Wapsi Square Forum

Dave wrote:

Typeminer wrote:One of my favorite rants applies here: We have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for how long, and I still can't get Army surplus RPGs for canoe trips!?

What... you don't take along one of those nice free-market Daisy Cutter knockoffs? Yes, they're civilian-made rather than mil-spec, but that doesn't seem to detract from their enthusiasm!

I'm waiting for the Hush-A-Booms. They're fun!

Typeminer wrote:

Fairportfan wrote:Speaking as someone who always obeyed the traffic laws scrupulously when i was riding bikes in Atlanta (and almost lost an arm when an idiot turned left across my path) and had more than one incident when drivers intentionally attempted to intimidate me or force me off the road ... let's just say that there were times i wished i was carrying a heavy handgun.

One of my favorite rants applies here: We have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for how long, and I still can't get Army surplus RPGs for canoe trips!?

I didn't know the military even made role-playing games.......

There is America's Army. Not true role playing game, but...

Fairportfan wrote:

Typeminer wrote:

Fairportfan wrote:Speaking as someone who always obeyed the traffic laws scrupulously when i was riding bikes in Atlanta (and almost lost an arm when an idiot turned left across my path) and had more than one incident when drivers intentionally attempted to intimidate me or force me off the road ... let's just say that there were times i wished i was carrying a heavy handgun.

One of my favorite rants applies here: We have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for how long, and I still can't get Army surplus RPGs for canoe trips!?

Wot - do you hear banjos?

Not like you think. It's the idiots on powerboats with sound systems loud enough to drown out their engines. And the jetskis. Oh, the @#$%^&! jetskis. . .

Typeminer wrote:Not like you think. It's the idiots on powerboats with sound systems loud enough to drown out their engines. And the jetskis. Oh, the @#$%^&! jetskis. . .

Not a new problem, alas. A possible solution was field-tested but its inventor found that it had a few bugs...

Dave wrote:

Typeminer wrote:Not like you think. It's the idiots on powerboats with sound systems loud enough to drown out their engines. And the jetskis. Oh, the @#$%^&! jetskis. . .

Not a new problem, alas. A possible solution was field-tested but its inventor found that it had a few bugs...

I LOVE that movie! One of the all-time great comedies.

Come ride bikes in Oshkosh. It's nice here.

You have to get a licence sticker on your bike. The cops have your real info.

You can get tickets. For riding on sidewalks. For poor use of proper signals. AND... For riding at night without A HEADLIGHT. Forget that pansy reflector junk.

And too many tickets and your bike gets confiscated.

Danzier wrote:Come ride bikes in Oshkosh. It's nice here.

You have to get a licence sticker on your bike. The cops have your real info.

You can get tickets. For riding on sidewalks. For poor use of proper signals. AND... For riding at night without A HEADLIGHT. Forget that pansy reflector junk.

And too many tickets and your bike gets confiscated.

That's pretty cool.

I notice bad travelers (be they pedestrian, cyclist, freaking powered wheelchair, or driver) whenever I'm on the road. True, I notice the drivers more when I'm riding or walking and notice the cyclists and pedestrians (and the guy "driving" his wheelchair down the middle of the road) more when I'm driving.

That said, the problem is both human nature and education.

Drivers need to learn how to deal with cyclists. Cyclists need to be held accountable when they violate traffic laws. My personal feeling is that licensing cyclists is too extreme - I started riding on roads at age 5 (after my parents pounded road safety and proper signalling into my head), but never would have been able to pass a test on it.

How's this: we hold motorists responsible for their conduct around bicycles (following too close, passing in the same lane, crossing a double yellow to pass, etc) the same as around cars. We also make it so if a cyclist over 16 is seen to be violating traffic laws (and yes, many states have specific traffic laws for bicycles, usually pertaining to safety devices), they get a trip to the police station and a fine before they can get their bike back, along with the longer ride or the cost of a bus ticket home. Under 16, they get a ride home and the parents get to pay the fine to get the bike back. Register the bikes, maybe, and track violations against them.

But before we go that far, we start educating people. My Driver's Ed course and my 5-hour course (NYS, many years ago) didn't cover interacting with cyclists. Let's stop the excuse of ignorance.

Dave11 wrote:I notice bad travelers (be they pedestrian, cyclist, freaking powered wheelchair, or driver) whenever I'm on the road. True, I notice the drivers more when I'm riding or walking and notice the cyclists and pedestrians (and the guy "driving" his wheelchair down the middle of the road) more when I'm driving.

Truth!

