How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> You also forgot to mention how you
> are so busy digging **** out of your glovebox that you miss the left
> turn arrow, even though I'm leaning on the horn behind you.

May your next glovebox-rummager be on steroids and in a foul mood.

Honk-honk.

Sun, 15 May 2005 08:36:31 -0700,
>, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>Ah, OK. So you think it's perfectly OK to ride your bike on the
>sidewalk as long as the sidewalk is not too crowded?

Cut the "too crowded" crap. There's NOBODY on that sidewalk.
It's a picture of sprawl. NOBODY walks there because there's no where
there to walk TO. It's a wasteland made for cars. It's ugly. It sucks.
You should move.
--
zk

Cathy Kearns wrote:

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote:

>>Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
>>no exceptions for "safety reasons."

> Yet police are not shy about inviting children to ride on the sidewalk on
> some routes close to schools to keep them out of danger.

Children are not licensed drivers. A licensed driver is supposed to
know the rules of the road and follow them regardless of what type of
vehicle he's using. If he's riding a bicycle, he's to ride on the road
in the same direction as traffic.

Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians on
a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of the
road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't have
someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

"Ferris" > wrote in message
...
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:56:14 -0400, "WeatherGuy"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This behaviour by the cyclist was unacceptable. The "****head" was
> >>unacceptable as well. There are times when it is necessary for safety
> >>reasons to ride on a sidewalk
> >
> >
> > Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is against California law. There are
> > no exceptions for "safety reasons."
> >
>
> Can you cite the specific law that covers this? A quick search on Google
> showed that in California it is illegal to park a bike laying down on
> the sidewalk, and that local communities may have laws regarding
> sidewalk riding. But I didn't see anything at the state level making
> this illegal.
>
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd11.htm

See especially the following *infractions*:

21202(a) Bicyclist, failure to use right edge of roadway.
21208(a) Failure to ride in a bicycle lane.
21208(b) Bicyclist shall not leave bike lane until reasonably safe.
21952 Sidewalk, failure to yield to pedestrian on.

> I would regard your and your wife's behavior as extremely rude, in any
> case. If the two of you were taking up the entire width of the sidewalk,
> as you said in your original post, then at least one of you should have
> been paying attention so you could accomodate others on the sidewalk.
> Did you see the biker on the sidewalk? If not, then I doubt either of
> you would have paid attention to another pedestrian.
>

Based on CVC 21952, while the use of "****head" might have been especially
rude, calling out the bicyclists traffic infraction was, IMHO, correct.

Cathy Kearns wrote:
> Yet police are not shy about inviting children to ride on the sidewalk on
> some routes close to schools to keep them out of danger. I've seen it done
> in person in my little town. In a Palo Alto there are many road signs in
> similar neighborhoods that say "Bicyclist may use sidewalks". I expect these
> are directed at the younger riders.

Those signs used to say "must" instead of may, until the state overturned
them. Alma St. and Embarcadero Rd. are both exactly the kind of street
where bikes should not be allowed -- narrow lanes, no shoulder, normal
traffic goes about 50, and plenty of parallel streets bikers can easily
use (including the dedicated Bike Boulevard on Bryant St. near Alma).

That law needs to be put back the way it was.

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians on
> a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of the
> road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't have
> someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
speed when he approaches a pedestrian -- just as cars are forced to slow
to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

Since the number of people driving cars is always much greater than the
number of either pedestrians or bikers, when there is a choice between
creating those two outcomes, the first is preferable by far.

Wow, you sure do spend a lot of time hating, don't you? And your numerous
photos of trivial (and yes, aggravating) public indiscresions are sad and
pathetic. I'm guessing you were the fat kid in the back of class tattling
to the teacher everytime someone passed a note in class.

Hopefully your inevitable ulcers and/or stress related heart attacks won't
sideline you for long, for we all need little heel-nipping, self-rightious
nitwits like you to cure the world of all its wrongs.

Maybe you could do us a favor and post a list of rules we should be
following so that we can avoid your raging wrath?




"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
> narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
> we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
> call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
> ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
> ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
> thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
> stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
> petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
> express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
> and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
> heads in disbelief.
>
> Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
> the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
> http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
> There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
> call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
> to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
> People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
> bad name.
>
> --
> Life is short - drive fast!
> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

John David Galt wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians
>> on a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of
>> the road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't
>> have someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

> That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
> speed when he approaches a pedestrian

No, it means that the cyclist can either ride at his own pace on the
road, or he can walk his bicycle while on the sidewalk.

> -- just as cars are forced to slow
> to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

Since when do cars have to slow down? If the cyclist is in the right
lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow down.

The key difference between cyclists vs. pedestrians and cars vs.
cyclists is that the latter two are restricted by rules of the road.
Each of them must remain within lane markings and they are supposed to
signal when changing lanes or direction.

Pedestrians on a sidewalk do not have to stay within a "lane" on the
sidewalk, and they are not required to signal before changing direction.

That difference is why cars going 20 to 40 mph faster than cyclists is
safe (assuming separate lanes, of course), but cyclists going 15 mph
faster than pedestrians is unsafe.

On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:22:04 -0700, John David Galt
> wrote in message
>:

>That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
>speed when he approaches a pedestrian -- just as cars are forced to slow
>to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

>Since the number of people driving cars is always much greater than the
>number of either pedestrians or bikers, when there is a choice between
>creating those two outcomes, the first is preferable by far.

Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that
is all that matters.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:19:06 -0700, John David Galt
> wrote in message
>:

>> In a Palo Alto there are many road signs in
>> similar neighborhoods that say "Bicyclist may use sidewalks". I expect these
>> are directed at the younger riders.

>Those signs used to say "must" instead of may, until the state overturned
>them.

See? Sanity can prevail. Well done Palo Alto, award yourselves a
gold star.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound