It's telling that Dr. Reardon doesn't speak about the injury or death rate from cars; 3.4 million injuries nationwide, 40 thousand deaths. Statewide, I'm told we are expecting 450 deaths and probably about 50,000 injuries from vehicle traffic overall.
Reality is that, with 7200 bicycle commuters in Minneapolis alone, the injury rates for cyclists are not a lot higher than they are for the population as a whole. Going slower and being more aware of what is going on around you really mitigates the size disadvantages.
And then there is the little possibility of reducing one's chances of heart disease and diabetes by half...changes the equation a little bit, doesn't it?
Chalk this one up as "example #547,342,129 of why reporters ought to learn how to do math and calculate rates of incidents instead of just reporting raw numbers."
Cars are a necessity, bikes are a hobby. Why die for a hobby?
If you want exercise, bike on trails away from cars.
Duce, commuting by bike is a time-effective way to both get to work and get exercise. Bike paths don't in general go where people work, and they limit cyclists to 15mph or less.
Given that most commuters go 15mph or more on average, telling them to use the bike paths (which you also oppose, ahem) is like telling Michael Phelps to use the kiddie pool for his workout. State law (ahem, read your drivers' manual!) protects the right of cyclists to use the roads for a purpose.
And again, the statistics do NOT suggest that commuting by bike is any more dangerous than driving. They don't put much wear on the roads, and they don't slow drivers down appreciably.
Moreover, if you would prefer to drive on blacktop or concrete instead of cobblestones, you can thank bicyclists, who were the first to advocate poured roads for safety.
god I hope that pic on top is real. Frankly if given a free pass I would ... sit in my moms basement and masterbate.
Editted for poor taste and advocating sociopathic behavior
Edited By Siteowner
I could do without the biker snuff pics, myself. But no wonder city pages got upset, they were just advising people that the way to combat the 25 cent increase in bus fares was to ride a bike instead!
What on earth, Ben? You admit to desiring to commit mass murder?
Yes, it was real. Bike race in Mexico, somehow a drunk got past barriers. He at least didn't intend it. At least one rider died, and he had (ahem ahem ahem) 100% right to that portion of the road. The driver had no right to be there.
Yes, there are jackasses (to put it mildly) out there grabbing a pair of handlebars. There are also jackasses out there holding a steering wheel.
Let's go after the jackasses, and not the vehicle they're on or in.
Ben, Google the word "sociopath".
Sequel sent all of the pics, but they do demonstrate how dangerous this hobby can be.
Ben, I am not advocating the targeting of Bikers as not all of them are Obama supporters.
I got cut off by a lunatic biker a few weeks ago and almost caused an accident due to his illegal lane change and cutting in front of me. Luckily, I have massive 4 wheel disc brakes on the Jeep. Given the slower stopping speeds of a few of my past cars, the guy could have easily been toast.
That's one tree hugging hippie that should thank God (as if the spandex wearing heathen has ever heard of God!) that I invested in a new gas guzzling SUV.
Missed witnessing a bike and car collision by 2 mns on Henn. Ave Bridge-near De la Sal School entrance..
Saw man down with crowd attending over him.
Luckily no blood- but that doesn't negate a life time of back pain or some internal bleeding.
Just as traffic was slowing down some guy
weaves in and out of the packed slow moving lanes. You would think he would be more cautious after seeing the biker down he just passed.
I know its illegal but the sidewalks look safer.
Errrr- the weaving guy was on a 10 speed
Many bikers have a child's view of the world. They feel that all of the adults in cars should look out for them as they regress back into a carefree childish state.
I see proof of this all of the time in Minneapolis. They have a faux invicibility of an 8 year old.
Looks like Eva crawled out from under a rock to comment on City Pages as "West Side Gal".
How can you tell? She didn't ask folks from the City Pages to "read my blog".
lol
It's kind of weird that they keep a list of weblinks handy like that.
I know people secretly worship me and my outstanding work, but seeing my fans post stuff like that is kind of creepy.
Wrong...west side gal is MNObserver. Her examples are all items that she has whined about at length here and on other blogs. Plus, she lives in West St. Paul. Whiny priss.
I'm sure it was Eva. Duce make her feel all warm and tingly "down there".
Phonix chick, yowling from fences chicks,... chicks who love to take shots at Duce-
is there a correlation between liberals, lesbians and cat lovers??
Or am I just stereoT'in?
For reference, it's not legal to ride on the sidewalks in most towns. If you're unclear why, imagine some 200 lbs guy on his Schwinn going 20-25mph bearing down on a kid in a stroller. Bikes belong on the roads, not sidewalks.
And again, it's safe. Yes, there are guys who ride drunk, disregard traffic laws, and so on. They tend to assume room temperature. Those of us who leave the IPOD at home and ride according to the laws of the state are every bit as safe as guys whose hobby is to drive a four wheel drive vehicle on generally well kept city streets.
"Yes, there are guys who ride drunk"
What's wrong with that?
Well Phoenix Woman has officially threaten Duce over at Shitty Pages:
Oh, and by the way: A heavy-duty cyclist of my acquaintance wants you to know two (2) things:
1) Your comments are being reported as terroristic threats to the Minneapolis and Saint Paul police departments, and:
2) A growing number of cyclists now carry handguns.
If that's MnNob she has gone off her meds.
I am encouraged by #2. I just posted on the crime blog yesterday another story about bicyclists being easy targets for assaults/robberies. If it gets around that they carry, that will change which would be good for all law abiding citizens regardless of vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if the Loesch case last year didn't make a few people decide to do it.
I got a kick out how this post somehow equates to 'terroristic threats' Or was it the commentary of the sociopath commenter that warranted the (claimed) call to the cops? (cleaned up before I could get an eye-load)
They got room in the spandex for a heater?
Concealed? 
I hope they are. The more that carry the safer we all are.
Might not be a bad way to get a few more weapons though.
just kiddin'
Brent tells me that many bikers have extra room in the front of their spandex shorts where a normal guy's nuts are supposed to go.
I hate to go off-topic, but did anyone here notice that the Strib is being sued en masse for sexual harrassment?
http://kstp.com/article/stories/...251.shtml?
cat=1
The Strib's own web site story added made it sound as if it could turn into a class action. I'd link the story, but its harder to find now on their web site than it is to find their expose on Obama's close and personal friendship with William Ayers...
come on guys, your not telling me it hasn't even crossed your minds when a retarded biker cuts you off and BB I'm only referring to bikers not Bikers. Anyone who rides a Harley is ok in my book. Mopeds are another story though, probably one of the faggiest (is that even a word) modes of transportation ever come up with. Frankly with all the stuff that is said on this blog I can't believe Duce or someone with his power would edit my comment. But I'm not going to lie I did laugh the first time I saw the cars barreling into the bikers.
also, were the terroristic threats charges because of me. Because in order to even be considered you have to threaten to do something, maybe its just me but isn't there a HUGE DIFFERENCE between saying "if given a free pass I'd take the chance to..." VS. "I'm going to go out to..."?
But I'm not going to lie I did laugh the first time I saw the cars barreling into the bikers.
Yea, I bet you did Ben. Just like you fell out of your chair laughing when those planes flew into the Trade Towers.
You and El Doosh should both schedule an appointment at a psychiatrist. You guys have some serious issues.
Doosh, your obsession with cyclists is bordering on pathologic. Get help man.
We don't need to get near that line, let alone cross it. Advocating violence against bikers is not OK on this blog.
"You and El Doosh should both schedule an appointment at a psychiatrist. You guys have some serious issues."
