AB1371 - Another victory the spandex squad

[sanjuro]

Cyclist on the other hand have much smaller lighter slower, more vulnerable "vehicles". But instead of being even more vigilant than motorcyclist, and taking even more care / precautions to guarantee personal safety, most cyclist ride around with the only protection being that little clamshell on top of their head called the helmet and their spandex while breaking numerous road rules. Even the BaRFer cyclists posting on this thread admits to habitually blowing stop signs.

I really just hate play tat with the bicycle haters here.

You mention cyclists blowing stop signs. I suppose you have never gone over the speed limit.

We can continue this game for a long time. It is pointless.

The 3 foot law is about useful to me as the highway signs that warn "watch for bikers".

I just don't see the vast difference between cyclists and motorcyclists that has created such hatred.

That one I would love for someone to explain to me.

 

[phocup]

Ok, how about this, you wear full leather gear and helmet, jump on a bicycle and ride about ...oh I'll give you benefit of the doubt, 15 miles, throw some elevation in there, and about 85-95 degree F weather.

I probably wouldn't even make it 1 mile under those conditions. Thankfully my days of riding a bicycle on public streets ended when I hit 16 and got my first car. Memories aside, you misunderstood my points so I'll try to clarify.

1. I wasn't asking cyclist to do the exact same things moto riders. That simply isn't reasonable. HOWEER, just because they can't motorcycle specific safety gear doesn't mean there isn't protective gear out there specific for cyclist that offer higher level of protection than spandex.
For example ( http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=1265463011 ).
I've yet to see any cyclist on public road over 12 with even a pair of knee pads on. It doesn't make sense to me that while every other cyclist seem to have some war story about how they almost died on a commute and yet there's just a lax attitude in the cycling community as a whole to personal protection.

2. I'm no saint. I do speed and break some laws while I'm riding / driving. However, its not a tit / tat game IMO. The more vulnerable a vehicle is, the more they should be aware / responsible for their own safety. If a car runs a stop sign and get t-boned from the right, there's a decent chance the driver might come out alive. With a motor rider wearing full gear, that chance already dramatically decreases. With a cyclist wearing a "helmet", that is pretty much guaranteed death. So with cyclist being the most vulnerable group, they have the most to lose in a crash. Thus its logical to reason that they would be the ones following closest to the letter of the law. However, in reality, you see the opposite. A "3ft safety bubble" law isn't going to save you next time you blow a stop sign and the other driver can't stop in time.

3. Lets throw out the tax / "pay to use the road" argument for a minute and concede that cyclist have the SAME right to be on the road as any motor or car. Cool, so now please explain to me where you got EXTRA special and everyone now needs to have a special rule to pass you? What EXTRA thing did you do to earn your privilege? If I've been following your arguments then you've been repeatedly saying you have the SAME equal right to be on the road as us. Two sides to that coin.

The funny thing ( IMO anyways ) is previously I've always tried to give cyclist space when possible, slowing down and IMHO passing with enough space to not scare anyone ( yet ) even when passing bicycle conga lines. BUT when you mandate me to give a state enforced 3ft bubble, it makes me think twice if you really deserve that space or not.

So in response to this:

The fact that cyclists are extremely vulnerable to ANY impact, should be reason enough as to why they should be afforded a bit of extra protection from the legal system.

I ask:

If almost every single one of the cyclist that I see on the road is aware of the danger yet aren't willing to doing something more than wearing bare minimum gear to protect your own life, why am I ( as a motorist ) troubled with the extra responsibility ? Is another bill coming next year that will give a 10ft bubble for pedestrians ?

And its not just me feeling this way. Stepping back and re-reading all the replies here, you'll see the divide. Almost all the replies supporting this bill comes from cyclist BaRFers ( and admittedly there's a lot of you ).

The non cyclist replies are either don't care .. dont think it will have an impact .. isn't going to give a crap and will do w/e they want anyways .. or is against it .. or worse even wanting to retaliate against cyclist in other ways ( like giving 3ft bubble but passing at 14k RPM ? ).

Food for thought ?

 

[LongGoneJohn]

I think it should be a law to operate any vehicle on a public roadway, you must have all three things listed below:

1) Valid vehicle registration - this is priced based on weight. Obviously, a bicycle, would be cheap.

2) Valid insurance for that vehicle.

3) Proof that you have a Driver License *OR* in the case of a bicycle, proof that you've passed the written portion of the California Driver's License Test.

It's fair, it's reasonable, and it's common sense. If you are operating a vehicle on a roadway, you should be paying for the upkeep of that roadway while you do so -- hence registration. If you are operating a vehicle on a roadway that can cause a collision, you should have insurance -- and a bicycle definitely can cause a collision. And finally, if you are operating a vehicle on the roadway, you should have demonstrating that you know what the fuck the road signs mean and when you blow through them, you get a point on your license.

Period.

 

[phocup]

And finally, if you are operating a vehicle on the roadway, you should have demonstrating that you know what the fuck the road signs mean and when you blow through them, you get a point on your license.

Hmm .. might be the best idea yet in this thread.

When I ride a motor and get a ticket, the point goes on the same license and insurance for my car also increase. Why not apply the same rule to bicycle .. since we've establish that many cyclist also drive / ride.

 

[Valgar]

Thankfully my days of riding a bicycle on public streets ended when I hit 16 and got my first car.

This just explained your entire mindset.

Typical.

 

[Marcoose]

...please explain to me where you got EXTRA special and everyone now needs to have a special rule to pass you? What EXTRA thing did you do to earn your privilege?

Only 2-wheel vehicles can laneshare, it irritates a lot of motorists and it's illegal to block lanesharing. I don't know the origins of lanesharing, but am personally thankful for it and thank as many motorists as possible. That's an awesome privilege!

3) Proof that you have a Driver License *OR* in the case of a bicycle, proof that you've passed the written portion of the California Driver's License Test.

In color and cartoon for the pre-k kids?

This just explained your entire mindset. Typical.

Sadly, +1.

 

[Deftone]

Only 2-wheel vehicles can laneshare, it irritates a lot of motorists and it's illegal to block lanesharing. I don't know the origins of lanesharing, but am personally thankful for it and thank as many motorists as possible. That's an awesome privilege!

I always give a wave if someone moves over, if it's safe to do so. Sadly, a lot more people seem to want to block.

Get over it. Every motorcycle on the road means one less car.

 

[SFSV650]

Is another bill coming next year that will give a 10ft bubble for pedestrians ?

I don't need a law to tell me that it's smart to give pedestrians a +/-10' bubble.

 

[afm199]

Here's a piece of info perhaps related: A pedestrian in a crosswalk always has the right of way. You must stop until they EXIT the crosswalk, not just until they pass you. If there is a center median, that is considered an exit. If you are on a road with two lanes in one direction and a car stops at the crosswalk, YOU must stop as well, even if you don't see a pedestrian. That's a big ticket too. You can't blow through a crosswalk if ONE car is stopped at it, either side.

 

[babyhuyx]

I probably wouldn't even make it 1 mile under those conditions. Thankfully my days of riding a bicycle on public streets ended when I hit 16 and got my first car.

+2

 

[stangmx13]

I think it should be a law to operate any vehicle on a public roadway, you must have all three things listed below:

1) Valid vehicle registration - this is priced based on weight. Obviously, a bicycle, would be cheap.

2) Valid insurance for that vehicle.

3) Proof that you have a Driver License *OR* in the case of a bicycle, proof that you've passed the written portion of the California Driver's License Test.

It's fair, it's reasonable, and it's common sense. If you are operating a vehicle on a roadway, you should be paying for the upkeep of that roadway while you do so -- hence registration. If you are operating a vehicle on a roadway that can cause a collision, you should have insurance -- and a bicycle definitely can cause a collision. And finally, if you are operating a vehicle on the roadway, you should have demonstrating that you know what the fuck the road signs mean and when you blow through them, you get a point on your license.

Period.

i think all this would cost the state more $$ than itd take in.

charging a road use fee on bicycles, in its easiest implementation of adding a state fee to each purchase of a bicycle, would surely piss everyone off. but hey, u better not charge it on a mountain bike because i promise to never ride it on the road. however, i may be tempted to pay for registration if the state promises to fix all the potholes and add a bike lane to every road.

bicycle insurance . i have wondered what would happen or who i would call if i was at-fault for a major accident while on my bicycle. im sure my auto insurance would tell me to piss off. but again, this would be a shit ton of work for almost no pay off. the number of cyclists running stop signs AND causing accidents is nothing compared to auto accidents and im sure the victims can get $$ from the at-fault cyclist through the normal channels. so whats the point.

 

[Marcoose]

Every motorcycle on the road means one less car.

Same for many bicycles, safe sidewalks, public transportation, telecommute, etc. We should all be thankful for these things. Not throw they under the bus.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Only 2-wheel vehicles can laneshare, it irritates a lot of motorists and it's illegal to block lanesharing. I don't know the origins of lanesharing, but am personally thankful for it and thank as many motorists as possible. That's an awesome privilege!

In color and cartoon for the pre-k kids?

Sadly, +1.

