I thought for sure the Swanson gang would pummel him, steal and smash his camera and run his bike over. I would pay $50 to see that. Gofundme???? somebody gonna be rich:)
Printable View
I thought for sure the Swanson gang would pummel him, steal and smash his camera and run his bike over. I would pay $50 to see that. Gofundme???? somebody gonna be rich:)
https://youtu.be/rwX8sITyvMs
Yelling at a bus driver for crossing the bike lane to stop at a stop. What the fuck is he supposed to do?
This guy is definitely not all mentally there. The comments on youtube are great, he seems to reply to every one[emoji48]
This one’s great:
https://youtu.be/co3fFGs7If4
I really hope the beat down tape gets preserved for the youtubes
I wish someone would follow this fuckwit and blast him w an air horn every time he does something illegal on his bike. You're in the crosswalk, sir! That's a crime!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skihiker
He has an outrage fetish.
Colorado is about to be ruined: https://denver.streetsblog.org/2018/...ety-stop-bill/
I feel like this guy is going to have pretty long response times from emergency workers if anything happens to him. Guy is chapping the ass and blowing up the very people who would bail his ass out if anything happens. Never a smart move.
I don't understand people who get butthurt when cyclists do rolling stops at stop signs when it has no impact on other drivers. Actually I do understand--some people just can't stand to see someone get away with something, even when it causes no one else any harm. Idaho stop is a common sense law the legalizes what 99% of cyclists do. Get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by old goat
This already is the law of the land in Seattle. Don't move to Seattle. Because of this law, the city is a mess. I'm surprised it's not national news. I hear it's so bad that all the big corporations are looking to leave. Fricking cyclists are ruining America!Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
In reality, if there's no one at a stop sign or signal, then what's the big deal. It's only an issue when a cyclist blows through said stop/traffic signal in full blown rush hour traffic. There's not a cyclist who doesn't do this with or without such a law on the books anyway.
I was joking in my post. It will make fuck all difference in reality, and I am generally in support of it.
1. Localities must adopt the ordinance -- it isn't state mandated.
2. Cyclists can still be ticketed blowing through a red light or stop sign without stopping, just like now.
3. The benefit is no power-hungry local cops trying to fuck you for rolling a stop sign on Sunday mornings rides with no one around.
4. In places that put the ordinance in place, car drivers will have to accept that there are different rules of the road for different users -- because the consequences of getting hit by a 2000# car at 15mph, are different than the consequences of getting hit with a 200# bike/rider at 15mph.
How exactly is it unsafe for them to stop at a stop sign. That statement in the article seems like the one that is going to grind people's gears.
I also have a hard time believing people are getting hassled for blowing through a stop sign by cops. Other asshole drivers for sure, but I have never in my life seen a cop giving shit to a cyclist.
I got a ticket in SF's Presidio for not stopping at a stop sign. It's the stop sign at the bottom of the hill near the pet graveyard for those that know the spot. They were National Park cops for what it's worth.
On the unsafe thing -- go read the study from the University of CO in the article. https://jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/871/875 . The argument isn't that it is "safer" from empirical evidence, it's that the reasons cyclists often do things which go against the letter of the law is because they view such things as safer. Compared to drivers or pedestrians which break the law and rationalize it as saving time. I highly doubt that either Idaho stop law or not is statistically safer (not sure how you would design such a study -- it is incredibly hard to prove prevention causation), but that doesn't mean there aren't other positive beneifts.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
Cops absolutely do harass cyclists. Depends on locality I'm sure. How do I know? Because I've been ticketed for rolling a stop sign in my neighborhood on a cruiser bike laden with groceries in the past year. Meanwhile, multiple cars did not come to a complete stop at the same intersection while I was being ticketed. Non-arterial street.
I didn't read that, but that just sounds silly. That said, it is safer for a bike to roll a stop than a car, based on the physics involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
places with high numbers of rec riders & commuters are prime for itQuote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
it is definitely a thing
first on the radar are the weekend group rides, which, admittedly, were awful historically about obeying the law...my experience is that they are much better now because they realize that their actions are being watched, and their own advocacy forces them to be better examples to the powers that be
Ok but why not let automobile treat stop signs as yields? And red lights as stop signs?Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Because the consequences of them hitting things are orders of magnitude different than cyclists or pedestrians? The injuries and fatalities caused by autos compared to bikes are the difference between a big DPS slide, and sluff knocking you down: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01457509002140Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
because even at 5mph, they can do damageQuote:
Originally Posted by Summit
mass is everything
I'm pretty sure if I was walking down the street and a cyclist hit me at 15 mph, I'd be pretty fucked up. Actually probably worse than if a modern car hit me with current design rules at the same speed (15 mph).
That is also going to result in probably a grand or more in body work if he hits my car at 15mph, but I wouldn't personally be any worse for wear.
This rule change is not going to end well, regardless of intent.
Actually mass is nothing!Quote:
Originally Posted by acinpdx
That is an nonsequitor.
Can cyclists go 25mph through a 15mph school zone because they are more likely to seriously injure a kid than kill them? (both could die)
Fuck that logic.
A cyclist (OR AUTO) making a mistake treating a stop sign as a yield can plaster themselves on a truck grill and die, or cause a car to swerve and hit another car in an attempt to avoid. However a bike can't floor it to make space.
The point is to have safe traffic control at intersections, not to waive laws when failures result in less severe injury.
I think a CYCLIST CAN SAFELY treat a stop as yield or a red light as a stop.
BUT I think motorists can do so just as well!
Ever sit waiting for a left turn signal for 3 minutes at 5am when you are the only car at the intersection? Or do you maybe treat that as a stop sign? Cyclist or motorist, I'm not scoffing at you for treating it like a stop sign.
Not everything is just about drivers. You're example is a car hitting a car at 15mph. And all you're talking about is car body damage.
A car hitting a cyclist or pedestrian at 15mph is going to cause a lot more damage than a bikes hitting each other, or a bike-pedestrian accident.
The rule change will have no major effect on safety. If anything, every study that's tried to look at safety impact of Idaho stop law has found marginal positive impacts.
My point is not that the stop law is dangerous by granting privilege to bikes!
My point is that it should also apply to motorists and that would also not be any more dangerous!
It might even be safer if all vehicles on the road expect all other vehicles to behave the same.
Remember, cars both accelerate and brake better than a bike, meaning they can better compensate for a mistake. They also save time time and carbon emissions by not fulling stopping or idling!
modern cars, at least many of them, are designed for the eurozone pedestrian impact requirements, done at 40km/h, that are designed to substantially lessen the impact of car vs. pedestrian on the pedestrian. there are no such requirements for bicycles.Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
If the law is followed to a T -- I agree, the Idaho stop law would be no more dangerous allowing cars to have the same rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
But laws are not designed with the expectation they will be followed 100% of the time. The consequences of cars failing the law are much higher than cyclists. Reams and reams of transportation data to back up such a statement -- rather than everyone's anecdotes here.
A blanket statement about acceleration and braking of bikes vs cars is way oversimplified. Some cars may brake faster than some bikes and vice versa. (A Telsa will brake faster than my steel rimmed, caliper brake cruiser. My van brakes far slower than my hydraulic disc braked mtb). Bikes can also dodge things with far less risk to other road users, and in a much smaller space. Cyclists on average also have far greater environmental awareness than those in a car due to wider field of visibility and less environmental sound dampening. Reducing all these safety factors to acceleration and stopping distance ignores many factors of accident prevention.