Entitled Douchebag SF cyclist HITS AND KILLS A MAN, gets probation.

Sidewalks?

Nope, never.

An adult riding along a sidewalk is one of few instances where I wanna clothesline a motherfucker for endangering others. The speed limit on most smajor treets is about 30 mph here and there's bike lanes on the ones that are faster. Side and residential roads are usually a maximum 25 mph. There's no reason for an adult or adult sized vehicle to be ridden on the sidewalk.

I'm actually wondering if Albert is afraid to ride in traffic.

It's Nebraska... proportionately speaking, he's not even used to driving in it.

I mean, I'm just trying to see the look on his face were he stuck in rush hour traffic at the 401/427/407 clusterfuck here. something like 24 lanes of traffic at one stretch, all inching along for no other reason than volume.

Yet another reason cars are superior: cyclist plows into your car, you don't die, you sue them for denting your car. Or their heir.

If I'm moving at the same speed as traffic (downtown, for example), I'm in the middle of the lane. If there are more than one lane in a direction and no viable bike lane (Powell Blvd between the river and I-205), I'll take a lane. If neither condition applies, I'll be on the right side of the lane to allow cars room to go by (unless I'm actively trying to turn left and signalling). There are very few times I'll ride on the sidewalk -- if it's part of the designated bike lane (Hawthorne Bridge) or if there is no safe alternative (Ross Island Bridge -- four lane bridge posted at 40).

The Ross Island Bridge comes with a special case, which I'm sure annoyed the piss out of drivers: I'd be headed toward Tigard from SE Portland, meaning as the bridge is ending, I'd signal left, wait for a break, jump off the sidewalk into the lane of traffic, signal left again, move to the left lane and take the left hand exit for Barbur Blvd and move to the right side of the ramp once I've cleared the exit gore point.

But there also is a key I see many bikers fail: Signalling (yes, drivers are also very guilty of this). Signal your intentions, I'll know what you have planned. I can make needed adjustments to accommodate.

Also, woe be unto any biker who runs a red light or stop sign because they don't want to lose their momentum. I don't give a fuck. If you used your gears, regaining momentum won't be an issue.

yup...
it's reasons like this that I start thinking a cyclist license wouldn't be a bad idea... too many of them act as if the rules don't apply to them simply because they don't know how to ride a fucking bike properly.

1) I'm not endangering others. I give up the sidewalk if there are pedestrians. At any rate, my riding is 95% dedicated trails where most people know the etiquette, so it rarely comes up.

2) The chickenshit motherfucker who tries to clothesline me better either kill me or be prepared to beat my raging, sweaty ass down. That's assault, arguably lethal force at that speed.

False. The reason is "Showing some semblance of manners and not obstructing traffic for your own convenience." If there's no traffic, the point is moot. If the sidewalk is packed, I'll find an alternative. But we celebrate our sprawl out here in flyover country (hi, Anc! ), and the only people walking anywhere are usually poorer folk walking to the bus stop, maybe one or two at a time on a busy day.

It would be hilarious to see Albert thrown into a non-Omaha environment. He would be paralyzed by the paradox of choices he hates being the correct choices. Would he be the guy standing motionless on the corner, screaming? Or would he suddenly develop an entirely new series of righteous justifications?

What about adding license requirement to spawn; ya know, to have a kid? The license fees could be put in a kitty to fund things like repossessing kids - like the one owned by the mom in Pensacola who chucked it at the cops.

Plus, requiring licenses is one way to add more government jobs and help pave the way for future recessions.

And it gets the foot in the door, so they can add a tax on 'thingie.' Or number twos, either one could make some serious bank.

Anyway, the takeaway is: more government is invariably a good thing. Adds jobs, lowers unemployment, raises money, makes u.s. better than canada and europe or at least more like them which can't be bad, helps build recessions (which could be regarded as being akin to a salubrious national colonic) . . .

This is where we pretend I've never left Nebraska.

I know you've been to a bus depot in Chicago. Serious question, though. Do you have room in your life for the idea that not every location and environment is suited to the behavioral norms you demand from the rest of us?

Where adult humans interact on neutral ground, ONE standard of behavior applies. Courteous at all times. Avoid inconveniencing others at all costs. Harming or endangering others is never acceptable. This "it's diiiiiiiiifferent where IIIIIIIIIIII live/everyone ellllllllllse does it" bullshit is just self-absorbed fuckheads rationalizing their shitty behavior.

But many of the rules for cycling you've mentioned in this thread are in fact discourteous choices in most locations. So where does that leave you once you're outside the bubble?

I hate cyclists. I am actually working to have them banned in my state.

Get a car, hippie! What the heck is wrong with you? Get into the 21st century.