No, if you don't have a license or haven't passed the written exam, you can't ride on the street. Only sidewalks and designated bicycle lanes.

i think all this would cost the state more $$ than itd take in.

charging a road use fee on bicycles, in its easiest implementation of adding a state fee to each purchase of a bicycle, would surely piss everyone off. but hey, u better not charge it on a mountain bike because i promise to never ride it on the road. however, i may be tempted to pay for registration if the state promises to fix all the potholes and add a bike lane to every road.

bicycle insurance . i have wondered what would happen or who i would call if i was at-fault for a major accident while on my bicycle. im sure my auto insurance would tell me to piss off. but again, this would be a shit ton of work for almost no pay off. the number of cyclists running stop signs AND causing accidents is nothing compared to auto accidents and im sure the victims can get $$ from the at-fault cyclist through the normal channels. so whats the point.

It's simple, if you don't ride a bike on the street you don't register it. If you get caught on a public roadway - not a sidewalk or bicycle lane, but the actual road - and you don't have registration and insurance, then you get fined. Same as a car except I'd give leeway to those areas that have a defined bicycle lane.

And as far as accidents? I've taken TONS of collisions that were caused by a bicyclist doing something illegal. TONS. The driver swerves to avoid and crashes into someone else. I find the cyclist at fault and since they don't have insurance, they don't pay to fix their cars. That's not fair.

 

[sanjuro]

bicycle insurance . i have wondered what would happen or who i would call if i was at-fault for a major accident while on my bicycle. im sure my auto insurance would tell me to piss off. but again, this would be a shit ton of work for almost no pay off. the number of cyclists running stop signs AND causing accidents is nothing compared to auto accidents and im sure the victims can get $$ from the at-fault cyclist through the normal channels. so whats the point.

It is an interesting idea, although I am opposed because I don't want to pay.

But FYI for the bicycle haters, I give tons of shit to other riders if they want to pull something hinky.

I was pedaling my single-speed up Market this week, when a roadie comes up on my inside real close with no shout-out.

I speed up a bit and I say, "Hi! What's the worse that can happen?"

Just by speeding up a bit, the roadie now has been taken out of his little bubble. He thought he could just pass without warning, forcing me out into traffic. Now he realizes that he is in the danger zone, not me who is paying attention.

Now all I did was keep my line, speed up, and make a casual comment about safety.

But to be honest, I am the exception and that guy is the rule.

 

[aram]

No, if you don't have a license or haven't passed the written exam, you can't ride on the street. Only sidewalks and designated bicycle lanes.



It's simple, if you don't ride a bike on the street you don't register it. If you get caught on a public roadway - not a sidewalk or bicycle lane, but the actual road - and you don't have registration and insurance, then you get fined. Same as a car except I'd give leeway to those areas that have a defined bicycle lane.

And as far as accidents? I've taken TONS of collisions that were caused by a bicyclist doing something illegal. TONS. The driver swerves to avoid and crashes into someone else. I find the cyclist at fault and since they don't have insurance, they don't pay to fix their cars. That's not fair.

So all those kids I see riding walmart bikes home from school or in their culdesac in the neighborhood are going to need to be registered and insured and have to take a written test at the DMV?

Well I guess at least they would get to ride on the sidewalk to take out joggers and get swiped by people coming out of businesses and their driveway.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

So all those kids I see riding walmart bikes home from school or in their culdesac in the neighborhood are going to need to be registered and insured and have to take a written test at the DMV?

Well I guess at least they would get to ride on the sidewalk to take out joggers and get swiped by people coming out of businesses and their driveway.

The children can ride on the sidewalk all day long, as they do now. If there is a bicycle lane, they can use that. On their way home from Wal-Mart.

You're using an unrealistic expectation of enforcement to derail a fair and good idea.
No cop is going to drive through a neighborhood and start writing 10 year old kids tickets for riding his bicycle in the culdesac. That is not the intent of the "law" as I would write it.

That doesn't mean that your wanna be Lance Armstrong fucks who are using public roadways on a daily basis, shouldn't pay for the use of said roadways like every other vehicle and shouldn't have liability insurance in case they cause a collision. If you're going to use a public roadway while on or in a vehicle, you should have demonstrating that you know the rules of the roadway which you are on, have paid your registration fee to upkeep the roads (in this case the money could be used to increase bicycle lanes throughout the State), and have liability insurance in case you violate the rules of the road and cause damage to another person or vehicle. How that is even arguable is beyond me.

Don't say they don't cause collisions either, because they do. I've had to deal with it, TONS of times.

 

[aram]

The children can ride on the sidewalk all day long, as they do now. If there is a bicycle lane, they can use that. On their way home from Wal-Mart.

