Results 1 to 98 of 98
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,963

    What's "the law" about sharing a road with a roadie

    I'm going down the loooong hill on 93 going north, down towards the light at the turnoff to Eldorado Springs Blvd. There's always a roadie there doing maybe 35 where us drivers are doing 55. There's inches to spare to the biker who's hugging the white line on the right, there's loads of traffic in the other lane going the other direction (south) so it's not like we can all go into the other lane to give the roadie some mythical "law defined" space.

    So, what's the law? Is passing this rider with not really much clearance OK? If the guy hits a rut and swerves in front of me am I technically at fault? Hope it doesn't happen but someone has mentioned that "the law" requires I give this rider some law-defined space for him to swerve around obstacles. Two things are for sure in that scenario: he'll ram into me or somebody else and he'll be in a world of hurt.

    No one is more considerate of a biker on the road than I am but the last thing on my mind was slowing down to give this guy some space if I can't go into the other lane to do so.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  2. #2
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    The rule is three feet. Lanes are a minimum of 12 feet wide in general. Surprisingly your car is actually about half if it. Even if your car was 8 feet wide, you still can hug the center line and give the cyclist clearance--assuming they are not in the lane.

    Funny, you always see a roadie.... of the 300 times I have driven that road, I have maybe seen three. You have bad luck.

    93 is a dangerous road for cars....to ride bikes there is like skydiving we a poorly packed chute and no backup.

  3. #3
    trail waggler
    Reputation: daveM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,425

    If they're in...

    Your crosshairs, 'punch it'...

    J/K, just wait for them to finish their text, 'sent from their iPhone..."
    MY dog can lick YOUR dog!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    352

    Oh come on...

    Have you no common sense? Don't buzz the guy, don't hit the guy. How hard can that be?

  5. #5
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,306
    Im not sure but im thinking we need a 2 page thread on it.

  6. #6
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,551
    It depends on whether he's wearing Lycra or not.

  7. #7
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    Tough crowd.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,111
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckred
    Have you no common sense? Don't buzz the guy, don't hit the guy. How hard can that be?
    +1 for common sense; why was this question even posed?

    I don't care how considerate you might be. Without application of common sense, best intentions can kill people just as fast as any other d!psh!t moves.
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( º.º )╭∩╮

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,963
    Funny how the morning after I start this thread there's a front page story in The Post about the 3' rule. OK, my car is just over 6' wide. Let's say I don't really have an opportunity to hug the left line 'cause there's a line of cars doing the same coming the other direction. At 55 mph. I'd sure like to clear them by as much as I can, a head-on being a poor way to start the day.

    Now we've got the roadie trying to hold his line let's say a foot from the right white stripe. My 6'+, my 2' clearance of the white stripe on my left (hold your hands in front of you 2' apart, not much is it?), the roadie's swerving side to side with some maniacal grin on his face ("boy, I feel so alive!"). OK, technically he's got his 3'. But it sure doesn't allow for much error on his part which is my whole point.

    Slight miscalculation=death just seems a weird way to approach a Saturday morning ride.
    But then I've never had the roadie's desire to ride in heavy fast moving traffic.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,127

    hmm...

    I ride that stretch on my road bike all the time, same direction. Probably close to 20 years now. And I drive it 5 days a week home from work. It is not that difficult. Really. There is generally plenty of room to pass as a driver. If there is a lot of traffic coming the other way, just slow down a little bit until you have a window, then give the cyclist 3 feet. As a cyclist I have never been buzzed of scared by a driver. I avoid that route during morning rush hour coming in to Boulder because of the volume--(and because I am usually on my way to work) just makes sense, but otherwise no problem.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy
    Funny how the morning after I start this thread there's a front page story in The Post about the 3' rule. OK, my car is just over 6' wide. Let's say I don't really have an opportunity to hug the left line 'cause there's a line of cars doing the same coming the other direction. At 55 mph. I'd sure like to clear them by as much as I can, a head-on being a poor way to start the day.

    Now we've got the roadie trying to hold his line let's say a foot from the right white stripe. My 6'+, my 2' clearance of the white stripe on my left (hold your hands in front of you 2' apart, not much is it?), the roadie's swerving side to side with some maniacal grin on his face ("boy, I feel so alive!"). OK, technically he's got his 3'. But it sure doesn't allow for much error on his part which is my whole point.

    Slight miscalculation=death just seems a weird way to approach a Saturday morning ride.
    But then I've never had the roadie's desire to ride in heavy fast moving traffic.
    I'm pretty sure that if you don't believe you can give the cyclist the required 3 feet, and you can't push further to the left due to oncoming traffic, then you must slow down and follow the cyclist at his speed until you have a safe opportunity to pass. There is no law requiring vehicles (or bikes) to maintain the speed limit. I am fairly certain there are no minimum speed requirements on that stretch of road. It is possible for the cyclist to be charged with impeding traffic if the regular flow of traffic is moving much faster than the cyclist and the cyclist does not pull over to allow the impeded traffic an opportunity to pass...although, I am skeptical the police would charge the cyclist that way in your scenario.

    All things considered, even if you have to follow the cyclist a mile or two at his speed (35 mph) before you have a safe opportunity to pass, the net delay to you is pretty minor. I prefer to just slow down and not risk the cyclist's life or my freedom.

  12. #12
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    interesting precedent set

    i'd be really surprised if some co municipalities don't follow suit in the next year

  13. #13
    t.i.t.s.ceo/FR amoeba rep
    Reputation: PBR me!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,764
    ............
    I'm a cowboy on a steel horse i ride!

    the blog

  14. #14
    Pivot Rider
    Reputation: Yetigirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,088
    I drive 93 almost every day both into then out of Boulder. I have been amazed at the number of roadies I see on this stretch of road and have come to the conclusion that most of these riders must have a death wish. There is no friggin way I'd ride into work on this road! I've seen several close calls as the cars pass the slower cyclist and the wind catches the bike just right.... Nor is there a shoulder for the cyclist.

    Technically, there is a 3 ft space given to a cyclist. IMHO, I believe it is now the state (or county's) place to provide the space of safety without endangering either the car traffic or the cyclist. This stretch of road has generated long debates regarding the need for a bike path or bike lane. Interesting that nothing has been done as yet....
    Dirt Divas website l Twitter: @thedirtdivas l Facebook

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbklutz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    No one is more considerate of a biker on the road than I am but the last thing on my mind was slowing down to give this guy some space if I can't go into the other lane to do so.
    Huh?

    Just slow down and wait 30 seconds until it's safe to pass. Don't buzz the guy and worry less about the legalities of a potential accident and more about avoiding one in the first place. My fault or not, I know how I'd feel if I killed a cyclist or anyone for that matter. For what it's worth I think 93 desperately needs a bath path.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by KarateChicken View Post
    interesting precedent set

    i'd be really surprised if some co municipalities don't follow suit in the next year
    Can I still yell "get off the road Armstrong" to the Touron De France season roadies?

    Good thing they think there's only one race a year.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,963
    Hey, I didn't dredge up my old thread. The situation that prompted this thread originally was: traffic was stacked up behind me, we're all doing 55, we all come up on this roadie hugging the white line, I'm in front. It seems like he's kinda wobbling back and forth and I sure wanted to get over to the left, cross the yellow line. We're heading down that long hill, going north, with Marshall Mesa on our right.

    But, no, here comes a solid line of traffic coming the other way and they're hugging the yellow line. I'm not gonna ram on my brakes to slow down to this guy's 35 mph with everyone on my azz. So I pass the wobbling roadie at 55 with maybe 12 inches to spare. I chose not to get any more left because I decided wiping out this roadie with a death wish trumped me clipping the fenders of the oncoming traffic. Split decision.

