Why aren't bikes allowed on freeways.???

The problem stems from tractor-trailers and the excessive air
turbulence in their wake. Having one pass you at a 50 mph differential
would likely cause one to fall.

Simple, really....most states have at least a 40 mph minimum legal
speed on the freeways. The best bike operators can only go about 30.
Same reason tractors are not allowed on freeways.

I'm imagining a gal on a 27 speed mountain bike at the bottom of a
metered ramp leading a long line of cars up at 4mph while looking at
traffic flying by at 65mph.

Simply put, in deference to you. "Vroom, *squish*"

That 'wide berm' you refer to is, in fact, what is known as an
'Emergency Lane', used, strangely enough, during emergencies. It
may be used by disabled vehicles, as an area to change a tire or even
as access by Emergency vehicles, (see, that 'emergency' thang
again).

Once again you demonstrate your seriously lacking reasoning abilities.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"Never underestimate the stupidity of liberals."

I know that, you nitwit. Obviously that law needs to be changed.

Oh get serious. 99.9999999% of freeway berm space is not being used
for anything!!!!!!! THINK

Yet many states do allow bicycles on freeways.

Wayne

So you'd rather make it so it takes, say, 3 days to go from Kansas City
to St. Louis rather than the current 4 hours? Commerce would grind to
a screeching halt.

Bikes ARE allowed on freeways in the west. ANywhere where the freeway
is the only reasonable route between two points, they are allowed.
And, things work our just fine. They do require you to exit at every
car exit, cross at the top of the exit, and reenter.

You can ride on I-25 between Pueblo and Walsenburg on your bike.

You can ride parts of I-70 going west over the mountains on your bike.

BUt, you are right in that if another reasonable path is availabe, then
they are not allowed. Personally, I don't enjoy riding on freeways.

I'd be in favor of this if you would first change the laws so that I
cannot be sued when my 85mph car splatters somebody going 15mph on a
bicycle...

Otherwise your cause would destroy what is left of our country simply
by overwhelming the courts with personal injury cases...

Many western states allow bicycles on freeway shoulders in areas where
there are no good alternate routes. I've ridden on I-680, I-580, and
freeway sections of US101 in California where bicycles are allowed on
freeways except when the on-ramp sign explicitly prohibits them.
Here's a picture showing a sign that omits the mention of bicycles at
the on-ramp on a bike-legal section of Hwy. 101 freeway:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/549966386/2425880810047976201wvlkfY

Passing truck traffic did not cause any problems even with the added
wind-catching panniers we used for carrying our touring gear - in fact
the artificial wind from their passing was a nice little boost.
Bicycles are prohibited from more urban sections of California freeways
where alternate routes exist and where crowded on- and off-ramps would
create more hazards.

And the reason a bicyclist couldn't/shouldn't use the "Emergency Lane"
is.....?

Wayne

Err, as someone else mentioned, they are allowed on freeways in the
west. At least outside main city drags. I've done it, it's not the
best cycling environment, but it's doable. Really, this is pretty much
a non-subject.

--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife - chopping off what's
incomplete and saying: "Now it's complete because it's ended here."
-- Muad'dib, "Dune"

The same reason so many people are killed every year in the emergency lane
(sometimes while sitting in their car, even). There is a reason it is
called the EMERGENCY lane. If you are in that lane, you have an emergency,
or you are ABOUT TO have an emergency.

I know the only time I had an unexpected flat tire, I drove about 30 feet
off the road (a couple car-lengths into the grass) before I pulled out the
jack. Nobody would have cared if I used the emergency lane to change the
tire, but no way was I going to risk my life for a stupid flat. -Dave

YOU, asking ME to THINK?!?!?! You wouldn't recognize and intelligent
thought if it bit you on the ass, and that's the ONLY way you're ever
going to get close to one.

Just where did you pull that number from? Your ass?

Yes, the majority of the berm, and any particular moment, is not being
utilized (might be where they get that 'emergency' designation, ya
think?). But over any given short amount of time (day, week) a good
amount of it IS being used.

This doesn't even get into the fact that cyclist would be blown off of
the berm or sucked into the path of traffic by the slipstream from one
fast moving Peterbilt.

Nor does it take into the account the crossing of vehicular and cycle
traffic getting onto and off of the interstate.