This from a guy who's head is so far up his ass he needs a proctologist to get his hearing checked.
your not telling me it hasn't even crossed your minds
Well I for one am. That whole "sanctity of Human life" thing extends to people I may not like or agree with.
Those of us who leave the IPOD at home...
Why in Gods name would you do that?!? It helps drown out the sounds of the horns blasting at you as you roll through stop lights and stop signs!
Brent tells me that many bikers have extra room in the front of their spandex shorts where a normal guy's nuts are supposed to go.
That's just bikers who are married.
Ben, I've been cut off in traffic by bikers, damn near killed one a few months ago who blew through a stop sign. I was pissed because I might have killed the twit through no fault of my own. There's a difference between being angry at other people's negligence and just being angry.
Ben, sorry, thought has never crossed my mind. Closest I came was when some moron driving a transit bus tried to point me to the sidewalk. Evidently he hadn't, like a lot of commenters here, actually read his drivers' manual.
Again, guys, for those of you who are apparently living in the conservative equivalent of Rio Linda:
1. Most bike paths limit one to 10-15mph and don't go anywhere in particular. Insisting cyclists use these is like insisting that Michael Phelps train in a kiddie pool.
2. Driving an SUV in the city is a hobby. Cycling is a means of transportation.
3. Don't even suggest sidewalks until you're ready to come to my house when I need to change broken spokes from going over tree roots.
4. I'm seriously considering carrying while cycling if I see more comments like Ben's. Not all of us are clad only in skintight spandex, by the way. Not that hard to conceal.
Why aren't you carrying now?
Ben,
Entitled little trust fund puke from Edina laughs and gets off sexually at the misery of others.
Edinas own Jeffrey Dahmer.
Cycling is a means of transportation.
I guess we just have a difference of opinion. In Minnesota, if you chose to ride in the winter months, I question your sanity and your regard for your own life. With snow, there isn't enough room on some streets for 2 cars, let alone 2 cars and a bicycle.
If we lived in a southern state with wide roads, I might grant you that biking is a form of transportation for healthy people. But in MN with -10 and -40 windchills in the winter and 90% humidity in the summer, biking is a hobby for most people and a masochistic endeavor for the rest.
Do you expect your mom or grandma to bike to Macy's in December? Then quit taking road money for hobby trails that even bikers don't like to use.
Tracy, can you clue in that on one side, you're telling cyclists who wish to commute to use what you call "hobby trails," and on the other, you're wanting to cut off funding for them? You can't have it both ways.
And yes, most cyclists do take a break for the winter. That said, a lot of drivers take a cycling break in the summer. That doesn't make cycling a hobby.
BB,
Bike trails are a hobby for 95% of Minnesotans and should never be confused with transportation. Funding for them should compete with the arts and the Twins, not with bridges and roads.
You admit that you need the roads in the winter, yet you are happy to steal money from them to support your summer hobby. This is the level of selfishness that has gotten MN into the mess it is in.
If bikers would just admit that most can't or won't ever bike to work, for groceries or to Home Depot, we'd have a much more honest debate about where to spend limited transit dollars.
But no, you insist that your summer hobby is a valid transportation option, even thought you don't use it in the winter. Effectively Bikers steal money from roads in the summer and then use the roads year round. (99% of bikers never go for groceries, or pick up the kids on their bikes)
This is why I hold bikers in such disregard, they are basically a bunch of selfish whiners that try to push their fringe lifestyle on everyone else. Hell, the Gay lobby is better than bikers these days. At least they don't insist that everyone should be sucking dicks.
Bicycling is a nice hobby.
It's tough arguing with that kind of logic but I'm looking forward to the attempt.
Ben,
Entitled little trust fund puke from Edina laughs and gets off sexually at the misery of others.
Edinas own Jeffrey Dahmer.
yeah, ok, after my comment and you editing it Duce, shouldn't you edit this? I mean I never even suggested that I get off on it, laughing and getting off on it are two totally different things. And Doug I wish I was a "trust fund puke" but my parents aren't rich, they just happened to be in the right spot at the right time in the 1990's. And also I'm not a homosexual child-molesting, human-eating piece of shit. It's pretty evident you have no sense of humor and are a miserable little man comparing me to Dahmer.
Also, City Pages is a real proponent of the 1st amendment. I got this little doozy after posting a response about how Keith Olberman called one of our congresswoman the worst person in the world.
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.
Flaming Blue Jesus.
Ben
It's a lefty site. Of course they kill comments.
You need to get out more.
Cake eater!
Tracy, I agree that we shouldn't have tons of bike trails out of the gas tax. What I disagree with is the moronic idea that cyclists don't engage in transportation, and that somehow those of us who ride on the roads are "stealing" transit dollars.
Now let's get something straight; exactly how can a bicyclist who is inflicting zero wear and tear on the roads be stealing anything from drivers? It's actually the opposite; we pay the property taxes that maintain local roads, but we're not inflicting the wear and tear that SUV hobbyists do.
Can I have a thank you from you, SUV Hobbyists? You want theft from a driver, look at a bus or train, not a Schwinn.
And just a hobby? Well, with 30,000 or more people cycling to work and school in the area, it's just about as significant as the bus and train, really. Again, the real hobby here is driving a Rubicon Trail equipped vehicle on city streets.
Ben, citypages moderates all comments, not just yours. I don't know what their standards are but I've never had a comment not show up eventually.
CP moderated my comment and it was up in about an hour, intact.
You want to ban SUVs from driving on city streets? Have you lost your mind?
Duce is right, bicyclists are fringe, BB proved it when he claimed driving a larger automobile in the city is a hobby. Exhaust fumes must be affecting BB's judgment.
I moderated Ben here.
BB,
You seem to forget that Jim Oberstar has sent millions in pork back to the state in the form of Bike trail funding. Millions that could have been spent on bridges and roads.
As for my SUV, it does snow in MN. I am one of the more productive members of society, so I have to get shit done regardless of the weather so 4-wheel drive is a necessity some days.
If you have a job that you can skip on snow days, great. You obviously aren't a critical part of any operation, so don't project your lack of utility onto me.
Plus, I have great fun pushing douche-bags in Hondas out of snowbanks in the winter. I never accept cash, I just make them say "I wish I had an SUV." I also refuse to help liberal hippies in old Volvos, they deserve to miss their shift at the food co-op.
If you think it's fun pushing them out of snowbanks, you gotta try pushing them into snowbanks.
Even if the City Pages edited, deleted, or refused someone's comment doesn't make them opposed to the free speech.
They are a private entity... and the site is their private property. They can do what they wish.
What on earth does Oberstar's funding of bike paths have to do with 30,000 people riding the roads?
Sheesh. You guys complain about cyclists on the roads, and then bitch and moan when they start using bike paths instead of the roads the cyclists themselves paid for using their property tax.
The subsidy, again, is going to SUV hobbyists, even with Oberstar's funding of bike paths. Multiply half of 30,000 people's property tax and compare it with the actual funding for bike paths in the Twin Cities. It's not even going to be close; again, we're subsidizing your fat SUV hobbyist rear ends up the wazoo.
And yes, hobbyists. Sorry, but the "truly important decision makers" I know around here are driving rear wheel drive BMWs, not Jeeps. Having four wheel drive is nice, and I've got it, but reality is that the big cahunas in the world stay at home when the streets are covered with a foot of snow just like every other sane person.
Now owning an SUV is a nice hobby. I've got a four wheel drive pickup myself. It isn't, however, an excuse to dump on people with other ideas of transportation that actually save public money.
