Re:Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident
by dllthomas on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @03:37PM
(#6014822)
What exception makes "barring interstates" okay but not "barring roads with a speed limit >X"? Not saying I necessarily disagree, just trying to understand your reasoning.
Re:Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident
by sequoia on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @04:13PM
(#6015106)
One possibility: Interstates are big roads that make it faster to get somewhere you could get on another road if you didn't mind going slower. Some (esp. rural) roads with 45+mph speed limits are the only way to get somewhere, therefor bikes need access. Anyway I'm also just waxing; I don't know the exact laws and surely there are exceptions- generally speaking "all but Interstate" seems like a reasonable thumbrule.
Re:Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident
by koenigdavidmj on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @03:48PM
(#6014912)
There are places not accessible by roads with bike-accessible speed limits. Those are much more common than places not accessible except by interstate. (Incidentally, biking on the shoulder of the interstate is permissible in my state, with the occasional exception of some cities and bridges without shoulders.)
Re:Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident
by dllthomas on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @03:59PM
(#6014989)
I'm not sure I follow the thrust of your comment.
I am interested in why sequoia asserts that it's correct (or at least permissible) to prohibit bicycles from interstates but a violation of rights to prohibit them from other roads. The fact that bicycles are not prohibited from all interstates seems somewhat orthogonal...
Re:Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident
by sequoia on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @04:39PM
(#6015290)
I think it's reasonable to designate certain very-high-speed roads as "car only" when there are reasonable alternative routes for bikes. If there's a destination you can only get to by interstate I'd say "allow bikes." I'm a biker and strongly pro bike-rights but I recognize that certain exceptions are reasonable for safety & expediency. :)
Re:Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident
by dllthomas on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @04:50PM
(#6015384)
So hypothetically, you wouldn't object (on "rights" grounds) if there were a non-interstate that was labeled no-bikes when there were plenty of alternate routes to everywhere serviced by that thoroughfare. Sounds reasonable to me.
Re:Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident
by mmatants on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @03:39PM
(#6014839)
Minor nitpick: bicycling also endangers lives. And even though it doesn't happen often, reckless cycling habits may endanger motorists' lives too (by e.g. causing swerving through unpredictable behaviour). I say that as someone who commutes to work by bike.
Re:Seth Vidal, creator of yum, killed in hit and run accident
by anigbrowl on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @08:06PM
(#6016539)
you're not endangering peoples' lives
This is regrettably untrue. There are far fewer deaths from bicyclists, of course, but if you google you'll see that there's about one a year. Although I'm pro-cycling I have to say I particularly dislike that segment of cycling community which seems to have the attitude that they not only have right of way at all times against cars, but also against pedestrians; I have had far more near-misses from careless or rule-breaking cyclists than with cars.
Driving a motor vehicle does endanger peoples' lives, so we (society) decided you don't have the "right" to do it, but you can be granted the privilege to do so pretty easily provided you have the $$ for administrative fees & can pass a test demonstrating basic competency.
Your question is totally reasonable, but I think it's fair to say one has a "right" to bike on public roads (barring interstates) but not a "right" to drive on public roads as this requires a license & is subject to many strict regulations.