Comments on: Are you an enlightened cyclist?

By: honorarios abogados

honorarios abogados — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:20:56 +0000

This piece of writing will assist the internet viewers for creating new blog or even a weblog from
start to end.

By: Alai

Alai — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:13:33 +0000

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

When I bike on Page street, I am required to stop at every stop sign. When I drive on Oak St., I am also required to stop at every stop sign.

If I’m biking south through the sunset, I take 20th Ave., and stop at every stop sign.

If I’m driving, I take 19th Ave., and I still stop at every stop sign.

If I choose to bike on the Panhandle, it’s my responsibility to yield to pedestrians who are legally present. And when I drive on Oak and Fell, of course I must do the same.

It’s just as illegal for a cyclist to be distracted and kill a driver as it is for a driver to kill a cyclist. The law, however, is merciful, and understands that accidents happen and shouldn’t be punished too severely.

“Fair to all parties”.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:09:26 +0000

Well, I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the objective fact that I mentioned. You’re entitled to your own unique interpretation of reality, I suppose.

As for “California Stop”, see above and below for discussion on “Rolling Stops”. Not really worth getting into again.

By: oliver

oliver — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:12:31 +0000

Well, I knew there was a reason why I loved the Bay Area (despite not being able to afford to live there).

Contrary to the majority of Americans opinion a liberal city spawns more compliance with the law, particularly (evidently, by you and teh vegetables observation) when it comes to cars stopping at stop signs. Elsewhere it’s not the case, 2 in 10 cars come to a complete stop at stop signs. (In my observation)

By: oliver

oliver — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:06:21 +0000

Ever heard of a California Stop?

It’s when you don’t stop.

And you are not making a statement of objective fact. You are making a statement of your subjective opinion, which would simply be an unprovable improbability if you were to preface it with “In my observation…”

As it stands, it’s just a lie. An obvious lie to anyone who’s ever driven or stood next to a roadway with a stop sign…ever.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:35:27 +0000

Yeah, that’s still a bunch of hooey.

By: hipster jesus

hipster jesus — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:56:39 +0000

Obviously the argument is over because nobody who says this stuff has any sort of evidence-based opinion about it.

Nothing to see here

http://cyclehelmets.org/1146.html

Or here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Are_helmets_harmful.3F_Undesirable_effects_of_helmet_use

Well we know you’re too fat to leave your basement and ever ride a bike, so hopefully that means you won’t be voting on laws that affect we who do. fatty fat fat

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:28:03 +0000

Yeah, that’s a bunch of hooey.

By: hipster jesus

hipster jesus — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 05:52:29 +0000

like i said above, go back to internet school and wiki this. helmet wearers are more likely to get hit by cars (for debatable reasons) and being hit by a car helmeted is worse than falling down on your own unhelmeted. Wearing a helmet is not the universal protection you seem to think it is.

The rotational acceleration argument is actually bolstered by studies, if you would spend a minute to find them, instead of poo-pooing it out of hand and joking about medieval helms to protect bike riders from orcs.

By: hipster jesus

hipster jesus — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 05:46:52 +0000

this is a pointless argument because there’s evidence that supports both sides. Yes it tilts towards helmets being helpful but in some cases actually harmful. Example: helmet wearers are more likely to get hit by cars (for debatable reasons), and being hit by a car helmeted is worse than falling down on your own unhelmeted. Making the bottom line be, not wearing a helmet is not necessarily such a big deal. Go back to internet school and wiki this.

By: rod

rod — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 19:27:37 +0000

Don’t feed the trolls, Sir Veg and Cranky live in their own little world together where reality is strewn together by whatever little arguments they make up off of the tops of their heads.

If any of you are legitimately interested in the effectiveness of bike helmets, here are some links with some data, truth, facts, and reason, all of which are lacking in the comments above:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html

By: ugh

ugh — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:43:06 +0000

Hey Doktor – you don’t even ride. Please curtail your desire to be an Internet Voice of Reason on every topic here on MM. You’re not gong to get laid based on the amount of bandwidth you consume.
I know “I walk and therefore am part of the equation”….but really.

By: kb

kb — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 04:00:25 +0000

Bike people are like the transients in the tenderloin who walk in front of traffic. Very narcisistic me me me.

By: chalkman

chalkman — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:46:22 +0000

unless you are 13 or under, no riding on the sidewalk!

By: Cranky Old Mission Guy

Cranky Old Mission Guy — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:23:17 +0000

Yep! But I’m wondering where the Mission Mission OFFICIAL posters are, while this issue is being debated on the blog where they officially post. Some of them actually ride bicycles! But, involved in the debate… not so much…