Actually a court in San Fran just found that Biking increases global warming.
Your hatred of practical vehicles is very telling. Bike mania has impared your sense of reason.
As for the "Big Kahunas" that drive the BMW's, most of them could stay home for weeks and most companies would be a better places and probaly more profitable. They like to think that they are critical, but one moronic manager can be preplaced by another Dilbert clone in a week
I'm self employed, so staying home means nothing gets done.
Just type Oberstar and Pork into Google and you can find tons of articles that cronicle the millons he has siphoned off of legimate transportation bills for pork porjects like bike paths.
...the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, more than $16 million just for bike paths in the Minnesota congressional district of the committee's top Democrat, Jim Oberstar. All told, Oberstar's district will get more than $120 million for transportation projects, almost 10 times more than the average congressman.
Oberstar Has Helped Produce "Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars For New Bike Paths" And Helped Win $600 Million For A Program To "Encourage Kids To Ride And Walk To School."
"Oberstar took up bicycling in the 1980s to help build up his wife's strength, after a doctor diagnosed her with breast cancer. After she died in 1991, he helped write a law that wound up producing hundreds of millions of dollars for new bike paths and other alternative transportation projects. Oberstar also played an important role in winning more than $600 million last year for a program to encourage kids to ride and walk to school and to provide safe ways for them to do so."
Contrary to what liberals believe, there is a limited amount of money that the govenment can spend. Every transportaion dollar wasted on bike trails is money that could have expanded roads and replaced bridges.
Even with $16 million of funding, that's far less than the $30 million or so that cyclists contribute to roads through property taxes each year. Sorry, Tracy, you lose on this one. Your SUV hobby is subsidized heavily by cyclists. What about a bit of thanks now?
And taking the word of a group of San Francisco judges on biking causing global warming? Right after I consult some climatologists about some obscure provisions of case law, I guess. Besides, I thought you were IN FAVOR of global warming, at least in January.
Again, what about a bit of thanks? We're helping you out, and all you can do is complain. Yeesh.
And now you're picking on those who, at least judging by their salaries, are among the most productive members of society. Good grief.
You sure you don't write for MNPublius on the side, or maybe the Red Star? You're sounding like it...
You admit that bikers use the roads too, so no "Thanks" will be forthcoming. You guys whine that you pay taxes for the roads that everyone uses and then whine again when you also demand subsidies for your hobby; usually funded by subsidies that Jim Oberstar tacks on to, and takes out of, transportation bills.
You admit that you have a truck, so you need a roads as much as I do, yet you still want a subsidy for your hobby too?
Yeah, who's the liberal here?
And where did you get the $30 million number? Cyclists anti-SUV Porn written by spandex wearing liberals?
I guess cyclists don't have kids that attend schools? I know that they use the parks more than most and that they only care about traffic laws when one of them tangles with a car and loses.
Cyclists don't subsidize shit, they are a drain on society just like welfare recipients and community organizers.
Cyclists use the roads, but inflict no wear on them to speak of. Hence, cyclists are providing a HUGE subsidy for SUV hobbyists, who inflict a disproportionate share of road damage, second only to transit buses and delivery trucks. You should thank us, not berate us.
And yes, I was not counting the portion of property taxes for schools. If you look closely at a property tax bill, the portions of your tax for each purpose are listed. One would think that a landlord would, ahem, be aware of this.
You are definitely working for the Red Star with logic like yours.
"Even with $16 million of funding, that's far less than the $30 million or so that cyclists contribute"
Wow, $1500 per for a hobby and 1/3 is subsidized by government funding!
BTW, bicyclists should be thanking snowmachine riders for many of the trails.
"who inflict a disproportionate share of road damage"
Bullshit, Duce's SUV is comparable to a sedan wrt wear, and prolly less than a pos speck that leaks oil.
Driving an automobile in the city is not a hobby. Is it the exhaust fumes or did you eat a lot of paint as a child?
BB:
"Cyclists use the roads, but inflict no wear on them to speak of."
However, they do take up space and cause [Sir Topham Hatt]"Confusion and dealy."[/Sir Topham Hatt]
That's not a small factor to consider.
cyclists are providing a HUGE subsidy for SUV hobbyists,
You can seem to get it thtough your head that you DRIVE your car or truck on those roads too. Therefore, you need them as much as I do. You can't just claim to not need them when you feel like a spin on your trike. Roads are long term investments and unless you never drive on them or bike on them, you are getting the same utility that I am from them.
Also, in MN, the weather does then most damage, then trucks and buses. Light vehicles do the least damage. If you wanted to reduce damage to roads, ban buses.
I never use the bike trails that my taxes subsidize and you do drive on the roads that we both fund so you are the one sucking up more government resources to further your faux alternative lifestyle.
Bikers don't subsidize shit, just like Mass transit riders don't subsidize shit.
Now unless you're sending in more than $5K this October 15th, blow me! I am subsidizing a whole lot of shit in Minneapolis that I don't use. If you have a kid, I doubt that you are paying enough taxes to even cover the $14K a year it costs the state to educate your kid.
There is no tooth fairy and bikers don't subsidize roads.
Il Duce' - you must be trying to make the top three "Worst Minnesotans" list this year. Not satisifed with just being in the top 5, ehhh? LOL!
Yeah, Badda, as I watch cars pass me at 10mph above the speed limit, I sure do think that I'm causing a lot of delay. And I sure do feel guilty about using the shoulders that drivers aren't allowed to use.
I'm sorry, but your logic is absurd.
Now K-Rod, here's some help. I said "SUV" hobbyists, not auto drivers, the Jeep weighs a full 800 lbs more than a full size sedan like the Buick Lacrosse, and $30 million in property tax revenue is greater than $16 million in subsidies for bike trails.
Facts are stubborn things, just like SUV hobbyists, apparently.
Didn't touch the kid part did he?
Few people actually pay their "fair share" in Minneapolis.
How much does a bus weigh? I can tell you that a fully loaded semi weighs around 88,000 pounds.
Yeah, those extra few pounds on my SUV make a big difference.
Let's see him get to Arden Hills on his bike by 9 AM after a 3 feet of snow falls. (We all know what he'll do, fire up his truck and use the roads that he seems to think he doesn't need to pay for)
His obsession with trying to reason himself into believing that bicycles are the answer and that they subsidize autos, along with the hatred of large automobiles...is...delusional.
I homeschool, Tracy. And good luck getting anywhere in your Jeep with 3' of snow on the roads. (maybe if you put it in 4 low and gunned it....you could get a few blocks before you ran out of gas....woo hoo!)
K-rod, you really need to learn to read. I never said I hated big vehicles (I own two), I just said that cyclists are likely subsidizing the roads for SUV hobbyists by reducing road wear and tear by cycling.
Which is true. My argument with you, Tracy, and others is that, contrary to this absurd article, cycling isn't terribly dangerous. Nor is it reasonable to suggest bike paths that don't go anywhere as a solution to problems.
You are delusional if you think bicyclists are subsidizing roads for large automobiles. Paint chips?
Riding a bicycle is a nice hobby.
Do the math, K-rod. Cyclists pay the same property taxes that you do. They ride the same roads that you drive. They're not inflicting anywhere near the wear and tear that an automobile does.
Ergo, cyclists are subsidizing the roads for drivers. A simple thank you will suffice, or I'd even be happy if you'd bother to learn to follow a logical argument.
I never said I hated big vehicles (I own two),
I assume that you drive those big vehicles on the very same roads that I do? Then you are using the very same resources that I am. Ergo, no savings.
