Riding the wrong way, on a sidewalk, gets hit by a semi.

[sms]

Riding the wrong way, on a sidewalk, gets hit by a semi.

<https://packaged-media.redd.it/ljb3uobq0y7c1/pb/m2-res_480p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1703365200&s=00ebdd1145dcf913c0152fe657a6ec47d6e36e57#t=0>

When it came up to a vote at our city council, to raise the age where
riding on the sidewalk is legal from 9 to 12, we had an LAB instructor
explain the dangers, to no avail. The change passed 3-2.

One of our neighboring cities completely ban riding on the sidewalk. Two
of our neighboring cities have no restriction at all. Two of our
neighboring cities are 12 and under.

[AMuzi]

I don't have snappy answer but in other jurisdictions the
demarcation is zoning and not rider age. In a residential
zoned block, the dangers are smaller, congestion is lower,
conflicts are fewer. Commercial zoning (as in video) is a
different matter, both for MV vs cyclist and also cyclist vs
pedestrian.

disclosure:
I once beat a ticket as the block was municipal owned and an
R5 so I showed up in traffic court with the ordinance and a
map. Judge was not impressed and changed the charge to
'obstructing' with the same fine.

question:
In some other States MVs must stop before crossing a
sidewalk (even in a private drive). I couldn't find a CA
statute but if it were here, that driver was at fault. Do
you know CA traffic law in that regard?
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tom Kunich]

That guy was so lucky, I sure hopes he understands what he did wrong.

[Tom Kunich]

You couldn't possibly be suggesting that they enforce ANY laws in California? When the law takes NO action against mass shop lifting to the point that stores are driven out of business, you don't think they're going to even notice not stopping at the change of driveway to sidewalk to street do you?

[Frank Krygowski]

Unlikely. IME, most wrong way riders on street or sidewalk are convinced
they're safer riding that way. That's despite copious data to the
contrary - which, of course, they will never investigate. I doubt nearly
getting killed would change many of their minds.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 11:46:21 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not watching where you're going is usually always wrong.

[John B.]

That is what makes me wonder about so many "accidents". The truck is a
pretty large object moving in a direction that appears to cross the
path the bicycle is on and I see no apparent effort on the part of the
bicycle to stop or avoid the truck.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 11:10:19 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

In California, it's decided by the local governments:
<https://www.bikelaw.com/2022/08/is-it-illegal-to-ride-bike-on-sidewalk/>
<https://www.bikelaw.com/2022/08/is-it-illegal-to-ride-bike-on-sidewalk/#california>
Some states consider bicycles to be vehicles which are banned from
riding/driving on sidewalks. However, they then make exceptions for
cyclists. Florida says you can ride a bicycle on the sidewalk if you
have and use a horn, bell, or noise maker. Most other states seem to
follow that template.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 05:28:01 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

What kind of a fool would ride his bike in front of a big truck
waiting to pull out in front of where he's going to ride?

[John B.]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:35:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Well :-) the you tube shows a bloke doing just that :-)

Apparent the battle cry, "I Gotta Right", includes the right to be a
fool :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/23/2023 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Some states consider bicycles to be vehicles which are banned from
> riding/driving on sidewalks. However, they then make exceptions for

> cyclists. .

Last I checked, about half the states declared bicycles to legally be
vehicles. The other half says bike riders have all the rights and
responsibilities of vehicle operators, which is almost the same. If
there are exceptions to those two versions, I haven't heard of them.

But some laws are written to apply to "motor vehicles." That's normally
done when lawmakers don't want a law to apply to bicycles.

And while I'm not positive, ISTR that the e-bike industry, plus a
segment of the environmental movement, successfully lobbied to have
e-bikes treated the same as ordinary bicycles, not motor vehicles. Even
though they clearly have motors. Go figure.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 07:30:47 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

I've ridden "side paths," similar to that sidewalk, but designated as
bicycle facilities and have never had any problems riding against
traffic in the nearest lane. On the other hand, I have had a few
problems riding the same way as the traffic in the nearest lane.

So obviously, I much prefer riding against the nearby traffic so I can
see potential problems in front of me rather than have them coming up
behind me.

There are, of course, alternatives for those who are fearful of riding
like I ride.

[John B.]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 04:53:21 -0500, Catrike Ryder

I've always ridden on the "right" side of the road, but I do keep a
sharp lockout for what is happening around me.
(right as in correct :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 18:20:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

When I ride *on* a road, I always ride the same direction as the
vehicle traffic.

[AMuzi]

To quote the great philosopher Tom Waits,"The large print
giveth, the small print taketh away."

As with the Illinois tort resolution recently discussed, the
nice boilerplate Statute (I assume from a model code as
States are remarkably similar in that regard) gets twisted
around unrecognizably under other laws and ordinances.

Not all that different from the aspirational 2d Amendment in
clear concise absolutes, which cannot square with the
Firearms Act of 1936, 1968 et seq. You can have your
opinions about net effect in any of those examples, or
others (which is the necessary essence of healthy political
friction) but the overarching rule and its applications are
very different in any event.

[Tom Kunich]

My opinion is clear, the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people from the government and ANYONE that in any manner attempts to limit it other than as it was for fully automatic weapons should simply be hung.

[AMuzi]

+1
good habits got you all the way to old age!

[AMuzi]

> My opinion is clear, the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people from the government and ANYONE that in any manner attempts to limit it other than as it was for fully automatic weapons should simply be hung.

You just joined them by exempting some weapons from 'shall
not be infringed'.

I don't want to argue the particulars of that here and now.