Dave11 wrote:My personal feeling is that licensing cyclists is too extreme - I started riding on roads at age 5 (after my parents pounded road safety and proper signalling into my head), but never would have been able to pass a test on it.

Wow. My parents taught me road safety and all that jazz (not that I remember any of it anymore), but I was only ever allowed to ride my bicycle on a road (as opposed to sidewalk) if it was the cul-de-sac we lived on or if my parents were biking with me...and frankly I wasn't allowed to ride on sidewalks more than one street away in my neighborhood until I was at least 10 years old. I figure that kids should only be road-cycling with parental oversight, so the "licensing" thing would be invalid. If a parent doesn't want to supervise their kids bicycling on roads, then their kids should have to be able to pass some sort of road-safety test. *shrugs* I honestly don't see how operating any kind of vehicle on a roadway should be treated differently than driving. Maybe I could see an allowance made for families in rural areas where sidewalks or "neighborhood" type safe roads aren't available...but in larger cities, there should be some sort of mandatory cycling education for kids who leave the relative safety of their neighborhood.

Dave11 wrote:How's this: we hold motorists responsible for their conduct around bicycles (following too close, passing in the same lane, crossing a double yellow to pass, etc) the same as around cars. We also make it so if a cyclist over 16 is seen to be violating traffic laws (and yes, many states have specific traffic laws for bicycles, usually pertaining to safety devices), they get a trip to the police station and a fine before they can get their bike back, along with the longer ride or the cost of a bus ticket home. Under 16, they get a ride home and the parents get to pay the fine to get the bike back. Register the bikes, maybe, and track violations against them.

I'm all for education, but I do have a legitimate question (since I was definitely not fully/properly educated with regards to driving around cyclists). What is the proper way to handle a bicycle trudging along on a two-lane road (one lane each direction) when there's a double yellow line? I consider my parents to be responsible/safe drivers, but they've always waited until they were sure there wasn't on-coming traffic, then passed the cyclist...so naturally that's what I've assumed was the appropriate action. Is it really the expectation that you crawl along behind them until you reach a passing zone (if there is one anywhere nearby)? Or would it be the cyclist's responsibility to stop and get off the road to allow traffic to pass? How does that work without causing a ridiculous amount of traffic congestion? (I'm mostly curious because my parents live in an area where there are frequently cyclists, and there aren't many (if any) passing zones on the little roads around their neighborhood. I'd like to be safe and not a jerk behind the wheel if I can manage it. )

Julie wrote:

Dave11 wrote:How's this: we hold motorists responsible for their conduct around bicycles (following too close, passing in the same lane, crossing a double yellow to pass, etc) the same as around cars. We also make it so if a cyclist over 16 is seen to be violating traffic laws (and yes, many states have specific traffic laws for bicycles, usually pertaining to safety devices), they get a trip to the police station and a fine before they can get their bike back, along with the longer ride or the cost of a bus ticket home. Under 16, they get a ride home and the parents get to pay the fine to get the bike back. Register the bikes, maybe, and track violations against them.

I'm all for education, but I do have a legitimate question (since I was definitely not fully/properly educated with regards to driving around cyclists). What is the proper way to handle a bicycle trudging along on a two-lane road (one lane each direction) when there's a double yellow line? I consider my parents to be responsible/safe drivers, but they've always waited until they were sure there wasn't on-coming traffic, then passed the cyclist...so naturally that's what I've assumed was the appropriate action. Is it really the expectation that you crawl along behind them until you reach a passing zone (if there is one anywhere nearby)? Or would it be the cyclist's responsibility to stop and get off the road to allow traffic to pass? How does that work without causing a ridiculous amount of traffic congestion? (I'm mostly curious because my parents live in an area where there are frequently cyclists, and there aren't many (if any) passing zones on the little roads around their neighborhood. I'd like to be safe and not a jerk behind the wheel if I can manage it. )

Not being flip, but how do you handle it when you're behind a car going 10 mph in a 30? If there's a shoulder (which there usually is on two-lane roads in the country), the cyclist should be in it. If not, the cyclist should periodically let traffic by, as otherwise they're obstructing traffic (just like the guy going 10 mph in a 30). Sharing the road is, if you'll pardon the phrase, a two-way street.

I grew up in the country, so maybe my view's a bit skewed towards rural/suburban roads. On the other hand, if I were riding in a city, I'd keep my speed up enough to be reasonable and avoid the main drags where possible.

All my comments assume reasonable people willing to compromise to keep the roads safe, of course.

