Not through moving traffic.  Through still traffic, I don't consider it unsafe
but I wouldn't do it as it tends to serve no purpose and is like cutting in
line.  In general if traffic were to slow for my tastes I would move to the
sidewalk and from the sidewalk move forward and look for a better road to take.

>>  Oh, isn't that cute.  It sounds like you are running out of things to
>>say because you are starting to accuse everyone who is expressing his 
>>personal opinions of name-calling.  
>Expressing personal opinions is fine.  However, applying derogatory and
>often false labels to others (like "lazy"), is a rather low form of
>expression.  If you want to debate the topic at hand, do so.  But good
>debaters refrain from namecalling.
  It is my opinion that when I ride in a car it is generally because I am 
being lazy.  I don't own a care and can get everywhere I want to on my bike.
But occassionally I call my girlfriend to give me a ride because I am being
lazy.  Am I aplying a derogatory term?  No.  I am being honest.  And it is true
to say that most people use a car for short trips that are more suited for a 
bike for no other reason than that they are too lazy.  

>>>It is against the law.
>> It shouldn't be.  The laws were written for cars.  They are not
>>appropriate for bikes in every case.
>The laws which prohibit riding bikes on the sidewalks weren't written for
>cars. [..]
  There is nothing unsafe about riding on the sidewalk.  There is potential
unsafeness jsut as there is that same potential on the street.  The problem
is that some (ignorant) bikers choose to rise on the sidewalk in the same 
manner as they ride on the street.  This is incorrect.

  The problem is that a bike is a multi-terrain vehicle.  It has the ability
to safely navigate car and pedestrian ways (as well as offroad ways)  It has
no permanent home on either the road or the sidewalk.  It can take both and
SHOULD take both as appropriate.  The two methods have different requirements.
When on the street, you obey the rules of the street.  (i.e. stopping at lights
and etc..)  When on the sidewalk you obey different rules.  (You ride slowly
and with extreme control)  This is the nature of bikes.  To restrict bikes
from pedestrian walkways is wrong.  Plain and simple.  The correct way
is to insist that when on the sidewalk the bicycle assimilates into the traffic
flow.  


 I have no problem with the law requiring me to ride safely.  I do have a 
problem with the law telling me I cannot use a particular route when it is
both well-suited and safe for me to do so.  

______________________________________________________________________________
orb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu              "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
                                     I chose to climb the nearest tree.
                                     And that has made all the difference."
Technical Details
Message-ID: <3aba80$1t7@bashful.cc.utexas.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bga.com!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!bashful.cc.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
References: <39r0m3$h1k@oak.zilker.net> <D.Nash-1511941235440001@bubba.ots.utexas.edu> <3ab1jc$g4s@bashful.cc.utexas.edu> <D.Nash-1511941425170001@bubba.ots.utexas.edu>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103916,642977eedb6b415e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103916,public
X-Google-Thread: fd714,44a840f94edd3e03
X-Google-Attributes: gidfd714,public
X-Google-Thread: 10b82c,642977eedb6b415e
X-Google-Attributes: gid10b82c,public
X-Google-Thread: 104ad1,faf138bd852a6ce6
X-Google-Attributes: gid104ad1,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-15 14:06:04 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bga.com!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!bashful.cc.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: orb@bashful.cc.utexas.edu (Norman Richards)
Newsgroups: tx.general,dfw.general,austin.general,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bikes (was Re: GUN CONTROL)
Date: 15 Nov 1994 15:46:40 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas
Lines: 71
Distribution: tx
Message-ID: <3aba80$1t7@bashful.cc.utexas.edu>
References: <39r0m3$h1k@oak.zilker.net> <D.Nash-1511941235440001@bubba.ots.utexas.edu> <3ab1jc$g4s@bashful.cc.utexas.edu> <D.Nash-1511941425170001@bubba.ots.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bashful.cc.utexas.edu