The wear and tear argument is mighty thin.
Biking along busy streets is dangerous and people that have kids should think twice about their priorities before they choose the biking lifestyle over their family.
But have fun justifying your selfish habits to others and then blaming them when they point out the folly your choices. Maybe you should go ask Mark Loesch's kids if they are glad that daddy chose biking through a bad neighborhood at night over his family.
BikeBubba:
"Yeah, Badda, as I watch cars pass me at 10mph above the speed limit, I sure do think that I'm causing a lot of delay. And I sure do feel guilty about using the shoulders that drivers aren't allowed to use.
I'm sorry, but your logic is absurd."
That's funny... I occasionally see bikes getting in my way. Apparently, I must be wrong.
Either that, or not everyone rides their bike like you do.
What? Do you want an effing parade. Good for you, BB. You're arrogance is funny.
The Shitty Pages deleted a whole bunch of comments criticizing them but left up the post with my contact information.
The left is truly about censorship, hatred and violence. They are completely pathetic.
My comments have been pulled.
MBerg's comments pulled.
il Duce's comments pulled.
Information about how to harass the Douche and his co-workers on the job are left to stand.
Jackassery of the highest order.
Apparently our thought crimes were to be critical of the thread moderator for allowing the threats, and calls for harassment at work to stand.
Hey, looky here.
I just happen to still have my last comment to shitty pages on my clipboard.
My comment follows one by Mitch where he suggested that maybe posting personal information on the hamsters "out" others anonymously.
I live in the proverbial glass house.
I am for outing no one.
Who the hell needs the boss asking why there are lunatics calling?
Over at Anti-Strib, as bad as some of you think we might be; a comment with a place of employment address phone number etc would get the heave-ho.
Regardless of our views of the person getting outed it's just lousy manners.
We actually have rules.
No personal addresses posted, ever.
No personal phone numbers posted, ever.
Ad-hominem insults are frowned upon.
Snide comments and any other abuse of family are strictly verboten.
The administrator here may wish to consider some of these.
Sequel
There is a memorial ride for the recently killed cyclists this Saturday.
The ride route is listed on the website. Maybe Ben will be out driving around and he can get some laughs by running down some more cyclists himself.
Ha ha!
It's interesting how you guys want to discourage people from engaging in a perfectly legal activity just because it inconveniences you.
Any limitations on smoking however puts you through the roof.
Statistically, which do you think is the more dangerous "hobby"? For that matter, do you think you are safer in a car than on a bicycle? Keep fooling yourselves.
El Doosh, your logic is idiotic. It's pointless to try and justify your rage, you just hate people who rides bicycles.
You see, there is no such thing as "drivers" and "cyclists". There is no "cycling lifestyle" any more than there is a "driving lifestyle". It's just people doing what they need to do, what they want to do or what they enjoy doing.
You can be frustrated with people when they make mistakes, regardless of their activity.
You want to start telling people what they can and can't do while engaging in a perfectly legal activity? Move to Russia.
My comments were also deleted.
Pointing out their brown shirt tactics will not be tolerated!
Liberal fascism indeed.
Douchebag... he's calling you gay. Shrug it off, Smithers. It isn't the first time.
I never said that people can't bike, I just pointed out how dangerous is it and in my opinion, not worth the risk. People sky dive, have unprotected sex in SF and vote for Obama. They are all dangerous, but legal.
You posted "It's just people doing what they need to do,.." No, one "needs" to bike in city traffic. We have a mass transit system in the city for those that choose not to own cars.
You can laugh in the face of the evidence while you ride to commemorate the deaths of your lifestyle partners, but you are just fooling yourself. You have a young child, is your need to take un-necessary risks more important than your kid's need for a dad?
Tracy, apparently you're unclear on the concept that how often you use the roads correlates really well to road wear. Here's a hint; my 20 year old driveway is in great shape, as it doesn't get much traffic. The five year old road in front of it, poured twice as thick of the same material, not so well.
Again; the main wearout cause, even here in MN, is vehicle inflicted, and when cyclists inflict less wear, they're subsidizing your SUV hobby.
And Badda, I've yet to see more than one or two cars behind me while riding, and I've been riding for 30 years now. I'm sorry, but if you're all worked up about waiting a few seconds to pass someone, you really need to get a clue. It's not a big issue. People need to wait for me just about as much when I'm driving as when I'm riding.
Or, BB... we might not be driving in the same places or at the same times. Your experience is different from mine.
That doesn't mean I need to get a clue. It doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but your comments make you an ass.
Now you are comparing the work of a private contractor to work done by the state and you call me a Red Star hack? You have a cement street in front of your garage in Minneapolis? You know that the City poured it twice as thick with the exact same mixture of aggregate as your driveway guy? I didn't think so.
I wonder just where you live in the city as my house has asphalt out front and a very old cement alley in back.
Dude, I can see that you have the religion of "The Sainted Biker" and there no way to get it through to you that your "wear and tear" arguement is lame. Your biking as about the same as me walking to the store to buy milk, in the grand scheme of things, it makes no real difference for the roads.
You obviously have some deep seated attachment to biking in a very strange way so I stop harshing your religious high.
Christ walked on water, Buddha ate only one leaf for 60 days and bikers are saving us $30 million a year in road repairs.
Enjoy your religion and say to Thor for me on the next Valhalla bike tour.
You have a young child, is your need to take un-necessary risks more important than your kid's need for a dad?
Yea, thanks so much for your phony concern.
Did you pull some number out of your ass that said cycling was more dangerous than driving? I guarantee you that driving my kids to day care everyday is way more dangerous than putting them in the bike trailer.
I chose to enjoy my life without worrying how the occasional shit head might wreck things for me. You should try it, but I know that living in constant abject fear is your way of life.
BTW, glad to see Badda is as useless as ever. Looking forward to the next time he's banned.
Tracy, you're unaware that the actual road work is generally done by private contractors using standard recipes and techniques?
OK......
Badda, apart from large groups of cyclists going well into the lane, I'd be very surprised if your typical wait for cyclists exceeds 10 seconds. Sorry, but get some perspective; look at 35W or 169 in the morning. Or 694 or 394, for that matter.
Small children in a trailer behind your bike? There should be a law against that.
You should take them to the memorial ride with you so they can see what regularly happens to bikers.
I wouldn't do that to my dog. But hey, they're your kids and like Keanu Reeves said; "You need a license to have a dog but anyone can have a kid."
You and BB should get together for worship services. Your can form the Bretheren of the Bike Pump.
Actually, that Keanu Reeves line from Parenthood is: "You need a license to drive, but any butt reaming asshole can be a father".
Jim W, does that mean you are a father?
Har har har!
BB, How much extra wear and tear do you think Fang imparts on the roads and sidewalks?
How much extra wear and tear on the roads when an auto has to swerve around a bicyclist on the white line?
When it comes to a good spit shine, you're pretty good, I'll remind the guys to tip you better next time.
I've never been banned.
K-Rod has a point. BB and Smithers kids weigh about 2 to 3 times more than Fang so they cause way more wear and tear when they use the sidewalks than Fang does.
I'm subsiziding his kids to the tune of $30 million a year!
Not to mention the wear and tear on the roads from the times he takes his kids to the doctor, sports practice and the increased weight of his SUV loaded with groceries for kids.
Dog owners are definitely subsidizing parents in Minneapolis.
BB,
"...I'd be very surprised if your typical wait for cyclists exceeds 10 seconds."
Then there is the next guy behind me, and the guy behind him. It creates a slowdown. I don't know if it is ten seconds, that sounds fairly low.