    Maybe I had more room to get over to the left, maybe I passed him closer or farther away than 12 inches. The situation presented itself and was over with in about 3 seconds. Glad nobody got hurt. I wonder if he really felt safe riding that road. I wonder if he ever thinks about his safety. I wonder if I'd have gotten a ticket if he'd wobbled over into my path? I wonder why this thread was bumped back up.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  18. #18
    3nf
    3nf is offline
    Aphonopelma Coloradanum
    Reputation: 3nf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    188
    I think elderly drivers holding up traffic in the canyons are a bigger problem than the occasional roadie (it isn't hard to safely pass roadies). Maybe we should be able to perform a pit maneuver when old people are blocking traffic.

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    Maybe I had more room to get over to the left, maybe I passed him closer or farther away than 12 inches. I wonder why this thread was bumped back up.
    look a few posts up
    buzzing a cyclist in the manner you describe could be considered harassment
    this thread was resurrected with a topical post

    if you buzzed me like that and i caught up with you, the cops would be the least of your worries

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,963
    Quote Originally Posted by KarateChicken View Post
    look a few posts up
    buzzing a cyclist in the manner you describe could be considered harassment
    this thread was resurrected with a topical post

    if you buzzed me like that and i caught up with you, the cops would be the least of your worries
    If you put yourself in a similar position to get "buzzed" like that you need to go see a shrink now about your own death wish before it's too late. I dunno, death by traffic must sound cool to guys like you. At least you'll die knowing you're right, that's all that matters yeah?
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  21. #21
    Thread Terrorist
    Reputation: IndecentExposure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,854
    Chicken dude, are you dredging up year old posts just to rekindle a dead debate? I thinks you need to go ride more.
    Golden Bike Park Group

    Peak Cycles Gravity Team & Bikeparts.com
    Trestle Bike Park

  22. #22
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,361
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: inkpad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by KarateChicken View Post
    look a few posts up
    buzzing a cyclist in the manner you describe could be considered harassment
    this thread was resurrected with a topical post

    if you buzzed me like that and i caught up with you, the cops would be the least of your worries
    Ease up internet tough guy, your last name Lesnar? I doubt anyone on this board would intentionally buzz another cyclist, but there are times, more than not, when I see road riders in dangerous situations / traffic areas riding on or over the white line with no regard to what is going on around them or taking into consideration that MAYBE the next car in line coming at them at 55 is a 85 year old who gets too spooked to move over &.....well. Just saying, it's both parties responsibility to watch out for each other, car & biker.

    Now, time to crack another beer & head to da pool

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    I'm going down the loooong hill on 93 going north, down towards the light at the turnoff to Eldorado Springs Blvd. There's always a roadie there doing maybe 35 where us drivers are doing 55. There's inches to spare to the biker who's hugging the white line on the right, there's loads of traffic in the other lane going the other direction (south) so it's not like we can all go into the other lane to give the roadie some mythical "law defined" space.

    So, what's the law? Is passing this rider with not really much clearance OK? If the guy hits a rut and swerves in front of me am I technically at fault? Hope it doesn't happen but someone has mentioned that "the law" requires I give this rider some law-defined space for him to swerve around obstacles. Two things are for sure in that scenario: he'll ram into me or somebody else and he'll be in a world of hurt.

    No one is more considerate of a biker on the road than I am but the last thing on my mind was slowing down to give this guy some space if I can't go into the other lane to do so.
    It doesn't matter what the law is. No don't laugh, I'm serious; if you hit a guy on a bike, and you're in your car or truck, you're going to get sued. I suggest giving them all the room they want.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bike21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Yetigirl View Post
    There is no friggin way I'd ride into work on this road!:
    This. Riding on 93 is just plain dumb. I hate even crossing that road on Community Ditch. I question the sanity of those who choose to ride it same as those who ride down 28th Street in Boulder when there is a perfectly good bike lane that runs parallel.

    I still always give lots of room - even for the dumb ones - but ultimately you can't fix stupid.

  26. #26
    187
    187 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    206
    As someone who has been mountain biking for some time and just started road biking, I can assure you its quite uncomfortable to be on a road with no shoulder. Please just slow down and give the guy some room. Do you really care what the people behind you think? I'm reasonably confident the cyclist would have preferred to be as far away from you as possible. And the wobble comes from the nervous look over the shoulder to see if you are about to be whacked.

  27. #27
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by stinkpad View Post
    Ease up internet tough guy, your last name Lesnar?
    negative, on both counts
    Quote Originally Posted by stinkpad View Post
    I doubt anyone on this board would intentionally buzz another cyclist,
    reading comprehension much? xcwannabe posted up just that, 55 and a foot away is a buzzing
    Quote Originally Posted by stinkpad View Post
    but there are times, more than not, when I see road riders in dangerous situations / traffic areas riding on or over the white line with no regard to what is going on around them
    so, attempting to avoid broken buttweiper bottles and crossing over the sacred cow white line is somehow having no regard to what is going on around them? you also need to read up on the vehicle code, pal
    Quote Originally Posted by stinkpad View Post
    Now, time to crack another beer & head to da pool
    yay for you

  28. #28
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by IndecentExposure View Post
    Chicken dude, are you dredging up year old posts just to rekindle a dead debate? I thinks you need to go ride more.
    i was going to start a new thread about lost angeles leading the way by passing their cycling anti-harassment ordinance, but became incensed that someone who may consider themselves a "cyclist" has such gall and verve to consider their obvious harassment of another cyclist being somehow alright

    my posting of that article is on-topic as far as both this thread and forum go

    believe it or not, there are some people on here who may actually *gasp* ride their bikes on a roadway to get to a trailhead

    besides all of that, starting new threads for evely piddly little piece of news is trite and boring, as well as uber-newbish

  29. #29
    This place is wasteland
    Reputation: guacamole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    308
    +1 KC
    -10000 XCBozo

  30. #30
    t.i.t.s.ceo/FR amoeba rep
    Reputation: PBR me!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,764
    Quote Originally Posted by IndecentExposure View Post
    Chicken dude, are you dredging up year old posts just to rekindle a dead debate? I thinks you need to go ride more.
    nah....15 more and (angels singing)......

    Name:  500.jpg
Views: 640
Size:  10.6 KB
    I'm a cowboy on a steel horse i ride!

    the blog

  31. #31
    Not just famous; infamous
    Reputation: coolhandluchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,073
    Why is this so hard to figure out? A cyclist has the same rights and responsibilities as a motor vehicle, so effectively to other drivers, they are a motor vehicle. So let's look at the original situation a slightly different way:

    I'm going down the loooong hill on 93 going north, down towards the light at the turnoff to Eldorado Springs Blvd. There's always a driver there doing maybe 35 where us drivers are doing 55. There's inches to spare to the driver who's hugging the white line on the right, there's loads of traffic in the other lane going the other direction (south) so it's not like we can all go into the other lane to give the driver some mythical "law defined" space.
    Pretty damn simple isn't it? Whether it's a bike or a car driving 20 mph under the speed limit, it makes no difference. Wait until it's safe to pass, and then pass.

    The unfortunate thing I've noticed with this thread (and others) is that even cyclists don't seem to think that "bikes belong."

  32. #32
    a dad
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,733
    Why would anyone ride a road bike? Last time I checked this was a mountain biking forum?? Moderators, can you move this to the proper forum?
    BBZ

    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin

  33. #33
    flowcus
    Reputation: fcrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    153
    Most true 'cyclists' I know ride the road often, whether it is riding to a trailhead on a mountain bike, commuting to work or school or the store, or riding a <gasp> road bike when the trails are too damn muddy to ride. I too am a bit disappointed that any mountain biker would digress into the non-productive and boring mtb vs. roadie thing. We are ALL cyclists. Debates like this provide fodder for the 'anti-cyclists', who would love to see the roads reserved for their Hummers and SUVs. Lighten up folks and share the road!
    Ok, here's the deal. I have a hangover. Who knows what that means?

  34. #34
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    As for "why" people ride that section of 93, that is a section of the old Morgul-Bismark race (think: American Flyers)... so it's no surprise that there are going to be a steady stream of people riding it, there is a lot history, nostalgia, etc. tied up with that route.

    Of course that makes it even more perplexing as to why Boulder County, CDOT or whomever hasn't done something to make that section of road at least a little bit safer for cyclists and automobiles alike. I absolutely hate driving that section of road, much less riding it.

