3

7/3/2008 10:56:23 AM

Quote :

"weak. just the dripping vagina response i expected. "i can't think of anything to say, so i'll just make the same dumb comment over and over durrrr". really man, you're better suited for your "attention whore" and "crying like a bitch over girls" threads."

Aren't you doing the same thing:

Quote :

"spandex must restrict the flow of blood to the brain. if this place sucks so much, gtfo. you're just the kind of self important ass that whines about everything, but does jack shit to work for a reasonable plan. it's fine, you just keep riding your bike around like a good boy, and the grown ups will call you in for dinner after some legitimate solutions and ideas get done."

Who said i never did anything about it? I do plenty. I'm actively involved in greenway development, the rails-to-trails program and quite a few things in Charlotte. I admit i had the advantage of growing up with parents that helped me get involved, but i'm still involved. I never said it sucked, i love NC, but that doesn't mean i can't try to make it better.

Quote :

"large cities in the south ARE NOT COMPARABLE to the places you keep babbling about."

that's sad that you'd say that. We can't just give up and be like "fuck it, lets just be stupid about transportation and city planning cause we're in the south". To better plan our cities and greenways we have to look towards cities with better systems as examples. The reason i'm comparing is because many of the ideas that are currently being implemented in Charlotte are drawn from places that i've mentioned. You have such a sad attitude on the subject. You can't just give up because southern planning got fucked by history.

It's just like the light rail in Charlotte. Many conservatives (not pointing fingers) said it would fail and not work because the south doesn't have the infrastructure for it and now that it opened it's packed all the time. It's the same with bikes and intelligent city planning. Just because we don't have it now doesn't mean we can't develop it and have it be successful in the future.

You just have the wrong attitude about it. You keep getting on me about bringing up examples of biker-friendly cities and saying you can't compare it to the south, but i'm telling you YES YOU CAN. That's EXACTLY what we need to be doing in order to change things around here. Things don't just magically happen by themselves.

[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM. Reason : .]

7/3/2008 11:05:22 AM

i can't speak on behalf of Ballantyne and some of the newer areas and suburbs of Charlotte since their infrastructure is a lot newer, but a lot of areas in greater Charlotte have roads that already can't support the car traffic (ie Church St, College St, Tryon St downtown)...in places like that you couldn't add a bike lane...if you could, they'd probably try to add some more car lanes first...so I do agree that in one sense you can't necessarily make Charlotte as bike-friendly as some other cities, simply because when many of the roads were designed and built it was with a much lower expectation of traffic and volume in general

7/3/2008 11:10:04 AM

I just want to say, some people are really doing their damndest to live up to American stereotypes, and it makes me sad.

Quote :

"my main issue with bicycles is they aren't contributing anything in terms of highway use tax, registration, or tags. they also aren't required to carry any sort of insurance. if they're going to be allowed full privileges on the road, they should be required to have them titled, registered, tagged, and insured. they should also entered into the county database for property tax. i realize this would be a logistical nightmare for the dmv and tax office in their current state, but my point stands. hell, just make any bike have the same fees no matter what it is would be fine with me."

Ok, firstly, [no]. I don't need insurance to walk down the street, and forcing bikers to have it is just ridiculous. Bikers add no great risk for severe injury of drivers, and as such no insurance burdens should be imposed, as that's what a court is for. And until we can start charging fat people out the ass for health care, it should be completely out of the cards to levy this crap on bikers. They're saving us all a lot of money on insurance premiums by getting off of their asses, unlike the rest of us.

And if you think 20 mph is all that much more fuel efficient than 35, you're wrong. If you want to cut fuel use, drop that interstate speed limit back down to 55 mph.

7/3/2008 11:29:47 AM

Quote :

"btw, i'm willing to bet some of these grand places implement some of the things i've typed about over and over in this thread."

I'll take the bet, how much are you wanting to wager?

