Phil replies(The person who wrote this is an idiot. I find it particularlt troublesome when an organization such as the NMA feels that speeding, drunk driving and running red lights should not be enforced. Then the print an article like this one where they call for tickets for UNSAFE driving and require the ticket recipient to undergo a DMV evaluation that includes a re-test of basic skills and knowledge. Requiring this evaluation and retest based soley upon the reciept of the citation violates the driver’s right to due process(I thought the NMA fought for the rights of all north American motorists) yet in an article they published it is implied that this can be circumvented.)

Quote from article((I’m not talking race car driver skill levels — or insisting upon visual acuity good enough to make it as an airline pilot. But enough skill — and good enough vision — to be a competent driver and less of a risk to others out there, as well as oneself.

We need to weed out the barely marginal (and sub-marginal) drivers out there; often, these are people who never speed — and so fly under the radar.))

Phil replies(Apparently this person has never read any of the studies that link higher speeds with higher crash rates and/or higher risk of injury and fatality. Likely the author of this article is a road rage driver complaining about the driving of everyone around them all because traffic is heavy enough that he can’t speed all the way home.)

Quote from article((Until they cause an accident, of course. At that point, red flags should be hoisted.

If a driver who has already been involved in one at-fault accident has another at-fault accident within a 5 year period, their driving privileges should be suspended until they have taken and passed (at their expense) a comprehensive driver training course that intensively focuses on basic skills/competence. ))

Phil replies(Since the at fault drivers are more times than not the speeding drivers then we should be pre-emptive and suspend thier driving privileges after the second speeding citation and return it after they have completed a course on how to read the words “Speed Limit” and how to count high enough to know where the 65mph mark is on the speedometer(and we should make this at thier expense).

Quote from the article((If they cannot pass, they cannot drive.))

OK if the speeders can’t pass the course they don’t get thier driving privileges back.

Quote from the article((A third at fault accident in any five year period should result in permanent revocation of driving privileges for at least five years.))

Phil replies(A third speeding violation should yield the same results)

Quote from the article((Some people should just take the bus.))

Phil replies(I agree anyone who habitually breaks any traffic law should have to use the bus. This includes habitual speeders, redlight runners, stop sign runners and DUIs. Imagine we could do away with speed enforcement, redlight cameras and the use of the breathalyzer all by making these law breakers take the bus.)

Quote from the article((But it’ll never happen because of the money and power derived from the current system — and because this country is afflicted with an entitlement mentality and poisoned by the notion that everyone’s “equal.”))

Phil replies(I agree that the country is afflicted with an entitlement mentality. Just take this author for example he feels he is entitled to drive above the speed limit without suffering retribution but would impose severe retribution for other drivers who apparently annoy him. This author goes as far as to condemn the Constitution of the US and the equality of Americans under the law. What’s next buddy are we going to decide based upon skin color or religion who can use the highways and who can’t?)

One subtle thing: There are sensible improvements possible in both infrastructure and the (motor)vehicle code which both suffer from a motorists bias. Traffic rules written with virtual ignorance of the physics of bicycling. One size fits all rules equally applied to motorists and bicyclist don’t always make total sense. And, I point to Idaho Vehicle code 49-720 as wise example of good sense.

I also argue that the laws (and road infrastructure) should be designed from the perspective of all; pedestrians, bicyclist and motorists.

For instance, much of the grief comes from the fact that the lanes on typical roads are substandard width, not designed to accommodate both bicycles and motor vehicles. Yet the bicyclists get blamed for the roads being too narrow to safely use without taking the full lane, it is the highway planners at fault.

While the law says bicyclists and motorists have equal rights, the planners favored motorists and ignored bicyclists.

A little known fact of history: The original vehicle code that started the process that grew into the state vehicle code system that makes motoring possible was “The New York Law 1887, Chapter 704: ‘An Act in Relation to the Use of Bicycles and Tricyles’”.

Similar for the political lobby movement that lead to the creation of the paved roads system in America, it was originally driven by the The League of American Wheelmen in the 1880’s (now called the League of American Bicyclists). The horseless carriages came a decade later and got started making use of the paved bicycle roads.

Motorists actually have bicyclists to thank for the start of their movement.

I agree with any bikers that MANY drivers (I’d like to think I am not one of them) simply don’t pay enough attention, and are certainly idiots on the road. Fact is, I fear for an accident whether I’m in my car OR on my motorcycle… because most drivers really aren’t paying enough attention to DRIVING.

The problem is that it’s easier to blame the minority (bikers) than the majority who is just being ignorant. That needs to change.

I was thrilled to hear, the other day, that a person who stopped on the onramp of a highway was finally blamed for causing the accident, even though they were rear-ended. We can only hope that continued change in this more intelligent direction will continue, for everyone’s benefit. I feel that the article here is trying to imply this very line of thought, and for that I agree with what is stated in the article. There are always exceptions, and I think the biker-accident (or any death, for that matter) is one of them. But as in my rear-ended onramp-stopper example, I think the statement in the article applies 100%.

@Randy – Stop being a troll. Try understanding what is being said here on the site before blabbering on about how it’s all about breaking laws.

It wasn’t just me. Several people here say they don’t feel safe bicycling on roads because the risk that motorists will kill them. Heck, you just threatened to kill my “pretentious spandex-clad ass” if I get in your way. Fact: About one bicyclist is killed by an inattentive motorist every day.

The article advocates for speeding. I mentioned that speeding makes the roads a death trap for cyclists, that is on topic.

(I just re-re-read the article and there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of anything having to do with bicycles, bicycle riders, or not driving into them.)

I am both a motorist and a biker. You hate me one day, and not the next. Your co-workers, neighbors, church parishioners, family members also are bicyclists at times too. How do you keep all your hate straighten out?

This thread typifies the attitude of riders who seem to think they have some rights to the road afforded no other.

A bike rider falls into some netherworld of part pedestrian and part vehicle which means no rules.

Cyclists ride on the sidewalk–or on the road–whichever place they feel they have more right to at any given time. They don’t stop for signals or signs and they will literally taunt drivers by deliberately impeding traffic.

In one instance, a cyclist kicked the side of my car and flipped me off while I waited at stop light that he rode right through.

Tell you what bikers, you keep your pretentious spandex-clad ass from in front of my car and I won’t drive over it. Deal?