Dave11 wrote:

Julie wrote:I'm all for education, but I do have a legitimate question (since I was definitely not fully/properly educated with regards to driving around cyclists). What is the proper way to handle a bicycle trudging along on a two-lane road (one lane each direction) when there's a double yellow line? I consider my parents to be responsible/safe drivers, but they've always waited until they were sure there wasn't on-coming traffic, then passed the cyclist...so naturally that's what I've assumed was the appropriate action. Is it really the expectation that you crawl along behind them until you reach a passing zone (if there is one anywhere nearby)? Or would it be the cyclist's responsibility to stop and get off the road to allow traffic to pass? How does that work without causing a ridiculous amount of traffic congestion? (I'm mostly curious because my parents live in an area where there are frequently cyclists, and there aren't many (if any) passing zones on the little roads around their neighborhood. I'd like to be safe and not a jerk behind the wheel if I can manage it. )

Not being flip, but how do you handle it when you're behind a car going 10 mph in a 30? If there's a shoulder (which there usually is on two-lane roads in the country), the cyclist should be in it. If not, the cyclist should periodically let traffic by, as otherwise they're obstructing traffic (just like the guy going 10 mph in a 30). Sharing the road is, if you'll pardon the phrase, a two-way street.

I grew up in the country, so maybe my view's a bit skewed towards rural/suburban roads. On the other hand, if I were riding in a city, I'd keep my speed up enough to be reasonable and avoid the main drags where possible.

All my comments assume reasonable people willing to compromise to keep the roads safe, of course.

Actually, there isn't a shoulder on the roads near my parents' neighborhood. It just goes from lane to grass...and that's often true of the two lane highways I'm used to seeing out in east Texas as well. That's why I asked. As for how I handle it when a car is going 10 mph in a 30 mph no-passing zone? Angrily...impatiently...but I don't often dart around them because of how far into the oncoming traffic lane I'd have to be to pass them...and I also may not be able to see around them (depending on the size of the vehicle). With bikes I've felt safe passing because I can clearly see around them and I only go halfway into the oncoming traffic lane to pass them (I don't want to be too close to them, but I don't like being in the oncoming lane either). I'm 95% sure that not moving fully into another lane to pass a bike isn't proper road etiquette and safety, but it's been my compromise for passing in no-passing zones.

I appreciate the info about how to do it the right way though!

Riding a bicycle on the shoulder is illegal in many/most jurisdictions - you're supposed to follow the same rules as cars.

There is also the fact that road shoulders tend to have more debris which is not good for bicycle tires.

shadowinthelight wrote:There is also the fact that road shoulders tend to have more debris which is not good for bicycle tires.

Especially 150 psi stitch-ups.

shadowinthelight wrote:There is also the fact that road shoulders tend to have more debris which is not good for bicycle tires.

I always biked with solids to avoid that problem. Or at least the problem of blowing flats.

In College Station proper, there are bike lanes which bikes must be in, and you must have lights when driving after dark. Cops on bikes can and *WILL* ticket you, and they will demand a state issued photo ID to pin it on you. While they can't demand a driver's license, every adult in the state of Texas is supposed to carry ID on them at all times. No ID, and you go downtown, your bike impounded, until your identity is confirmed.

Outside the city proper, however, bikers have to be on the shoulder of the highways. Fortunately, there's a *LOT* of shoulder in many places. It's generally also paved, and relatively clean (the sweepers apparently hit the shoulders as well as the lanes).

I used solid tubes in the past. They are too hard for anything more than very casual cruising.

shadowinthelight wrote:I used solid tubes in the past. They are too hard for anything more than very casual cruising.

150 psi stitchups aren't much softer.

Fairportfan wrote:Riding a bicycle on the shoulder is illegal in many/most jurisdictions - you're supposed to follow the same rules as cars.

I'd like to note that everything I've said can only be applied to New York State (outside NYC) and Marlyand. The laws also change based on speed limit in some jurisdictions.

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:In College Station proper, there are bike lanes which bikes must be in, and you must have lights when driving after dark. Cops on bikes can and *WILL* ticket you, and they will demand a state issued photo ID to pin it on you. While they can't demand a driver's license, every adult in the state of Texas is supposed to carry ID on them at all times. No ID, and you go downtown, your bike impounded, until your identity is confirmed.

Outside the city proper, however, bikers have to be on the shoulder of the highways. Fortunately, there's a *LOT* of shoulder in many places. It's generally also paved, and relatively clean (the sweepers apparently hit the shoulders as well as the lanes).

Given that I'm moving to Texas shortly, this is good information for me to have. I guess I'll need to get an ID card for when I'm riding (I often don't carry my wallet), in addition to a new driver's license.