    And unless you're a volunteer fireman or doctor on your way to save a nursery full of babies, just slow the f*** down for 30 seconds until you can safely pass and spare everyone the drama.

  35. #35
    a dad
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by fcrider View Post
    Most true 'cyclists' I know ride the road often, whether it is riding to a trailhead on a mountain bike, commuting to work or school or the store, or riding a <gasp> road bike when the trails are too damn muddy to ride. I too am a bit disappointed that any mountain biker would digress into the non-productive and boring mtb vs. roadie thing. We are ALL cyclists. Debates like this provide fodder for the 'anti-cyclists', who would love to see the roads reserved for their Hummers and SUVs. Lighten up folks and share the road!
    lighten up Francis, just trying to add a little humor to the thread..
    BBZ

    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin

  36. #36
    Dude...
    Reputation: ebry74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    No one is more considerate of a biker on the road than I am but the last thing on my mind was slowing down to give this guy some space if I can't go into the other lane to do so.
    You can't be the most considerate driver yet not think to slow down. It seems you're contradicting yourself. I know you tend to be a positive contributor to these forums, and I thank you for that, but I don't know about this post. I don't want to judge too harshly, but why was slowing down the last thing on your mind. I would think it would have been the first thing. See biker on road, slow down. Who cares if there are cars on your azz? I'm sure you would have hit the brakes if there was a car going 20mph slower, so why not a biker. If you would have had to slam on the brakes, you probably weren't paying attention. The biker has as much right to be there as you do in your car, which I'm sure you're aware of, regardless if you think he has a death wish. Just slow down and pass safely. It wouldn't have been more than a 30 second inconvenience.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,963
    Quote Originally Posted by ebry74 View Post
    You can't be the most considerate driver yet not think to slow down. It seems you're contradicting yourself. I know you tend to be a positive contributor to these forums, and I thank you for that, but I don't know about this post. I don't want to judge too harshly, but why was slowing down the last thing on your mind. I would think it would have been the first thing. See biker on road, slow down. Who cares if there are cars on your azz? I'm sure you would have hit the brakes if there was a car going 20mph slower, so why not a biker. If you would have had to slam on the brakes, you probably weren't paying attention. The biker has as much right to be there as you do in your car, which I'm sure you're aware of, regardless if you think he has a death wish. Just slow down and pass safely. It wouldn't have been more than a 30 second inconvenience.
    You had to be there. If you think my reaction to that three second encounter was not what you'd consider perfect, think of the non-biker driver who is not, in fact, looking for bikers on the road and, in fact, resents them when they do encounter them. This roadie was putting himself in jeopardy not by folks like me but the other 99% of drivers out there.

    And again, I didn't dredge this thread up, somebody else did. I haven't had an experience like that since then.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  38. #38
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by CombatMutt View Post
    It doesn't matter what the law is. No don't laugh, I'm serious; if you hit a guy on a bike, and you're in your car or truck, you're going to get sued. I suggest giving them all the room they want.
    I'm sorry, but it matters very much what the law is. We are a country of laws, not men. The rule of law is what really distinguishes the United States and a handful of other successful countries from the majority of the countries of the world. If it is not important what the law is, be it the law regarding cyclists using the road or whatever, we as a people and a nation are in a lot of trouble.

    If a lawsuit is initiated, the substantive law matters because the losing side will likely have to pay all of the prevailing side's costs. Also, if the losing side had no substantial justification in it's side of the case, the losing side might also have to pay the prevailing side's attorneys fees. Moreover, if you broke the law, your insurance company won't be too happy and that will affect your rates. Of course, if you don't hurt someone, either intentionally or accidentally, this won't be an issue.

    In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to know the law: http://colobikelaw.com/law.php
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Pabs View Post
    I'm sorry, but it matters very much what the law is. We are a country of laws, not men. The rule of law is what really distinguishes the United States and a handful of other successful countries from the majority of the countries of the world. If it is not important what the law is, be it the law regarding cyclists using the road or whatever, we as a people and a nation are in a lot of trouble.

    If a lawsuit is initiated, the substantive law matters because the losing side will likely have to pay all of the prevailing side's costs. Also, if the losing side had no substantial justification in it's side of the case, the losing side might also have to pay the prevailing side's attorneys fees. Moreover, if you broke the law, your insurance company won't be too happy and that will affect your rates. Of course, if you don't hurt someone, either intentionally or accidentally, this won't be an issue.
    I'm not a lawyer. Everyone of my family members is. Trust me, you hit a bicyclist, it doesn't matter what the law is.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,464
    I read the entire thread and no one pointed out that the speed limit on that stretch of 93 is 45 mph, not 55. Forty-five.

    I've driven that stretch thousands of times, ridden it hundreds.

    I go 40 down that stretch on my bicycle. I have numbnuts pass me in an unsafe manner all the time. You know what? You all suck. It is a ONE mile stretch of road. Since most people are so f*&king stupid these days they can't do math, I'll do it for you:

    One mile at 45 MPH = (60/45) * 60 = 80 seconds.

    One mile at 40 MPH = (60/40) * 60 = 90 seconds.

    TEN SECONDS.

    Even if the rider is riding their brakes and is only going 20, it would cost you an entire one minute and forty seconds. 1:40.

    Chill out. If you get stuck behind a gravel truck leaving the gravel pit on the county line do you make an unsafe pass?

  41. #41
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,923
    There was some organized roadie ride going over Swan Mtn and up Rt 9 today. Made me embarrassed to be a cyclist. A bunch of fat slow pokes in goofy clothes making a point of riding out in the lane instead of on the shoulder. Despite wearing bike clothes while driving to a bike race with a bike in the back of my van I found myself muttering, "F***ing bikers."
    Am I the only roadie who makes it a priority to not impede traffic?
    Keep the Country country.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    521

    ouch that hurt

    Quote Originally Posted by mtbklutz View Post
    Huh?

    Just slow down and wait 30 seconds until it's safe to pass. Don't buzz the guy and worry less about the legalities of a potential accident and more about avoiding one in the first place. My fault or not, I know how I'd feel if I killed a cyclist or anyone for that matter. For what it's worth I think 93 desperately needs a bath path.
    Yea, but if someone is going to ask that question in the first place there is a pretty good chance that you can lump them in the same class as John Q public. (since "roadie, etc" is just as bigoted as what JohnQ does with all athletes/damn bikers on his trail/road every day.)

    ...and also a pretty good chance they haven't quite evolved enough to get it even if you tell them.
    wish I had never opened this thread, some much needed brain cells just died.
    Last edited by glovemtb; 07-25-2011 at 05:03 AM.

  43. #43
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    There was some organized roadie ride going over Swan Mtn and up Rt 9 today. Made me embarrassed to be a cyclist. A bunch of fat slow pokes in goofy clothes making a point of riding out in the lane instead of on the shoulder. Despite wearing bike clothes while driving to a bike race with a bike in the back of my van I found myself muttering, "F***ing bikers."
    Am I the only roadie who makes it a priority to not impede traffic?
    Courage Classic. Great event.

    I'm always glad to see overweight people on bicycles, it means they're out trying to do something about their situation. Events like Courage Classic, RTR, etc provide a great, supportive environment for folks like that to get out and push themselves and maybe change their lives for the better.

    Personally, I don't care what people wear. I'm sure there are people who think your, or mine, or the skater kid down the street wardrobe is silly but so what? You'd like to think folks have better things to occupy their minds with.

    It's not like there wasn't plenty of warning that the event was going on and Swan would be swarming with cyclists for a few hours that day Going around the other side could have easily saved you the aggravation if it was a big deal for you.

  44. #44
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by CombatMutt View Post
    I'm not a lawyer. Everyone of my family members is. Trust me, you hit a bicyclist, it doesn't matter what the law is.
    If you are saying that if you hit a cyclist it "doesn't matter" what the law is to the limited extent that there will be likely some negative consequences for you as the driver, I would perhaps agree. However, in addition to what I said before, the law matters because it forms that background assumptions and leverage for settlement talks to resolve the resulting conflict, with or without a lawsuit. For example, there will likely be fewer consequences for you as the driver if the cyclist was also at fault.

    I apologize, but I don't trust your assertions because you have family members who are attorneys. There are no lawyers in my family except for me, and my family members don't necessarily know anything more about the law simply because I'm in the family. You don't have to trust me, but I would suggest we all take heed from the general thrust of your opinion that we don't injure others. In that we can agree.
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  45. #45
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,923
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    It's not like there wasn't plenty of warning that the event was going on and Swan would be swarming with cyclists for a few hours that day Going around the other side could have easily saved you the aggravation if it was a big deal for you.
    That's not my point. Riding slowly in the lane on Rt 9 could piss off drivers who will later take it out on other riders. It just seems like a simple matter of courtesy and self respect to not force drivers behind you to slow down, whether you're on a bike or in a car. I guess I'm one of the few people who feel this way.
    Keep the Country country.

  46. #46
    Dude...
    Reputation: ebry74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    That's not my point. Riding slowly in the lane on Rt 9 could piss off drivers who will later take it out on other riders. It just seems like a simple matter of courtesy and self respect to not force drivers behind you to slow down, whether you're on a bike or in a car. I guess I'm one of the few people who feel this way.
    This just seems to be the case in organized event type rides. I did E-Rock earlier this year and it was the same thing. It seemed like the slower someone was the further into the middle of the lane they were. I think most of them just get caught up in the "event" and forget all rules of the road, and many of them tend to be inexperienced riders.

    These events don't take place every day though, so I think a little patience is in order.

  47. #47
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    That's not my point. Riding slowly in the lane on Rt 9 could piss off drivers who will later take it out on other riders. It just seems like a simple matter of courtesy and self respect to not force drivers behind you to slow down, whether you're on a bike or in a car. I guess I'm one of the few people who feel this way.
    No, I understand what you're saying and agree in general. When I ride on the road I usually 1) avoid high traffic areas with little or no shoulder and 2) stay as far to the right as practical. I've never been real big on the whole "I have a right to so much space and I'm going to take it" mentality. While I understand the argument and it has some validity, preservation of life and limb takes priority.

    All that said, when there's a big event like the courage classic or RTR on the roads, the dynamic is different - lots more cyclists using the same amount of road. I treat it the same as if I was trying to thread my way through any other large public gathering - with patience and a different set of expectations. Or, as mentioned before, if possible, just avoid that stretch of road tell everyone is through. For instance, when the TBP was coming through this year I was coming back from Denver. Sometimes I like to take the old Hwy and go over Loveland Pass just for the scenic value but knowing the the TBP was on the road I stuck with good old I-70.

  48. #48
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    ...TEN SECONDS.
    Multiply that by 100 cars trying to get down the road and you have gridlock.

    I never buzz a cyclist with a car, even an asshat cyclist, but to the whole "what's you're hurry, just slow down" roadie crowd - you do realize on a busy road it's not just one short slowdown right? I can't count the number of times I've sat in Boulder Canyon stacked 20 cars deep behind a cyclist that doesn't want to use the shoulder. It can take half the drive down before you get up to the position you can pass and if one driver is a tourist you could be stuck the whole way. No, I'm not on my way to save a busload of orphans, but I certainly don't appreciate a bike adding 50% to my commute time just because "they can".. and neither does anyone else.

    Most the time the slower cars figure out to pull over and let the faster traffic by when it stacks up, why can't the cyclists?

  49. #49
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    No one is more considerate of a biker on the road than I am
    I beg to differ, your posts say otherwise. The fact that it's an old thread is irrelevant.

    That's not to say that you are inconsiderate, I don't know you well enough to say that.

    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    I read the entire thread and no one pointed out that the speed limit on that stretch of 93 is 45 mph, not 55. Forty-five.

    I've driven that stretch thousands of times, ridden it hundreds.

    I go 40 down that stretch on my bicycle. I have numbnuts pass me in an unsafe manner all the time. You know what? You all suck. It is a ONE mile stretch of road. Since most people are so f*&king stupid these days they can't do math, I'll do it for you:

    One mile at 45 MPH = (60/45) * 60 = 80 seconds.

    One mile at 40 MPH = (60/40) * 60 = 90 seconds.

    TEN SECONDS.

    Even if the rider is riding their brakes and is only going 20, it would cost you an entire one minute and forty seconds. 1:40.

    Chill out. If you get stuck behind a gravel truck leaving the gravel pit on the county line do you make an unsafe pass?
    Actually, though you sound so certain that it is a 45mph limit, it may very well be 55, not 45. It drops to 45 just before the light, shortly before it becomes two lanes heading north, as I'm sure you well know. Since the OP's post made it clear that there was only one lane going north (and didn't mention the almost immediate widening to 2 lanes), it's unlikely that the speed limit was 45. I'm guessing he mentioned the light at the bottom of the hill to make it clear where this was generally speaking, not to indicate he was at the light.

  50. #50
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,892
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    <snip>
    Most the time the slower cars figure out to pull over and let the faster traffic by when it stacks up, why can't the cyclists?
    It's actually the law. They are supposed to pull over when 5(?) vehicles are behind... something like that.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    I beg to differ, your posts say otherwise. The fact that it's an old thread is irrelevant.

    That's not to say that you are inconsiderate, I don't know you well enough to say that.



    Actually, though you sound so certain that it is a 45mph limit, it may very well be 55, not 45. It drops to 45 just before the light, shortly before it becomes two lanes heading north, as I'm sure you well know. Since the OP's post made it clear that there was only one lane going north (and didn't mention the almost immediate widening to 2 lanes), it's unlikely that the speed limit was 45. I'm guessing he mentioned the light at the bottom of the hill to make it clear where this was generally speaking, not to indicate he was at the light.

    The speed limit becomes 45mph northbound on 93 about 1/4 mi north of the 128/93 intersection and is 45mph all the way down the hill. It has been 45mph for at least 20 years.

  52. #52
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    It's actually the law. They are supposed to pull over when 5(?) vehicles are behind... something like that.
    So if this is true, then legally the OP should have slowed down and then the biker should have pulled off the road.

    Under this law it would be practically impossible to bike that section of 93 at busy times. There is no way you could go more than 100 feet without stacking up 5 cars if they need to wait until they have 3 feet of passing room.

    But of course most roadies will happily ignore that law.

  53. #53
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    The speed limit becomes 45mph northbound on 93 about 1/4 mi north of the 128/93 intersection and is 45mph all the way down the hill. It has been 45mph for at least 20 years.
    Nope. The internet is awesome.

    Here is the 45mph sign as you approach the light at the bottom of the hill, going northbound.

    Here is the 55mph sign, heading northbound on 93 after the 128/93 intersection. It's 55mph all the way down the hill, and has been that way for at least the 11 years I have lived in Boulder.

    Thanks for slowing up traffic by 10mph, jerk. Just kidding, but I do wonder how you could have driven it thousands of times and ridden it hundreds and yet been so sure that the speed limit was only 45.

  54. #54
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    although right now, I'm feeling a little like this:

    Last edited by Bagwhan; 07-25-2011 at 04:24 PM.

  55. #55
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    Most the time the slower cars figure out to pull over and let the faster traffic by when it stacks up, why can't the cyclists?
    What fantasy world do you live in, where slower drivers pull over to let the faster ones go by?
    Last edited by Bagwhan; 07-25-2011 at 04:24 PM.