Not in the specific context I've described, it's not. Anything beyond that is just you stacking things to make your trolling sound reasonable.

Not trolling at all, not even half assed. I simply disagree with a man who says that I must conform to his standards when I don't happen to encounter his situations. See post #53 if you don't believe you do this.

You don't encounter situations where common courtesy and the convenience of others are at issue? Bully for you.

And nothing in post #53 runs contrary to the standard I applied in post #72.

Not what I said, dumbass. Your response, though, clearly confirms what I did say.

Hmm, here's how you start post 53:

You completely explode in response to something I've said about proper choices in a riding circumstance you've apparently never encountered. Yeah, I've got you pegged Bubble Boy.

Now acknowledge the full context, you trolling shitsmear.

So, you demand a place on the road with cars, expecting them to adjust around you. This is not common courtesy and the effort to avoid inconveniencing others.

To which I respond:

In other words, if you have any regard for the concept of common fucking courtesy, your "proper choice" in that "riding circumstance" is to get the goddamned hell out of the way.

This I totally agree with. Way, way too many self-absorbed oblivious imbeciles wandering around this world. You're out in public, your ass better be paying attention to your surroundings and showing some goddam courtesy.

So many ways to approach the stupid arrogance of your post, but I think I'll use your own words here. Now acknowledge the full context, you trolling shitsmear.

I think most of us agree with this. Some, however, refuse to acknowledge contextual differences.

You've got nothing. All you can do is argue that my posts don't really mean what they meant.

1)Yes, you are endangering others and dedicated trails aren't sidewalks. You wanna show some manners? Get of the fucking sidewalk. You're an adult.

2)Welcome to downtown, ain't no one impressed by your belligerence. You know what else is lethal? Some idiot riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. You're a vehicle, get on the fucking road.

Spawning license is a different thread.

No argument that America needs to get into the late 20th century with the rest of us, but the prime reason I'd support licesning is because too many of the damn fools think that they're pedestrians when theere's pedestrians around (and ride on sidewalks, crosswalks, ignore stop signs, behave like they're on foot, in general) or insist that they have all the right of ways as a motorized vehicle on the street.

Public info campaigns at good cycling etiquette haven't kept up with the increased amount of bikes on the road. Actually enforcing existing laws and pursuing convictions on traffic violating cyclists would be a start, but likely would be leniently or unevenly enforced. Licensing of some sort would take away the alibi of not being aware/commonly known standards of behaviour.

I was walking across the street in Chinatown once, and some bike fruit ran the light and crossed my path about a foot in front of me. Not the first time this has happened, but I pushed him off his bike this time. He got pretty butthurt, until I told him in no uncertain terms to get the hell on before I beat his ass with his bike. Bike fruits like to scream "share the road!!1!" all the time, but don't feel constrained to obey any road laws. Generally, I don't care about bikes, but this sort of thing happens more often than not.

but the anomaly seems to be where you live.
the only generally accepted condition here for you to be taking the sidewalk is when there isn't a clear bike space (not path) on an overpass. Even then, it's courteous to walk it over.

you can see how it follows that the shitty behaviour being rationalized by someone being special is your's here, yes?

Figured I'd check out what the actual bylaws are here

IOW-if you aren't a local child, stay the hell off of the sidewalk.

Explain how, when I've made it explicitly clear that I give up the sidewalk for pedestrians, I am endangering anyone.

"Vehicles" belong on the fucking road when they can keep pace with traffic, period.

Oh, eat shit.

You get to impose inflexible standards where bicycles get dedicated paths like cars and pedestrians do. Until then, it will be trails when I can, and migrating between street and sidewalk as practicality demands the rest of the time. Blocking traffic and endangering pedestrians are both out of the question.

And no, before some sneering douchetard minces in with a claim that the above paragraph amounts to me demanding special treatment, that is me adapting to conditions, not expecting them to adapt to me, so just piss off with your semantical dick-waving pigfuckery.

You go on and submit to the bureaucracy if you want, but I am not giving the law another excuse to track my habits and generally fuck with my ability to act.

No, what I see is leaving any room for interpretation just allows juvenile trolls like gul to contrive a scenario where I have wronged someone. I don't need to defend against that, because I know goddamned well I put more thought and effort into courtesy and the convenience of others while on my bike than they do anywhere, ever.

If the law expects you to obstruct traffic, the law is wrong, period. If you rule out the sidewalk, a third alternative is required.

There is a heirarchy at work here, whether the law and the irrational fucking masses see fit to acknowledge it or not. On the road, it goes as follows:

trucks>cars>motorcycles>bicycles>pedestrians>litter>decaying roadkill>skateboarders.