If your point is that cars cause more confusion and delay, perhaps... but when trying to get around a car I know what to expect.
When trying to get around Smithers or BB, I need to block the image of them in short-shorts and avoid their incessant snarkery for me simply voicing an opinion and driving a car.
If only you guys drove on 35W. Passing would probably be easier.
Badda has been whipped, dipped, chained, gagged, beaten, battered and bruised, but never banned.
Of course, he happily paid for the above mentioned "abuse" with a stolen credit card bearing the name "McLovin".
...and I might add, I never had to wear ass-chaps. Or bike shorts.
Well, smithers, I was merely correcting duce's clear misrepresentation of the classic Keanu line, not suggesting anything.
But yes, Yes I am
no one has to wear ass-chaps or bike shorts.
I choose to wear bike shorts, you choose to wear ass-chaps.
Well, they matched my jacket and hat... and they were on sale.
Only a spandex wearing bicyclist would call them ass-chaps.
They are ass-less chaps.
Chaped asses is what happens after a camping trip with Brent, Sequel and Marty.
"I've never been banned."
You need to try harder...
...but what would I know about being banned? 
he happily paid for the above mentioned "abuse" with a stolen credit card bearing the name "McLovin".
Will he be changing his name to SuperBada?
Getting banned is pretty easy... just ask Doug and Peev.
Badda, if I'm getting passed often enough for a line to form, I'm quite frankly on a very busy, excessively narrow road. The problem ain't with the cyclist, it's with the city roads department and with (ahem) impatient drivers.
And regarding the wear and tear Fang puts on the sidewalks....methinks the guy in chaps walking him is the real issue.
Which brings up a question; you guys apparently dress up for the Fulsome Street Fair whenever you can, but you complain about cycling shorts? Apparently they're not revealing enough for you disciples of the Shrine of Brokeback Mountain?
I'm sure you'll be bitterly disappointed to learn that I tend to cover up while commuting. Sorry.
"Ain't my fault that I'm a bike rider."
Which is it? You (as a general group) cause confusion and delay but it isn't your fault, or you don't?
Why I hate bikers in a nutshell:
it's with the city roads department and with (ahem) impatient drivers.
Not one iota of personal responsibility. The roads that he expects "the roads dept" to widen were laid out in the late 19th and early 20th century. My block was annexed into Minneapolis in 1887. They weren't thinking about cars nor bikes too much back then.
Has any of these selfish bastards ever considered moving to a quieter street? Hell No! They bike down Lyndale and mess up traffic, while they could be on Bryant and bothering no one, proving once again that bikers think of no one but themselves.
Look you spandex sniffing weenies, post-1920 our cites, streets, roads, highways and suburbs were designed for cars, not bikes. You continue to practice an irrelevant hobby in areas that were never designed for you. You and your bretheren are such a small group that any attempts to re-design the entire twin cities 7 country metro area for your hobby are an exercise in wasteful futility.
Like skydivers and pole-smokers, you are free to play in traffic for whatever cheap thrills you need to get through the day. Just stop whining when the inevitable occurs and your hobby ends badly. The roads weren't designed for you and they never will be. You are a very tiny whiney monority in MN that many people despise. Stop pretending otherwise and start behaving before people get serious about regulating your juvenile behavior.
The roads that he expects "the roads dept" to widen were laid out in the late 19th and early 20th century. My block was annexed into Minneapolis in 1887. They weren't thinking about cars nor bikes too much back then.
Yer such a dumbass.
Do you know why they started paving roadways long before cars ever started rolling out?
I'll give you a hint: It was for bicyclists.
What is it that Bike Bubba should accept personal responsibility for if he is obeying the law?
Stop pretending otherwise and start behaving before people get serious about regulating your juvenile behavior.
You just hate cyclists. People getting serious about regulating my behavior? Good luck with that. You better hope you kill me because if I have an ounce of strength left after your attempt at regulation I'll shove my entire bike down your throat.
Since we are taking action ourselves outside the law I guess I will take it upon myself to dump a bucket of cold water on your head if I catch you outside smoking around my kids.
Cheers!
I'll give you a hint: It was for bicyclists.
Now that is really misinformed. Europeans cobbled streets because of mud, not bicycles. They did it for the carriages and carts. Before the bike was invented. Shit Smithers, the ancient Romans paved streets, and there was nary a Schwinn to be seen on the Appian way.
Now appologize to Duce.
Not only that, Smithers, but you're missing part of Tracy's point (which has been a "hobby" of yours for a few years)... they are not as WIDE as they should be today.
The League of American Wheelmen was a prominent advocacy group for the improvement of roads and highways in the United States long before the invention of the automobile. The Good Roads Movement in the late 19th century was founded and led by the League, which began publishing Good Roads magazine in 1892 (10 years before the founding of the American Automobile Association). I thought that I read somewhere that the first paved road in minnesota was built by the LAW. Another point is that it is currently in the state law that a bicycle is a "vehicle" and someone operating a bicycle in the proper legal manner has a right to the road. In fact it states that a car is supposed to give a bicycle 3 feet of room while passing it, if it permits. But lets not let facts get in the way of stupid opinions, huh?
Then why not require a license, registration, and taxes? I think they are taxed, but can't recall the details.
In the medieval Islamic world, many roads were built throughout the Arab Empire. The most sophisticated roads were those of the Baghdad, Iraq, which were paved with tar in the 8th century. Tar was derived from petroleum, accessed from oil fields in the region, through the chemical process of destructive distillation.[13] - Wikipedia
And the Prophet (PBUH) declared "I have had enough of peddling down these bumpy goat-paths! Let there be paving upon the roads!"
Badda, cyclists already pay for the roads they use though the property tax. I thought conservatives were supposed to be against useless government regulation, and you and the priest of brokeback mountain are saying you want more. What gives?
Let's be serious here; since when is it "selfish" to use resources you've paid for? It seems that roles are reversed here; Smithers and Skibby are the law and order conservatives (no offense intended guys), and Badda and Duce are the tax and spend liberals.
Um, Bubba property taxes don't go to road maintenance. And new construction is paid for by bonding and Federal contributions.
"outside smoking around my kids"
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Has Smithers been drinking the anti-property-rights Kool-aid? Does he think the campfire smoke is killing thousands of boy scouts a year? WTF?
I am generally against regulation, usually because it favors certain special interests. (ie bicycles vs mopeds vs dirt bike vs scooter vs atv vs automobile)
I am against militant bicyclists.
Bicycling is a nice hobby, it is subsidized just like some of my hobbies.
With subsidation comes government regulation.
BB making an innocent yet slightly foolish mistake:
"...cyclists already pay for the roads they use though the property tax."
I don't know if you realize this, but using your reasoning car drivers (unless they are homeless) pay for the road twice.
You actually haven't paid for the roads as a bicyclist. If you have a car, you've helped pay with your registration fees and (I think) with your licensing.
Conservatives like to cut through the bike rider's double standard... we'd be happy if we didn't need to pay at the pump, pay the state, and pay elsewhere. If you want to help eliminate that and get private organizations to make and maintain roads you'll probably have support from us.
The libertarians would support that, too.
Smithers:
"You better hope you kill me because if I have an ounce of strength left after your attempt at regulation I'll shove my entire bike down your throat."
Now that's the violent and belligerent Smithers I remember.
It's probably a big shock to you, but all the cyclists I know own cars.
I own two.
"but all the cyclists I know own cars." Of course they do, which makes BB's $30 million in savings so laughable.
