I'm sorry your wife was hurt.

I'm not trying to be rude with my statements, though I think it comes off that way.

Fact: Texas law requires a suitable bike light to ride at night. She was breaking the law.
https://blaze.cc/?lcur=USA no affiliation, I just know this is as good as it gets.

Fact: statistics prove riding a bike on the sidewalk is significantly more dangerous than riding on the street. In my misspent youth I was a 50 plus mile a day bike messenger, you couldn't pay me to ride on the sidewalk, that's suicide, especially in the suburbs.

Opinion: read this with your wife, do it now. http://bicyclesafe.com

Ride safe, and hope she recovers quickly.

His community looks like mine.

You don't want to ride a bike on a main drag in a master plan in TX.

Sidewalk is preferable.

Funny.


I'm typing on a stupid i-phone

Read the bicycle safe pages and get back to me, when you're informed. The surest way to get killed is by riding on the sidewalk. Counterintuitive yes, but a statistical fact. I've got the scars to prove it.

For the record I've ridden who knows how many thousands of miles around Houston.

Gettin back to you.

From your link.

"If the sidewalk is really long (no need to frequently cross streets), and free of driveways and peds, then there's little risk to you and others"

Exactly the kinds of sidewalks you tend to find on the main drag of these master plans.

I installed a dash cam in my car because I've nearly run over the same woman 3 times now, in the street.

In fact, so far, every cyclist hit by a car in our community has been in the street.

Not one on the sidewalk.

YMMV.

If you're using a dash cam conventionally mounted and aimed to show how you've nearly run over a cyclist then you're driving irresponsibly, not the cyclist. Texas law specifically states the cyclist has all the rights a car does, even to take the entire lane. You may not like it but everybody pays taxes for the road, therefore cyclists can use it as they wish. If your dash cam can see the cyclist, you can see the cyclist.

Those people were probably intentionally run over. This is common due to drivers not knowing the law and operating with a sense of entitlement. I couldn't even begin to recall the number of times someone tried to kill me with a car.

The reason sidewalk riding is so much more dangerous is that drivers entering and exiting the street aren't looking for cyclists, they're looking for cars and slow moving pedestrians. If you're cycling in the street people can see you much more easily. Riding in the street kept me alive for unknown thousands of miles, I don't know why you'd argue against such an experienced viewpoint regarding safety? The safest place to ride is on the street with a sense of awareness and cooperation with cars, riding big and moving over to let cars pass.

The incident that prompted me to install the dash cam was when she blew a stop sign and made a short left into my lane.

Clearly I should have been driving on the wrong side of the road to avoid her:rolleyes:

I installed the camera because after she blew the stop sign and made a short left into my lane nearly becoming a hood ornament she did what most self entitled irresponsible cyclists do, she gave me the stink eye like it was my fault that she ignores the traffic laws she is required to follow.

I could care less if I end up splattering her one day because I'll have the evidence that she is an irresponsible self entitled beotch.

I'm not arguing against "such an experienced viewpoint regarding safety".

You are. Your own link says so. (Are you that pompous in real life?)

The conditions in these master plans is exactly what your own link says is of "little risk to you and others"

Newsflash, there are basic guidelines and then there are exceptions which is why they are basic guidelines.

You are of the opinion everything applies the same in all situations.

I'm speaking about a set of conditions specific to my environment and from the looks of it similar to OP's.

Next time you're in the big D stop by for a visit.

Once you've actually seen what I'm talking about I'll consider your advice.

Till then we are going to disagree.

Me from first hand experience.

You from a self entitled know it all perspective.

Take care.

Oh yeah, the other people run over, they were kids on the way to school.

Don't know what kind of homicidal riff raff you live around but here we don't run over 10 yr olds on purpose.

Hey, I'm not trying to fight with you. I think your inferring "pompous" mistakenly for "so many drivers have tried to murder me with their cars" and me completely sick of their dumb excuses. Get out there on a bike and you'll see what I mean.

I believe that the person who can do the most damage has the greatest responsibility. It's my job to look out for cyclists, kids, mentally ill people, et cetera when I'm driving a car. I'm all for personal responsibility but there are people out there who aren't capable of that.

This is exactly right...well said.

Never understood why people prefer to walk in the street when a perfectly good sidewalk is available. I see it all the time.

Last week there was a lady doing this and I pulled along side in my work truck and leaned over and said "Hey I thought I was the only one who like walking in the street - something about walking on a sidewalk seems very risky!"

Of course in addition she was walking on the right side of the road, with her back to traffic.....

