Why aren't bikes allowed on freeways.???

[Michael]

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>
> It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
> berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
> into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
> encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.

Well, I wouldn't push for it in Massachusetts. When I lived there ('70s) not a
few MA cagers used the breakdown lane as their own personal freeway when the
other lanes got congested. I will never forget my disbelief the first time such
a turkey went flying past me on the right, in the breakdown lane.

--
Michael

 

[Grendel]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Mike T. wrote:
>
> >>And the reason a bicyclist couldn't/shouldn't use the "Emergency Lane"
> >>is.....?
> >>
> >>Wayne
> >>
> >
> >
> > The same reason so many people are killed every year in the emergency lane
> > (sometimes while sitting in their car, even).
>
> With vanishingly rare exception, those people were killed due to
> motorists not paying attention and driving into the lane, not because
> the motorist had to use the lane for an emergency.

So you're admitting that it WOULD be dangerous for a cyclist to be in
the emergency lane of the interstate. After all, people are not just
going to suddenly start paying attention for the sake of a few measly
bike riders.


> There is a reason it is
> > called the EMERGENCY lane. If you are in that lane, you have an emergency,
> > or you are ABOUT TO have an emergency.
> >
> > I know the only time I had an unexpected flat tire, I drove about 30 feet
> > off the road (a couple car-lengths into the grass) before I pulled out the
> > jack. Nobody would have cared if I used the emergency lane to change the
> > tire, but no way was I going to risk my life for a stupid flat. -Dave
> >
> >
>
> So you agree that using the "Emergency Lane" would only constitute a
> hazard to the bicyclist under the rare circumstance somebody entered it
> illegally?

Okay, so exactly HOW MANY needless deaths are you willing to accept for
this convinience?

Simply put, the Interstate is no place for a bicyclist. That's why the
law is the way it is. Get over it.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"Never underestimate the stupdity of liberals."

 

[Max Penn]

"Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Stay off the berm and leave it for the cyclists and don't drive 85
> > mph. 85 is only for psychopaths.
>
> Obviously you've never driven across Texas. One HUNDRED eighty five
> wouldn't be fast enough.
>
>

Yup! Remember the old postcard?:

The Sun is riz'
The Sun is set
And here I is
In Texas yet

 

[laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:54:38 GMT, "R Brickston"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:45:48 -0700, "Raoul Duke" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Stay off the berm and leave it for the cyclists and don't drive 85
>>>> mph. 85 is only for psychopaths.
>>>
>>>Obviously you've never driven across Texas. One HUNDRED eighty five
>>>wouldn't be fast enough.
>>>
>>
>> Texans are ALL psychopaths. They let laura bush get away with
>> murdering her boyfriend with her car.
>
>And just how do you justify a charge of murder?
>

The guy she killed was a former boy friend!! An way if not murder, it
was certainly manslaughter. Stop being a coddler.

 

[John Lansford]

"Arif Khokar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
>> berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
>> into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
>> encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.
>
>The problem stems from tractor-trailers and the excessive air
>turbulence in their wake. Having one pass you at a 50 mph differential
>would likely cause one to fall.

Not only that, in many states it is legal to use the paved shoulder as
a lane during congested periods, and I've noticed this is done even
down here in NC where it most definitely is NOT legal. Plus, disabled
vehicles park in the paved shoulders, leaving nowhere for the cyclist
to travel except even closer to the 70mph+ traffic.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

 

[Wayne Pein]

Grendel wrote:


> Okay, so exactly HOW MANY needless deaths are you willing to accept for
> this convinience?
>
> Simply put, the Interstate is no place for a bicyclist. That's why the
> law is the way it is. Get over it.
>

Did you not read that bicyclists already are allowed on some
interstates? I suppose you are also ignorant enough to have not read a
report that examined this issue and found no safety problems. Get
knowledge.

Hey Grendel, if you are so worried about the "needless deaths" of
others, why don't you advocate for mandatory helmet use for car drivers?
That would prevent a lot of "needless deaths."

Wayne

 

[B1ackwater]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:31:31 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
>berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
>into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
>encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.

I've seen too many police videos showing what happens
to cars, even cop cars, that park on the shoulder.
Other vehicles somehow assume an object there means
it's a traffic lane and swerve over. Is this a good
environment for slow-moving bicycles ?

Now they COULD make room for a small bike lane just on
the other side of the barricade fence or between the
right shoulder and the usual drainage ditch. That would
put you a little further over than most would assume
a traffic lane would exist. Still though, on misguided
car doing 80 could wipe out a LONG line of cyclists ...

IMHO, if you've got two wheels and wanna do the interstate,
make sure the two wheels are attached to a motorcycle that
can keep up.

