GrouchoWretch

Clearly, I didn't write any such thing.

Are you saying that King George III played croquet with Karl Marx?

If it's legal to ride a bike down I-80, I must admit that I was unaware of it, which is why I prefaced the remark with AFAIK. Thanks for the information. No thanks for the other thing, but nice try.

GrouchoWretch

So I wasn't completely insane to acknowledge that freeways might be a different story.

But ILTB would never pass up a chance to verbally abuse someone who mildly disagreed with him.

Tempted to join our lawyer friend who went Out.

CB HI

You were off somewhere at the time TNbikemom posted. She had a daughter that did not like riding the school bus and wanted to cycle to school. Mom reviewed a safe route to school and taught her daughter the route and safe riding. One day cop pulls kid over (even though kid did not break any laws), loads kid in cruiser taking her back home and demands Mom not allow kid to ride to school or be arrested. Police Chief doubles down by threatening to report case to child welfare and have kids taken away.

After Mom refused to back down, cops did call child welfare in. At least child welfare said there was nothing for them to do after a couple of visits to the home. Police Chief never did back down as of last posting.

Stealthammer

Actually I was agreeing with you and indicating the what you were saying about bicycle being allowed on some CA freeways was just going right over GrouchoWrench's head, not yours. Sorry for any confusion.

I lived in CA for most of my life and I am quite aware that there are sections of freeway that are open to cyclists and one of them is, or at least was years ago, on the 15N just above the 10, at the base of Cajon Pass heading toward Las Vegas. When riding to Wrightwood from Etiwanda we would alway have to ride that section and I remember being passed by cars doing 80-85mph even in the Tricky Dick 55mph years.

There were also sections just north of Santa Rosa when I lived there that were open for a least a few years because there were "no alternate routes" (the key term in most cases). That same law exists in most states and I know I legally rode on the freeway in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado back in the '70s, '80s, and '90s.

You don't say! But we were already aware that you were unaware thank you......

No, you were wrong.

"Of the more than 4,000 miles of freeways in California, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists. These open sections are usually in rural areas where there is no alternate route."

dynodonn 

The very last post from TNbikemom was that her situation was not going well, could not post anymore details, and hasn't been heard from since. If you can find any of her posts, do share, but I can no longer find her in the BF directory.

Chicago Al 

One wonders what the real story was with 'TNbikemom.' Google ('bike mom Tennessee') reveals her real name, and shows countless websites and blogs referring to this incident, all over the political spectrum, from those who called it 'nanny state-ism' to those calling it 'typical Red state' and posts from other countries as well, but all quoting from the same few primary sources..then the blogs mostly quote each other. A Tennesee bike blog seems to have gotten directly involved, setting up meetings with local officials.

But nowhere is there any additional information after early September, 2011.

So it looks like we'll never know, as that stentorian old announcer used to say, 'the rest of the story.'

However that won't satisfy anyone's agenda, so by all means, go ahead and speculate.

GrouchoWretch

Been there.

I don't buy this.

Even a poor kitchen worker can scrounge up some kind of reflector for his bike. Or ten bucks for a cheap blinky. I even happen to be bffs with a poor kitchen worker in a tiny town. He lives in a crappy trailer that my wife and I got for him. He commutes by bike and does not ride without lights. So thanks for trying to make this about me being a mean old classist who hates poor people, but that so doesn't wash, it's not even funny.

Since posting what you quoted there, I've come around to the view that it's 100% the motorist's fault when a cyclist is hit from the rear and been flamed for that too. I posted that freeways might be a different story and been flamed for that as well. I have yet to find a position on anything in this subforum that will not get a person flamed by somebody just as self-righteously as you've done here. Nice work you are accomplishing.

GrouchoWretch

So on 3/4 of California freeways, what I said was true. You may not cycle on them.

On the remaining 1/4, you are required to cycle on the shoulder, which is quite unlike the rule for surface roads.

So I needed to be flamed for saying freeways are different.

They are in fact different.

Some of you can't seem to see the difference between "there are significant exceptions" and "you are completely wrong and a dooshbag assclown."

