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

Yes it fucking is. Did I use too many words for you? Douchetard said "Relativism?" I said "No."

Common fucking courtesy does not get the asterisk treatment. There is no "be considerate of others, except when..".

Oh, the meaning is clear enough. You just don't want to take full responsibility for the logical conclusion of your words. That's cool, if somewhat immature.

There it is, right there. The "logical" conclusion, as "interpreted" by gul.

Show your work. How does it logically follow from anything I have said, and nothing I didn't say , that I advocate bicyclists acting discourteously?

You prefer to take the more dangerous approach, which is moving back and forth between two routes. It's better for the cars if they can see you and you behave predictably. It's better for the pedestrians if you stay nowhere near them. But you want it both ways -- make the pedestrians trust that you'll see them, demand that the cars see you when you dodge off the sidewalk and back in to traffic. It's bad enough that you can't see the danger in your decisions, the fact that you are righteous about these bad choices makes you all the more dangerous.

You advocate dangerous choices for yourself, and yell at those who prefer to follow best practices. The logical conclusion is that you are the douchebag.

Nope. I did leave room for you assume that, but your choice of assumption is your problem. I do not cause dangerous situations on my bike.

Only when safe to do so.

Only an idiot cyclist entrusts his safety to a motorist. I don't allow anyone the opportunity to harm me.

I agree, have stated as much elsewhere, and can only conclude you are ignoring those explicit statements for the purpose of trolling.

Trust is not an issue. I'm nowhere near them by the time our paths cross.

Now you're making shit up again, trying to portray me as this maniac dodging between MAT buses and baby strollers.

The danger you imagine based on your own fabricated scenarios designed to falsely portray me in the worst light possible. But of course, since I respond at all, you win the internet.

Show me just one such choice that doesn't require the use of fiction to fill in unspoken gaps to support your bullshit claim.

I would be willing to bet that if he'd been hit by the oncoming traffic he'd have been screaming for the head of the person who hit him, expecting the car to be able to stop on a dime to let him proceed.

this would be one of those times where you come across with a might makes right attitude. everyone gets out of the way of the biggest vehicle or is subject to being flattened.

the law does not expect you to obstruct traffic. it expects you to stay to the far right of the lane unless making a left turn.

The law also explains why "giving right of way" when you see them isn't enough. You aren't special nor is there any evidence of your superior cycling abilities. If you are on the sidewalk, you are a menace to others' safety whether you think so or not.

In Seattle you are allowed to ride on the sidewalks but you have to yield to pedestrians AND you cannot go faster than a pedestrian.

Unlike in Bumfuck nowhere it's not like traffic is blowing through at 50mph (excluding of course grade separated and limited access I-5, I-90, SR 99, SR 520) so it's not like a cyclist slows anything down even when there is not a separate bike lane. "Oh teh noes, I made it to the next stop light 5 seconds slower than I would have if I'd gunned it and then slammed on brakes! "

Oh, and does anyone else think that Alfred's macho posturing is just overcompensating and that he actually drives like this:

[yt=Ballard Driving Academy]nyz6mkvlEgA[/yt]

To be a bigger douchebag than a cyclist, you'd have to ride mass transit.

This thread, all the insistence that people should ride on sidewalks when study after study has found this is not a safe practice.

They go down the middle or as it's more commonly known as "taking the lane" so you don't hit them as you pass by them.

It is legal in your state. (I looked it up) It's legal in every state I've ever looked up. Most states tell cyclists to ride as far right as safely possible and if it's not safe they can take the lane.

It's not safe to ride on the right on a tiny bridge with cars coming up behind you. Zel might be a "good" driver but that doesn't make other drivers good. Unless a vehicle can safely pass a bicycle with a minimum of three feet distance between the two it's often safer for the cyclist to take the lane until they are sure they are safe to move to the right. Of course if the cyclist is turning left he has to take the lane as well.

The same goes for a twisty road with lots of curves.

