They are dangerous to drivers and themselves. More bike paths is a better option.

Car drivers that think they own the road are the biggest danger.

The distracted should be banned. Share the road!

Bike paths are a better option for some bikers like children and others who travel <10mph provided those paths are completely segregated from the roadways and most bike paths aren't. The biggest problem by far are intersections. Bike paths that intersect roadways are a bigger hazard because they put bikers in an area where car drivers aren't expecting to see them.

They have a right to be there.

In fact I would bet when roads were paved, they were for cars. Nowhere does it say roads were built for bicycles.

Sorry you are such a proponent of gas guzzling vehicles.

Some of us do all we can to reduce the abuse of the environment.

Bet you're not real big on exercise either. Smh.

He did a double body slam on the minivans windshield and then bounced on the ground. Hope he's alright. I was in the other lane but the woman in the minivan did stop and was frantic. I just don't think cars and bikes mix. But you seem to believe they do. Not much chance of changing your mind sadly. That guy is at best paralyzed but I wonder if he died. It was very serious.

Unfortunately too many drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians are too caught up in their own world and thus endanger each other.

Wow. Lots of ad hominems packed into three sentences.

Bicyclists have the right to occupy the traffic lane. They are required to pull over occasionally to allow motorized vehicles to pass when the conditions are such that there is no safe area on the shoulder to ride.

They ABSOLUTELY have a right, everywhere other than limited access freeways.

(And you would be wrong about paved roads, motorized vehicles didn't exist when the first roads were paved)

Because obviously, we live in Rome.

You know, with car-sized lanes and everything. Seriously, just stop. You know you're wrong, and bringing up the Appian Way doesn't help even a little.

This site lays out the plain truth about the history of paved roads in America:

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/the-petition-that-paved-america/

Or, maybe you think they have too much of an agenda to be believed? Fine, read this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads

And that author's work generated enough interest that a book and a follow-up article also ran in the Guardian in 2013:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/apr/16/roads-not-built-for-cars-book

For instance, I could put up a couple of links that say that because roads were paved for bicycles in the 1890's, then clearly they are meant for bicycles today.

There's this little thing called time, you know, during which things change. The Appian Way was paved. Wasn't meant for bicycles. Roads were paved in the 1890's for bicycles. Doesn't mean the primary intent and usage of today's paved roads involves bicycles. So frankly, arguing about trams in the 1950's or bicycles in the 1890's means precisely squat when it comes to 2016.

People should be more careful about bicycles (and for that matter, motorcycles).
Roads should be altered or added on to in order to make them much more bicycle friendly.

You know why these are two major concerns? Because today's roads - not the 1950's, the 1890's, or the Appian Frickin' Way - are primarily designed for and used by cars.

OK, GaYellowDawg, this was your original statement:

No goalposts needed. There have been more paved roads created since 1960 than before 1960 (source: US Bureau of Transportation Statistics), and those roads have been created for cars. The ones created before 1960 have been adapted to cars. You can argue all you want that roads are just as much for bicycles as for cars, but it's simply not true.

Check your state laws, it doesn't matter where you live, they prove you wrong.

There were more horse drawn carts than automobiles when they started paving roads.

How can some people be so obtuse?

driver-car drivers also. Many bicycles riders move back and forth from behaving like pedestrians, e.g., crossing from curb to curb against the light when incoming traffic clears, and like cars, e.g., crossing in the roadway when light is with them, whenever it's to their advantage.

Maybe instead of banning bicycles - which I'm sure no-one wants to do - traffic rules can be re-written to ensure that all bicycle riders over age 16 or so behave like cars.

Under 16's need special caution anyway, as do pedestrians.

They are to use left turn lanes, signal, stay off sidewalks. You turn left into a business, you go to the left hand lane and signal.

And given the level of motorist ignorance, you've taken you life into your hands.

A lot of bikers move into crosswalks because it's a safe stopping place with all the right-on-red turning. For their own safety.

If you do that, you are legally obliged to dismount. You're a pedestrian at that point. Walking the bike in any crosswalk, in any direction, is fine.

First train motorists. I hated being hit by cars. Once run into a ditch after being hit from behind. Once flipped over handlebars when some fool turned and cut in front of me. I was lucky--a couple of scrapes, nothing more. Plus bike damage.

is at odds with your reply title.

that cyclists at times act like pedestrians.

I'm curious as to exactly which traffic rules that you would change that would help in this situation.

I have not idea what the last line of your post has to do with my question.

Got nailed for that the other day by a Seattle cop. I took off my helmet because it was hot while pushing my bike up a steep hill on a sidewalk.

Bicyclists usng the road are alread required to follow all laws the cars do.

Then I guess we get to ride more in the center of the lane not to the right side. I'm sure that would upset a lot of car drivers. I would vote for more bike lanes but that would not help these self driving cars. They are a menace to all. I don't know who thought this was a good idea. I mean auto-pilot in aircraft is limited.

No more rolling through intersections because they are too lazy to stop and build up speed again.

The "I looked both ways" b.s. doesn't cut it. There is a reason stop signs are not yield signs.

It'll happen on highways first, where movement and surroundings are more predictable, but no time soon.

You can buy mainstream cars today that do autonomous highway driving. Collision avoidance automation is also mainstream right now.

but will have about as much control as a toddler in a car seat with a toy steering wheel.