  56. #56
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    But of course most roadies will happily ignore that law.
    Many bike riders on all kinds of bikes in all kinds of clothing ignore all kinds of traffic laws. However, let's not also forget how many drivers also ignore all kinds of traffic laws. This doesn't forgive bike riders of course, but it's worth noting that drivers are generally not without a plank in their own eye in this debate.
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  57. #57
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Pabs View Post
    Many bike riders on all kinds of bikes in all kinds of clothing ignore all kinds of traffic laws. However, let's not also forget how many drivers also ignore all kinds of traffic laws. This doesn't forgive bike riders of course, but it's worth noting that drivers are generally not without a plank in their own eye in this debate.
    Agree 100%. I speed most anytime I'm on the highway but then I'm not whining about being a victim while breaking it. The laws work as a system. How can a cyclist sit in the middle of the road breaking the law by holding up traffic and then whine that someone else broke the law by not giving them enough space on the pass? It all would have been avoided if they followed the law and pulled over. It still doesn't excuse drivers that buzz them intentionally or that never give them enough chance to pull off, but if you're camping on the road with a line of cars behind you then you're just as much in the wrong as a car doing a tight pass.

    And you're still risking both your and others' lives by riding in the lane on busy highways, regardless of the law. The "common sense" argument goes both ways.
    Last edited by thump; 07-25-2011 at 10:33 PM.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,963
    You guys have kept this thread alive for so long I just had to post some pics. I turned north onto 93 off 128 and there was the 55 mph sign. I stayed at 55 to the top of the hill and had a string of impatient drivers behind me. Slowpoke!! I stayed at 55. I tried to remember where exactly I encountered this roadie and I came up on the long curve that he was "hiding" around, just around the corner. And there he was (in memory only). WTF is someone doing riding here with all this traffic? My first tendency was to give wide berth, so I started drifting to the left but NO, here was a ton of oncoming traffic like this dualie straddling the yellow line and worse.

    Slam on the brakes? **** no, not with this line of traffic behind me expecting to go faster, not 20 mph slower (then and today). So I just stayed the course, cursing this asshat that was putting all of us drivers in this funky situation.

    Today I turned around and parked near Community Ditch. Sheeit, traffic was positively frantic. Loud as a sumb!tch, everyone just roaring past. It sounded like a highway. Wait, it is a highway. Who the f... rides on a highway with no shoulder in this traffic? He did.

    Community Ditch was positively serene in comparison.

    Thought I'd show you my new wax job, but in context.
    Last edited by xcguy; 06-20-2012 at 05:00 AM.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  59. #59
    Pivot Rider
    Reputation: Yetigirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,088
    Wow, XC! That dragonfly image is amazing! I do enjoy your photos!

    Hope you are continuing to heal and will be able to get back on your bike sooner rather than later. Even though we all mtn bike and injuries seem to be a part of our chosen sport, I still feel it's safer and funner than being on a road bike, especially on 93 (and yes, I DO own a nice road bike and ride it).

    I sincerely feel that this debate is tending to the ridiculous. Very good points have been made and the topic is being beat to death. I would think that our energies would be better served by convincing the 'powers that be' that protecting both drivers and cyclists through the addition of a bike lane is a better use of taxpayer's $$ than this other nonsense with the Candelera/Rocky Flats land acquisition/beltway garbage going on. (just my .02)
    Dirt Divas website l Twitter: @thedirtdivas l Facebook

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,963
    That entire stretch of 93 from the top of the hill down to the light needs a shoulder/bike lane to the right, since roadies are going to continue to ride it. You see from my pics there's zero room for error on the part of biker or driver.

    edit: upon further review, why should Boulder do anything there? Since it's so obviously dangerous to ride that stretch going north, just let natural selection cull the most fervent death-wished from the herd.

    Dragonflies are an obsession with me to capture in flight. Try it and you'll see it's nearly impossible for many reasons. And the suckers never land and pose for me. This was one about 15 feet away and posed for just a few seconds. I didn't have a telephoto with me so this pic is cropped bigtime as you see. Unless I spend hours in one spot waiting waiting waiting (time I don't have for that kind of patience) this might be the only capture of one perching like that for the rest of this summer (their short lifetime).
    Last edited by xcguy; 07-26-2011 at 05:55 AM.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    891

  62. #62
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,662
    I'm analyzing crash data today.
    FYI
    This is Pikes Peak Regional data, EPC + Teller.

    7/2006 to 12/2010

    Total accidents
    47,104 reported accidents
    159 fatalities
    6509 injuries

    Bike Accidents
    277 reported accidents
    4 fatalities (I know this is incorrect. I think they only report if bicycle vs. vehicle.)
    160 injuries

    Collisions with animals
    869 reported accidents
    0 fatalities
    29 injured


    Type of Accident Number of Accidents
    No Code 146
    All other pedestrian (collision w/ pedestrian) 399
    Barricade (collision w/ object) 37
    Bicycle (collision w/ other vehicle) 277
    Bridge structure (collision w/ object) 37
    Cable rail (collision w/ object) 18
    Concrete highway barrier (collision w/ object) 294
    Crash cushion / traffic barrel (collision w/ object) 17
    Culvert or headwall (collision w/ object) 83
    Curb (collision w/ object) 2999
    Delineator post (collision w/ object) 181
    Domestic animal (collision w/ animal) 101
    Embankment (collision w/ object) 411
    Fence (collision w/ object) 579
    Front to front (collision w/ vehicle in transport) 2165
    Front to rear (collision w/ vehicle in transport) 16957
    Front to side (collision w/ vehicle in transport) 9878
    Guard rail (collision w/ object) 808
    Large rocks or boulder (collision w/ object) 130
    Light pole/utility pole (collision w/ object) 632
    Mailbox (collision w/ object) 139
    Other fixed object (collision w/ object) 396
    Other non-collision (non-collision) 534
    Other object (collision w/ object) 353
    Overturning (non-collision) 1365
    Parked motor vehicle (collision w/ other vehicle) 903
    Pedestrian on toy motorized vehicle (collision w/ pedestrian) 8
    Railroad crossing equipment (collision w/ object) 6
    Railway vehicle/light rail (collision w/ other vehicle) 2
    Rear to rear (collision w/ vehicle in transport) 147
    Rear to side (collision w/ vehicle in transport) 600
    Road maintenance equipment (collision w/ other vehicle) 14
    School age to/from school (collision w/ pedestrian) 51
    Side to side opposite direction (collision w/ vehicle in transport) 403
    Side to side same direction (collision w/ vehicle in transport) 3925
    Sign (collision w/ object) 452
    Traffic signal pole (collision w/ object) 59
    Tree (collision w/ object) 429
    Vehicle debris or cargo (collision w/ object) 117
    Wall or building (collision w/ object) 93
    Wild animal (collision w/ animal) 869

  63. #63
    Dude...
    Reputation: ebry74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    338
    [QUOTE=xcguy;8276859]Slam on the brakes? **** no, not with this line of traffic behind me expecting to go faster, not 20 mph slower (then and today). So I just stayed the course, cursing this asshat that was putting all of us drivers in this funky situation.[QUOTE]

    Just b/c you disagree with the rider doesn't make the rider an asshat. If the rider is the asshat for riding his bike in a perfectly legal way, what does that make you when you are buzzing said rider and unable to use your brakes just b/c other cars are behind you, and then cursing the rider? Nice to know that one of our own is so curtious to other riders. B!tch about the road, not the rider doing nothing wrong.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,963
    [QUOTE=ebry74;8279183][QUOTE=xcguy;8276859]Slam on the brakes? **** no, not with this line of traffic behind me expecting to go faster, not 20 mph slower (then and today). So I just stayed the course, cursing this asshat that was putting all of us drivers in this funky situation.

    Just b/c you disagree with the rider doesn't make the rider an asshat. If the rider is the asshat for riding his bike in a perfectly legal way, what does that make you when you are buzzing said rider and unable to use your brakes just b/c other cars are behind you, and then cursing the rider? Nice to know that one of our own is so curtious to other riders. B!tch about the road, not the rider doing nothing wrong.
    I really don't have anything against road riding, I just don't ride road. I watched every minute of this year's TDF. But, yeah, I was pissed at that guy for putting not only himself but all of us in jeopardy. How was I in jeopardy? By reflexively jerking my wheel to the left to avoid him if he wobbled right in front of me, causing me to headon the oncoming traffic.