7/3/2008 11:51:03 AM

Quote :

"Aren't you doing the same thing:"

you can disregard any commentary between sumfoo1 and i... it's just a personal rivalry from the garage.

Quote :

"that's sad that you'd say that. We can't just give up and be like "fuck it, lets just be stupid about transportation and city planning cause we're in the south". To better plan our cities and greenways we have to look towards cities with better systems as examples. The reason i'm comparing is because many of the ideas that are currently being implemented in Charlotte are drawn from places that i've mentioned. You have such a sad attitude on the subject. You can't just give up because southern planning got fucked by history."

what? did you even bother to read the NOVELS i posted on the first and second page? obviously i'm sympathetic to this issue, and i've offered what i believe to be fair and even handed policy to improve conditions for everyone involved. it's also totally inline with what has been implemented for other types of vehicles in the past. i can see both sides of it. i feel like some of you are completely ignoring anything but your personal skewed view of the world. did you bother to read/understand anything i explained about the weighted tag system and it's burden on private citizens? you think that's fair, but a small/fractional contribution is out of line for bicyclists? it seems all you care about is a free ride for you and your people, and screw everything else. sorry, but you have to keep an objective view from every group.

Quote :

"I just want to say, some people are really doing their damndest to live up to American stereotypes, and it makes me sad."

i couldn't agree more. take you for example, making statements about things you clearly don't understand. most americans are like this though. they know a little about everything and a lot about nothing.

Quote :

"Ok, firstly, [no]. I don't need insurance to walk down the street"

no one has said anything about pedestrians, quit repeating pointless stuff. besides, maybe if you had read you would have seen where we already covered this. pedestrians have the right of way at all times. there is no question of liability or who's at fault. that's the technical reason you don't need insurance to walk down the sidewalk. there are obviously many more.

Quote :

"Bikers add no great risk for severe injury of drivers, and as such no insurance burdens should be imposed,"

what does that have to do with anything? motorcycles pose no great risk of injury to drivers either. that hardly negates the need for insurance.

vehicle insurance isn't just about personal injury and liability. it's for property damage mainly. you've also got the issue of underinsured/uninsured coverage. you get creamed riding you bike, and jose doesn't have insurance. what do you do? who pays your bills? lost wages? lifetime increase in medical expenses? riders should WANT to carry insurance, it's hardly a burden.

i think you (and others in here) might need to study up on nc insurance regulations, laws, etc. a bit and how the whole process works in general. even with health insurance, if you get severely injured in a bicycle accident and it's a.) your fault or b.) the driver is underinsured/uninsured you're going to be fucked in the ass sideways to put it so bluntly. those rights to the road come with a lot more than being allowed to take up a full lane or whatever. the only burden is when injured, uninsured people become an expense to the rest of society. lets PLEASE keep this subject to the current conditions, we sure as hell don't need to open up the healthcare can of worms too.

Quote :

"as that's what a court is for."

huh? no, courts are for issuing judgements only. it's not their job to decide fault in every traffic accident or every insurance issue. they're already overcrowded as is with petty crap. besides, so what if the court rules against an uninsured person with no assets? doesn't make any difference.

Quote :

"They're saving us all a lot of money on insurance premiums by getting off of their asses, unlike the rest of us."

how? that's a pretty bold statement without some numbers to back it up. even if that's the case, once accidents like this start becoming more frequent and people don't have insurance i shouldn't have to spell out what's going to happen. it's irrelevant to the discussion though. you and the other close minded cyclists keep trying to throw these off topic extremes out that have more to do with the price of eggs in china. you're grasping at straws.

Quote :

"nd if you think 20 mph is all that much more fuel efficient than 35, you're wrong."

i never said anything like that. what i said is the string of cars slowing down then accelerating around a single rider is causing a lot more pollution and gas consumption than if that line of cars plus the biker in a car were all cruising along at a steady pace. if you think that's not true, i don't know where to start. maybe look up internal combustion engine on howthingswork.com or something.

