Lug Nut Rule: The conveyance with the most lug nuts wins. Can't understand why some people can't get this simple rule.

Or in boating terms/marine world of navigation, the law of tonnage.

As others said, your f'ing crazy to ride a bike on a street shared with cars that weigh several tons, or more. I see enough $hitty drivers on a daily basis, no chance I would want to be on a bike around those sorts of vehicle operators.

And I see even more gutsy bikers that think they own the road. Listen you little $hit, besides looking like a douche in that lance armstrong wanna be cyclist outfit, you've failed to realize even the smallest little dinky smart car could end your life in a second. Don't think you own the road or are entitled to it. Learn your place and don't fvck around near cars and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If they want to drive on the roads, make em pay taxes that vehicles need to pay.

Another good diesel "smoke out" video I received the other day...

I wonder if any of the cyclists have eaten an apple, a pear, or even a bag of granola. 'Cause those items didn't make it to the market by a bicycle messenger. The stuff they all want recycled, didn't get picked up by another cyclist. The real estate agent didn't get to their house using a bicycle. I'd be willing to bet their tofu didn't walk in on it's own two feet either.

Seattle, where I used to live and used to do business.

What a bunch of asswipes most of you are. Why all the bike hate? It's not like a bike can hurt you while you're safely ensconced in your 3/4 ton pick up.

It's legal to ride a bicycle on roads in WA and most every state. If you don't like the law, work to have it changed since most of you preach law and order routinely. Meanwhile, live within the law.

If you want to license bikes, fine. BFD. What would that change? You'd still bitch every time you felt inconvenienced by the presence of a bicycle.

BTW, I don't necessarily favor reducing speed limits for the purpose of accommodating bikes. The number one cause of auto-bike crashes is motorists failing to yield right of way, usually by making a left turn in front of an oncoming bike. Next is motorists passing bikes and then making a right turn in front of the bike. Next is cyclists failing to yield right of way to motor vehicles. Cars driving 30 instead of 20 is not a leading cause of auto-bike crashes.

Sg

Do you not get that people who pay big taxes in the way of fuel taxes and license fees feel that THEY should have priority over those who pay nothing to access the same roadway?

It doesn't seem like a complicated concept to grasp.

Only a f'n asswipe feels like they are entitled to equal road space on roads they paid nothing to build or maintain.

Just watched 2 Lance Armstrong wanna bes blow right through a red light this morning after passing all the stopped cars on the right side.

Seems to me the cyclists want their cake and to eat it too. They want more protection from motor vehicles but most of them do not want to be subject to the same rules and laws that motor vehicles are supposed to observe.

Dan,

License fees pay little to nothing to build and maintain roads. Fuel taxes pay a significant share, but well short of the total. I put more miles by far per year on my car than on my bike, so I'm paying all the usual license, fuel, and other assorted taxes and fees as any citizen. To say I pay nothing to use the roads that I ride my bike on is a lot shorter than short-sighted. Further, bikes take up far less space on roads and cause unmeasurable wear, unlike motor vehicles.

Using a fee based schedule, does a gas guzzling classic car from the 60s have a higher priority of use over a modern fuel efficient car because its owner pays more gas taxes? Interesting notion, but likely a non-starter in most debates.

I drive my car about 15,000 miles a year and have no problems sharing the road with bikes, pedestrians, and occasional horseback riders. I don't like bike riders who blow through stop lights (and are setting themselves up for a date with the law of natural and logical conserquenses) and stop signs any more than I like car drivers who do the same. I attribute the bike hate to perceptions of inconvenience, but wasn't sure so decided to ask.

If feelings of entitlement makes one an asswipe, then we agree that the nation has an overabundance of asswipes.

Sg

DBA,

I pretty much agree with you. Cyclists preach the rules of the road (kind of like motorists) and then don't comply with them. The Capital Bicycle Club that I used to ride with requires following the rules of the road on club rides, yet those very riders (because many are in race training) routinely blow through traffic lights. I learned why they do it, but that doesn't make it smart, let alone legal.

Sg

Red Herring.

Bike riders are required to pay nothing. Auto drivers ARE required to pay for road contruction and maintenance. Whether that amount actually pays for the entire building and maintenance of roads is irrelevant.

The point is that cars pay to be on the roads, and bikes do not. In this case, should bikes take priority over cars, and why?

I live and work in Seattle and spend many days per year driving around the city. My commute both to and from work as been effected by the removal of traffic lanes which where turned into bike lanes. One of the lanes which was removed is on a large hill. I can't say I've ever seen someone riding a bike up that hill in over 15 years. I don't understand how they justify eliminating traffic lanes.

As far as bike riders, most follow the rules but there are some real asswipes as well. Especially the couriers downtown. They run red lights, stop signs, ride in between traffic etc. One got cute a few years ago and decided he needed to pass my boss on the left side in the on coming traffic lane. My boss took a left turn which resulted the biker eating t-bone metal.

I'll be voting no for McGinn's transportation plan.

Been posted before, but still makes me laugh. It reminds me a lot of Olympia.