    "...the rider doing nothing wrong". LOL.
    Last edited by xcguy; 07-26-2011 at 12:01 PM.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  65. #65
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by ebry74 View Post
    Just b/c you disagree with the rider doesn't make the rider an asshat.
    Unfortunately in this situation it kinda does. Look, we all know that being on the roads comes with an inherent risk. We know that people are not always paying attention, distracted by kids, phones, scenery, etc. We accept these risks and do everything we can to mitigate them. We send our kids to driver's ed to learn defensive driving and to expect other drivers to make mistakes. We buy cars with seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags, side impact beams and a slew of other technology because we know, statistically, there's a decent chance of a wreck every time you head out in busy traffic.

    But then.. you don your team kit and all this knowledge goes out the window. You put on a 10 ounce helmet to protect you and you expect now that everyone on the road is paying attention. You ignore anything "defensive" and hang your ass 2 feet into a busy traffic lane with a 20-40mph speed differential. You ignore all the probabilities of being hit and wear virtually no protective crash gear which ensures that if you get hit that you'll be seriously injured. You do all this knowingly, putting yourself and everyone on the road with you at risk because "you have a right to dammit", but then when the statistics catch up with you and you eventually do get hit in a genuine accident you want to sue the motorist, have them vilified in the press and pass 4 new laws to protect your stupidity.

    Road riding is the only sport I know of where people knowingly take such immense risks but then want to put it on everyone else when things go wrong.

  66. #66
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    ...you eventually do get hit in a genuine accident you want to sue the motorist, have them vilified in the press and pass 4 new laws to protect your stupidity.
    It sounds like you're suggesting that people who ride bikes on the public roads pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado do not deserve legal protection because they are physically vulnerable. That really puts on its head the logic underlying most laws and legal rights. Legal rights generally exist to protect minorities and the vulnerable because the majorities and the powerful do not need their rights to protect them.

    Once we look past the characatures of "roadies," what this issue really boils down to is people not wanting to be inconvenienced even for an insignificant amount of time to accomodate others. It's really the same sort of argument mountain bikers make against hikers, or downhill riding mountain bikers make against uphill bikers. A little compassion and all of us taking a deep breathe and this issue goes away.
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  67. #67
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    I just drove that stretch an hour ago. I drive a truck that is fairly wide, and I happened to be pulling a camper so was even wider. I had a few observations.

    1) They should build a shoulder on that road, given the number of cars and cyclists that use it. Nobody can argue that everyone is safer if bikers have space to the right of the white line.

    2) If there was any doubt after the google maps link I posted and the pic xcguy posted, I can confirm that the speed limit is 55, not 45, until just before the light.

    3) There were many cars headed up the hill at me, and some were hugging the yellow line. Still, I was able to hug the yellow line myself, creating quite a few feet of space on the right, without endangering my life. In some cases, the oncoming car moved over a little, and in other cases we passed fairly close to each other, but no lives were lost and nobody screamed in fear.

    4) A rider who was staying on or very close to the white line would have been quite a few feet clear of my camper and truck.

    5) There are no real blind curves on this road, an attentive driver should be able to react to a hiker, let alone biker going 35mph in the same direction.

  68. #68
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Pabs View Post
    It sounds like you're suggesting that people who ride bikes on the public roads pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado do not deserve legal protection because they are physically vulnerable.
    Nice spin, but no. I'm saying ride with some common sense and we're all better off. Riding hwy 93 at rush hour is legal, but just fvcking stupid.

    Don't be surprised that the magic ink sitting on a book somewhere that we call a "law" didn't physically protect you when you become a grease spot on the road. All the law is doing here is protecting your right to kill yourself and potentially others.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    891
    Stolen from a tri-geek forum. and yeah, I thought about putting this in another thread but feel free to do so if you see fit.

    Tri-Geek forum - if you TT, you can get some good ideas here but have to sift through the crap. Kinda like here.




    Hello all -

    I just received this notification about a proposal by the City of Golden to support building a bike path along Hwy 93 rather than turning it into a toll road. As a local resident, I think this is a huge win and am very much in favor. If you support as well, please check out the following info and send an email today with your support.
    Thanks!!!!

    From

    Get the facts Golden.org:



    SEND YOUR COMMENTS IN BY JULY 29

    The City of Golden has submitted a bid to purchase a corridor of land, presently owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior as part of the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge, along Indiana Avenue. The City has also offered to purchase other environmentally sensitive lands and do a land exchange with the Refuge. If Golden is successful, the City will create a pedestrian and bicycle path on the corridor just west of Indiana Street.

    However, Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge is seriously considering a bid from the Jefferson Parkway Authority, which plans to build a toll road along the corridor.

    If accepted, Golden’s proposal would have many benefits for Golden and the region as a whole, including:
    • Stopping the toll road from being built on what is now conservation land
    • Potentially stopping or seriously delaying the entire toll road/beltway concept
    • Protecting important wildlife habitat
    • Preventing the sprawl, noise and pollution that would come with the proposed highway
    • Providing alternate transportation now sorely lacking in this region
    • Provide healthy recreational opportunities to Jefferson County residents

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who owns the land, held a public open house on July 20 to “help determine the appropriate level of environmental review” and asked for public comment. (To read the documents related to Golden’s application, visit: http://www.cityofgolden.net/News.asp?NewsID=867)

    It is NOT too late to comment. You have one more day to get your voice heard. Please email or write a letter by Friday, July 29, which is when public comment closes. In your letters, please ask that a full environmental impact study be done on any proposals and that all future land transfer agreements cause minimal environmental harm and instead augment preservation efforts as well as benefit human health. Additionally, request that the full regional effects of a toll road on sprawl and on Golden be considered and compared to the effects of a bikeway. Specifically ask that any land exchanges take place only if a multi-lane toll road will not be built on transferred land.

    In this case, a full environmental review would be extremely beneficial to Golden’s proposal, since a pedestrian and bicycle path would have very little negative environmental impact compared to a 6-lane toll road. Likewise, the “expansion” of the refuge should not come at the expense of wildlife habitats, as it will with a toll road.

    1. Send an email to both of the following:
    Mike Dixon: RockyFlatsEA@fws.gov
    Bruce Hastings, Deputy Refuge Manager: RockyFlatsEA@fws.gov
    2. Send a letter to both of the following:
    Mike Dixon
    Division of Refuge Planning
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    P.O. Box 25486, DFC
    Denver, CO 80225
    AND
    Bruce Hastings, Deputy Refuge Manager
    Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge
    6550 Gateway Road
    Building 129
    Commerce City, CO 80022


    CINQ:

    here was an important U.S. Fish & Wildlife (USFW) meeting last week regarding the sale of Rocky Flats land for the transportation corridor. Below is a good letter from Margot Zallen from Plan Jeffco that gives more detail.

    We have learned some important information.

    USFW is NOT looking at potential impacts OUTSIDE the refuge border.
    USFW is NOT planning to study possible Plutonium contamination caused by road construction at Rocky Flats. Apparently, USFW is satisfied with the EIS that was done in 2004 that said the refuge is “clean.”

    HOWEVER, according to NEPA , federal agencies are required to include the direct and indirect impacts of its actions in its NEPA documents. By looking at only refuge impacts, USFW is ignoring this important NEPA requirement, and denying environmental justice to our community.

    Indirect impacts by a toll road may include:

    increased traffic on Hwy 93
    loss of natural grass lands and habitat
    non-compete agreement on Indiana/McIntyre and SH93 causing more traffic congestion, noise and air pollution
    potential plutonium contamination to downwind communities caused by road construction at Rocky Flats. These are just a few of the indirect impacts.

    Also, the impacts of a toll road versus a bike path are very different in intensity. Non-refuge impacts must be compared for a toll road versus a bike path.

    USFW should reconsider the scope of the environmental assessment according to NEPA, and include the impacts on the lands, plant and wildlife habitat, people and roads in areas outside of the refuge system that will be impacted by the disposal of a transportation corridor.

    Please enlarge the scope of your NEPA analysis.