Quote :

"If you want to cut fuel use, drop that interstate speed limit back down to 55 mph"

haha, seriously? i love the comments like this that get thrown out whenever a garage thread gets moved elsewhere. newsflash, this isn't 1980 anymore. the 55mph national speed limit was a joke then and it's even more of one now. highways have changed, as has vehicle technology. the majority of newer cars are just as efficient if not more efficient at speeds of 65-70mph vs. 55mph. i wasn't aware anyone still thought this. livin up to those american stereotypes though i guess.

just to be CLEAR since it's evident a few have a problem reading, i'm not advocating any registration fee or insurance requirement be implemented right now today. i'm just saying it's something that needs to be considered, and will likely serve it's purpose as efforts are made to accommodate growing numbers of cyclists and drivers alike.



[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2008 12:25:19 PM

Quote :

"I'll take the bet, how much are you wanting to wager?"

oh hell, lets make it interesting. $50 via paypal to the winner?

7/3/2008 12:53:32 PM

Don't you people have jobs?

7/3/2008 12:54:07 PM

yeah, ones that allow us to argue on tww all day.

7/3/2008 12:57:38 PM

Quote :

"oh hell, lets make it interesting. $50 via paypal to the winner?"

You could just post any one of them, it's not like I'm going to pick through all your e-dick-wagging at sumfool1 and then research it.

7/3/2008 1:13:12 PM

i thought we were making a wager first?

7/3/2008 1:40:20 PM

I'd rather not play a semantic game where you take some vague idea you have and apply it in some obtuse way in some country like Lichtenstein or something. Feel free to solidly your correctness about the subject by doing it anyway. Seems like your e-ego about this matter is big enough that you'd be interested to do that.

Quote :

"obviously i'm sympathetic to this issue, and i've offered what i believe to be fair and even handed policy to improve conditions for everyone involved."

Explain how the drop in the ocean revenue from bicycle taxes/fees is going to improve conditions for everyone involved? Because you offered this solution, but then point out how impractical it would be

Quote :

"i realize this would be a logistical nightmare for the dmv and tax office in their current state"

Quote :

"i can see the argument that bikes don't cause any damage, are very limited use, or whatever. it doesn't really fly though, especially since weighted tags have been introduced."

But bikes don't cause damage. So an argument for a use tax thats meant to to repair roads damage by said vehicle doesn't fly. Feel free to label it a different tax. You could call it "BBRs those bikers shouldn't be able to hold me up for free" tax.

Quote :

"#2. again, you own a truck as your primary vehicle. you work in the construction industry, and have the need to put a weighted tag to use 5 days a week. okay, all fair and good. however, you also own a track car. the car is full street legal, titled, tagged, etc. and you drive it a few miles here and there on the weekend. mainly, it's purpose is for 5 track events per year. you have a car trailer (titled/tagged of course) you use to tow the car to these events. this increases your total gvw by 5000lbs. for the trailer and car. because of this, you have to pay for that extra difference on your weighted truck tag for the whole year. for something you pull 5 times a year. lets not forget that the trailer AND the car you're towing are tagged themselves, so you've already paid the applicable fees/taxes for both to be used on the road."

Seems like to me, rather than tax the bikers because they piss you off for holding you up occasionally, the heavy vehicle and "track car" issue should be challenged and those taxes reduced/removed. For someone who I fathom would be a right leaning individual, I would imagine you'd be all for reduced taxes if possible.

Quote :

"#3. finally, you have a regular old 4 door v6 fwd sedan you drive 99.9% of the time. you also have a fully restored pristine condition 1960 something garage queen. you drive it MAYBE 5-10 miles a month, if that. yet, you still have to pay for HUT, registration, and tags like everyone else."

Same as #2, lobby the congress for a different provision for special cases. Again, seems a little bit ridiculous to tax a biker for his $300 beater commuter recreational tool at anything near the same level as someone with a "toy" that is most likely worth 100s to 1000s of times more. I'll compromise and say there are some folks riding 2-5k and more bikes out there, but the revenue generated from them would probably be the same amount as the revenue from the garage queeners out there, which is, not much at all.