You know this law applies to non-arterial roads, most of which, I assume have a 25mph limit anyhow. Most here seem to assume that this would apply to all streets. If you were to restrict something like 4th ave downtown to 20 that would be rediculous. Or Olive , or third or 1st ... Put it this way, if a bus uses it , it should not be reduced to 20mph.

If they do this, they should enforce the speed limit strictly on those riding bikes.

"They want more protection from motor vehicles"

No, ultimately they want cars off the roads period and they want car drivers to pay for that to happen. Under this mayor they've become a strong political lobby. BikePAC.

"You see, there is a struggle going on. A struggle for the vision of what will make our city and region great. You know you can count on Cascade to stand strong for a better future. On the Missing Link. On Transportation 2040. On the tunnel. In the legislature. In our classes. In our communities.

And right here on our city streets.

This is what Proposition 1 is about. The future. For some reason, our opposition is satisfied with a future that maintains the status quo where our buses are slow and unreliable, where it’s not always safe to cross the street or for our kids to walk or bike to school, and where our roads our littered with potholes.

We see a different future, a vision we believe you share. You and I are making incremental changes that will add up to a sustainable future. And people want to stop us from making that progress toward that vision.

Stand strong with us. Don’t let these bullies knock you down. The next incremental change we need to make is to approve Proposition 1 in the next election. So please, get up to speed, volunteer to help, support the campaign, tell your friends and let’s make progress happen."

"What happens if the $80 VLF isn’t approved by Seattle City Council? Well, the Bicycle Master Plan is a $240 million plan that is 70% underfunded. We can keep limping along, but can’t we do better? More people are using bikes to get around the city. The VLF would give a boost to bike projects and support the growing user demand. Sharrows are cheap and were a good start, but as one friend put it: “I’m sharrowed out.” It’s time to update the Bicycle Master Plan and get on with some truly inspiring projects. Would you like to see downtown and waterfront cyclectracks, neighborhood greenways, bike traffic signals and safer bridge crossings?"

And here's their flawed logic:

"Prop. 1 will invest $100 million to make transit in Seattle faster and more reliable. 95% of all Seattle residents and 96% of all the jobs in the city are within an easy walk or bike ride to the high priority transit corridors that Prop. 1 will invest in. Transit riders across the whole city will see benefits."

"Prop. 1 dramatically expands family-friendly bicycle infrastructure."

I question their math but notice they don't account for those outside of the city limits. Those areas and people don't fit into their utopian dream.

Roads are for motorized vehicles. It is the reason they were built. And whether a bicyclist also drives a car or not, therefore partially contributing to a roads funding base, doesn't matter. They still contribute squat for their bike to take up space on the blacktop. Pay your share, or move out of the way.

Truck pay addtional fees/taxes because they do additonal damage. Both trucks and cars pay fuel taxes according to how often they are on the road.

Joggers and walkers don't take up space on the road surface.

It's not like the sledder, db, bankie debate at all. One of those groups isn't riding on the coat tails of the others.

You're just looking for an argument, aren't you?

So you ARE looking for an argument, since nothing you just said is relevant to the issue being discussed.

I am also a safe driver. One that believes you need to buy your way on to our expensive-to-build-and-maintain road system before you demand changes to accomodate you.

Point out the lack of logic.

"They're also not responsible for miles long traffic jams. "

Not true. That's exactly what "they" are responsible for. "they" being the BikePAC. "they" want to slow traffic down to the point that it's useless to drive. "They" and Mayor McSchwinn are reducing four lane roads to two lanes and two bike lanes. They are now going after speed limits. Through Prop 1 they want to add another tax on cars to pay for their utopian ideas. They have been waging a war on cars for some time and more and more auto drivers are fighting back. BTW, I highly doubt it makes sense to commute by bike for more than 1% of employees in the downtown core.

I got hit by a bike downtown a couple of years ago. I was going straight through a light which was legal when out of no where a biker slams into my passenger side. She's very lucky she didn't go under the wheel. I think she assumed I was turning left. My truck wasn't marked so after a few accusations from her and my "well let's call the poilce then" we went our seperate ways. Accidents are just that. Somebody made a mistake. But on roads and when it's a car versus bike an accident can easily mean death. Of course we all should be wary but in my mind the onus is much more on the biker. After all he's the one who's going to die.

Bikes may not cause maintenance issues, but bikers using the roads do. Just a few examples....

Those bike lane stripes have to be maintained and there is a cost associated with installing or repainting them.

Storm drains covers needed to be retrofitted so bike tires wouldn't slid into them resulting in a rider taking a header and suing the city.

I'm more than willing to pay my way for using my bike on public roads. How much would that be to cause less traffic congestion and pollution?

BTW, if logic has any bearing, roads need repaving about:

every 10 years due to regular heavy semi truck traffic;

and every 100 years due to normal auto traffic;

and the forces of weather over time will wear out a road centuries before bicycle traffic will.

So if bikes pay, how many of you haters will stop yer bitchin'?

Sg