We, on the other hand, do take into account that you have absolutly NO
idea what you are talking about....ever.

Many people, ALL of them much smarter than you, have determined that
bicycles on the Interstate is what is known, in technical terms, as "A
REALLY FUCKING STUPID IDEA."

But, feel free to personally put these theories to the test.

You're an idiot.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"Never underestimate the stupidity of ONE laura bush - VEHICULAR
HOMICIDE."

Aren't there berms on the on-off ramps in CA?

Hey stupid. The bikes would be confined to the berm of course, and
would not interfere with motorized drivers.

Bikes are allowed on regular two lane highways where speed limits are
60 mph. Why doesn't it happen there? Again i say THINK.

Stay off the berm and leave it for the cyclists and don't drive 85
mph. 85 is only for psychopaths.

>
>Bikes ARE allowed on freeways in the west. They do require you to exit at every

HUH??? Are you sure about that? Why would they have such a law?

Safety. THINK!

If you stopped to think. Sorry, if you were *capable* of thinking, the reason would be
very obvious.

Graham

Again, I say you are incapable of thinking. I thought about it,
considered the physics of it (man on 30lb bike going 15mph vs. 65,000lb
Peterbilt going 80mph....again 'Vroom, woosh, *squish*') and agree with
the experts that it is a pretty stupid idea.

It does happen there. You've never heard of cyclists getting killed
before? Or do you just wish to blame it on 'SUV driving Rightards!'?
(are you saying that democrats ALL drive hybrids?) I've had it happen
to me, got blown off the highway by a rig doing between 50-60, the ONLY
time I rode a bike on the major highway. On an interstate the limit
is, in my state, 75. That can do a lot of damage.

Again, many people (engineers, safety specialist etc) ALL more
intelligent than you have determined that it's a bad idea.

Live with the fact that you are an idiot.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"Never underestimate the stupidity of laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE."

That's no answer. Explain the rule if you can or admit you're blowing
smoke.

Give it time -- when gas hits $6.00 a gallon in a couple of years, the
freeways will be as clogged with bikes as they are now with cars.

Taking an exit ramp in your car, do you ever look for a bicycle crossing the
ramp as it goes straight? Now, think of it from the bicycles point of view,
the exiting car is behind you.

Obviously you've never driven across Texas. One HUNDRED eighty five
wouldn't be fast enough.

Yes it is.

You're blowing something else.

Had you thought, it would be obvious. The rule keeps cyclists from
crossing the paths of motorists.

Hell, that would only be safe if drivers left everything alone except
the steering wheel. You obviously overestimate the intelligence of
drivers and bicyclists.

Just send LBVH to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to really see whether US
drivers are really that insane.

Or Portugal.

Texans are ALL psychopaths. They let laura bush get away with
murdering her boyfriend with her car.

It was actually an enjoyable ride. Traffic was no problem. Passing
tractor-trailers created no undue turbulence (with panniers), the shoulder
was wide, smooth, and almost completely clear of debris, etc.

The only interaction with traffic was at exits (and no, I did *not* exit and
get back on - no idea where *that* idea came from), where I had to concern
myself with both on-and-off traffic.

For the great majority of it, it was simply a good, fast ride. I had to slow
for one small patch of debris, and for a couple of rough spots on the
shoulder. I wouldn't hesitate to do it again: seems like all the objections
I read above are based on theory, not practice.

news:15rd92h60ug4e1a6c...@4ax.com...

Wayne, Dane, Raoul, etc. Please don't feed the laura bush
cross-posting troll.

FloydR

All right, i see what you mean now and perhaps the rule does make some
sense. Thank you for the clarification. tata

Someone else explained it to me honey, and i understand now. Sorry i
ruined your day. HAHA

And just how do you justify a charge of murder?

The laws of Physics are about as far over Loco Laura's head as the
traffic laws are. IOW, we are talking Voyager I heights here...

Ever watch "World's Wildest Police Videos," or similar shows that show
up on Spike or CourTV? Everynow and then they show what happens when
some inattentive driver clobbers a police car that has pulled someone
over to the emergency lane. Now, if drivers on the freeway have a hard
time seeing one of those rolling light shows on the emergency lane, care
to take odds on them seeing a bicycle there?