    Rob Medina, CINQ, Citizens Involved in the Northwest Quadrant, info@gothebetterway.org, www.GoTheBetterWay.org
    </htm

  70. #70
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Commuting on an MUP can be the suck for bicyclists, especially if they are heavy recreational use. My commute for five and a half years was on one of these and during daylight savings it often had a bunch of schmendricks with ipods walking four abreast on it, not paying attention to anhything other than the christina aguilera being piped into their cauliflower ears.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    I just drove that stretch an hour ago. I drive a truck that is fairly wide, and I happened to be pulling a camper so was even wider. I had a few observations.

    1) They should build a shoulder on that road, given the number of cars and cyclists that use it. Nobody can argue that everyone is safer if bikers have space to the right of the white line.

    2) If there was any doubt after the google maps link I posted and the pic xcguy posted, I can confirm that the speed limit is 55, not 45, until just before the light.

    3) There were many cars headed up the hill at me, and some were hugging the yellow line. Still, I was able to hug the yellow line myself, creating quite a few feet of space on the right, without endangering my life. In some cases, the oncoming car moved over a little, and in other cases we passed fairly close to each other, but no lives were lost and nobody screamed in fear.

    4) A rider who was staying on or very close to the white line would have been quite a few feet clear of my camper and truck.

    5) There are no real blind curves on this road, an attentive driver should be able to react to a hiker, let alone biker going 35mph in the same direction.
    I was out there yesterday, camera and tape in hand. The single lane is 10' wide. My Element is 6 1/2 feet wide. Leaves 3 1/2 feet to the white line. If roadie is in from that line maybe 10 inches, that leaves about three feet. Sure, me hugging the yellow line gives the roadie a theoretical 3 feet.

    These pics illustrate how changeable all that can be. The peloton was just passing as I got out of my vehicle. They did a pretty decent job of almost straddling the white line. That monster truck came by a few seconds later. A little wider than my Element. Would he have "buzzed" those riders?

    Later, guy and lady come nonchalantly cruising down the highway. The red car gives the guy the clearance I usually give, because he is not blocked in by oncoming traffic. The lady just kept on keeping on, traffic doing 55 right past her about a foot away.
    Last edited by xcguy; 06-20-2012 at 04:59 AM.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  72. #72
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    I was out there yesterday, camera and tape in hand. ...
    What's your point: that life goes on and people are coexisting on this reach of road, or you weren't really at fault in your original post because other people act, and likely feel, similar? I'm just curious.
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  73. #73
    Dude...
    Reputation: ebry74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    338
    xcguy, I mean really, two sets of pictures added to this thread to somehow prove that roadies who ride this road are ignorant. Maybe they are, but you still should have slowed the efff down. Whether you like it or not, bikers have a legal right to be there, and the law states if you can't pass in a safe way, without buzzing the rider, you SLOW DOWN until you have the opportunity too pass in such a manner. It's really not that hard. As Pabs said, what's your point? It's kind of ironic b/c I remember a couple of months ago you starting a thead stating you hope they put some guy in jail and throw away the key. So you seem to be familiar with the court of public opinion and one who is quick to judge. However, in this thread the biker who is doing nothing legally wrong is getting buzzed by you b/c you're unwilling to slow down, and you're stating how ignorant and irresponsible these bikers are.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,254
    Quote Originally Posted by ebry74 View Post
    , two sets of pictures added to this thread.
    All I can say is I wish I had that much time on my hands!!

    And then there is this...

    A dump truck driver who was involved in a fatal bicycle accident in June...

    http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-c...ws/ci_18582612


    Be safe out there!
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  75. #75
    FleshwoundGravityResearch
    Reputation: mtn hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by ebry74 View Post
    xcguy, I mean really, two sets of pictures added to this thread to somehow prove that roadies who ride this road are ignorant. Maybe they are, but you still should have slowed the efff down. Whether you like it or not, bikers have a legal right to be there, and the law states if you can't pass in a safe way, without buzzing the rider, you SLOW DOWN until you have the opportunity too pass in such a manner. It's really not that hard. As Pabs said, what's your point? It's kind of ironic b/c I remember a couple of months ago you starting a thead stating you hope they put some guy in jail and throw away the key. So you seem to be familiar with the court of public opinion and one who is quick to judge. However, in this thread the biker who is doing nothing legally wrong is getting buzzed by you b/c you're unwilling to slow down, and you're stating how ignorant and irresponsible these bikers are.
    F*&%$#@ Exactly!

    This thread makes me ill. We're all supposedly cyclists yet there are some ignorant replies here.

    I drove back from a mtn ride a few weeks ago and happened on a mess of riders doing some MS ride and I could tell a good portion of these @ss-clowns had not ridden the road since the previous years' version. They were riding like it was a closed course, but I still drove responsibly and made legal and safe passes. Was it slow and annoying? Sure. Did it make any meaningful impact on my life or even that day? No.

    Set an example for other drivers, don't be an @ss and buzz cyclists at the speed limit because you feel they are stupid for being there, and you are too important and in too big a hurry to be bothered with following the law.
    Last edited by mtn hack; 07-31-2011 at 04:44 PM.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    154
    If you want to "buzz" a road cyclist or even hit one then feel free. Apparently you feel that they shouldn't be there so go prove your point. And then have fun in prison for being an idiot. As a cyclist you should be ashamed and embarrassed. We all ride because it is enjoyable and healthy. You make it not enjoyable and unsafe. xcguy? or ******bag in a "man's" car

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,963
    Quote Originally Posted by FerrouSS View Post
    If you want to "buzz" a road cyclist or even hit one then feel free. Apparently you feel that they shouldn't be there so go prove your point. And then have fun in prison for being an idiot. As a cyclist you should be ashamed and embarrassed. We all ride because it is enjoyable and healthy. You make it not enjoyable and unsafe. xcguy? or ******bag in a "man's" car
    I've never seen a thread so misinterpreted. Carry on.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  78. #78
    Dude...
    Reputation: ebry74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    338
    xcguys doesn't want to buzz or hit a cyclist...let's not go overboard.

    What is the "man's car" comment all about?

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    154
    He doesn't want to buzz a road rider but he doesn't want to not buzz a road rider (i.e. double neg) and give the rider their space. Which is it? And it frustrates me as a mtb rider and a road rider to observe such ignorance from a fellow cyclist. I have been struck by an automobile in the past and most drivers feel that they own the road and everything else within a few meters of it. Is it this difficult to give some consideration to a human who is riding a bicycle. This op person should learn to offer some common courtesy. is this misunderstood?

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    154
    I feel like a minority here... weird. A cyclist on a cycling forum is the minority

  81. #81
    Dude...
    Reputation: ebry74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    I've never seen a thread so misinterpreted. Carry on.
    Maybe some video would help.

  82. #82
    Lucky Wrecker
    Reputation: miwoodar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    103
    This thread sucked XC. Please be sure to write my wife and children an apology after you mow me over.

  83. #83
    Thread Terrorist
    Reputation: IndecentExposure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,854
    They should just shut down all roads to bikes that don't have a wide shoulder, eh?
    (let the flame game begin)
    Golden Bike Park Group

    Peak Cycles Gravity Team & Bikeparts.com
    Trestle Bike Park

  84. #84
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,892
    Quote Originally Posted by IndecentExposure View Post
    They should just shut down all roads to bikes that don't have a wide shoulder, eh?
    (let the flame game begin)
    I've got a better idea - how about we shut down all roads to CARS that don't have a wide shoulder?