The person with the most to lose has the greatest responsibility to take care of themselves. Anything less is a victim mentality.
The problem with society today is that so few people want to be accountable for their actions.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QxF0K_3lGOA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The driver of a car should be accountable for errors but if you are on a bicycle and you put yourself in harms way then its your own darn fault. Don't expect the car to pull some miracle move to compensate your your Darwinian stupidity.

Drive like you could kill somebody.

Ride like you could die.

Glad the family is OK. Could have been worse.

No, I meant pompous as in you seem to believe you are the only one with all the answers.

Every post you've made in this thread, including this one, contains at least one sanctimonious or condescending comment.

It's odd, you seem to realize you do it, even apologizing for it.

Yet you continue anyway.

You believe you are clairvoyant in that you know the exact details of something you know nothing about.

And when the support for your position does not actually support your position.

You follow it with more pomposity.

And more supposition (mixed with more sanctimony) without knowing anything about someone.

Another newsflash, I used to ride, every day, religiously, for years, I've logged thousands of miles. I can count two times I had close calls, with the scars to back it up. One was a driver, the other a dog.

Maybe you were just s ****ty rider.

You sure have a strange way of not trying to pick a fight:rolleyes:

Word.

How you choose to voice written words is on you, positively or negatively, is on you and has nothing to do with me. You're making a choice to read it that way.

Personally I don't see anyone but the rider responsible for an accident at night if the hazard is marked plain enough to be easily seen in the daytime.

There are two types of lights for a cyclist, those for being seen and those for seeing where you are going. Would you sue if she had hit an unmarked pot hole? A responsible night rider would have enough of both types of light to ride safely.

Used to ride a bike 8 miles to work and back when working night shift. It was dark both going and coming. Even though most of the route was lit well enough you could basically see, the first thing I did was equip my bike with a WHITE headlight and other RED lights so I could easily see and be seen.

My route was all side streets through neighborhoods except for the few places I had to cross highly trafficked streets and one bridge. I thought it was interesting that I could make it to work in the same time riding as driving.

A week ago I stopped and had words with a jogger in my neighborhood I almost hit. It was late at night and he was wearing all black with nothing light or reflective at all and he was 5 ft out in the street from the curb running with traffic. Was just being neighborly to warn him. The jogger was very belligerent claiming he had the right of way and it was the drivers responsibility to see him. Told him it didn't matter what his rights were or who would be responsible if drivers couldn't see him.

Ahh, I see.

When you type things like....

I'm supposed to read, "the self entitled and irresponsible beotch ran a stop sign and tuned into oncoming traffic?"

Or....

No one is supposed to interpret it as "My word is gospel, why would you question it?"

Gotcha.

I do agree that it's often difficult to get the proper meaning or intent from the typed word.

I'd suggest you think a little more about what you type.

Just so your message is more concise.

I'd hate for people to mistakenly think you are a self entitled, pompous, and sanctimonious little ****.

Have you seen the insurance commercial where the girl gets a car for her birthday and the guy crashes his car? The dialogue is the same for each character but the inflection is different. In that case actors inflect differently. When we read we are charge of the inflection and you choose to read it that way, that's a reflection of your state of mind. You chose to inflect what I said negatively and then you turned right around and said people need to take personal responsibility and that you were against a victim mentality. What did you do, you turned right around and cried victim. When in fact your negative outlook is the perpetrator and you're the victim, then you blame me and call me names.

You're the definition of irony.

Many years ago I litigated a case where a cyclist was riding on a sidewalk when he was struck by a car that was exiting a driveway. The law in Oregon at the time (I believe it is still the law) was that a cyclist riding on the sidewalk must not ride faster than a walking pace. You need to find out what the law is in your area. Even if that is not the law, I expect the defense will allege: (1) if your Wife was riding on the sidewalk at a walking speed the crash would not have happened and (2) riding faster than walking speed was itself negligent, so she must be partially at fault.

You also need to know whether your state law is pure contributory negligence, pure comparative fault or modified comparative fault. It seems highly likely your Wife will be found at least partially at fault.

On the facts given I would not take the case.

Well bless your heart.

There is no ambiguity in "...get back to me, when you're informed..."

Regardless of inflection that is a condescending comment.

There is no other interpretation.

There is no ambiguity in "...I don't know why you'd argue against such an experienced viewpoint regarding safety?..."

Regardless of inflection that is a sanctimonious, dismissive, and pompous comment.

There is no other interpretation.

If you choose your words more carefully then there is no need to worry about inflection.