Bicyclists want to use the roads for their cars and then turn around and whine that they subsidize the roads when they want to play on their toys.
The regulation I was talking about is the enforcement of traffic laws. Bikes need to stop at stop signs, signal turns and generally obey the same rules as cars. Few do.
Kermit, don't harsh on the Bretheren of the Bike Pump. They have their own belief system that is immune to reason. They invented roads, they are responsible for the cities, they are lost tribe from Battlestar Gallactica.
Amd I bet you have a bike rack on them so you can drive to one of the bike trails I am subsidizing.
You're welcome.
I'm still waiting for that appology to Duce. When accusing someone of being a "dumbass" it's best not to include a really stupid statement immediately afterward.
Il doosh: Small children in a trailer behind your bike? There should be a law against that.
Funny how the one's claiming every liberal is a brown-shirt fascist are also the ones that would like to tell all, err, those they dislike, what to do.
Get over all the pent-up anger you seem to have gained from your disfunctional life and quit bitching about everything. You should have been so lucky as to have a father that would take you on bike rides and expose you to the larger world.
The regulation I was talking about is the enforcement of traffic laws. Bikes need to stop at stop signs, signal turns and generally obey the same rules as cars. Few do.
Hey, I am all for obeying the laws regardless of the type of vehicle being operated. While I don't defend bad behavior I in no way endorse the general public taking matters into their own hands.
I obey traffic laws as I don't want to get creamed. If the police are too busy to patrol cyclists then the cyclists take their own risks. But it ain't your job to pick up the slack for the cops.
Unless I am misunderstanding your intention here. Maybe I am.
Amd I bet you have a bike rack on them so you can drive to one of the bike trails I am subsidizing.
Yes I do have a rack on the car, but I don't use bike trails. I ride on the road, or the velodrome.
Bike trails are for commuters, baby joggers and fruit booters.
I'm still waiting for that appology to Duce.
Hang in their Kermit!
It is illegal to pull an occupied trailer of the hitch mounted pull behind variety, unless it is a fifthwheel type; then you can pull another unoccupied trailer behind the fifthwheel.
Hey, Gordon, for the record I'm the one tracking the behaviors of Barry's Little Brownshirts, keep your huffy insult direction straight. Belongs in a different thread. And yes, if you buy into the current Liberal Progressive Pogrom, you are a Brownshirt.
i refuse to comment....am not a recreational cyclist, i was a working messenger and have a different agenda than most attending this forum.
i actually am a socialist, but that's another issue than the one b4 us now
The odds.
http://www.lilesnet.com/retireme...rement/
odds.htm
1 in 84 to 1 in 4919
Then when you factor in per miles traveled.
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.co...ive-
longer.html
Driving is way more dangerous. That's why I never drive to work. That and it's cheaper. And I love calling the drivers lazy fat bastards. Anyway, I see more drivers running stop signs than cyclists in Cali.
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/n...etail/
1878.html
HAHAHAHAHAHA
"It's probably a big shock to you, but all the cyclists I know own cars."
That's fine... but how much does the bicycling contribute to roads?
My time is valuable, riding a bicycle to work is not cheaper than driving, Tom.
Driving, in general, is an unenjoyable activity. This is why drivers get so upset when their commute is lengthened by a few seconds by a cyclist. This is why we have ridiculous road rage incidients: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle4804007.ece. Cycling, on the other hand, is generally an enjoyable activity. This is why people will do it in poor weather and lengthen their commute time significantly. The risk of getting splattered by an idiot (or sociopath) is still pretty low, and about the same as getting splattered in a like manner while in a car.
Um, Kermit, if you don't think property taxes go to road maintenance, look at your property tax bill. Sorry, they do, and they have for 150 years in this state. It's not like this is something new.
Which is, ahem, now cyclists do contribute to the roads--that and sales taxes on their cycling equipment. And yes, it amounts to a subsidy for SUV hobbyists overall.
Good to see as well that Tracy hasn't figured out that wear & tear on roads is a function of how many vehicles use them, how much they weigh, and how much they're used on them. Good grief.
If you don't enjoy driving, you need to get a better vehicle or take some driving lessons. I have a large, comfortable SUV with Sirius radio, a Hemi and a sunroof. It is a joy to drive.
Biking can be enjoyable on a Sunday afternoon when there is plenty of "scenery" out at Lake Calhoun. There would be nothing enjoyable about biking to work on a cold, dark morning in January. That is more like torture.
K-Rod nails yet another reason why 95% of Americans don't bike, time is money and biking to work is a huge waste of time.
You guys can argue all you want. We know that people that hate cars and think that 51 year old women should bike to work aren't to be taken seriously. Your movement is just a step above the Anarkids who hate Starbucks.
As for enforcement, it is every citizen's duty to report when laws are being broken. As more people bike, more people will push the police to enforce the law on bikers. That means coming to a full stop, obeying traffic signals and staying in your lane and not blocking traffic.
Just yesterday 2 of Smithers and BB's buddies were biking the wrong way on a one way street. They ignored the traffic signals (there probably weren't any facing their direction anyway), ran the light and almost caused an accident. They biked on, gleefully ignorant of the mess that they created. The adults in the cars were once agains left to sort out a mess created by the children on bikes.
come to a full stop? Set up a lawn chair at an intersection and count how many cars come to a full stop - you won't see many. Or do this, ride your bike next to a car approaching an intersection and "stop" with them, you will never have to put your feet down or come to a complete stop...
I guess we'll just disagree, then. Getting somewhere just isn't satisfying unless I have to put a bit of work into it. In a car, I just sit there and get fatter in a row of others sitting there and getting fatter. I just really can't imagine someone enjoying their commute to and from work in a car, but that's just me.
There are two kinds of illegality for cycling:
1. dumbassery - going the wrong way on a one way, cutting off others, not wearing lights at night, etc. These jerks deserve our scorn.
2. Following Idaho laws - slowly rolling throw a stop sign when nobody's there, treating a stoplight like a stop sign when it's completely clear. If a tree falls in a forest...
This just makes sense for a cyclist as we have much better visibility to our surroundings and don't need as much time to make sure it's clear. In a car, you roll up to a sign or light at 35+ mph. You are surrounded by metal and plastic, and in an SUV or pickup, you are quite a bit higher up. It makes it hard to see around you. Bikes don't have "blind spots."
Whatever, drive your SUV, I'll bike my fixie. I'll respect traffic where it exists, and bike safely for my own sake. Just don't run me over and kill me cause you "didn't see me."
Getting somewhere just isn't satisfying unless I have to put a bit of work into it.
I bet you’re a real joy on vacations. How was your bike trip to Mexico? Do you get out and row if you want to go to Jamaica?
I used to work in Silicon Valley so I flew to work. Transportation is a means to an end. If you want to be productive, you minimize the time wasted on unproductive things like getting to work.
I know, I think like a business owner and other people think like flower children waiting for the return of the Age of Aquarius.
Of course, your decisions that most likely minimize your income which drives your desire to tax people like me who make decissions that maximize my income. Bikers are inherently liberal as they advocate inefficiency and all of the waste that that entails. Then they ask the government for subsidies, taxes and policies that try to balance out their chosen inefficiency.
I have a bias towards the progress and efficiency not the past and inefficiency, that why I hate people that call biking anything but a hobby. I guess next you'll be for bringing back the horse and buggy?
Lessee...Smithers comments that he's not one to blow off traffic laws, but Duce claims that the guys who do are his and my buddies.
That makes about as much sense as claiming that how often one uses the roads doesn't affect how much wear is inflicted.