Since when does that stop Loco Laura from shooting off its big mouth?

I think that Loco Laura revels in its idiocy.

--
Aunt Judy defends a known *drunk driver*:

"Almost all vehicle 'accidents' are due to driver
recklessness but the Chappaquidick incident is one
instance where it may really have been no ones
fault except the idiot who built the bridge."
--"Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," 11/10/2005
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9jtjt
Msg ID: 1131599968.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

I can go over 30 on a good day and I am certainly not 'best'

>>And the reason a bicyclist couldn't/shouldn't use the "Emergency Lane"
>>is.....?
>>
>>Wayne
>>
>
>
> The same reason so many people are killed every year in the emergency lane
> (sometimes while sitting in their car, even).

With vanishingly rare exception, those people were killed due to
motorists not paying attention and driving into the lane, not because
the motorist had to use the lane for an emergency.

There is a reason it is
> called the EMERGENCY lane. If you are in that lane, you have an emergency,
> or you are ABOUT TO have an emergency.
>
> I know the only time I had an unexpected flat tire, I drove about 30 feet
> off the road (a couple car-lengths into the grass) before I pulled out the
> jack. Nobody would have cared if I used the emergency lane to change the
> tire, but no way was I going to risk my life for a stupid flat. -Dave
>
>

So you agree that using the "Emergency Lane" would only constitute a
hazard to the bicyclist under the rare circumstance somebody entered it
illegally?

Wayne

Well, I wouldn't push for it in Massachusetts. When I lived there ('70s) not a
few MA cagers used the breakdown lane as their own personal freeway when the
other lanes got congested. I will never forget my disbelief the first time such
a turkey went flying past me on the right, in the breakdown lane.

--
Michael

So you're admitting that it WOULD be dangerous for a cyclist to be in
the emergency lane of the interstate. After all, people are not just
going to suddenly start paying attention for the sake of a few measly
bike riders.

Okay, so exactly HOW MANY needless deaths are you willing to accept for
this convinience?

Simply put, the Interstate is no place for a bicyclist. That's why the
law is the way it is. Get over it.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"Never underestimate the stupdity of liberals."

Yup! Remember the old postcard?:

The Sun is riz'
The Sun is set
And here I is
In Texas yet

The guy she killed was a former boy friend!! An way if not murder, it
was certainly manslaughter. Stop being a coddler.

>The problem stems from tractor-trailers and the excessive air
>turbulence in their wake. Having one pass you at a 50 mph differential
>would likely cause one to fall.

Not only that, in many states it is legal to use the paved shoulder as
a lane during congested periods, and I've noticed this is done even
down here in NC where it most definitely is NOT legal. Plus, disabled
vehicles park in the paved shoulders, leaving nowhere for the cyclist
to travel except even closer to the 70mph+ traffic.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

Did you not read that bicyclists already are allowed on some
interstates? I suppose you are also ignorant enough to have not read a
report that examined this issue and found no safety problems. Get
knowledge.

Hey Grendel, if you are so worried about the "needless deaths" of
others, why don't you advocate for mandatory helmet use for car drivers?
That would prevent a lot of "needless deaths."

Wayne

I've seen too many police videos showing what happens
to cars, even cop cars, that park on the shoulder.
Other vehicles somehow assume an object there means
it's a traffic lane and swerve over. Is this a good
environment for slow-moving bicycles ?

Now they COULD make room for a small bike lane just on
the other side of the barricade fence or between the
right shoulder and the usual drainage ditch. That would
put you a little further over than most would assume
a traffic lane would exist. Still though, on misguided
car doing 80 could wipe out a LONG line of cyclists ...

IMHO, if you've got two wheels and wanna do the interstate,
make sure the two wheels are attached to a motorcycle that
can keep up.

Besides, WHY would you want to bike on an interstate ? They're
BORING - look the same everywhere. Secondary and residential
streets would be just as fast, but you'd get to LOOK at stuff,
perhaps interact.

/hangs head in shame

No, but I couldn't resist the tasty tasty troll bait.

--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
Clones are people two.

Most bike tours and invididual riders use state highways, and most
state highways and other roads run near an interstate anyway, and as
mentioned traverse small towns and other interests

The places where their IS no other option, (I-76 in eastern Colorado
for example), it's already signed for bike use.

