Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by John Ka » Sun, 11 Feb 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>    Recently a friend was riding home from work on a sidewalk (legally) when a
> car exiting a parking lot, drove through the stop sign, struck him broadside and sent
> him reeling into the street.  When he filed a claim with the Shelter Insurance
> Company to recoup the loss of his bike, he was given a copy of a local oridnance that
> said bikes as well as cars must stop at stop signs when crossing sidewalks and his
> claim was denied.  He appealed to the regional office and the denial was affirmed.
> He had to take the driver to small claims court and get a judgement before the
> company would replace his bike.

>    I would suggest that if you are in the process of choosing an insurance
> carrier or now have Shelter Insurance it would be appropriate to choose another
> entity and let the Shelter people know what you did and why.

I am amazed . this is the first time I have ever heard that it is legal to
cycle on the sidewalk. In my province it is totally illegal.
Why would a bicyclist ride on the sidewalk?
john

--

Hull, Quebec           Tel: (613) 748-4668 Work
Canada                 Tel: (819) 770-5468 Home

 
 
 

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by Timothy J. L » Fri, 16 Feb 1996 04:00:00

|John Kane writes that he is
|>amazed . this is the first time I have ever heard that it is legal
|> to cycle on the sidewalk. In my province it is totally illegal.
|> Why would a bicyclist ride on the sidewalk?
|
|Because, John, in many big cities (like Chicago) there is no
|alternative. At the north end of the lakefront bike path, for
|instance, the sidewalk is actually _marked_ as the bike path.

Is the use of the bike path or sidewalk mandatory in your area?

In California, there are bike paths, some of which are just
sidewalks with "bike path" signs on them, but their use is not
mandatory in any place where I've seen them.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

 
 
 

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by Timothy J. L » Fri, 16 Feb 1996 04:00:00

|John Kane writes that he is
|>amazed . this is the first time I have ever heard that it is legal
|> to cycle on the sidewalk. In my province it is totally illegal.
|> Why would a bicyclist ride on the sidewalk?
|
|Because, John, in many big cities (like Chicago) there is no
|alternative. At the north end of the lakefront bike path, for
|instance, the sidewalk is actually _marked_ as the bike path.

Is the use of the bike path or sidewalk mandatory in your area?

In California, there are bike paths, some of which are just
sidewalks with "bike path" signs on them, but their use is not
mandatory in any place where I've seen them (except for one
place where the adjacent road is a freeway where bikes are
not allowed).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

 
 
 

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by Mike Balla » Tue, 20 Feb 1996 04:00:00

In other places in CA, you can actually ride on the freeway(I-5 over
Tejon Pass, I-5 near Oceanside, CA-23 near Thousand Oaks). No very safe,
yet is better than the alternative.

: In California, there are bike paths, some of which are just
: sidewalks with "bike path" signs on them, but their use is not
: mandatory in any place where I've seen them (except for one
: place where the adjacent road is a freeway where bikes are
: not allowed).

: --
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------

: No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

--
Mike Ballard
Santa Clarita, California, United States of America

Web Page address - http://www.smartlink.net/~mapmaker

Way to go MTA! Dig that subway all the way to North Hollywood.

 
 
 

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by Tom Hol » Tue, 20 Feb 1996 04:00:00


)In other places in CA, you can actually ride on the freeway(I-5 over
)Tejon Pass, I-5 near Oceanside, CA-23 near Thousand Oaks). No very safe,
)yet is better than the alternative.

I doubt freeway cycling is particularly dangerous.  It's no fun, but the
likelihod that a car will come careening onto the shoulder must be remote
compared to the likelihood of typical urban cycling accidents.
 -Tom

 
 
 

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by Royce Mye » Sat, 24 Feb 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

> In other places in CA, you can actually ride on the freeway(I-5 over
> Tejon Pass, I-5 near Oceanside, CA-23 near Thousand Oaks). No very safe,
> yet is better than the alternative.

> : In California, there are bike paths, some of which are just
> : sidewalks with "bike path" signs on them, but their use is not
> : mandatory in any place where I've seen them (except for one
> : place where the adjacent road is a freeway where bikes are
> : not allowed).

> : --
> : ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> : No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

In Huntington Beach, CA, there are three "mandatory sidepaths", which are
simply dangerous sidewalks.  

1. South on Golden West between McFadden and Edinger
2. South on Newland north of Ellis
3. West on Heil, somewhere between Brookhurst and Beach (I forget exactly
where).

In all three cases there are signs which say "Bicycles MUST use sidewalk".

These signs are unenforceable and illegal, yet local activists do nothing.

--


 
 
 

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by Richard Kais » Sat, 24 Feb 1996 04:00:00



Quote:


>)In other places in CA, you can actually ride on the freeway(I-5 over
>)Tejon Pass, I-5 near Oceanside, CA-23 near Thousand Oaks). No very safe,
>)yet is better than the alternative.

>I doubt freeway cycling is particularly dangerous.  It's no fun, but the
>likelihod that a car will come careening onto the shoulder must be remote
>compared to the likelihood of typical urban cycling accidents.
> -Tom

Add to the list, part of the 101 north of Ventura.  This is part of Grand Tour
double/300/400, both highland and lowland routes.  The city streets were much
scarier.  We rode on the shoulder (required by law) and had ample clearance
from the traffic.  The shoulders were some of the cleanest roads on the ride.