And before you rage like UA you need to deal with the fact that bicycles were using roads decades before cars even existed. And in America in all 50 states you will find this or a slightly different worded version of this:

A person riding a bicycle has all the same rights and responsibilities as a driver of a
motor vehicle; bicyclists must obey traffic laws.

Roads are not limited to cars.

Because maybe the bike path doesn't go where they want to go.....

Now on this they are being douchebags. Your state says that cyclists should not impede traffic. Riding four abreast is definitely doing that.

If nothing else, lighter penalties for "vehicular manslaughter" are complete bullshit.

They should face the same penalties as regular manslaughter, or worse.

I will say that cyclists are often their own worst enemy.

But douchebaggery is not just limited to bicycles. Plenty of it comes from car drivers as well.

I think we can just acknowledge that most people are douchebags, whether they travel on four wheels, two wheels, by foot, or on trains.

Sidewalk riding in a lot of places is illegal or restricted to the pace of a walking person which defeats the purpose of a bike. Sidewalks are also generally restricted to kids.

That said sidewalks are dangerous to ride on. Drivers often can not see, until it is too late, a bike rider on a sidewalk when they are pulling out of a parking lot and on to the road. You also never know when a pedestrian is going to step out of no where. Drivers also tend not to see the bike rider when turning into a parking lot.

Sidewalk riding is dangerous enough that in heavily populated areas it's banned. In particular the downtown areas.

It is better to take those risks than it is to inconvenience a driver.

I don't know about that.

That's a pretty stiff penalty for an accident.

Even in this case the cyclist didn't purposely kill the victim.

I think it really depends on a case by case basis.

My point is stupidity.

They go out at 6AM, more often than not dressed in way that makes them hard to see, when there is thick, pea-soup fog with no lights on their bikes, no way to see them until you are literally on top of them. We really are afraid one of these days we are going to hit someone.

We only lay the horn on groups blocking the road, not every biker.

If it's that foggy and the area is known for cycling, maybe it's stupid to drive on those roads. See how that works? Just blame the other mode! Or maybe instead, everybody needs to acknowledge they aren't the only person with a right to be there and with a claim to safety.

If you feel that you are driving too fast for the conditions leave your house earlier and drive slow enough that you can react to other legal road users.

No your point is you don't want them out there at all. Be honest about it.....

Thick pea-soup fog affects lights of all sizes. Why are you driving at normal speed in such conditions anyway?

In fact you should be driving even slower as studies have shown that people driving in a fog drive faster then they normally do because they have no outside references to judge their speed on. This is why there are huge crashes on highways in fog conditions.

In thick pea fog you shouldn't be going faster then a bicycle anyway.

And honestly if you know the cyclists are always out there in the morning then you should just plan for it and deal with it. Why make a headache for yourself?

And yes they should have lights as it's required by law in your state. That said bike lights are not as powerful as the headlights on a car.

I didn't say you did.

In fact I said:

"Now on this they are being douchebags. Your state says that cyclists should not impede traffic. Riding four abreast is definitely doing that."

Nothing about laying on the horn for every biker in there that I cant see.....

If it's really an accident and you can show the driver couldn't possibly have avoided it, then they shouldn't be punished at all. But when the "accident" happened because they violated any sort of traffic law or failed to exercise proper care and attention while operating their vehicle? That's a special sort of homicide directly caused by intentional criminal negligence, and the licensing process they went through in order to be able to drive means there's no way they can claim ignorance of any of that.

Car accidents are about as common as accidental discharges.

Gul's 'logic' tends to be illogical.

Hey T.R., got something to contribute here? Should adult cyclists ride on the sidewalk?

This.
There may be some bicyclists who do obey the traffic laws - but I have seen way too many that DON'T. And they aren't being ticketed or charged or fined or anything.
When they get the same sort of ticket that I'd get for disobeying the traffic laws, THEN I'll believe that they have the same responsibilities.

Back when Critical Mass rides were the thing--go out and tie up traffic during the afternoon commute--I watched some faggot stop their bike in a crosswalk and lay down in front of an SUV.

That is one of the instances where I believe beating the holy shit out of someone is honorable and justified.