  85. #85
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by IndecentExposure View Post
    They should just shut down all roads to bikes that don't have a wide shoulder, eh?
    (let the flame game begin)
    obvious troll is obvious^

  86. #86
    Cycling, FTW!!
    Reputation: MarkoInTheBoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by KarateChicken View Post
    Commuting on an MUP can be the suck for bicyclists, especially if they are heavy recreational use. My commute for five and a half years was on one of these and during daylight savings it often had a bunch of schmendricks with ipods walking four abreast on it, not paying attention to anhything other than the christina aguilera being piped into their cauliflower ears.
    Bwaaaa ha Ha ha ha, are you actually complaining about WALKERS on a Multi-Use Path. Get a life, hypocrite.
    "When you pay $340 to do a 24 hour race you'll only have enough money to eat mustard sandwiches the rest of the year." -TD

  87. #87
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    obvious troll is obvious^

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Building a "bike lane" is a waste of taxpayers dollars, and does little to help the cause of cyclist safety. The law allows for cyclists to use the roadway, regardless of shoulder width or traffic density. It is clearly stated that drivers must slow down if they cannot pass a cyclist, on the left, with 3 ft. of clearance from the furthest protruding part of a vehicle. Bike lanes and multi-use paths serve to marginalize the legal presence of cyclists on roadways, not to mention their narrow width and tendency to end abruptly at county lines, and the demonstrably higher rates of injury that occur to path users. For more information: see John Forester's website on vehicular cycling.

    This should not be an issue. Cyclist are vehicle operators, and bicycles are vehicles. What actions do you take when overtaking a slow moving motor-vehicle: slow down, and pass when it is safe (no oncoming traffic, no double-yellow line, etc.)? How is that different than overtaking a cyclist? The fact that there is discussion on this issue is a clear indication that it is too easy to obtain a driver's license in this state (and country).

    Slow down and take the time to consider the people and things in proximity to your actions. Remember, we're all someone's son/daughter, sister/brother, father/mother, spouse.

    And really, is that 30 seconds (or less) worth the, potential, injury or death of a human being; since, that 30 seconds will be lost at the next red light?
    Last edited by rogbie; 08-04-2011 at 09:57 AM.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    84

    I Live in the Foothills in JeffCo

    I've seen plenty of stupidity on both sides. If anyone is familiar with Deer Creek, Highgrade and Pleasant Park roads you'll know what I mean. These roads are dangerous enough for cars alone without all of the bikes added on. What ticks me off the most is that the law does not seemed to be applied equally. Weekends are absolutely crazy with the number of cyclists. However, I've never witnessed one being pulled over but I have seen plenty of cars pulled over. I've even seen them run stop signs right in front of a cop. If I did that in my car you bet I would get a ticket. The law that LA just passed really angers me. The rules should be applied equally. Any cyclist that threatens a driver should be dealt with in the same was as a driver would. No comes the tricky part. How do you identify the cyclist? It's nearlly impossible. I feel strongly that any vehicle on the road should have a license plate, and that includes bikes. That way, if one is breaking the law I can report them just as easily as they can report me.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Stymie2000 View Post
    I've seen plenty of stupidity on both sides. If anyone is familiar with Deer Creek, Highgrade and Pleasant Park roads you'll know what I mean. These roads are dangerous enough for cars alone without all of the bikes added on. What ticks me off the most is that the law does not seemed to be applied equally. Weekends are absolutely crazy with the number of cyclists. However, I've never witnessed one being pulled over but I have seen plenty of cars pulled over. I've even seen them run stop signs right in front of a cop. If I did that in my car you bet I would get a ticket. The law that LA just passed really angers me. The rules should be applied equally. Any cyclist that threatens a driver should be dealt with in the same was as a driver would. No comes the tricky part. How do you identify the cyclist? It's nearlly impossible. I feel strongly that any vehicle on the road should have a license plate, and that includes bikes. That way, if one is breaking the law I can report them just as easily as they can report me.

    Reporting someone running a stop sign, or most other traffic infractions, won't do anything (cyclist or motorist), unless you have it on video tape, and that brings up privacy issues. So, your point is moot. As for the rules being applied equally: cyclist are often stopped on Lariat Loop (as they should be), and I have been ticketed for running a red light (which, I will never do again). I've reported my fair-share of aggressive drivers (throwing objects, swerving, brake checking) to the police, complete with full license plate numbers and descriptions of driver and car. Not once has any follow up action been taken on the driver. I asked a DPD detective about this and he said: without photographic, specifically video, or damage/injury and witness evidence of the infraction they cannot prosecute the driver. The best option is for everyone to take it slowly when passing cyclist on the roadways. That cyclist is, more than likely, not on the road to be a personal hinderance to you. They are, more than likely, 1) trying to get somewhere, 2) having a good time. They are, more than likely, not thinking, "Hey, I'm going to piss off all the motorist I can today." Rather, "Hey, riding my bike is fantastic."*

    So, have some patience, slow down, pass with care, and realize a cyclist on the road (or off) is not making a personal attack on you.

    *Along with, hopefully, thinking of the road conditions and their surrounding environments.

  91. #91
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Stymie2000 View Post
    ... What ticks me off the most is that the law does not seemed to be applied equally. ... However, I've never witnessed one being pulled over but .... The law that LA just passed really angers me. The rules should be applied equally. Any cyclist that threatens a driver should be dealt with in the same was as a driver would. ... I feel strongly that any vehicle on the road should have a license plate, and that includes bikes. That way, if one is breaking the law I can report them just as easily as they can report me.
    The law is never applied equally. There are limited law enforcement resources, so the police and other law enforcement officials make policy decisions about which laws are a bigger deal. Generally, policy makers tend to think (and I would agree) that motor vehicles are a greater potential threat to life and property and require more attention and regulation than bikes.

    They have had "speed traps" of sorts in at various locations in Boulder County pulling cyclists over for running stop sighs, so it can happen when the problems become pronounced.

    The law in Los Angles simply recognizes that cyclists are in a more vulnerable position. If a bike casually threatens a driver, the bike cannot potentially kill the driver with the push of a pedal.

    Required bike registation would make it harder for people to ride bikes and would be a real "big government" intrusion. Plus, even if bike riders were reported by watchful citizens such as yourself, making the violation stick legally would be really difficult.
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  92. #92
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Pabs View Post
    The law in Los Angles simply recognizes that cyclists are in a more vulnerable position. If a bike casually threatens a driver, the bike cannot potentially kill the driver with the push of a pedal.
    that's too much for the car-centric to understand

    maybe stymie's hat is lined with tinfoil?



    rogbie, john forester is a doofus and mentioning him reduces your street cred

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Pabs View Post
    The law in Los Angles simply recognizes that cyclists are in a more vulnerable position. If a bike casually threatens a driver, the bike cannot potentially kill the driver with the push of a pedal.
    Although I'm not a fan of most things California, (In N Out being an exception), that is the most sensible thing to come out of this thread. I believe this thread should be locked with that quote there being the last thing posted in it.

  94. #94
    Lucky Wrecker
    Reputation: miwoodar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Stymie2000 View Post
    I've seen plenty of stupidity on both sides. If anyone is familiar with Deer Creek, Highgrade and Pleasant Park roads you'll know what I mean. These roads are dangerous enough for cars alone without all of the bikes added on. What ticks me off the most is that the law does not seemed to be applied equally. Weekends are absolutely crazy with the number of cyclists. However, I've never witnessed one being pulled over but I have seen plenty of cars pulled over. I've even seen them run stop signs right in front of a cop.
    Perhaps you're not paying attention well enough (or perhaps the cop wasn't at that particular moment)? Smokey has sat in a few locations on Deer Creek over the last handful of months and has indeed been writing tickets to cyclists too.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    30
    All citizens have a legal RIGHT to travel on the public roadways, regardless of whether by foot, horseback, bicycle, skateboard, stroller, scooter, buggy, wagon, chariot, or any other non-motorized means. Those who choose to utilize a motor must have their motorized vehicle registered and licensed by the state due to the inherent dangers of the motor, then they may exercise the PRIVILEGE of driving/riding their motor vehicle. Anyone picking up on the key element here?

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by plaidvillain View Post
    Anyone picking up on the key element here?
    I think so: the word "privilege" has morphed and it's new definition is treated the same as "entitlement"?

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: T10irons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    117
    There is no replacement for displacement. That auto will win every time. There's graveyards full of people that thought they had the right of way.
    Somebody better get me a stamp...I'm gonna send it

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by T10irons View Post
    There is no replacement for displacement. That auto will win every time. There's graveyards full of people that thought they had the right of way.
    Super helpful. Thanks.


Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •