Tuscon driver mows down cyclists

[fintstone]

Bikes, nor cars should be allowed in any street where they cannot maintain the speed limit. Minimum speeds should be set and enforced.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by herr_oberst

Well, then, lets take that to it's ultimate conclusion. Drivers who are aren't going to work or doing work just shouldn't be selfishly expecting everyone else to accommodate them, either. Roads for working people only.

Nope, drivers pay for the privilege of using public roads.

[herr_oberst]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Nope, drivers pay for the privilege of using public roads.

That's a pretty common misconception.

Who pays for roads and do bicyclists pay taxes? - Reno Streetcar

"If you look at who funds the roads bicyclists and cars are sharing, you’ll see that they are not paid for only with money raised by “user fees”, but also a signficant portion is funded by general funds money.

Interstate highways are paid for with a large portion of the cost (if not the whole amount) paid for by the federal government. Bikes typically are not on these roads. However, many state, county, and municipal roads are paid for with large portions paid for by general fund money. Considering that fuel taxes are typically exempt from local sales taxes, bicycle owners pay an equal proportion of taxes to general funds as car owners do.

So the main idea here is that, roads don’t pay for themselves. There isn’t a free market working here – our governments have chosen to advance a particular mode of transportation and this is evidenced in that fact that roads do not pay for themselves solely with user fees."

[jyl]

Roads are just for people going to work? Ridiculous. Going to the mall, out to dinner, seeing a movie, visiting Aunt Tilly, fun drive in your 911, none of these are "going to work" yet I imagine you'd like to drive instead of walking.

Only drivers pay for roads? Also false. I looked into this for Portland, in a prior thread, verified that a significant piece of road maintenance funds come from general govt revenue unrelated to fuel or auto registration - in other words, revenue that everyone including bike riders contributes to. Considering that bikes make up a very small percent of the traffic on the roads and contribute pretty much zero to road wear and tear, I think their riders pay enough for public roads.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by herr_oberst

Well, then, lets take that to it's ultimate conclusion. Drivers who are aren't going to work or doing work just shouldn't be selfishly expecting everyone else to accommodate them, either. Roads for working people only.

Well, I guess if that's your "ultimate conclusion", then I cannot help you. This is all clearly over your head. Let me try, anyway.

The primary purpose of our public road system is that of providing routes of transportation, for whatever purpose. Including recreation. Recreational uses, however, are a lower priority than others uses, including commuting, commerce, farming, etc.

We make allowances for vehicles travelling far below the posted limit when dealing with farm equipment, heavy trucks on grades, and that sort of thing. We do so because their use of the road is somewhat of a priority. They are feeding us, transporting our goods, and that sort of thing.

Bicyclists can make none of those claims. Their only reason for being out there is purely their own enjoyment - society benefits in no way whatsoever from these recreational cyclists. That would all be well and good, if only they could keep up, if only they posed no hazard to other road users. The problem is, they cannot keep up, and thereby pose a very real hazard to other uses.

As such, they have no legitimate claim to the road. They pose a very real hazard to motorists with no benefit in return. They are merely recreating. Again, if their chosen form of recreation posed no danger to anyone else, more power to them. That's not the case, however.

[Joe Bob]

Consider the poster's mindset...they are trolling for righteous indignation for their inane comments.

Biker's that don't own a car are as rare as someone actually using a braille keypad at the driveup ATM. Hence, biker's DO pay for the road....if user fees ACTUALLY paid for the road.

But since the underlying road bed is owned by the government, the use IS for the public. Just because another entity paved don't mean squat.

Kinda like claiming you own the toilet in a rental because you paid for or use it the most....both the toilet and the user/poster is full of crap.

[herr_oberst]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Well, I guess if that's your "ultimate conclusion", then I cannot help you. This is all clearly over your head. Let me try, anyway.

The primary purpose of our public road system is that of providing routes of transportation, for whatever purpose. Including recreation. Recreational uses, however, are a lower priority than others uses, including commuting, commerce, farming, etc.

We make allowances for vehicles travelling far below the posted limit when dealing with farm equipment, heavy trucks on grades, and that sort of thing. We do so because their use of the road is somewhat of a priority. They are feeding us, transporting our goods, and that sort of thing.

Bicyclists can make none of those claims. Their only reason for being out there is purely their own enjoyment - society benefits in no way whatsoever from these recreational cyclists. That would all be well and good, if only they could keep up, if only they posed no hazard to other road users. The problem is, they cannot keep up, and thereby pose a very real hazard to other uses.

As such, they have no legitimate claim to the road. They pose a very real hazard to motorists with no benefit in return. They are merely recreating. Again, if their chosen form of recreation posed no danger to anyone else, more power to them. That's not the case, however.

Why, thank you for the enlightenment! The scales have fallen from my eyes, and your response wasn't even the slightest bit condescending. Thank god for smart people like you to tell me what is really going on.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by herr_oberst

Why, thank you for the enlightenment! The scales have fallen from my eyes, and your response wasn't even the slightest bit condescending. Thank god for smart people like you to tell me what is really going on.

You are welcome - my pleasure.

You're "ultimate conclusion" was a bit of a stretch and not very well thought out. But, by all means, you must follow the PPOT Official Rules of Engagement at all costs: never admit you may have missunderstood something, never admit you jumped to an unsupportable conclusion, and - gasp - certainly never admit you may have been wrong.