Besides, WHY would you want to bike on an interstate ? They're
BORING - look the same everywhere. Secondary and residential
streets would be just as fast, but you'd get to LOOK at stuff,
perhaps interact.

 

[oilfreeandhappy]

I got caught up in some rode construction the other day. Rather than
backtracking about 5 miles, I walked my bike through a nature area, and
arrived at an Interstate Rest Area. I had no choice but to ride the
Interstate (75 MPH speed limit) for about a mile. It was horrible!
Incredibly loud and stressful. Forget it.
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
> berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
> into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
> encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.

 

[Werehatrack]

Am I the only one who looked at the poster's name and the crosspost
list, and concluded that this was a troll?
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Dane Buson]

Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am I the only one who looked at the poster's name and the crosspost
> list, and concluded that this was a troll?

/hangs head in shame

No, but I couldn't resist the tasty tasty troll bait.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
Clones are people two.

 

[james]

I'm probably one of the biggest cyclist advocates around, and I have
zero interest in biking on freeways.

Most bike tours and invididual riders use state highways, and most
state highways and other roads run near an interstate anyway, and as
mentioned traverse small towns and other interests

The places where their IS no other option, (I-76 in eastern Colorado
for example), it's already signed for bike use.

Any smart bike commuter can figure out the best routes to take, and if
you're a daily bike commuter like me you know which side streets have
the fewest stop signs, light traffic, etc.

I'm probably spoiled though in Colorado where motorists respect
cyclists much more than the average, and even steep mountain passes
cyclists are expected and there's mutual respect between car and bikes.

And I AM for more cyclist use in the cities. Too many people play
dress up like Lance Armstrong only zip along trails. The smart cookies
have the grocery panniers, racks, and cool gear for utility cycling.
In my neighborhood everyone from students to lawyers to a nice 85 year
old lady on a trike style goes to the grocery store with their bikes,
it's much easier than driving, and more enjoyable.


laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
> berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
> into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
> encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.

 

[Lorenzo L. Love]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:58:15 -0700, peter <[email protected]> wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> > It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
>> > berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
>> > into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
>> > encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.
>>
>> The problem stems from tractor-trailers and the excessive air
>> turbulence in their wake. Having one pass you at a 50 mph differential
>> would likely cause one to fall.
>
> Many western states allow bicycles on freeway shoulders in areas where
> there are no good alternate routes. I've ridden on I-680, I-580, and
> freeway sections of US101 in California where bicycles are allowed on
> freeways except when the on-ramp sign explicitly prohibits them.
> Here's a picture showing a sign that omits the mention of bicycles at
> the on-ramp on a bike-legal section of Hwy. 101 freeway:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/549966386/2425880810047976201wvlkfY
>
> Passing truck traffic did not cause any problems even with the added
> wind-catching panniers we used for carrying our touring gear - in fact
> the artificial wind from their passing was a nice little boost.
> Bicycles are prohibited from more urban sections of California freeways
> where alternate routes exist and where crowded on- and off-ramps would
> create more hazards.
>

Yes, I ride a recumbent with a front fairing that is subject to buffeting
by crosswinds. I often ride on I-5 with trucks zipping by at 70+ mph and
they're just not a problem. Interstate freeways are almost always the
safest roads around due to the very wide shoulders, gentle curves and long
sight lines. In Oregon, bikes are allowed on all Interstate freeways
except one short section of elevated roadway in Medford. I don't think you
will find any excessive fatalities per bicycle mile in Oregon compared to
states where bicycles are not allowed on freeways at all. You're just
safer on the freeway. Boring without the joy of high speed traffic trying
to squeeze by you on a narrow lane, but safe.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, it is now possible to travel
from coast to coast without seeing anything."
Charles Kuralt

 

[[email protected]]

> Besides, WHY would you want to bike on an interstate ? They're
> BORING - look the same everywhere. Secondary and residential
> streets would be just as fast, but you'd get to LOOK at stuff,
> perhaps interact.

Why the hell would I want to interact with people? I'm trying to get
from one place to another. And there's 30 miles between exits, much
less anything else besides tumbleweeds. Do you see someone on the side
of the road and suddenly pull up beside them and start talking to
them???

 

[Frank Drackman]

"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
> berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
> into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
> encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.


I ride I-90 very frequently.

 

[Sorni]

Werehatrack wrote:

> Am I the only one who looked at the poster's name and the crosspost
> list, and concluded that this was a troll?

Hell no.