Quote :

"there's also the environmental issue. people say bicycles should be exempt, or should be tolerated, etc. because it's one less person in a car. please. do you really think that one person on a bike with a line of cars behind them slowing down/accelerating to get around them is helping anything? hell no, if anything they're causing more pollution."

Realistically speaking, the sum total pollution may be worse, but you simply can't pin the blame on the bikers for the failure of the individuals in the car to have patience or drive in a way that isn't accelerating then stomping on the brakes.

I'll get around to your other points later. maybe.

[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 1:56 PM. Reason : a]

7/3/2008 1:43:08 PM

Yeah i'm supposed to have an internship. But it's thursday before the 4th of July. Gotta celebrate that freedom to argue.

^^Calling us close minded isn't the way to go about things. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying i just think we have a different mindset. I'm more for restricting car use and advocating urban planning to accommodate public transportation and biker friendly streets. From what i understand you're more about creating equality and maybe asking bikers to give thier share of the burden while letting cars still do what they do.

It all starts with what you initially believe in. I'd rather have a world with little cars, and massive public transit and biker-friendly roads. I'm not being closeminded by stating what i want, because i'm fully aware of the lacking infrastructure in the south and how what i want is something far off. Still that doesn't mean i'm close minded because i want to change how things are.

7/3/2008 1:46:23 PM

Quote :

"I'll take the bet, how much are you wanting to wager?"

Quote :

"lets make it interesting. $50 via paypal to the winner?"

Quote :

"You could just post any one of them"

Quote :

"i thought we were making a wager first?"

Quote :

"I'd rather not play a semantic game"

hahah what a pussy

7/3/2008 1:54:34 PM

TSB is that way --->

7/3/2008 2:18:48 PM

^^ haha

7/3/2008 2:48:22 PM

7/3/2008 3:04:33 PM

You would take a huge fraction of the bikes out there off the road if you required insurance. If it's economic to get insurance, then people can go get it.

You're worried about property damage and injury to self? So, what part of this concerns the government such that they have force people to buy insurance?

Quote :

"how? that's a pretty bold statement without some numbers to back it up. even if that's the case, once accidents like this start becoming more frequent and people don't have insurance i shouldn't have to spell out what's going to happen. it's irrelevant to the discussion though. you and the other close minded cyclists keep trying to throw these off topic extremes out that have more to do with the price of eggs in china. you're grasping at straws."

And the most fuel efficient configuration would be no cars and all of those people riding bikes.

critical mass.
critical mass.

http://critical-mass.info/

critical mass.

7/3/2008 3:09:11 PM

^I agree with the idea behind it but most people use it as a way to break the law, and piss off drivers.

The website states:

Quote :

"Critical Mass is a monthly bicycle ride to celebrate cycling and to assert cyclists' right to the road."

And yet the Critical Mass in Charlotte is all about running red lights, blocking both lanes, and generally pissing all the drivers off.

I mean the critical mass people are some of the biggest hypocrites out there. For example on that website:

Quote :

"Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Riders say police used excessive force in arresting five peacful Critical Mass riders. "

Quote :

"Spokane, WA. The police tackled cyclists and arrested almost all of them for "Disorderly Conduct". (more) Dec. 2005"

Well no shit. If the cyclists want the same rights as the cars they have to abide by the same laws. You can't get a bunch of bikes together, run red lights, take up both lanes, piss off drivers, and tell everyone that you're doing it, and expect to be taken seriously.

[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2008 3:18:51 PM

^i agree completely

7/3/2008 3:20:44 PM

The Berkeley,CA one is 100x worse, plus they smell

7/3/2008 3:21:56 PM

^haha yes i was around Berkeley a couple years ago during one. I really have no problem with a bunch of bikers getting together to prove that they should have the same rights but they need to stop at lights, stay in the right lane, and not purposely piss off the drivers.