Nowhere did I, or anyone else say roads were for "working use" only. The point was, we make allowances for vehicles that present an extra hazard due to their extreme disparity in speed with other road users - just not if their sole purpose for being out there is their own amusement.

[jyl]

Well, consider that the source has promised us publicly that this spring or summer he will commit premeditated assault and battery on a group of cyclists. Just a keyboard braggart-troll? Or a felon-in-the-making? I wait with bated breath to find out.

[herr_oberst]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You are welcome - my pleasure.

You're "ultimate conclusion" was a bit of a stretch and not very well thought out.

You wrote this:

"But, when they take to the road purely for their own entertainment and enjoyment, that all goes out the window."

What else should I conclude? Are there any exceptions to the Jeff Higgins rules of road engagement?

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by look 171

I did not read the whole thing John. I just came back from a ride. ABout three hours ago, I had to go around these two riders go the same direction on a one lane street. I have to cross over the broken yellow lines to get around them. This is two freaking riders. No wonder people are upset with them / us. When drivers honk a little, they get offend and start with the bird. I like to think most driver do this so the cyclist know a driver is back there and are trying get around them. If I am day dreaming, and I hear a horn, I wave and move over immediately even though I have the right to take up the whole lane.

In Wisconsin riders must ride on the right of the white marker line if there is one. I was told this by the Sherrif who gave me a warning as he caught us as I was passing a friend on the inside of said line.

We have people from the quad cities up in our area training and it irks me to no end that they think they can ride 4 abreast in the car lane on a major highway. I do call the sherrif for them.

[Joe Bob]

I've been told a LOT of things by cops.....when I ask them politely for the code section or if they had the book handy, the section either doesn't apply or is like NCIS rules....a fig newton of Jethro's imagination.....

Bikes do NOT have to stay to the right of the white line. They are a vehicle with the same rights as any other slow moving vehicle.

As to horn use....a gentle double tap of a horn is considered "considerate"....a long single blast will get at least the finger or in some cases a dismount and drag out thru the wind wing....

[flipper35]

I just did a quick google for Wisconsin and found this for narrow lanes, I am sure if I took time I would find the secont fro regular lanes as well.

(a) Any person operating a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the unobstructed traveled roadway, including operators who are riding 2 or more abreast where permitted under sub. (3), except:
346.80(2)(a)1. 1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
346.80(2)(a)2. 2. When preparing for a left turn or U-turn at an intersection or a left turn into a private road or driveway.
346.80(2)(a)3. 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid unsafe conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to ride along the right-hand edge or curb.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Here's a good rule to follow: When you are out-gunned by a factor of 200 to 1, discretion is the better part of valor.

[Joe Bob]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Here's a good rule to follow: When you are out-gunned by a factor of 200 to 1, discretion is the better part of valor.

Fully agree, you can be dead right on a bike. The problem is, bike riders DO have rights.

It's the group riders that give me a bad name, cops that don't give a crap and idiots in the cars that are uneducated, rude or just plain wankers.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by Joe Bob

Fully agree, you can be dead right on a bike. The problem is, bike riders DO have rights.

A guy who walks up to a grizzly bear and punches it in the nose has a right to live, too. Doesn't mean the grizzly is going to respect that right.

Regardless of what your "rights" are, if you're going to be an ass, better be aware of what kind of disparity of force you're dealing with--and be prepared for the consequences.

For all of those ascribing pure malice, homicidal intent, etc. to the driver here, consider this: if he had really intended to do what he is claimed to have done--an unprovoked attack on a group of lily-white innocent cyclists all minding their own business and not restricting traffic--wouldn't he have made sure to leave no witnesses? That would seem to be a good policy for killing people, wouldn't it?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by herr_oberst

You wrote this:

"But, when they take to the road purely for their own entertainment and enjoyment, that all goes out the window."

What else should I conclude? Are there any exceptions to the Jeff Higgins rules of road engagement?

Of course I said a good deal more than that, and now you have chosen only one sentance (presented out of context) in your efforts to support your original conclusion. Are you taking lessons from JYL or something?

You still have not addressed my original point, even after I went through all the trouble to clarify it for you. It's really quite simple - if a given set of road users present an unusual hazard for all others, and are only on the road for their own ammusement, it seems quite reasonable to demand they stay off of the roads. If they are materially contributing to the benefit of all, then we should make allowances for their use of the road. It's really not that hard of a concept.

[Tobra]

Good point, if he was trying to kill or seriously hurt someone, he would have done much more damage.

[jyl]

He didn't think anyone could identify or catch him. That's not uncommon - people in cars often think they are anonymous and untouchable - that is why there is such a thing as a drive-by _______ [insert act].

[WolfeMacleod]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

You don't need a permit in AZ to carry and Pima County is not a real carry-heavy place anyway, due to its politics. Anway, the idiot driver is posting on The Gear Page about this, really hurting himself and giving great fodder for the lawyers. What an idiot. Looks like Wolfe will have one less competitor because this guy will be bankrupted no matter where the criminal case goes.

FWIW, Rod's a good competitor, and I don't want to lose him as a presence in the business. His market share of the niche has always been pretty low, and I've advised him on several occasions on how to increase it and get more publicity. Looks like he's done that, but in the wrong manner...