Any smart bike commuter can figure out the best routes to take, and if
you're a daily bike commuter like me you know which side streets have
the fewest stop signs, light traffic, etc.

I'm probably spoiled though in Colorado where motorists respect
cyclists much more than the average, and even steep mountain passes
cyclists are expected and there's mutual respect between car and bikes.

And I AM for more cyclist use in the cities. Too many people play
dress up like Lance Armstrong only zip along trails. The smart cookies
have the grocery panniers, racks, and cool gear for utility cycling.
In my neighborhood everyone from students to lawyers to a nice 85 year
old lady on a trike style goes to the grocery store with their bikes,
it's much easier than driving, and more enjoyable.

> Many western states allow bicycles on freeway shoulders in areas where
> there are no good alternate routes. I've ridden on I-680, I-580, and
> freeway sections of US101 in California where bicycles are allowed on
> freeways except when the on-ramp sign explicitly prohibits them.
> Here's a picture showing a sign that omits the mention of bicycles at
> the on-ramp on a bike-legal section of Hwy. 101 freeway:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/549966386/2425880810047976201wvlkfY
>
> Passing truck traffic did not cause any problems even with the added
> wind-catching panniers we used for carrying our touring gear - in fact
> the artificial wind from their passing was a nice little boost.
> Bicycles are prohibited from more urban sections of California freeways
> where alternate routes exist and where crowded on- and off-ramps would
> create more hazards.
>

Yes, I ride a recumbent with a front fairing that is subject to buffeting
by crosswinds. I often ride on I-5 with trucks zipping by at 70+ mph and
they're just not a problem. Interstate freeways are almost always the
safest roads around due to the very wide shoulders, gentle curves and long
sight lines. In Oregon, bikes are allowed on all Interstate freeways
except one short section of elevated roadway in Medford. I don't think you
will find any excessive fatalities per bicycle mile in Oregon compared to
states where bicycles are not allowed on freeways at all. You're just
safer on the freeway. Boring without the joy of high speed traffic trying
to squeeze by you on a narrow lane, but safe.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, it is now possible to travel
from coast to coast without seeing anything."
Charles Kuralt

Why the hell would I want to interact with people? I'm trying to get
from one place to another. And there's 30 miles between exits, much
less anything else besides tumbleweeds. Do you see someone on the side
of the road and suddenly pull up beside them and start talking to
them???

I ride I-90 very frequently.

Hell no.

How many needless deaths will you accept for a free and secure Iraq?

I, too have done it for hundreds of miles on western freeways. (It's
also legal in New Jersey, IIRC). Again, despite the ill-informed
remarks, the problems are minimal.

The trucks do NOT cause a problem with wind blast. Most trucks shifted
to the inner lanes when they passed us to give us more clearance, but
we wished they wouldn't! The trucks tow a nice tailwind behind them,
and it was nice to have that boost for a second or two.

Like Richard, we never once exited when we intended to go straight.
Non-urban freeway exit ramps get very little exiting traffic, and the
cyclist takes only a few seconds to cross the ramp so there's
negligible hazard even if the cyclist didn't bother to check his rear
view mirror. And if motorists are really going to argue they wouldn't
notice a cyclist, they should admit to severe sight problems and turn
in their license!

The worst problems we encountered were these:

In some places, the shoulders are milled to keep the less-competent
motorists on the pavement. Those surfaces are bad for bicycling, so we
had to watch to avoid them.

In some places, there's excessive trash and gravel on the shoulders.

And on a busy freeway, the noise is not pleasant.

Otherwise, there's just no problem.

- Frank Krygowski

far to many moron drivers unable to successfully multitask while
driving, drinking coffee and chatting to their dog on the cellphone...

--
mark
markjs1@*nospam*yahoo.com
-- 
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, 
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B.
Anthony, 1896

I'd like to use a bike for city driving to the grocery or library etc.
but i still think it's just too damn dangerous.

Ummmm, it's not that rare. If bicycle use was allowed in the emergency
lane, we'd have hundreds of bicyclists killed, daily I'm sure. -Dave

Gee, now I feel bad about making that wind turbulance remark. My
experience was with a bus passing me at a 15 mph differential on two
lane undivided road with about 5 or 6 feet of clearance on a windy day
(I was taking the lane at the time).