 

[Hal A. Loullia]

"Grendel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Mike T. wrote:
>>
>> >>And the reason a bicyclist couldn't/shouldn't use the "Emergency Lane"
>> >>is.....?
>> >>
>> >>Wayne
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > The same reason so many people are killed every year in the emergency
>> > lane
>> > (sometimes while sitting in their car, even).
>>
>> With vanishingly rare exception, those people were killed due to
>> motorists not paying attention and driving into the lane, not because
>> the motorist had to use the lane for an emergency.
>
> So you're admitting that it WOULD be dangerous for a cyclist to be in
> the emergency lane of the interstate. After all, people are not just
> going to suddenly start paying attention for the sake of a few measly
> bike riders.
>
>
>> There is a reason it is
>> > called the EMERGENCY lane. If you are in that lane, you have an
>> > emergency,
>> > or you are ABOUT TO have an emergency.
>> >
>> > I know the only time I had an unexpected flat tire, I drove about 30
>> > feet
>> > off the road (a couple car-lengths into the grass) before I pulled out
>> > the
>> > jack. Nobody would have cared if I used the emergency lane to change
>> > the
>> > tire, but no way was I going to risk my life for a stupid
>> > t. -Dave
>> >
>> >
>>
>> So you agree that using the "Emergency Lane" would only constitute a
>> hazard to the bicyclist under the rare circumstance somebody entered it
>> illegally?
>
> Okay, so exactly HOW MANY needless deaths are you willing to accept for
> this convinience?

How many needless deaths will you accept for a free and secure Iraq?

 

[[email protected]]

Richard Utt wrote:
> I've done it too: just this month, Interstate 15 in Utah.
>
> It was actually an enjoyable ride. Traffic was no problem. Passing
> tractor-trailers created no undue turbulence (with panniers), the shoulder
> was wide, smooth, and almost completely clear of debris, etc.
>
> The only interaction with traffic was at exits (and no, I did *not* exit and
> get back on - no idea where *that* idea came from), where I had to concern
> myself with both on-and-off traffic.
>
> For the great majority of it, it was simply a good, fast ride. I had to slow
> for one small patch of debris, and for a couple of rough spots on the
> shoulder. I wouldn't hesitate to do it again: seems like all the objections
> I read above are based on theory, not practice.

I, too have done it for hundreds of miles on western freeways. (It's
also legal in New Jersey, IIRC). Again, despite the ill-informed
remarks, the problems are minimal.

The trucks do NOT cause a problem with wind blast. Most trucks shifted
to the inner lanes when they passed us to give us more clearance, but
we wished they wouldn't! The trucks tow a nice tailwind behind them,
and it was nice to have that boost for a second or two.

Like Richard, we never once exited when we intended to go straight.
Non-urban freeway exit ramps get very little exiting traffic, and the
cyclist takes only a few seconds to cross the ramp so there's
negligible hazard even if the cyclist didn't bother to check his rear
view mirror. And if motorists are really going to argue they wouldn't
notice a cyclist, they should admit to severe sight problems and turn
in their license!

The worst problems we encountered were these:

In some places, the shoulders are milled to keep the less-competent
motorists on the pavement. Those surfaces are bad for bicycling, so we
had to watch to avoid them.

In some places, there's excessive trash and gravel on the shoulders.

And on a busy freeway, the noise is not pleasant.

Otherwise, there's just no problem.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[mark]

In article <[email protected]>, laura bush -
VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's really the safest place for them since there is always a wide
> berm on a freeway and there is no chance of some parked car pulling
> into their path like happens all the time in cities.. We need to
> encourage bike use and i say BIKES EVERYWHERE.

far to many moron drivers unable to successfully multitask while
driving, drinking coffee and chatting to their dog on the cellphone...

--
mark
markjs1@*nospam*yahoo.com
-- 
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, 
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B.
Anthony, 1896

 

[laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE]

On 19 Jun 2006 16:25:34 -0700, "james" <[email protected]> wrote:


>
>And I AM for more cyclist use in the cities. Too many people play
>dress up like Lance Armstrong only zip along trails. The smart cookies
>have the grocery panniers, racks, and cool gear for utility cycling.
>In my neighborhood everyone from students to lawyers to a nice 85 year
>old lady on a trike style goes to the grocery store with their bikes,
>it's much easier than driving, and more enjoyable.

I'd like to use a bike for city driving to the grocery or library etc.
but i still think it's just too damn dangerous.

 

[Dave]

>
> So you agree that using the "Emergency Lane" would only constitute a
> hazard to the bicyclist under the rare circumstance somebody entered it
> illegally?
>
> Wayne
>

Ummmm, it's not that rare. If bicycle use was allowed in the emergency
lane, we'd have hundreds of bicyclists killed, daily I'm sure. -Dave