"David Gibbons" <davidg@no-spam> wrote in message
news:kiFMa.20782$fG.10216@no-spam
> Most bicyclists who you see doing such are mostlikely ignorant that they
> even have rules they need to follow on the road. Instead of complaining
> about them maybe we should force liscencing for bicylcing. It seems kinda
> frightening the number of people (teenagers being a large part of this
> group) who don't even realize that they have rules they should be
following
> when biking.
>
>
I think that cyclists ignorant of the rules are a minority.
I think cyclists might be broken down into 4 groups.
Those ignorant of the rules.
Those who follow the rules religiously.
Those who follow the rules for the most part but find that some rules for
automobiles don't make much sense when applied to bicycles and follow those
on a case by case basis.
Those who know about the rules and don't care about them at all.
Hmmm. Why does the above remind me of the four types of drivers?
Anyway, does following the rules make bicyclists safer? To hear some of the
"story" in these newsgroups, it's impossible to drive anywhere without a
becoming endangered by a bicyclist breaking a law. Yet it seems FTMP that
when a bicyclist gets killed, it is the the bicyclist was obeying the law
and the driver was not. Is there a possibility that the bicyclists are
breaking certain "driving" rules as a survival mechanism?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040336480.28297@no-spam
>
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> > But still, bicycle lanes are a good idea. And well
> > worth spending the 1% or so of highway dollars which
> > we spend on such things.
>
>
> 1% for what, white paint for striping
> and bicycle symbols? Outrageous.
>
Bob t's motto: 'Trillions for my convenience, not one red cent for someone
else's safety.'
sinistersteve wrote:
> So I suppose you're suggesting that we no longer have the need to test
> drivers then? Hell, we can get rid of DMV and DEQ and save tons of money.
>
Unlikely. I'm sure the state would find a way to tax us for any lost
revenue...
"cardboard" <cardboard@no-spam> wrote in message
news:4fc88b51.0307091319.7eeed68d@no-spam
> The third question is "how do we mislead the voters to pay for the
> tax increase required?"
Tell them we'll shut down schools, release felons and put elderly folks on
the street.