I admit that I have no experience riding on interstates here (since it's
illegal in both VA and WV, AFAIK), so I'll defer to those who have
first-hand experience.

My experience matches Frank's, based on riding I-15 in CA, NV, and UT, and
84 in OR, plus misc small mileages elsewhere - e.g. near Meridian MS this
past spring when US 80 went on the Interstate for a while.

Then activites like that should be outlawed. Problem solved.

The main purpose is to wake up dangerous psychos who drive while
sleepy.

You are right. When leaving Texas, one hundred eighty five kph is way
too slow. If possible, it is best to exceed the speed of sound so you
don't have to listen to Texas bull shit. Better yet, exceed the speed
of light so you don't have to look at their ugly women.

You? Afraid??? Who'd've guessed.

BTW, for an /honest/ account what happened, read this (all of it):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

Go ahead and keep your classless and hateful user-name (until the next
version, of course). Says a hell of a lot more about YOU than her.

BS (really)

In at least half of the U.S., bikes are allowed on some or all
Interstate highways.

If your state is not among them, ask your state elected officials why it
works in states from New Jersey to California but won't work in your
state.

--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>

AASHTO, however, disagrees, and publishes design standards used across
the U.S. for bicycle access to freeways. But they're just a national
association of highway and transportation officials, what would they
know that could stand up to Usenet bloviation?

Updated Infrared Photography Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html>

>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> On 19 Jun 2006 12:10:01 -0700, "Grendel" <wsth...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:

>> >This doesn't even get into the fact that cyclist would be blown off of
>> >the berm or sucked into the path of traffic by the slipstream from one
>> >fast moving Peterbilt.

>> Bikes are allowed on regular two lane highways where speed limits are
>> 60 mph. Why doesn't it happen there? Again i say THINK.

>Again, I say you are incapable of thinking. I thought about it,
>considered the physics of it (man on 30lb bike going 15mph vs. 65,000lb
>Peterbilt going 80mph....again 'Vroom, woosh, *squish*') and agree with
>the experts that it is a pretty stupid idea.

>It does happen there. You've never heard of cyclists getting killed
>before? Or do you just wish to blame it on 'SUV driving Rightards!'?
>(are you saying that democrats ALL drive hybrids?) I've had it happen
>to me, got blown off the highway by a rig doing between 50-60, the ONLY
>time I rode a bike on the major highway. On an interstate the limit
>is, in my state, 75. That can do a lot of damage.

>Live with the fact that you are an idiot.

So, the 12,000 or so on bikes from west Houston through Bellville,
Fayetteville, La Grange, Bastrop, and Austin who are pedaling on state
highways with a 70/65 night limit (and mostly two 12' lanes) every San Jacinto
weekend (i.e., around April 21) are idiots? Funny, considering I pedaled out
FM 1093 all the way to Fulshear from near where the West Sam and 1093 meet
these days...but back then, it was two lanes of blacktop for almost 20 miles;
I made it out to Fulshear and then came back the same way, and I had no close
calls, despite 1093 being one of the busier roads in the outer fringes back
then. For some reason, I've managed to survive approximately 40 years of
pedaling in and around the Houston area...

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA

Doesn't seem to be a problem in the half of the U.S. where it's legal
already.

Interstate cycling is actually safer. Boring, but safer. Riding across
the Cascade Mountains on I-90 is smooth, safe, and dull. Riding on US-
20 is much more scenic, also harder with more passes, and more
dangerous. Likewise, if I needed to ride to southern Oregon in a hurry,
I-5 would be faster and safer than riding down the coast on 101, but
also extremely boring.

No need to theorize, you can look at the statistics in states where it's
been legal for decades.

This is another rule that varies by state. Not all states that allow
bicycles on freeways have this requirement.

The concern is that bicycles remaining on the freeway need to cross the
lane of traffic exiting the freeway. States that assume cyclists are
mentally incompetent mandate they exit the freeway and re-enter rather
than crossing the exit ramp. Other states leave this to the cyclists'
choice, given the traffic conditions at the time.

Personally, if I'm riding on a freeway and traffic is light, I've never
had a problem finding a gap in traffic to cross the off-ramp and remain
on the freeway. If traffic is heavy, then dropping down the exit and
re-entering can be faster than waiting for a safe crossing.