But I do note that as with 'bicycles are vehicles for other
purposes on public roads' the general rule and the
application are different.

[Frank Krygowski]

Then it would have been wiser to not bring it up.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Ryder]

Although, some bad habits are more fun.

[Tom Kunich]

Not at all, armor piercing bullets and fully automatic weapons' cannot be controlled by the average person. That is entirely different than "gun control" like Frank pictures it. Would you believe it to be "gun control" if you could not own and operate a 105 mm cannon? A "Tommy gun" is .45 caliber. The recoil from that is so strong that the barrel can not be aimed but instead is a wild spray unless you have been trained and have a lot of body mass to control the recoil. The Armed Forces found very much the same problem with a bullet as light as a .223. Bullets would spray around without a chance of hitting the target which led to the Army modifying the specifications so that the normal fast fire position only fires 3 round bursts. They still have a fully automatic firing but that is for dealing with mass charges. They can't hit anything with that but enemies hesitates to run into 900 rounds per minute.(15 rounds per second) burst that empties a 20 round clip in less than the time it takes to pull the trigger and release it.

Do you think that it is gun control to prevent people from owning armor piercing rounds that can go right through the intended target, then 5 walls in your house and hit someone completely invisible? This is why my home guns are .38's and not .357 Magnum. I did a lot of shooting before my concussion and saw how difficult it is to control extremely powerful guns that are supposed to be used for self and home defense. Do you think that you should be allowed armor piecing rounds that go right through police body armor?

All of this means that there are NO absolutes. You cannot own a Patton Tank. That does not interfere with your right for self defense.

And in case you think that the Government has the Army, it is a federal crime to use the standing professional Army against Americans. And giving them orders to fire upon civilians to disarm them would end up with half of the army taking the other side. In which case, the civilians would still outnumber the government forces. The arguments for and against the 2nd amendment are written by firearm advocates or those who hold guns as potential mass murders. Frank for instance. Google's first argument against the 2nd Amendment is from some history teacher in China. That alone should tell you what the motivation for gun control is.

[John B.]

On Mon, 25 Dec 2023 12:50:50 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 8:43:08?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/24/2023 10:12 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Well, let's see..... Tommy says you can't own a cannon, but you can
legally own a cannon - see
https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2015/10/want_to_buy_a_cannon_fill_out.html


Re use of the Military against citizens see "The Insurrection Act"
https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/documents/hdasa/references/insurrection_act.pdf

Re owning a Patton Tank? See
>https://www.vintageisthenewold.com/game-pedia/can-you-own-a-main-battle-tank

Or to put it another way... Tom, yet again, demonstrates his vast
stupidity.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

For purposes of analyzing the argument, same thing.

'Bicycles are same as other vehicles' except you can't ride
here, you can't ride there and, oh, use this bidirectional
chute along the roadway.

[Tom Kunich]

It isn't clear what you're trying to say. You can't use a bicycle on a freeway and you can't use a 50 hp motorcycle on a bike path. Treating E-bikes like licensable motor vehicles would solve much of the dangers they had been guilty of.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 09:01:04 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 12/25/2023 2:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 8:43:08?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2023 10:12 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

I'm not sure how a 15MPH bicycle would fare on an 70-80 MPH limited
access highway, which is why I ride on a bicycle trail parallel to the
Suncoast highway and 30/40 feet away from it.

[John B.]

Well :-) I rode on a highway where the speed limit was 100 kph on the
outer lane and 120 kph on the inner lane. With no problems at all.
Certainly a paltry 62 - 74 mph, but still :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 09:01:04 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 12/25/2023 2:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 8:43:08?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2023 10:12 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

But don't many (Most?) states have rules for slower vehicles on public
roads? A quick look found two, Maine and Ohio, with special rules for
horse drawn vehicles. Note, the Maine reference states that some
buggies may be traveling as fast as 18 - 20 mph.
https://www.maine.gov/mdot/publications/docs/brochures/Horse-Drawn-Buggies.pdf
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 06:08:39 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

I don't believe I want to try that, but you go ahead.

[John B.]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 18:30:08 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Ah but being a developing country the Highway people take slower
speed, motorcycles, Bicycles, and even walkers into consideration. See
https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2234999/part-of-new-korat-motorway-to-be-open-over-new-year
Basically a photo of the new - not yet opened - elevated highway, but
look at the outer areas, particularly the left side, showing the
ground level, in use, highway. Two lanes each way and an outer lane
reserved for slow traffic - small motorcycles, bicycles, walking, etc.

Perhaps another motivation is that causing a highway death can result
in as much as 10 years in the "Slammer" and possibly a 20,000 baht
fine. To equate that to U.S. terms it would be 60 days wages at
minimum salary.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/26/2023 10:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> 'Bicycles are same as other vehicles' except you can't ride here, you
> can't ride there and, oh, use this bidirectional chute along the roadway.

Ohio law prohibits, um, prohibiting bicyclists from using ordinary
non-limited-access roads. And bike lanes or paths cannot be made mandatory.

Of course there are those who want to change that. But we're OK so far.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/26/2023 6:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Well :-) I rode on a highway where the speed limit was 100 kph on the
> outer lane and 120 kph on the inner lane. With no problems at all.
> Certainly a paltry 62 - 74 mph, but still :-)

I've done hundreds of miles of bicycling on freeways in the western
U.S., where it's legal. No problems except for noise and one flat tire.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Ryder]

We have lots of bike trails here in Florida, some of them
bidirectional alongside a highway. There are those who want to change