Not like some website where you hardly know what the name is supposed to mean, or who in virtual land you're submitting information and payment to.
The last 100 years are known by the state of California to cause cancer and you will be sued.
Limiting liability is surely behind the change you describes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Cycleway#:~:text=Th....
- Pedestrians are expected to yield to cyclists (de facto)
- Motorists are expected to yield to cyclists
- Cyclists can choose to bike at a slow pace on a busy highway, taking up the whole lane (motorists will be cited for impeding traffic)
- They are allowed to bike on the road at night with barely any visibility aids
- They aren't required to have liability insurance or pass any traffic exams
- The police is very lax about enforcing traffic laws for them
I am all for a good bike ride in the mountains, where there is no traffic, but surely the way we treat cyclists is unreasonable?
Thus zero licensing requirements etc.
We force places of business to build parking, forcing lower density, and higher cost to business. We build many neighborhoods without sidewalks at all, and with no bike access, forcing pedestrians and cyclists out of dedicated lanes and into traffic where they need to contend with multi ton SUVs. We do not penalize against designing vehicles with extremely poor visibility and excessive height, which directly translates to fatalities of those not in an armored shell on the roadway.
I would strongly encourage you to read more about building our cities and towns not directly around the automobile. We need to build around people, and bikes, and not strictly around the car.
- Motorists are provided with massive road construction subsidies
- Motorists are provided with government-mandated parking spaces
- When a motorist hits and kills a cyclist or pedestrian, punishments are usually laxer than for other forms of manslaughter
- Public spaces and shopping areas are designed with motorists in mind
- Zoning layout of cities and suburbs presumes car ownership
- Environmental costs of driving are paid by society at large
I am all for a good drive at NASCAR, but surely the way we treat motorists is unreasonable?
Since cyclist don't carry liability insurance, they likely have to be personally sued in court for damages, with all associated costs to both parties.
Are you claiming this is a fair responsibilities and risk distribution? How is it appropriate to "risk your own life" by breaking traffic laws on a public road?
Traffic laws are in place to ensure each other’s safety and also reasonably get folks places. Cars are an extreme risk to peds and cyclists, not the other way around so yes, they have more rules and must follow them more strictly. My 3 year old toddler on her trike doesn’t need a license to ride down our neighborhood street because she isn’t risking anyone’s life but her own.
The vast majority of serious bike accidents would cause damage only to the rider, I would guess. It's just not worth regulating or mandating anything.
Cycling accidents definitely happen, and they’ve become a lucrative industry. Just look up "bicycle injury attorney" and you will see tons of ads claiming that they "have recovered over 50 million for bicycle injury clients". The market here speaks for itself. Of course, a reasonable person doesn’t set out expecting to mow down a cyclist, but accidents happen despite the traffic laws designed to ensure everyone’s safety, and, to follow your example, a 3 y/o toddler doesn’t need a license to ride her trike down the street, but there’s nothing in the law, aside from common sense, stopping the child from continuing down the street and joining a major highway. At least "a multi-ton piece of steel" is visible and moves at the speed of traffic.
What I don't understand, why is it accepted, that both pedestrians and motorists should "watch out for cyclists", yet there is absolutely no campaigns for cyclists to watch out for cars and pedestrians and to follow the law. The easiest solution, imho, is to make the requirements equal for all - if someone wants to use a public road, they should be licensed and insured.
Because that's what happens a lot. Cars are deadly.
But please continue theorizing that this zero effort google search you went in to knowing nothing about is instead evidence for a world in which there is a large market for attorneys forcing payment by cyclists causing significant damages.
Next, have your last word because this conversation appears completely disingenuous and I will not be continuing it.
What??
The Cooper Cycle Company advert is centered below the map in the margin.
The Union Crackajack was evidently a Union bicycle for real "Crackajacks" or a riding group by that name and they chose to ride the "Barnes Special" which evidently was painted white as noted in the other advert and according to the description was well-made for the time period in that welds at frame joints were ground down so there were no obvious seams at the connections. It apparently was a quality product.
It looks like several of the bicycle ads reference specific colors for the brand they advertise so that may have been a distinctive maker mark from back in the day.
For example moving around the margin from UL corner - Fenton bicycle described as Blue Crown (maybe a trademark); along UR margin - March-Davis Cycle Company was the "Speedy Pink and Blue"; LR margin and LC both mentioning the Barnes Special; and I suspect that the left margin advert for National and Deere Implement Company bicycles were distinctively colored.
Just my guess.
EDIT: As a matter of fact I found a 1900 Barnes "White Flyer" Cushion Frame bicycle [0] listing in a UK museum site.
That description supports my guess that each manufacturer used color to distinguish their products from the competition. I got lucky.
Here's a little more history of a bicycle racer, Eddie "Cannon" Bald, who rode a Barnes Special and an example of the bicycle. [1]
There's also an eBay listing for a Barnes "White Flyer" frame [2] that is not cheap.
And finally, someone really knows their Barnes bikes and has a great example. [3]
[0] https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/1900-barnes-the-white-flye...
[1] https://thecabe.com/forum/threads/barnes-white-flyer-special...
[2] https://www.ebay.com/itm/163237177987
[3] https://thecabe.com/forum/threads/barnes-white-flyer-special...
Also I want to point out that the notion of riding from Coalinga (then: Alcalde) to Panoche (then: San Benito) via New Idria, on a bicycle, is lunacy. It's a major workout on a modern dirtbike with modern roads. I can't imagine that was a reasonable bicycle ride in 1895, or that anyone had a reason to undertake it from and to these unimportant sites. Must have been different back then.
A massive[note 1] lake that does not exist any more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulare_Lake
And not on this map(for two reasons), the salton sea, a massive lake that did not exist yet. the other reason it is not on this map, besides not existing yet, is the map does not cover that corner of the state.
1. in surface area, not volume, my understanding is it was really a sort of deep swamp.