I have a 15 mile commute, it takes me 30 minutes by car and 45 minutes by bike. So for an extra 30 minutes each day, I get 90 minutes of exercise and relieve stress. So I am more productive at work, and healthier. I don't clog the health care system, and bring down the costs of insurance for the masses. Your welcome... Total System Cost...
Lets just say that I judge all bikers from what I see daily in Minneapolis. You and Smithers may be in the minority and actually follow the laws, but you both encourage more people to bike, which creates 99 more law breaking morons for every one that might follow the laws.
Most bikers don't take traffic laws seriously, as I noted in a post were the biker whined that he got a ticket for cruising through a stop sign. His response to to try and exempt bikers from traffic laws.
Now do you get why you guys piss us off? You actually want to have laws passed so that you can act like children and have all responsibility placed on drivers.
Mr. Jones,
I don't think many folks begrudge bikers or auto drivers on point number 2.
BB,
Let's see if we get you right... Smithers says he obeys the traffic laws. We have no reason to believe he isn't telling the truth (other than his disrespectful attitude in the past, but we cut him some slack and take his word for it).
Somehow in your mind that logically follows that his bike riding comrads also obey all traffic laws.
I dont' see the connection. You're going to need to spell that out, Bubba.
http://www.swjournal.com/index.p...152&
category=65
Kahn and Carlson’s proposal, which will be reintroduced during the next legislative session, amends Minnesota bike law to allow cyclists to pass through stop signs and lights in certain situations.
Hmm, now we have one of the stupidest people to ever represent anyone in MN proposing that bikers should be immune from traffic laws? Am I the only one that thinks that this will just cause more accidents and more hostility towards bikers?
I'm sorry, but when a group asked to be given special status because they can't be expected to follow the laws, I generally have no sympathy for them.
I have a 15 mile commute, it takes me 30 minutes by car
I think I have found your problem, you are driving 2 miles an hour. You might enjoy driving more if you went a bit faster.
"That makes about as much sense as claiming that how often one uses the roads doesn't affect how much wear is inflicted."
Yes, BB, telecommuting would put less wear on the roads, but it is doubtful you could actually measure the difference.
you are driving 2 miles an hour
LOL!
Tracy shows his math is as good as his understanding of road wear. 15 miles in 30 minutes is two minutes per mile, or 30 miles per hour.
And his understanding of motivations. Yeah, we encourage people to ride, so we're obviously encouraging them to break the law. Just like Tracy encourages people in their SUV hobbies, which must mean he's encouraging people to act like that drunk in Mexico who crashed into the bike race.
Let's file these under "false inference," OK?
That's 30mph jackass. It's because of speed limits and traffic. I suppose you can do it faster, by what, breaking your sacred laws?
Sacred laws?
Typical! A society cannot live without certain rules or someone gets hurt.
Fine, let bikes have an immunity to laws but don't say we didn't tell you so when they start laying 'em out in the street. Better clear your calendar for a lot more memorial rides.
Is that yet another bike rider who doesn't like traffic laws?
Ok you stupid sumbitches, I agree with the traffic laws, I follow the laws when I ride my bike. But to think that all car drivers are following the laws and cyclists aren't? You're dumber than than your XXXXXXXX. Not everyone who rides bikes to work is a left loonie. But your hyperbole and idiocy is ridiculous... I'm out...
Clean it up, you can make your point without the vulgarity.
Edited By Siteowner
Before the door hits you in your ass (which resembles a sack or doornobs)...
Who said that, you stupid sumbitch?
That's "sack of doornobs"
D'oh!
I am sure I could drive 15 miles to work in less than 30 minutes without violating any laws. Bet he gets honked at either way, bicycle or automobile.
Y'all, maybe Skibby gets the joy of commuting during rush hour? Sorry, but 30mph isn't that bad a commuting speed when traffic is backed up.
And it's really funny to see drivers (oops, SUV hobbyists!) complaining about cyclists not obeying traffic laws....are we to assume that Tracy, Badda, and K-Rod are three of the seven people in the metro area who don't speed when traffic is clear?
Uh-huh.
You're the one who made the snarky remark about sacred laws. Of course car drivers break laws. That's one reason they get killed in accidents.
As for bikes, it seems to me if you are out in traffic and go out of your way to piss people off or do something stupid like blow through stop signs you are running the risk of getting squished.
Armored personnel in the Army call infantry "crunchies". It's the sound they make when they screw up and forget the rules.
Bubba,
Have you read what I wrote? Is it just easier to gloss over what three people have said?
I know it is easier, but I suspect you're not really paying attention (or at least, not willing to ask for clarification).
Not one word about the movement to legalize criminal biker activity.
I take 35W to work so 30 is actually illegal, the law states that the minimum speed on a highway is 45.
What kind of car only goes 30 MPH? I'm really starting to get why these guys hate driving. If I had a moped that only went 30 MPH I'd be miserable too.
Something tells me that Skibby could get to work quicker but he chooses the slow path on purpose. Probably likes to swing by the hemp store on the way home and then stop for a Frappacino.
Look at how wound up, vulgar, belligerent, and frustrated some of those bike riders are? Skibby, to some extent BikeBubba, and (the famously violent) Smithers.
Sorry, some of us got to work around here...
Cars are cars and bikes are bikes. We should have different laws that make sense for each vehicle. We share a roadway because building one multiuse road is more sensible than several roads for single use (exceptions are freeways and greenways). That doesn't mean that the same laws make sense for all users.
Law breaking isn't always so bad, as long as people are paying attention and it is safe. Drivers usually speed a bit, don't actually stop a signs, turn on reds without stopping, etc. Trouble is that cars, SUVs in particular, aren't great when it comes to visibility. Many drivers also drive inattentively (cell phones, eating, changing clothes, make-up), increasing the chance of error.
Bottom line, a car can very easily kill somebody (pedestrian, cyclist, passenger, driver) if the driver screws up. A bike could only kill under the most severe circumstances, and otherwise will do no more harm than knocking somebody over. This is why driving is a privledge and cycling is a right and why you must be "approved" (driver's test) to drive by the DMV, a division of the MN Dept. of public safety. Cars, improperly operated, are a threat to public safety.
Also, 30 mph in rush hour is doing pretty good. Than there's parking, filling up with gas, brushing off snow, etc.
They are frustrated because in their heart they know I am right.
Why else would BB try to change the subject to telecommuting?
Law breaking isn't always so bad,
Yep, the Anarkids analogy was dead on. The SUV hatred is also quite telling. Would a Prius that is lower to the ground have better visibility? Nope! SUV's usually have better visibility then most cars. Now should we talk about your visibilty with your bike helmet on?
I guess I'll stop paying taxes and start smoking where ever I want. If Laws are just suggestions, I guess we can all pick and choose which ones to follow.
I just hope my new neighbor neighbor isn't a Jeffry Dahmer or Alphonso Rodrigues, they both issues with the murder and rape laws.
As for 30 MPH, I can assure you that traffic on 35W goes much faster than that when I commute from home to work.
Finally, if you have to have a child in a car seat when traveling in a car, why don't you have to have them in a car seat with a helmet on when towing them behind your Schwin? I think some legislator should look into this. It's for the kids you know!
If banning kids from being pulled behind bikes saves just one kid's life, its worth it.
Cycling is a right?
OK, pursue thy happiness but don't pull out in front of a vehicle outweighing you by 2 tons and at the very least make it look like you try to abide the reason for the laws. I'll do all I can not to crunch your rights. washing blood off a vehicle isn't all that much fun.
K-rod, since when did I say something about telecommuting? You started that bit, not me. I left it as the foolishness that it is.
And yes, Schweinhund, cyclists do have the right to use public roads in all 50 states, with the exception of restricted access highways. If you doubt this, read your driver's manual.
Yup, we get testy when people suggest we don't belong on the roads, or that we're not paying our way.
Il Duce, you are aware that your slippery slop analogy is a fallacy? That is, a car doing 31 in a 30 mph zone isn't a gateway crime to serial rape. I'm beginning to take you less seriously with nonsense like that. You throw out inflammatory rhetoric (Anarkids, sounds kind of cute, actually) and oversimplify everyone who is, well, not like you. *Well hey, it's a liberal, I've seen them on TV. They smoke weed and don't shower. Haha look at the Prius.* It sounds to me like this little club of commentors is very isolated and scares away much thoughtful dissenting opinion through an inability to intelligently respond. This is not healthy.
I'll take it at your word that you have better visibility in your SUV. It still has much worse visibility than I do on my bike. Have you worn a bike helmet recently? It's not like a catcher's helmet or a goalie's helmet, it doesn't block my vision at all.
Sure, cycling is a right. The Bill of Rights (#10) reserves all rights not mentioned in the Constitution to the states and the people. MN State Law on cycling is pretty clear: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn....tes/?
id=169.222 .
il dookie, shows you what you know. I own guns, I vote libertarian and I work for the military industrial complex. And all you douchebugs who fuck with me on the road? When I catch you, I fuck with you...
Try fucking yourself first, Skibby. Try having a conversation... Like Mr.Jones.
Now... get your effing shinebox.
baby badda, I had a conversation, I noted what the laws were, and my particular commute, and what did you guys do? Make fun of the driving time? Imbeciles...
To some extent you did... at least in the first chunck of your first statement, but you have essentially been a violent, bigotted, mindless old fool.
Now, that shinebox...
OK, it's a right. The way it was said reminded me of this liberal at another site. Always declaring he has rights, never wants to talk about responsibility.
There is a responsibility that goes with our rights and that is to abide by the law. I don't care if you coast through a stop sign, it's up to you to watch for yourself. That's your responsibility as well. Blow through a stop sign and get your ass whacked? I'll feel bad for your family and say what a shame. I'll mean it too. If you need a law and a sign to prevent your stupidity from killing you I'm hoping you didn't reproduce. If so, maybe a new daddy can teach your children well. As far as I'm concerned ride any way you want.
Licensed drivers have a right to use the roads too and have the same responsibilities. Sometimes they screw up and get crunched by a semi.
I feel about the same way, if not totally. Rights are almost synonymous with responsibilities, it's the nature of the game.
Difference is, irresponsible bikers get themselves killed. Irresponsible drivers get both themselves and others killed.
True enough!
We've established all parties have responsibilities.
That's why if my family was in the truck out on Cty rd 6 and I had my choice of the ditch,an oncoming car or taking out a guy on a bike, well I sure hope it's not you. I might chance the ditch if I were alone but not with the kids.
That road is dangerous for bikes yet they ride 2 abreast like idiots. No, not all but enough. It amazes me they're not scraping up one a week off the asphalt.
People need to pay attention to what they're doing and how it affects others, not just how other's actions affect them.
Difference is, irresponsible bikers get themselves killed. Irresponsible drivers get both themselves and others killed.
Nothing but net.
No Irresponsible bikers cause accidents and drivers fell terrible when they run over you irresponsible morons.
No person shall operate a bicycle at nighttime unless
the bicycle or its operator is equipped with a lamp which shall emit a white light visible from
a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and with a red reflector of a type approved by the
Department of Public Safety which is visible from all distances from 100 feet to 600 feet to
the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle
If I had a $1 for every time I saw this violated I'd retire today.
Went to Home Depot, Sam's and Lund's today and loaded up the SUV. Something no sane person would ever do on a bicycle yet millions of people do everyday in cars, trucks and SUV's.
Biking is a great form of transportation, for 12 year olds.
>>>
I had my choice of the ditch,an oncoming car or taking out a guy on a bike
>>>>
What?
You're such an impatient idiot that you don't know how to use the brake pedal?
Nice Paul, just nice.
Last I checked, you can die in a car, too. I do agree with you that some bikers are terrible at using the road, Then again there are 100 idiots in 2-ton cars for every idiot on a 25-pound bike. Unfortunately, there are stupid people everywhere. Just be lucky that the bikes won't do much damage to your 4-wheel-drive pride and joy.
Also, your pictures show that stupid drivers kill cyclists, not their bikes.
For some reason, bikers without lights make me angrier than any other violation. Biking at night without a light is like playing catcher without a cup. Except stupider.
My least favorite car violation (though there are more than I can count) are idiots who speed way up as the lights turning yellow (or is already red). It's unsafe in so many ways, and actually violates two laws (it's illegal to accelerate to make a yellow, and they usually don't make it anyways, so they run a red, too).
Saturday, I rode up to Blaine with some other bikers to place a memorial for the guy who was killed by a truck. We hauled the memorial bike using a Big Dummy pulling a trailer, which looked something like this: http://www.surlybikes.com/upload...-003-
747791.jpg. On the way, we rode up next to a minivan that had two matresses poorly strapped to the top and a sliding door that was wide open so they could wrap rope into the car. The matresses would have actually fit better on the bike trailer. This is an anomaly, I know, but so is my need to purchase anything I can't move around by bike.
"K-rod, since when did I say something about telecommuting?"
I will type real slow for you this time, BB.
"...how often you use the roads correlates really well to road wear."
Bike Bubba | | 10.02.08 - 1:39 pm
"That makes about as much sense as claiming that how often one uses the roads doesn't affect how much wear is inflicted."
Bike Bubba | | 10.03.08 - 12:16 pm |
Unless I am telecommuting, I would still have to use the roads so I wouldn't use them less often.
Did you really think someone left small pieces of potato chips on the window sills when you were a kid?
Now read that closely, K-Rod. I said nothing about telecommuting, but was rather (in context, ahem) pointing out that the amount of road wear inflicted by one's car would correspond to how often one used that road.
Or, for that matter, a bicycle, but reality is that 200 lbs of bicycle produces something like 1/200th the wear of a car going the same distance. One of those factors you can safely neglect in road wear calculations. Road wear goes as about the square of the weight of the tire on the road, if I remember correctly, and linearly with the distance that tire goes on the road.
(and yes, a 10 ton bus does inflict something like 20x more wear than a car....yes, it is bizaare that this isn't counted as a cost of transit)
I am just pointing out what you said, BB. The key words you keep using are:
"how often one used that road"
Obviously the way to reduce how often you use a road to get to work would be to telecommute.
Are you claiming that when you bicycle to work you actually fly and don't even use the road?
Admit it, BB, just another zealous attempt to justify your hobby.
The other tactic is to claim superiority, intellectually and physically and environmentally,... like skibby did: "...more productive at work, and healthier. I don't clog the health care system, and bring down the costs of insurance for the masses. Your welcome..."
Read: If you don't bicycle to work you are part of the problem, you are not as productive, not as healthy...
BB, your claim that "how often" you use the roads decreases if you ride your bicycle to work is BOGUS!
you must be sick! no better than the mcsame campaign inciting violence among its followers. what you have posted here is deplorable!!! have some respect for your fellow humans, man. people like you have a special place in hell.
They must be cleaning the bat cave today.
Who is inciting violence?
hello.waz up?
Commenting by HaloScan
