one less bike...

Badgers, Packers, Mallards. Paddling, running, golfing. And bikes!
fennel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3426
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: one less bike...

Postby fennel » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:08 pm

Maeve wrote:Every time I see this post it invokes "One Less Bell to Answer" by the 5th Dimension. If you're young enough to remember that, you can thank me later. Or not.

Oh yeah. And unfortunately, that song is no longer a useful point of reference for explaining to learners of English the exception to "fewer" when used with count nouns. ("Three fewer ducks," "two fewer ducks," but "one less duck.")

It's one of those WTF? moments, but language is all about exceptions …

Comrade
Forum Addict
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am
Contact:

Re: one less bike...

Postby Comrade » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:58 pm

Anyhoo, back to the original poster, I have absolutely no sympathy for you whatsoever. You deserved what you got. Moreover, I congratulate you on reaching the correct conclusion that you give up the bike.

You clearly think that you are above the law and that the rules don't apply to you. That is a pretty clear indication that a bike is too much responsibility for you and you can't handle it.

You need to stick with walking or riding the bus or getting a ride from mommy or daddy.

fennel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3426
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: one less bike...

Postby fennel » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:12 pm

Comrade wrote:You clearly think that you are above the law and that the rules don't apply to you. That is a pretty clear indication that a bike is too much responsibility for you and you can't handle it.

You need to stick with walking or riding the bus or getting a ride from mommy or daddy.

Thank You, Comrade Talibani! Your mercy in not suggesting s/he have a hand cut off was most generous!

It's true we have to reckon with the law as it's written – at a given moment – but we could generously suppose that what the poster was trying to get at is that traffic laws regarding bicyclists are perversely antiquated. Bikes are not the same as cars; cars are not the same as city buses; city buses are not the same as double-trailer gravel trains. The fact that those legislators who drafted the current laws were not terribly cognizant of these differences is, perhaps, understandable, given the historical context. I mean, really, in those days it was common to see a boom mike creeping into the top of the frame in nationally-distributed Sci-Fi thrillers!

Bad Gradger
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: one less bike...

Postby Bad Gradger » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:53 pm

fennel wrote:It's true we have to reckon with the law as it's written – at a given moment – but we could generously suppose that what the poster was trying to get at is that traffic laws regarding bicyclists are perversely antiquated.

True, and I'm all for interpreting the rules in such a way as to take into account the differences between cars and bikes, such as allowing bikes to roll through stop signs if the rider slows to a safe speed and actually looks for traffic. But State gets the most bike cops for a very good reason: they are the fastest vehicles on that street, and many cyclists treat it like a freeway. The OP says he likes to ride "hard and fast," which suggests to me he took the turn onto Lake with barely a sideways glance and no brakes at all, like I've seen many other "hard and fast" riders do at that corner. The ones who think "bike-friendly" means they don't have to give a shit about the cars and pedestrians.

I suppose this is a question for Walter: Does MPD ticket a bike for anything less than a full stop, or do you exercise some discretion?

fennel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3426
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: one less bike...

Postby fennel » Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:06 pm

Yep. The State Street area is certainly interesting. I think of it as the rare instance of a downtown area given over to heavy trucks, but I've also been nearly T-Boned by wanton fixie missiles on several occasions when trying to cross the street. Fixies in city traffic are like vuvuzelas in a discussion. It's B-flat or nothing.

Comrade
Forum Addict
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am
Contact:

Re: one less bike...

Postby Comrade » Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:48 pm

Fennel, I was purposely a bit harsh on him in a vain attempt to make a point, and I see that you got it.

Regardless of legitimate discussions about how and what laws to change, we cannot take it on ourselves to decide what we will abide by in a civilized society. That simply leads to anarchy. You want it changed, then talk about changing it, but you still have to obey it in the meanwhile--or face the consequences. That is true for ALL of us--including the poster.

I would be equally as harsh on someone who arbitrarily decided that he was a good driver and somehow entitled to run stop signs in his car.

Crockett
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1206
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:37 am

Re: one less bike...

Postby Crockett » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:30 pm

Comrade wrote:I would be equally as harsh on someone who arbitrarily decided that he was a good driver and somehow entitled to run stop signs in his car.


That's like saying you'd be equally as harsh on someone who murders someone. The law (thankfully) takes into account a crime's cost to society. Example: first degree murder is worse than speeding.

