AB1371 - Another victory the spandex squad

[redtail]

Many cyclists also own cars.

Dmv department of motor vehicles. Last I checked bicycles aren't motored.

It's relavent because what exactly did owning a car have to do with it?

 

[Zerox]

I don't know what to tell you.

I avoid riding roads without shoulders so I have never ridden my road bike on Skyline Boulevard. I know roads like that piss off motorcyclists when the bicyclists are not in single file all the time, riding on the literal edge of the pavement.

I have ridden bicycles almost everywhere else in the Bay Area and I don't particularly like being buzzed by cars. It does not make me feel good. It does not make me feel safe.

Ditto, I can't handle riding a bicycle on roads with no bike lane. I just don't trust the car drivers to make rational choices.

Bike lanes on every paved road, it should be the law of the land. Cars will have their lane, bicycles will have their lane. I have a dream.

 

[Breaking Daniel]

I'm a little late to the discussion and only read the last few posts. Please slap me if this has already been said.

When roads were initially constructed, they were designed/engineered/planned/constructed in a manner that was intended for motor vehicle use only. Oh wait, they still are.

Sorry cyclists, find somewhere else safe to do your thing. Just because the law says that you can ride on the road (and pretend your a fucking car lol) doesn't make that a wise decision to do so. I support cycling, but not if it endangers the cyclist and not in the event it impedes vehicle traffic.

 

[unhinged]

Is there a law about bicycles not riding side by side in the center of the road preventing cars from passing? Because they violate that all the time.

 

[MCCRASH]

Not this again.

Y'all sound like a bunch of old ladies bitching about those hooligan motorcyclists with their illegal exhausts exceeding the speed limit and GOD FORBID lane splitting.

 

[afm199]

I'm a little late to the discussion and only read the last few posts. Please slap me if this has already been said.

When roads were initially constructed, they were designed/engineered/planned/constructed in a manner that was intended for motor vehicle use only. Oh wait, they still are.

Sorry cyclists, find somewhere else safe to do your thing. Just because the law says that you can ride on the road (and pretend your a fucking car lol) doesn't make that a wise decision to do so. I support cycling, but not if it endangers the cyclist and not in the event it impedes vehicle traffic.

You do understand that your sense of entitlement is just that, right?

 

[LettuceDeep]

Okay, so with that logic, I shouldn't have to pay to register additional vehicles once I register the first one? Once you register your first vehicle, you have carte blanche to take anything you want on the road? I've noticed that the DMV does NOT have a multi vehicle discount, each one I take on the road, I pay for.

I've posted this damned link 4 times now. ROADS ARE MAINTAINED BY THE GENERAL FUND, NOT "ROAD/CAR/VEHICLE TAX". In other words: DMV fees do not cover the cost of your using the road. In fact, cars do exponentially more damage to our highway infrastructure than do bicycles. That means that you being in a car costs more in taxes for road upkeep than a bicycle does, and DMV fees doesn't cover nearly enough to make that cost come close to a cyclist.

Well wait, who is paying then, your think the park maintains itself for free? Personally I prefer those who patronize the parks, pay, don't increase everybody's taxes.

There are things in this country that are funded by the government for a reason. If your roads, your schools, your libraries, your utilities and our parks were funded just by the people using them, the cost of use (both personal and business) would be so high that fewer people would use them, and the country would fall behind both economically and culturally. These things are funded by the government because they promote the general welfare of the community. You argue against your and your community's own health. Also, our national parks service budget is 0.08% of the Federal budget. It's literally less than pennies on the dollar. If you paid 20k in taxes... $16 went towards the National Park Service.

I'm a little late to the discussion and only read the last few posts. Please slap me if this has already been said.

When roads were initially constructed, they were designed/engineered/planned/constructed in a manner that was intended for motor vehicle use only. Oh wait, they still are.

Sorry cyclists, find somewhere else safe to do your thing. Just because the law says that you can ride on the road (and pretend your a fucking car lol) doesn't make that a wise decision to do so. I support cycling, but not if it endangers the cyclist and not in the event it impedes vehicle traffic.

No. Roads were initially designed for military use. That is besides the point. Many new roads are being designed/engineered/planned/constructed to facilitate both cyclists and cars. Also it is legal for cyclists and pedestrians to use the road because they are intended road users.

You say that you support cyclists, but with so many restrictions that cycling wouldn't be a viable transportation option, let alone viable as a recreational activity. It's like saying, "I support cyclists as long as they ride circles in their own backyard." Let's be real here: you don't support cyclists.

Also: if we replaced cyclist with motorcyclists in your last paragraph, you would sound just like some ignorant drivers. Riding motorcycles is never safe. And in regards to "impeding vehicle traffic," guess what? Traffic begets traffic. Just by being on the road, you increase traffic congestion, and therefore, impede traffic.

 

[aminalmutha]

3ft bubble isn't too bad, Keith Code makes you pass slow riders with a 6ft bubble! Just make sure to pass them with adequate speed and noise.

Fuckin-A. Downshift at least three gears, WOT and sound the horn to alert them of your presence. arty Don't wanna cause any accidents, ya know.

 

[two wheel tramp]

Okay, so with that logic, I shouldn't have to pay to register additional vehicles once I register the first one? Once you register your first vehicle, you have carte blanche to take anything you want on the road? I've noticed that the DMV does NOT have a multi vehicle discount, each one I take on the road, I pay for.

