Conan1999: <grin>Do you really care? TCL is Poseur Kingdom. The bulk of the posts are generated by a slew of toolbags who've never driven the vehicles they discuss and who are "into cars" in the same way as the nouveau riche display designer labels. Granted, the forum's entertainment value is off the scale, but I wouldn't confuse it with expertise of any sort.
Fault is really irrelevant here. It's going to happen.What if the road is out over the crest? What if there's a car broken down or there's been an accident? What if there's a cow or a moose just over the crest? Is that also not your fault if you plow into any of those things?
I can't see through a solid object. The speed limits are set with the understanding that there is not going to be an idle or slow moving object on the other side.If you can't see what's in front of you, you have no business driving at a speed that makes it impossible to stop in time.
I hope you never do hit a cyclist, but I bet if you do you'll end up crying like the little b!tch that you are when they're snapping bracelets on your wrist.
And you'll weep and moan about all the illogical assumptions you have, and then you'll be standing before the judge who is delicately describing to you how you're butthole is going to be stretched out more than it already has been.
Basic rule: reasonable speed
"Drivers are required to drive at a safe speed for conditions. In the United States this requirement is referred to as the basic rule. Lower speed may be required due to fog, heavy rain, and pavement conditions such as freezing or gravel, or where they are not able to stop in the line of sight. California Vehicle Code section 22350 is typical; it states that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable... and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property".
You lose, care to play again?
Sent from my basement using two tin cans and a string.
It says right there on the sign he can go 55. It does not say to slow down, turn, or apply breaks when necessary. So in his head, he reaches 55 and doesn't stop until he sees a stop sign or red light. No matter what's in his way, because the sign 55. So he has the right of way, because the sign said so. Obviously.
Also, as someone mentioned, they're LIMITS, not minimums. You are obliged to go slower than the limit where the limit is too fast for conditions. For example, going around a blind corner or over a crest in the road at such a speed that you would not be able to stop for anything on the other side is irresponsible driving and, if you ever hit someone in such a condition, you will be found at fault.
Anyone think that, in the same situation as a driver in a car behind this cyclist, to just throw the hazard lights on and play blocker for them, escorting them up the crest of the bridge until they could maintain a faster speed back down? To me would seem like a selfless thing to do to help a fellow human being out. At least for those not in such a hurry to spend an extra few minutes on their commute.
I simply cannot believe the things being said in here. I am a cyclist, a driver, and a pedestrian, and I respect others no matter how I chose to travel that day. When I ride, believe it or not, I stop at all signals and ALWAYS yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks. when I drive, I always check my mirrors and give everyone the benefit of the doubt since I'm the one with the worst lines of sight, and the most potential to damage others.
Bikes are allowed on public roads. They adhere to, and are protected by the same laws as motor vehicles. Unfortunately enforcement tends to fall short. Somehow damage to a vehicle or an inconvenienced driver are more important than a human life on foot or on a bike.
Those conditions have speed limits posted for those conditions. They are never set at 5 mph.Also, as someone mentioned, they're LIMITS, not minimums. You are obliged to go slower than the limit where the limit is too fast for conditions. For example, going around a blind corner or over a crest in the road at such a speed that you would not be able to stop for anything on the other side is irresponsible driving and, if you ever hit someone in such a condition, you will be found at fault.
Keep putting your foot in your mouth, idiot.
Enjoy the lawsuit and jail time if/when you hit someone you think should not be on the road or someone you think should be going faster.
Because you have no idea what you are talking about.
What ever happened to courtesy? Are you familiar with the unspoken rule that, on a narrow street, you always yield to the car climbing the hill? It's not a law, but it's called not being a dick. You have the more convenient position, so why make the other driver stop a (then manual transmission) car on a hill? The same courtesy should extend to cyclists and pedestrians.
That rider earns every mile he pedals. He's physically climbing a grade, so you can give him the courtesy of waiting until it's safe to pass. What are you really giving up? 10 seconds at most?
If you see someone struggling to carry several heavy items, do you help? Yeah, you do. You don't knock them over and say "you're not strong enough to be carrying those items!" You just help out, especially if you're stronger. So extend that common courtesy to other people on the road. We cyclists have a right to be on the road, so don't knock us over and rage on.
Roads were originally for non-motorized travel (remember horses?) and adapted for modern vehicles, including bicycles. You are a user of a public road, not the owner of a private race track.
1. bikes get small license plates for identification
2. required insurance for bikes, similar to cars
3. bike-tax (not too high, enough to finance street signs regarding bikes)
4. putting up said signs for shared lanes for pedestrians/bikes and (where appropriate) bikes/cars
5. extra speed limit for bikes (different for sidewalk and street)
6. helmets are required
7. cyclists stop being aggressive, ignorant and intolerant egomaniacs
it's that simple. there's even no '?????' before 'profit'.
That does not give one an excuse to hit him but it's going to happen sooner or later when you are as unconcerned with your surroundings as the cyclist was here.
This thread has run its course it seams.
I will say though that it has gotten so much easier to read now that a few spots in my ignore list have been filled.
Why aren't there as many incidents with motorbikes as there are with bicycles? Because with a license plate you are traceable. You can be held responsible for your actions, even after you disappear behind the next corner.
Right now cyclists can do whatever they want to, simply because no one can identify them afterwards.
Yea, there seems to be no other country that has such a law, but why shouldn't america be a pioneer in that case?