You can't break the law just to prove a point about enforcing a similar law.

7/3/2008 3:26:52 PM

nonviolent "direct action" pretty much means breaking the law.

I'm at a loss for instances where it doesn't.

7/3/2008 3:51:14 PM

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll quote this from the BobbyDigital's post on the first page:

Quote :

" Chapter 6: Bicycles http://www.ncdot.org/DMV/driver_services/drivershandbook/chapter6/bicycles.html Bicycles Bicycle riding is an important means of transportation, particularly for traveling to and from work and school. Because bicycles are vehicles, bicyclists must obey the same traffic laws as other drivers. Bicyclists usually ride on the right side of the lane, but are entitled to the use of a full lane."

...and I'll add:

Quote :

"Like drivers, bicyclists must: ride on the right side of the road; stop for stop signs and red lights; and give hand signals."

Quote :

"When you are moving slower than the posted speed limit on a multi-lane highway, drive in the extreme right lane unless you are passing, turning left or avoiding an obstruction."

Quote :

"If you must drive slower, you should still observe the minimum speed limit. At places where it is unsafe to pass, the slow driver forces other drivers to creep along behind or take unnecessary risks while trying to pass. Very slow driving is especially dangerous just after you have passed the crest of a hill or rounded a curve. Faster-moving vehicles can crash into the slower vehicle before they can slow down. For this reason, watch for slow-moving vehicles such as heavy trucks or farm vehicles. If traffic is collecting behind you, it is wise to pull over to the side of the road, stop and allow the vehicles to pass."

[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/3/2008 5:41:33 PM

I wish the old people had run over all those cyclist in that video on the first page.

7/3/2008 6:11:48 PM

I WOULD DO HER...

7/3/2008 7:41:59 PM

Didn't know you would all get this pissed off about bicycles.

But I agree with someone back on page 1, we are going to see more confrontations with bicyclists and drivers who are already stressed out from high gas prices and commuting. (Can someone find me one person happy on I-40 from RTP at 5 p.m.?)

I think the cyclist/car conflict is a larger symptom of prices for our fossil-fuel based economy increasing (energy/food/gas), as well as a tighter job market. People are starting to see driving as a luxury they can't afford if they want to be able to afford their mortgage payment and food.

7/3/2008 9:39:32 PM

Bicycles cannot safely maintain the prevailing speed of most roads, therefore, they should not be allowed on roads. Keep them to the sidewalks, if at all. Personally, I say tax them, add insurance, so people stop using them altogether.

7/6/2008 7:24:19 AM

^

7/6/2008 8:02:14 AM

Quote :

"Keep them to the sidewalks, if at all."

After that, then you'll be complaining:
"Pedestrians cannot safely maintain the prevailing speed of most sidewalks, therefore, they should not be allowed on sidewalks. Keep them on the grass, if at all."

7/6/2008 9:53:34 AM

Quote :

"Keep them to the sidewalks"

i repeat

Quote :

"Keep them to the sidewalks"

if its not clear

Quote :

"Keep them to the sidewalks"

btw, why is it illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk anyways....its not like there isnt enough room to ride a bike and have others walking on the sidewalk

7/6/2008 9:55:17 AM

How about go get on a bike, ride 25 mph down the sidewalks, and report back after you've crashed out or smashed some unsuspecting walker and get a lawsuit on your hands.

I give it 2-3 weeks if you ride every day.

7/6/2008 12:45:23 PM

if i decide to ride my bike, AND if i decide to take off the brakes, i'll let you know

7/6/2008 12:50:20 PM

Also let me know when you become un-retarded.

7/6/2008 2:00:21 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=514471&page=2#11775961


as soon as i stop loling at this i will, lol

7/6/2008 2:01:23 PM

single width sidewalk + running one way + stupid ass on a bike going 20mph the other way = what happened to me the other day

7/7/2008 1:03:11 PM