If traffic is stop-and-go heavy, then it's easiest to wait for traffic
to stop, communicate with a motorist, and cross in front of a stopped
car.

Of course, if you're dealing with a multi-lane exit, then it gets harder
to find a gap in 2+ lanes at the same time, so exiting and re-entering
can be simpler.

Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html>

Don't you mean SR 20? There's no US 20 in WA state. US 2/Stevens
Pass?

FloydR

Sorry, you're right. I was thinking of my upcoming Oregon vacation,
US-20 drops down to 101 in Newport. SR-20 is the dangerous scenic route
across the Washington Cascades.

And, in case anyone worries, no, it's not particularly dangerous, it's a
beautiful cycling road. Cycling is generally a very safe activity, even
off the interstate.

Shoot in 1968, Illinois started issuing different license plates to
motorcycles that were too small to be used on interstates. (In Illinois,
under 150 cc are not allowed on interstates, neither are bicycles or
pedestrians for that matter.) Motorcycle plates with all numbers and now 2
letters are allowed on interstates, one letter plates are not.

But then we were one of the last states to allow self serve gas and up the
truck limit to 80,000 lbs on interstates.

Charles of Schaumburg

Josh - Ever heard the saying there are lies, there are DAMNED LIES, and then
there are statistics???

I don't doubt the statistics probably show that biking on the freeway is
pretty safe, in areas where it is currently allowed.

Of course, it's only "pretty safe" at the moment as it's not too common,
even in areas where it is allowed.

Imagine if traffic density of bicycles increased to say, 10 per mile, on the
average freeway. I'm sure that the numbers would then show why allowing
bicycles on freeways is a really TERRIBLE idea. -Dave

So you'd rather bike out on the freeway? Interesting twist of logic there.

Ummmm . . . motorists often fail to see motorcycles, and motorcycles:
1) Are larger than bicycles
2) Are LOUDER than bicycles
3) Have lights on (front and rear) at all times while the engine is running
4) Are faster than bicycles

If people can't see motorcycles, how do you expect them to see bicycles,
which are (in comparison) slow, small, quiet, and not lit
up?????????????????????????????????? -Dave

Nope. I trimmed the list before sending my reply. What caused me to check the
list was the many replies from users who I didn't recognize.

--
Michael

It's true that motorists _sometimes_ don't see motorcyclists. And they
_sometimes_ don't see other motorists. They sometimes don't see
tractor trailer rigs or bridge abutments.

But all the above are rare, and even more rare in the visually empty
conditions of a rural freeway. Despite the implied "Bicycling is
dangerous!!!!" nonsense, there are no data indicating any visibility
problems with bikes on freeways.

Dig up information from the states that allow freeway cycling. You'll
see it's no problem.

- Frank Krygowski

You're wrong.

See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

- Frank Krygowski

OK, I've just concluded, with near 100% certainty, that you have never
operated a motorcycle before. Hell, even motorcyclists don't see other
motorcycles, and they (of all people) SHOULD know to look for them. -Dave

Listen to the stupid little sheep who believes everything the
"experts" say. Well - i don't know cause i know they're corrupt and
say whatever they're paid to say. You can buy an engineer with a
steak dinner. THINK

That saying is quoted most often by people who suddenly realize the
data indicates that they're wrong. They use it as a vague excuse for
sticking to their opinion in the face of evidence.

Sorry, but it's _very_ safe. Problems are vanishingly rare.

The only way to imagine this being dangerous is to imagine motorists
weaving uncontrollably all over 40+ feet of pavement as they drive. In
real life, motorists very rarely run onto the freeway shoulder. They
do so even less when they see something in the shoulder, whether it's a
broken muffler or a person on a bike. And they rarely fail to notice a
person on a bike, if only because they are not that common.

It's just not a problem!

- Frank Krygowski

>
>> Besides, WHY would you want to bike on an interstate ? They're
>> BORING - look the same everywhere. Secondary and residential
>> streets would be just as fast, but you'd get to LOOK at stuff,
>> perhaps interact.
>
>Why the hell would I want to interact with people? I'm trying to get
>from one place to another.

If that's your goal - ditch the bike and buy a car or motorcycle.
Bicycles are for getting to places SLOWLY.