I also rode on the 15 through Cahone Pass (?sp) pass during the old Majave by
Moonlight ride.  The traffic on the surface streets in Hesperia was much
worse with drunk and obnoxious drivers.

Richard Kaiser
Pasadena, CA

 
 
 

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by Peter Jam » Fri, 01 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> For at least one motorway in Britain, the police claim that a
> vehicle abandoned on the hard shoulder is likely to be hit by a
> truck or car in less than an hour.  The speed difference between
> a stationary vehicle and a bike (15 mph?) is not much when traffic
> is doing 60 to 75 mph (typical for the nearside lane of a fairly
> busy motorway).  If freeways are anything like this, I wouldn't
> want to ride along their shoulders.

> Sorry, I can't quote you the reference (I think it was a TV
> documentary).  The explanation, at least in part, is that one
> driver in every thousand or so is asleep.

There was a discussion on riding on motorway shoulders in recent UK CTC
magazines and a police officer wrote in response with this particular
piece of information.

--
Peter James
Ottawa, Ontario

 
 
 

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by John Van » Sun, 03 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


>> For at least one motorway in Britain, the police claim that a
>> vehicle abandoned on the hard shoulder is likely to be hit by a
>> truck or car in less than an hour.  The speed difference between
>> a stationary vehicle and a bike (15 mph?) is not much when traffic
>> is doing 60 to 75 mph (typical for the nearside lane of a fairly
>> busy motorway).  If freeways are anything like this, I wouldn't
>> want to ride along their shoulders.

If this is true, then UK drivers are _much worse_ than US drivers.

Quote:
>> Sorry, I can't quote you the reference (I think it was a TV
>> documentary).  The explanation, at least in part, is that one
>> driver in every thousand or so is asleep.

Much, much worse!  Given this, then at every point along the motorway, a
snoozing driver drifts onto the shoulder at least once an hour.  If he
doesn't strike an abandoned car, then he must continue to drift
completely off the roadway into the concrete barrier, an open field, or
the piles of wrecked cars left by previous somnolent motorists.

Quote:

>There was a discussion on riding on motorway shoulders in recent UK CTC
>magazines and a police officer wrote in response with this particular
>piece of information.

You forgot the quote marks: "...a police officer wrote in response with
this particular piece of 'information.'"  One wonders what motivated the
officer to fabricate, or believe, such a bald-faced lie.

John Vance

 
 
 

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by Joe Boswel » Mon, 04 Mar 1996 04:00:00



[snip]
Quote:

>Sorry, I can't quote you the reference (I think it was a TV
>documentary).  The explanation, at least in part, is that one
>driver in every thousand or so is asleep.

A much more credible explanation is that many long distance drivers are
not concentrating all that much and, particularly when it is dark, they
align their vehicle with any vehicle or set of tail lights they see
ahead of them. If this happens to be a stationary vehicle on the hard
shoulder, they then drive straight into the back of it.

--
*Joe* (Please feel free to put the epigram of your choice here.)

 
 
 

Shelter Ins. - Just say "No"

Post by Mr R M Mant » Tue, 05 Mar 1996 04:00:00

    >>> Sorry, I can't quote you the reference (I think it was a TV
    >>> documentary).  The explanation, at least in part, is that one
    >>> driver in every thousand or so is asleep.

    John> Much, much worse!  Given this, then at every point along the
    John> motorway, a snoozing driver drifts onto the shoulder at
    John> least once an hour.  If he doesn't strike an abandoned car,
    John> then he must continue to drift completely off the roadway
    John> into the concrete barrier, an open field, or the piles of
    John> wrecked cars left by previous somnolent motorists.

Not quite. There are several other possibilities

1.) motorist drifts onto shoulder, drives along shoulder for several
miles before he wakes up again, goes off at an exit or crashes

2.) motorists drift onto the shoulder and are woken up by the rumbling
of the rumble strip (I have to admit that once when I was young I fell
asleep on the motorbike, and in the case the feeling of the lane
marking woke me out of my 5-second slumber)

3.) drivers of goods vehicles regularly drive at the edge of the lane,
and sudden gusts of wind (e.g. when overtaken very closely by another
large vehicle in side wind) make them drift onto the shoulder for a
while, until they take their corrective maneuver to get back onto the
lane.

I assume the following things:

a.) US-drivers have about half as many accidents per mile as European
drivers; driving between 3 and 4 times as much, US drivers have a
slightly higher accident rate per capita though.

b.) European motorways are far more crowded per lane than US
freeways. If you have one vehicle an hour in the lane next to the
shoulder, you'll have fewer vehicles straying onto the shoulder than
if you have 1000 vehicles per hour. Rush hour loadings per lane are
less dissimilar though.

c.) European drivers are far less used to driving distances that would
require a break and hence often don't take a break when they really
should.

Rolf
--


University of Warwick,    *                          _`\ `_(==     |     |
Coventry CV4 7AL, England * ________________________(_)/_(_)______ |     |