I agree that we won't accept "driverless" as in nobody in the left front seat for a decade or more.

The long haul trucking industry will push the legal aspect. Full robotic trucks will drive non-autonomous operators out of business. Taxi and delivery vehicles are right behind them, and the big auto manufacturers are investing not only in autonomous systems but in personal transport services. They aren't doing this as a decades long play, it's the next 3-5 years.

Will the "driverless" technology extend to motorcycles also? Or will they simply be banned from the roads?

only allow driver-less and passenger-less vehicles on the road!

I almost hit one on Thursday. She was riding on the sidewalk downhill very fast, then without warning she cut across four lanes of traffic, riding southbound in a northbound lane for about a block, then she ran a red light and then turned to ride the wrong-way on a one-way street.

How do you program for that?

Not.

You couldn't do that in a car if your life depended on it

but the example you just responded to, for example. When cyclists pull shit like that, they increase the odds someone will hit and kill them. The majority of times that car drivers pull idiotic stunts, the risk is a fender bender. It isn't the same.

I drive both a bike and a car and there are bad drivers of both out there. Idiots in cars are way more dangerous because they opperate a machine with tons of force. Thinking it only causes a fender bender is that false sense of security that causes deadly accidents. At just 40 mph you can cause plenty of damage and loss of life.

Cyclist are more often safer than you give them credit for. You just associate the road for cars and so think bikes shouldn't be on them; then you reinforce your belief by selectively precieving the few times you see an idiot on a bike as if it was all cyclists. This is kind of brain stem Trimp voter logic. Bikes can be on the road period. I agree though that the police should enforce the laws though.

I comment on message boards. I see people not even respond to the points being made.

There are bad drivers. There are bad cyclists. But both are not the same in terms of their potential effects on the road. That's why a cyclist suddenly and rapidly cutting across four lanes of traffic is different from that asshole in the BMW/insertautomaker hate of choice cutting off the other car driver. One is more likely to cause a deadly event. Each bad cyclist on the road vs each bad driver. How many deadly outcomes are likely to happen with each?

I'm not trying to ban cyclists or make the claim they don't belong on the road. I just don't think making false equivalencies are helpful at all. Good cyclists are still killed, of course. But plenty of bad cyclists are causing grim outcomes, and it doens't stop the cycling community from calling for blood, which is ridiculous.

But you said when cars do the like in the majority of cases results in fender binders which down plays the truth. This is under the sub-thread "how do we program for that." Which is cyclists cutting lanes--illegally. The sub-thread OP didn't explain leaving the answer up to us. Mine is "there isn't a problem there. Bad cyclists shouldn't break traffic laws just like drivers shouldn't. End of story." But there is a discussion. why? Because some drivers just think the road is for them and the selectively precieve the bad opperators of bikes as if they were the majority.

For instance you comment on a biking community. This is tribalism gone amuck. There is no cycling community, just neighborhood people who bike. The opposition should be bad opperators versus good ones, not bikes versus car.

The truth is cycling is dangerous. Far more dangerous than driving. And that is a fact that too often gets left out of the discussion, IMO. It's a reason I stopped cycling. I wish the cycling community would address this instead of deciding to simply blame cars and drivers, demonize them and that's that, as if no responsibility or blame lies with cyclists. Your position that both sides are the same! End of story! is exactly what I'm talking about. Oh well. I'll stick to paths. I gave up a long time ago.

So I am done you can have the last word.

For readers though I ask you if interested to check out any biking board and they are full of safety tips; they don't hide the fact cycling on roads have dangers. My point is the bad cyclers are like bad drivers and do not represent all cyclers. Self driving cars will work themselves out in the end.

I am done. Kcr can have the floor.

I have to drive through a loathsome hipster neighborhood to get to my office, seeing cyclists doing things that are aggressive, suicidal or insane is not a rare occurrence.

...or randomly shouting various epithets when I am minding my own business in a bike lane.

There's good driving, bad driving, and plenty of both among cyclists. What concerns me is random aggressive behavior among drivers who, for reasons I cannot fathom, become enraged by the very presence of cyclists.

that it would look like I would be okay with that. I was actually an avid cyclist. I even raced on a team. No one ever threw anything at me, but I had too many near misses and I decided the risk wasn't worth it and I stopped. I think too many distractions nowadays make it worse.

My point is the way to go about it isn't to declare cars the enemy. It's to change our infrastructure. Other countries are safer because they aren't car dependent the way we are. We make cycling safer by changing our infrastructure to match theirs. Not by merely insisting that somehow by magic we're just like that, and then blaming car drivers and making them the enemy.

What does narrow and twisty roads have to do with it? If you want to claim that Europe is just like us when it comes to cars vs public transportation, then you are flat out wrong. Cyclists fit in much better and are able to cycle much safer there. That's a fact.

Do you see anything special about this road?

... with epic movies such as "Gone With the Schwinn."



-app

n/t

In Pennsylvania, cyclists are covered by Motor Vehicle Code. Running lights & stop signs could — should — get them a ticket.

Which will mean waiting their turn at stop signs, not whipping around cars, staying in lane, etc.

We're still 30-50+ years away from truly autonomous cars. I think we have bigger things to worry about.