Nice.

GrouchoWretch

AFAIK you are not bothering to distinguish between freeways and arterial surface roads.

I said freeways.

Now, it's true I didn't know you were allowed to ride on the freeway shoulder under certain circumstances. Bikes are only prohibited absolutely from freeways most of the time and from the travel lanes of freeways at all times. Clearly, that makes me an idiot. In my defense, I thought I was just conceding an uncontroversial point someone else made.

I'm glad we are having such a constructive dialogue.

I-Like-To-Bike

Yes you wrote "freeways"

And you followed up with "At freeway speeds, no driver can steer or stop. He can only aim or slow down. "

"Freeway" speeds are legal on many roads that are not called freeways.

The point is what difference does it make to a cyclist if the road is or is not called a "freeway", if "freeway" speeds are legal on the roads that bicyclists are allowed?

CB HI

Since no one here has engaged in any speculation on the outcome, your final statement is a pointless troll. Pretty much spoiled the rest of the post.

GrouchoWretch

That's a good question. I can't think of much difference that it would make. 65 mph is aiming and not steering whether you're on a surface road or a freeway. Personally I think that's too fast for a surface road, but I'm told that my plan to make everyone drive golf carts is impractical. So I'm out of ideas.

CB HI

The BikeMomTn thread
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...uot-versus-Law

Stealthammer

Sorry, but I don't remember flaming you "for saying freeways are different", or saying that "you are completely wrong and a dooshbag assclown.", and I do infact agree with you "there are significant exceptions" regarding freeways, but the OP never implied that this incident occurred on a freeway, so your points were completely irrelevant to the original discussion. You simply found a very specific outlying exception to the general discussion that was not only irrelevant to the described situation, but then you proceeded to make absurd and non-sensical comments that you could not possibly support. Examples of these comments are listed below:

1. .....Because motorists cannot be relied upon to meet their responsibility, a cyclist might choose to put lights on his bike, in order to make his presence more conspicuous to lazy, reckless, unvigilant motorists, so that they might avoid hitting him despite their negligence. It is not the cyclist's duty to do so, but if he thinks it might reduce the odds of getting smashed by a car, then the decision to put lights on his bike is a hurpadurp.

2. .....If a motorist hits him from behind, it is the motorist's fault, 100%, with or without bike lights and under all driving conditions. This is the diametric opposite of our lawyer friend's contention that if this occurs in the dark, and the cyclist has not assisted motorists in their duty by adding lights to his bike, it is 100% the cyclist's fault......

3. .....AFAIK, cyclists are everywhere expressly prohibited from operating on any road that we would call a freeway, and there are usually posted minimum speeds in the neighborhood of 45 mph.....

4. .....At freeway speeds, no driver can steer or stop. He can only aim or slow down. There can't exist a duty to do the impossible. So bikes aren't allowed on the freeway.....

5. .....If it's legal to ride a bike down I-80, I must admit that I was unaware of it.....


If you feel like a "dooshbag assclown", the blame rests entirely on you.


Ride Safe! ...... ...........and use a light at night.

dynodonn 

Ok, I had her user name wrong, but still her last post was in October 2011, and she hasn't logged on under that user name in a year.

GrouchoWretch

Well that would be because I was responding not to the OP but to another poster, whom I quoted, who asked me directly what about this thing that happened ON A FREEWAY. Who appointed you to the office of Relevance Sherrif anyway? Isn't that a pretty flimsy reason to ridicule another forum member? Or is any reason good enough? What point are you trying to make anyway? Because I can't even tell through the fog of sarcasm and judgement. Never mind. Kindly save your verbal abuse for someone else.

CB HI

I only found it from a link on BikePortland.

Bah Humbug

That's tragic. It doesn't, however, change someone's responsibility to maintain their vehicle in safe working order. I'd include lights on one used at night in that. Riding with unsafe brakes because you can't afford new pads isn't ok either.

Bah Humbug

I would find it hilarious if you got the job of actually implementing your golf cart plan. How old are you?