As such, the cost to society of a bike running a stop sign is FAR less than a car running a stop sign; and thus should be treated differently.

Why is this so hard?

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3526
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: one less bike...

Postby jman111 » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:41 pm

Crockett wrote: ...the cost to society of a bike running a stop sign is FAR less than a car running a stop sign; and thus should be treated differently.

I'm curious- how can you make this statement with such certainty? I think the "cost to society" would depend on the outcome or consequences of the action. If a car breezes through a stop sign and hits nothing, is the cost actually greater than if a bike breezes through and kills a pedestrian?

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7709
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: one less bike...

Postby rabble » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:15 pm

jman111 wrote:
Crockett wrote: ...the cost to society of a bike running a stop sign is FAR less than a car running a stop sign; and thus should be treated differently.

I'm curious- how can you make this statement with such certainty? I think the "cost to society" would depend on the outcome or consequences of the action. If a car breezes through a stop sign and hits nothing, is the cost actually greater than if a bike breezes through and kills a pedestrian?

I think a better question is "What is the cost if a bike breezes through a stop sign, hits a car and kills himself, thus putting a law-abiding conscientious driver through seven different kinds of hell?"

Which has already happened at least once that I can remember. That guy who ran the sign on the cap city trail last year, broadsided a car driven by someone new to the area who was driving under the speed limit, and cracked his head on the pavement. He got what he deserved.

The people in the car did not. I'm just fine with giving out gazillions of tickets to otherwise nice people for running stop signs on their bikes if there's a chance it will cause fewer people to give other people nightmares for the rest of their lives.

Crockett
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1206
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:37 am

Re: one less bike...

Postby Crockett » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:17 pm

jman111 wrote:I think the "cost to society" would depend on the outcome or consequences of the action. If a car breezes through a stop sign and hits nothing, is the cost actually greater than if a bike breezes through and kills a pedestrian?


Ummm...ok, here goes...given the consequences of either a car or a bike hitting a ped, we as a society should more rigorously punish the car since a car is more likely to cause death. Get it?

Crockett
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1206
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:37 am

Re: one less bike...

Postby Crockett » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:22 pm

rabble wrote:I'm just fine with giving out gazillions of tickets to otherwise nice people for running stop signs on their bikes if there's a chance it will cause fewer people to give other people nightmares for the rest of their lives.


So we need the law to protect us against ourselves...right. I don't think that's the way it normally works (besides suicide...which is BS too).

And if a bike hits your car and you're not at fault why would you go through 'hell'? Its not your fault and there's probably nothing you could have done about it.

Would you go through hell if someone came to your house and jumped off your roof?

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7709
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: one less bike...

Postby rabble » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:39 pm

Crockett wrote:So we need the law to protect us against ourselves...right. I don't think that's the way it normally works (besides suicide...which is BS too).

It ain't a new law, genius.
Crockett wrote:And if a bike hits your car and you're not at fault why would you go through 'hell'? Its not your fault and there's probably nothing you could have done about it.

Would you go through hell if someone came to your house and jumped off your roof?

If I watched them jump? Yeah. Along with all the legal crap I'm going to go through, I just watched someone die before my eyes.

You're saying if you watch someone kill themselves in front of you, you're going to be just fine?

That explains a lot.

Exploding Pinto
Forum Addict
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:09 pm

Re: one less bike...

Postby Exploding Pinto » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:42 pm

rabble wrote:He got what he deserved.


You don't really mean this, do you?

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7709
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: one less bike...

Postby rabble » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Exploding Pinto wrote:
rabble wrote:He got what he deserved.


You don't really mean this, do you?

Maybe not.

That is what I would say about myself, if I was looking down at my own dead body if I had done what he did, but I should probably only judge myself that harshly.

That being said, who's fault do you think it was?

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3526
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: one less bike...

Postby jman111 » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:47 pm

Crockett wrote:Ummm...ok, here goes...given the consequences of either a car or a bike hitting a ped, we as a society should more rigorously punish the car since a car is more likely to cause death. Get it?

So, it's not the actual running of the stop sign, but the odds of a detrimental consequence, that should determine punishment? Then why should anyone be punished for running stop signs if no accident or injury occurs? Why not just punish for negative consequences? (No harm, no foul)


Return to “Sports, Recreation & Biking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests