The title and article itself are INCREDIBLY misleading. But that appears intentional, so I'll just state the facts as simply as possible. Under PA law (and I'm told the PA Constitution as well), it is ILLEGAL for any county, or municipality (cities, towns, boroughs...) to enact ANY laws related to firearms. That is PA law. Cities CAN NOT make any local firearms laws. Therefore, when a city DOES pass a 'law' regarding firearms, they are violating Commonwealth law, and if they enforce it they are violating the rights of the citizen they enforced it upon. So what this law says is that if a city is breaking the law, and violates your rights, and then you (or the NRA, or the ACLU or NAACP or NAGR or any other group) sues the city for breaking the law and violating your rights, that city has to pay YOUR legal costs when they loose. They have to reimburse you the cost of fighting to defend the rights they violated. The alternative is a city breaking the law and violating your rights, then when you try to defend yourself, they use their ON STAFF lawyers to drag out any hearings and financially DESTROY the person fighting for their rights. Why wouldn't they? If they piss away MILLIONS on defending themselves for breaking the law and violating your rights, what does it cost them? Nothing? They just take more money from the people of their city. So why WOULDN'T they violate your rights? Well, because it will cost them TWICE as much to accomplish nothing, again, if they lose. If they WIN, they don't have to pay your costs... So if they REALLY think their law is valid, and they are not violating your rights, why would they care if they have to pay if they lose? If your 'law' is 'legal' you WON'T have to pay. Feel deceived yet? Personally, I think, rather than pass this law, it is FAR more appropriate to send state troopers to arrest the pittsburgh mayor and anyone else involved in 'conspiring to violate your civil rights' (which is EXACTLY what they did by passing that 'law' and any like it), but that'd never happen, becasue justice rarely finds those with power.
As a citizen harmed by the efforts of elected officials willing to thumb their noses at the state legislation, as if they have a higher authority, i can confidently tell you, no sir/madams, you are not above the law!! Your push for public safety, has nothing to do with protecting the citizens!! It has everything with pushing your personal, ILLEGAL agenda!! How dare you take taxpayer money to control the LAW ABIDING gun owner by doing ILLEGAL ordinances and making the TAXPAYER pay to push your agenda!! SHAME ON YOU AND YOUR EGOS!! The only person that you hurt is the law abiding citizens while you give criminsls a free pass to do their evil!!
where is darlene harris in this video? i hear a voice of a woman "sounding" like her. at what time in the video can her face be seen?
Darlene Harris has no concrete plans for anything. She's a sign of Old Pittsburgh - the old timers who complain about anything and everything that hasn't been here for 100 years. Complaining about bike lanes and saying you won't be Peduto isn't a platform.
(She also has a face that looks like a cat's puckered asshole, but that's neither here nor there.)
Funny how BikePGH has essentially become a PAC for Peduto.
To be fair, most motorists I have encountered are self-important douchebags with no common sense. Yes, you have a right to the same road. Tell me what being right is going to mean to you when some idiot hits you and you're laying there dying.
Also, honking at Amish buggies, pedestrians, other cars, cyclists...its *always* rude. Pittsburgh has a HUGE issue with people honking their horns. Don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution.
Bikes do kill pedestrians. It happens. Just not nearly at the same rate as motorists kill cyclists/pedestrians. Most pedestrian deaths attributed to cyclists are because cyclists are riding on the sidewalks.
Sidewalks are the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be. For pedestrians, motorists and cyclists alike.
This woman is a nightmare.
Between ranting about homeless camps and creating an unsafe environment for cyclists she's proven to be nothing more than an entitled geriatric who is unsurprisingly opposed to societal progression and only strives to maintain her personal comfort.
She's yet to provide a single viable solution in regards to improving the city of Pittsburgh.
I drive through Amish country every day. When I come upon an Amish buggy or one riding a bike I give a quick honk on my horn. This is not to be an asshole; this is to be certain they know a truck is approaching so it doesn't surprise them or spook the horse. It's called 'being safe'
To be fair, most bicyclists I have encountered are self-important douchebags with no common sense. Yes, you have a right to the same road. Tell me what being right is going to mean to you when some idiot hits you and you're laying there dying.
Darlene Harris behaved here like an impatient hothead: honking at a cyclist who was preventing her from driving at twice the speed limit, then telling him to get in the [nonexistent] bike lane. Why would we elect someone this ignorant and self-centered to be mayor?
About the idea of licensing bicycles: It makes sense to require registration, insurance, and licensing for CARS, since they can kill others. But bicycles don't kill others, so licensing them is unnecessary. Also, bicycling is good for health, environment, and frugality, while driving a car often is not. Some people bike to work occasionally to address obesity and diabetes. As a society, we should promote cycling over driving. We shouldnt be penalizing cyclists. Registration, insurance, and licensing of bicycles would be unwise because it would discourage cycling.
Here's an article Why Bicycle Licensing Almost Never Works, in synopsis:
Toronto tried mandatory bicycle licensing and abandoned it, concluding that it teaches kids to break the law.
Ottawa estimated it would cost $100,000 a year but bring in only $40,000/yr in revenue.
Long Beach tried bicycle licensing but they lost money on it.
Seattle found the maintenance and record-keeping to be a problem.
Medford tried it and found it unenforceable.
San Jose has bike licensing laws, but its fallen into disuse: only 9 licenses were issued one year.
San Diego has earned no revenue from bicycle licensing for the last three years.
Houston has a law, but only 100 bicycles are registered, total.
Los Angeles loses money on their bike licensing, and the law is not enforced.
Honolulu has a bike license law, and it makes money, but that may be because Oahu is an island.
since there r no conservatives running, i'd rather see darlene harris as the next mayor. peduto's only "accomplishment" is removing all 2-lane streets downtown pgh & on NS bridges to make way 4 bike lanes which has GUMMED UP local traffic (irony is that the bikes lanes r usually empty !!). i used to live in philadelphia for a few yrs - that's conducive to being a "bike city" b/c of the FLAT terrain & b/c of the milder winters (both due to fact that it's closer to a shore). does peduto realize that pgh will never be a "bike city" because of the HILLS & the NOTORIOUS rainy weather during non-winter seasons & harsh snow during winter? he's delusional to the realities of pgh's weather/terrain. thx a lot bill 4 ruining dwntn traffic!
I have no issue with cyclists who respect the traffic laws and ride safely. I will always slow down, and only pass them when i can safely do so with the 4' buffer. We all need to chill and share the roads, they belong to all of us.
That said, if you are among the minority of cyclists who feel that traffic lanes, stop signs, red lights, and other laws and/or traffic control devices do not apply to you, well, i have a problem with that. If you run red lights and stop signs(because you can), and otherwise ignore the laws that motor vehicles must adhere to, then you will hear horns and cursing and have confrontations with drivers.
What many of you seem to be missing is that Darlene Harris started the escalation. Her honking her horn was the equivalent of "What is your damned problem." The cyclist reponded in kind and it further escalated. The onus of the altercation is on the initial aggressor...Darlene Harris.
Leslie Marie Fenner - If you hit a cyclist, its because of your stupidity, not the cyclists. Watch the road. Watch for others. Share the road. This isn't rocket science. You have to register and insure a car because its worth tens of thousands of dollars. You can't bya motor vehicle at Toys R Us. Its ignorant motorists such as yourself that are ruining it for everyone else...cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike.
If you don't want to obey the laws, leave. You're not wanted here.
Don Harden - So all I have to do to avoid paying sales and income taxes is own a bike? Its that easy? Do I get the taxes back that I pay for gas in my motor vehicle as well?
How many of those cars clogging up the highways actually live in Pittsburgh? Yet, the majority of the complaints about bicycle lanes come from them.(commuters). I moved to the North side 30 years ago, so I could use my bicycle as a major form of transportation. I own a car and a house and I work in Pittsburgh, so I pay my share of taxes. I never understood why folks in the 'Burgh are so resistant to change. Steel mills closed along time ago, and people still think the mills and coal mining are coming back. PROGRESSION PEOPLE!
I'm totally against bikes on main roads unless you have a bike lisence, insurance and inspection. Yes I to paid taxes on my car like your bike. I also am required to have my car inspected, use headlights and turn signals, have insurance. But if I hit you because of your stupidity I am at fault. It's not ok for you to weave in and out of traffic, go thru red lights, jump from street to sidewalk and back. It's not ok for you to hold on to my car when stopped, I see more accidents about to happen because of bikes. Now if you follow the rules, I am nice to you, you break the rules don't think I will have a kind word for your sorry ass. I have seen more bikers almost hit pedestrians in cross walks around Oakland, if those people didn't step back they would be hit. We need more cops writing tickets to bike violators and put them in their place. I will share the road only if you have to follow the rules too. Helmets, lights, turn signals, insurance, inspections, lisences, maybe then they wouldn't act like they are the only one on the road or have the attitude I can do whatever I want on the street, if I get hit the car is at fault.
I have met and seen some very nice bikers who are following the rules and in return they have my respect. The rest of you aggrogant SOBs walk it's better and safer for you or take a bus.
I've ridden bikes as my main transportation for over 60 years. It's less than a minor incident. It would have meant nothing to me if the driver did not do something aggressive and dangerous.
I will say that getting honked at was far more rare before there were bike lanes. The idea that drivers will understand that a cyclist doesn't have to ride in the bike lanes is one of the dumbest rationalizations ever, and bike lane advocates make this rationalization all the time.
And, yes, Stu was definitely looking for a confrontation, but he was in the right. He was going downhill and keeping up a reasonable speed. Expecting him to pull over at that speed so a motorist could pass would have been a ridiculous idea, except for the bike lane saying that's the right thing to do.
I commute on my bike most days and being honked at seems like the definition of a minor incident. If you can't handle regular traffic noises, you shouldn't be biking on public roads. By pulling up and confronting the driver at the light and then asking her to pull over, he definitely appears to be escalating things. Probably trying to pick a fight so that he can get a viral video.
Being honked at from behind by a moving vehicle about to pass you is NOT a "minor" incident. But thanks for making clear you have never ridden a bike on any city street, ever.
Sounds like the cyclist wanted to escalate something minor. If some wants to ride a bike that's fine with me, but when the bike lane ended apparently so did his common sense.
Bike lanes are an incredibly stupid idea. They make cyclists feel safer while putting them in the most dangerous part of the road. Even the PennDot Bicycle Drivers Manual contains a lengthy article called "Street Smarts," that tells cyclists where they are safest and least safe. From every perspective, they are least safe riding far to the right, and that's exactly where bike lanes put them.
It's easy to granstand on a videotaped incident, but the real danger to cyclists comes from Bike Pittsburgh pandering to the unwarranted fears of those cyclists, and to mayor Peduto for pandering to Bike Pittsburgh.
Here is the article. Note that riding far to the right increases the chances of being hit by a car door, being hit from the right, being hit from the left, being hit by an oncoming car making a left turn, and even being sideswiped by a car trying to "squeeze by."
Here is the PennDOT bicycle manual. See page 10, "Where to Ride on the Road."
By the way, the deadliest bike lane of all is the downhill lane on Liberty Avenue. Part of it is a 4% drop, and part is a 6% drop. Even the most out-of-shape cyclist can maintain the 35 mph speed limit going down that hill. However, if a car door opens, that cyclist will hit it at the same speed as if he had just fallen off a three-story building.
Whatever you do, don't ride in that bike lane, and tell Bike Pittsburgh to get rid of that lane and have "sharrows" put in the center of the traffic lane going downhill. The uphill bike lane is innocuous, however. It tells cyclists to ride exactly where they always rode when there were no bike lanes.
Pittsburgh City Paper
Website powered by Foundation
National Advertising by VMG Advertising