Or maybe you had a bunch of DUIs ??? Well, tough. Hire a taxi
or stick out your thumb.

A name flame?? Is that all you've got?. And BTW my name is the
truth. Laura Bush is guilty of VH.

Yes. Stop and think and you'd realize it's safer on the freeways for
a biker than on city streets.

Women are illegal in texas. It's the homo state.

No, you /trimmed/ the rest of what I wrote. Trolling asswipe.

You've never missed a stop sign or a red light? Ever come close? Lucky?
Unlucky???

Now, driving off a bridge with your pregnant mistress, saving your own
drunken ass and political career while leaving her to drown and then waiting
many hours to even /report/ the crime -- as opposed to confess it -- now
THAT should be "VH" as you call it.

Again, people can read the Snopes link (which of course you felt necessary
to delete) to learn what really happened. Tragic, but not at all uncommon.

Spitting out the hook now, BS

My point, which you didn't respond to, is that it WOULD be a problem, if it
was more common. I don't blame you for not trying to refute it,
hough. -Dave

As usual, you are just plain wrong. -Dave

Well, there is this comment (in the .sig) that Loco Laura recently made
that gives me pause to think....

--
Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend admits to being a red light
runner:

"The cameras don't catch everyone. I have never been nailed for this."

Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 5/9/06
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/ee4wq
Message ID: 9nb162p1idam39jhm...@4ax.com

In Maryland, bicycles are permitted on the shoulders of a freeway
section of MD-32 between the MD-198 end/interchange at Ft. Meade and
the MD-175 interchange in Odenton. This 3-mile stretch is marked with
green "Bike Route" trailblazers and bicycle icons painted on the
shoulder. A yellow diamond warning sign is posted in advance (<bike
icon> on shoulder, next 3 miles) and an iconic "No Bicycles" sign may
be seen beyond the designated area.

I think this was done because otherwise there was no practical route
for a cyclist to get between Odenton and Laurel, MD. This happened
because (a) MD-32 was upgraded completely to freeway in the Ft. Meade
area in the last few years, and (b) Ft. Meade itself, formerly an
"open" Army base, after 9-11-01 became secure, so cyclists can no
longer cut through the base -- well, not without a DoD tag on their
bike at least.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Well, if you want to confine the discussion to imaginary hazards, I
guess we can do that!

In a sense, it's a good sign when people start worrying about very
unlikely events. It means that real life is actually very safe.

- Frank Krygowski

That's no answer. If you or i ran a stop sign and killed an innocent
person, we'd be prosecuted.

Teddy went off a single lane bridge with no guard rail at night. The
real killer was the idiot who built the bridge. Next question.

Drivers don't see motorcyclists and bikers because they don't pay
attention. They're yakking on a cel phone or playing with the radio
or just daydreaming. The way to stop that is to stop coddling goof-off
drivers. We need a law that says anyone found at fault in a fatal
crash must serve at least 10 years in prison. Then drivers would keep
their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel.

lol, god i'm really shocked at the stupidy of many Americans, when you
say they're retarded, it's not an exaggeration, it's like they can't
grasp ANYTHING, no matter how simple it is. I really think we are
being poisoned.

Watch these videos on the effects of water fluoridation.

the fluoridation of the water supply is to give the public a mass
lobotomy. Watch these videos, and the shocking truth. The chief
propogandist of the fluoridation movement was Edward Bernays, Sigmund
Freud's nephew.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12195249 3016

Yeah, she sure had a lot of political pull at age 17.

The bridge designer made Ted hiccup and weave his way HOME instead of
stopping at the first house to call for help?

"While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for
reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90
miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after
dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked.

On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in
Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his
Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a
campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit, narrow, rickety wooden
bridge, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge and into Poucha Pond.

He swam to shore and walked back to the party -- passing several houses and
a fire station -- and two friends returned with him to the scene of the
accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already
knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the
authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer,
and went to sleep.

Kennedy called the police the next morning. By then the wreck had already
been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered
floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began
pulling strings, ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse
was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be
conducted."

(From http://www.nndb.com/people/623/000023554/)

When I've seen dozens per mile on I-5 and I-90 it hasn't been a problem.
Both Interstates are included in some large group ride routes, have been
for years, without unusual difficulties.

It's simply safe.