You're using an unrealistic expectation of enforcement to derail a fair and good idea.
No cop is going to drive through a neighborhood and start writing 10 year old kids tickets for riding his bicycle in the culdesac. That is not the intent of the "law" as I would write it.

That doesn't mean that your wanna be Lance Armstrong fucks who are using public roadways on a daily basis, shouldn't pay for the use of said roadways like every other vehicle and shouldn't have liability insurance in case they cause a collision. If you're going to use a public roadway while on or in a vehicle, you should have demonstrating that you know the rules of the roadway which you are on, have paid your registration fee to upkeep the roads (in this case the money could be used to increase bicycle lanes throughout the State), and have liability insurance in case you violate the rules of the road and cause damage to another person or vehicle. How that is even arguable is beyond me.

Don't say they don't cause collisions either, because they do. I've had to deal with it, TONS of times.

I think this shows that everyone is just angry at road bike riders and wants to take it out on everyone.

Maybe there should be a law that "only wannabe lance armstrong fucks need to carry insurance because they annoy me" kids and homeless guys and hippies and bicycle tourers and commuters and the guy going to the bar on his beach cruiser are ok though because they don't think they own the roads and aren't entitled jerks like motorcycle riders (SOA and rossi wannabees).

But really I'd be all for bicycle registration fees, but they should change registration costs to make them reflect the actual cost of your use on the road instead of basing it on the value of the vehicle. Sneakers (for pedestrians, hey sidewalks aren't free) $3 a year, 20 pound bicycle, $5 a year. Motorcycle? $30 a year, honda fit or miata? $80, ferrari $90, 1982 lincoln continental $150, 1995 cummins deisel pickup truck or Ford Excursion? $250 a year.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

I think this shows that everyone is just angry at road bike riders and wants to take it out on everyone.

Maybe there should be a law that "only wannabe lance armstrong fucks need to carry insurance because they annoy me" kids and homeless guys and hippies and bicycle tourers and commuters and the guy going to the bar on his beach cruiser are ok though because they don't think they own the roads and aren't entitled jerks like motorcycle riders (SOA and rossi wannabees).

But really I'd be all for bicycle registration fees, but they should change registration costs to make them reflect the actual cost of your use on the road instead of basing it on the value of the vehicle. Sneakers (for pedestrians, hey sidewalks aren't free) $3 a year, 20 pound bicycle, $5 a year. Motorcycle? $30 a year, honda fit or miata? $80, ferrari $90, 1982 lincoln continental $150, 1995 cummins deisel pickup truck or Ford Excursion? $250 a year.

I agree, the registration cost should be based on the weight of the vehicle - not cost. Insurance would also be based on the likelyhood of that vehicle to cause another vehicle damage (if you had, say, liability only), which would obviously be very little.

And no, it has nothing to do with annoyance. It has to do with the fact that grown men and women are using a public roadway, riding in a public street, and affecting other public roadway users and vehicles through their actions. Just as every other method of transportation being used on that roadway is regulated, and insured, so should a bicyclist.

 

[stangmx13]

It's simple, if you don't ride a bike on the street you don't register it. If you get caught on a public roadway - not a sidewalk or bicycle lane, but the actual road - and you don't have registration and insurance, then you get fined. Same as a car except I'd give leeway to those areas that have a defined bicycle lane.

And as far as accidents? I've taken TONS of collisions that were caused by a bicyclist doing something illegal. TONS. The driver swerves to avoid and crashes into someone else. I find the cyclist at fault and since they don't have insurance, they don't pay to fix their cars. That's not fair.

voluntary registration for bicycles without VINs, license plates, or reg stickers? bike lanes arent apart of the road? ya, right.

just because the "victim" failed to recover any $$ for the damages, doesnt mean the situation isnt fair. anyone could attempt to recover $$, but i seriously doubt that most actually try.

 

[Carlo_Guzzi]

Because OP doesn't have a 70% RSU tax, 50% ESPP tax, bracketed income tax, and all of the above you stated. Jesus, the typical stereotype "rich guy riding $10000 bicycle" probably pays more than his fair share to the "road". The tax argument is dumb and moot.

No kidding. Some BARFer on Section 8 working his McJob is going to give me grief because he pays $500 a year in gas taxes? I pay more in taxes than he makes. I'm not condecending because he makes less than me and I'm not better than him, but don't give me any shit about not paying the "right" tax. You have no idea how much I pay. I'm not a 1%-er, but I pay plenty. I pay way more for those roads than most of the people using them. You can hate how I use the roads but the tax arguments don't hold any water.

Let me start kicking kids out of schools because their parents rent and don't pay property taxes.