What are you talking about? I'm saying the argument that cyclists don't contribute anything towards road maintenance is specious.

You made the weird leap to whatever land you are currently occupying.

 

[redtail]

What are you talking about? I'm saying the argument that cyclists don't contribute anything towards road maintenance is specious.

You made the weird leap to whatever land you are currently occupying.

You made the leap, what does owning a car have to do with whether or not bicycles pay??

 

[redtail]

I've posted this damned link 4 times now.

Calm down hoser, I suggested that because sfcootz made the suggestion that bicyclist don't need to pay because they own cars. Understand now?

There are things in this country that are funded by the government for a reason. If your roads, your schools, your libraries, your utilities and our parks were funded just by the people using them.

Okay, once again you made the leap here. I wasn't suggesting just by the people using them, in addition to. Why do bicycles get the free ride in the state park when other vehicles do not. And if you want to use the less impact argument, then why do motorcycles pay as much as cars and trucks? Understand now?

 

[two wheel tramp]

You made the leap, what does owning a car have to do with whether or not bicycles pay??

I was responding to AlanRider's statement that bicyclists don't pay anything towards road maintenance. It is incorrect.

I see your post above. Do you really want to create a department of bicycle registration and taxation? Is that your answer? Until bicyclists directly pay a tax they shouldn't use the road?

 

[redtail]

I was responding to AlanRider's statement that bicyclists don't pay anything towards road maintenance. It is incorrect. ?

And I was responding to the point that "most cyclist own cars" statement.

I see your post above. Do you really want to create a department of bicycle registration and taxation? Is that your answer? Until bicyclists directly pay a tax they shouldn't use the road?

no.
no.
Read again, that was relative to state park usage.

 

[two wheel tramp]

Your answer simply didn't and doesn't make sense to me.

 

[redtail]

Your answer simply didn't and doesn't make sense to me.

Obviously

 

[two wheel tramp]

Okay, so with that logic, I shouldn't have to pay to register additional vehicles once I register the first one? Once you register your first vehicle, you have carte blanche to take anything you want on the road? I've noticed that the DMV does NOT have a multi vehicle discount, each one I take on the road, I pay for.

This comment is what I don't get. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the idea that cyclists contribute nothing isn't necessarily true. Additionally, they are not motor vehicles so it's not as though I said, "Hey, you registered that Camry so use that Corvette you have as much as you want without paying."

Carry on.

 

[redtail]

If they want to share the road, they should share the expenses as well.

Tired and incorrect argument is tired Alanrider. Many cyclists also own cars.

Okay, so with that logic, I shouldn't have to pay to register additional vehicles once I register the first one? Once you register your first vehicle, you have carte blanche to take anything you want on the road? I've noticed that the DMV does NOT have a multi vehicle discount, each one I take on the road, I pay for.

So I own a car, that means I should be able to ride what I want on the road, such as a bicycle? What if those cyclist did not own a car?

 

[CAmudgeon]

You know, if you just replaced bicycle with motorcycle, the op would b right at home on a Prius forum and we'd all be appalled at the vitriol and complete douchbaggery of the attitude.

This.

I can tell you having been intentionally swerved at and, buzzed by an angry depressed soccer mom (the most obvious of many potentially deadly run-ins with crazies) in SUVs while bicycling in the shoulder of a light traffic 4 lane road (i.e. she had two lanes to herself but wanted to squeeze me off the road), unfortunately douchebaggery has led to this law.

If people extended common courtesy to other road users, this law would not have been needed.

As someone else mentioned, the courteous many (on motos, in cars, on bicycles and on foot) get new laws thanks to the douchebag few.

 

[RaptorFA]

I can tell you having been intentionally swerved at and, buzzed by an angry depressed soccer mom (the most obvious of many potentially deadly run-ins with crazies) in SUVs while bicycling in the shoulder of a light traffic 4 lane road (i.e. she had two lanes to herself but wanted to squeeze me off the road), unfortunately douchebaggery has led to this law.

If people extended common courtesy to other road users, this law would not have been needed.

As someone else mentioned, the courteous many (on motos, in cars, on bicycles and on foot) get new laws thanks to the douchebag few.

Yep, pretty much this. Well no, EXACTLY this!

 

[LettuceDeep]

Calm down hoser, I suggested that because sfcootz made the suggestion that bicyclist don't need to pay because they own cars. Understand now?

Well sfcootz misunderstands how roads are funded as well.

I wasn't suggesting just by the people using them, in addition to.

People won't understand what you're talking about if you don't use complete sentences.

Why do bicycles get the free ride in the state park when other vehicles do not.

Cars do more damage to the road they use WITHIN the park, there actually needs to be wider roads for cars, and parking facilities as well. However, having read my comments, you might get the idea that I feel that park use should be completely fee free. In other words: everyone pays (in taxes), everyone has access. FYI I support park funding but I don't actually use them very much.

And if you want to use the less impact argument, then why do motorcycles pay as much as cars and trucks? Understand now?

YOU are the one arguing for people to pay for their usage. Since everybody pays the same amount towards our roads, and cars and motorcycles require MORE road upkeep per unit than bicycles, you argue AGAINST your own practices. Understand now?