Get Stupid Bicycle Riders Off the Road Now! Ticket them, jail them, do whatever it takes

[Better Believe It]

to get them off the main busy streets.

Far too many irresponsible bikers who think they are Lance Amstrong are causing accidents now.

And I've never seen a single biker ticketed for violating clear and sensible rules of the road!

Not a one.

They think they own the roads, are immortal and are not required to follow any road rules or simple common sense!

Perhaps those who wish to use main streets should be required to prove they actually know how to "drive" a bicycle on crowded streets and understand what a bike lane is and how to use it! If they pass the test, give them a license.

And did I mention that using cell phones and text messaging while riding a bicycle without using handle bars on a main street ought to be illegal?

I've seen it. Idiots!

Enough said.

Case Closed!

:)

[Incitatus]

1. here we go

:woohoo:

[Better Believe It]

3. What ya mean?

:)

[tavalon]

46. I brought popcorn

Made it without oil, if you get my meaning. :popcorn:

[backscatter712]

102. Pass me some!

:popcorn:

[Occulus]

142. I brought a tub

[Liberal_in_LA]

185. Gosh, that looks good

[Occulus]

229. thx :D

I love the new Blender (I used 2.5 alpha 2 for that picture). Professional quality 3D, for free.

Excellent video tutorials.

I made the tub for DU. Use it as you see fit.

[Liberal_in_LA]

242. thanks!

[provis99]

2. get your lazy ass out of the car and on a bicycle.

Stop destroying the environment. Bicyclists don't kill people by running into their cars, but cars kill bicyclists by running into them.

[Better Believe It]

7. We run into them because they blow red lights and cross over lanes of high speed traffic!

Idiots.

Oh.

I ride a bike.

And I follow the rules of the road.

[HuckleB]

50. Law-breaking motorists at fault in most bicyclist deaths, study finds

http://blogs.utexas.edu/ctr/2009/09/01/law-breaking-motorists-at-fault-in-most-bicyclist-deaths-study-finds/

Whoops.

Try again.

[darkstar3]

54. In Canda...

Not to mention the fact that this study is based on police reports, where the law requires the police to ticket the motorist, just like when you rear-end someone.

The study is flawed on many levels, so try again.

[HuckleB]

71. No, the study is not flawed.

Your excuses are made up.

Try again.

[darkstar3]

75. Oh?

Then perhaps you can tell me how a study done in one Canadian city can be applied to all American cities. I see sampling issues here.

Perhaps you can tell me how accurate psychological data (such as "not paying attention") can be gleaned from police incident reports, which are the primary documentation used to defend the issuance of a ticket?

Most of all, maybe you can tell me how this excuses the law-breaking done here in the US by current cyclists. The attitude problem and the blatant disrespect for the law have been well stated elsewhere in this thread, so tell me how this study somehow changes or answers those points.

[HuckleB]

76. Of course you do.

Because Canada cities and drivers and cyclists are so vastly different than Americans.

:rofl:

[darkstar3]

78. Buzz.

I'm sorry but your reply wasn't in the form of an answer.

[HuckleB]

80. Try again.

I'm sorry to have to bring the real world into your fantasies.

[darkstar3]

83. Um, I don't need to.

#75 was quite clear, and you haven't come close to providing an acceptable answer. Just like below, all you've done is try to insult and degrade those who disagree with you.

[HuckleB]

86. My answer is more than acceptable.

No evidence is going to change your fundamentalist hate for cyclists.

This explains your situation quite well: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/knowledge_versus_certainty_in_skepticism.php

[darkstar3]

88. So,

you fail to answer my points, and when called on this you simply offer up that I must be some fundamenlist cyclist hater?

Firstly, I don't think you know what the word fundamentalist means, and secondly, I think you should calm the fuck down and recognize the logical fallacies you're throwing around.

[HuckleB]

90. You can keep repeating yourself.

That doesn't make your world any more real.

[darkstar3]

93. .

:boring:
Still haven't seen any semblance of an answer from you to the very simple questions posed above.

[HuckleB]

95. You mean you're still ignoring the actual evidence.

Yes, your immature repeats are boring.

[darkstar3]

97. More ad hom.

I've read your link, and I understood the study quite well. Whether or not this constitutes evidence for this discussion has yet to be answered, since you keep dodging the questions above with more and more insulting horeseshit.

[HuckleB]

99. You have not read any of the links I've posted.

That's been made very clear.

I'm not the one who's dodging.

You seem to think that you can make claims upon others while acting in the manner that your claims state. That doesn't pass muster.

Good night.

I've played with someone much too young and immature for much too long.

[darkstar3]

106. The words

"logical fallacy" mean nothing to you, don't they?

Good night, and good riddance.

[HuckleB]

210. Wow.

You actually think that posting cliches without understanding them means something.

:rofl:

[salguine]

116. I had a teacher who, as a pedestrian, was killed by a bicycle messenger.

[msanthrope]

147. I was hit outside the courthouse by a bike messenger....who was trying to make a filing deadline.

Luckily, my rolling barrister bag took some of the impact. Ended up in the hospital overnight, though....

[JDPriestly]

117. People with knee problems cannot ride bicycles. Please be less

self-righteous.

And, I agree with the OP. The other day, I pulled out of the parking lot of my supermarket, looked both ways on the sidewalk and then pulled out a little further so that I could see both ways on the busy street I had to enter. (I'm short. I have to be right up by the street to see past the cars parked on the street to the cars moving toward me from the left.)

Suddenly, just as I was about to pull out, having looked all directions just seconds before, a bicyclist yelled at me and then almost immediately swerved in front of me. He was coming from the right, very fast --- and on the sidewalk.

Bicyclists should not be riding bikes on the sidewalk. On the street, yes. But not on the sidewalk.

The worst of it was that the bicyclist who drove in front of me while I was in the driveway (and had already pulled out on the sidewalk area) was followed by a second bicyclist also on the sidewalk.

Bicyclists should follow the rules just as motorists do. I was just barely inching out and being very cautions. As a result, I was able to stop. Had I been slightly less careful, this bicyclist would have been a goner. He had no business riding a bicycle that fast on the sidewalk.

[Obamanaut]

124. I've known some people with hip or knee problems who were

able to ride recumbents, mostly delta type (two wheels in back, one out in front). There is also a tadpole (two wheels in front, one in back) but these are lower and more difficult to mount if one has joint issues.

Here's a link to some photos of just one brand, there are many available http://www.easyracers.com/ezseries.html

I gave my wife's EZ3 SX, that we got for her during her rehab period following a motorscooter accident to a former HS classmate because her dr had recommended such a thing for her to try (auto accident rehab.)

I ride the two wheel version of the EZ3 (the EZ1 SX) - much easier on these aging legs and back, and the seat is much more comfortable than a regular 'upright' bike.

[Maru Kitteh]

151. $1,199.99! Who the F has that kind of money for a bike?

[Obamanaut]

175. I do. And many people who could benefit from bicycles spend that

much or more annually on cigarettes. One must have priorities I suppose.

[Spike from MN]

230. Lots of people do.

I know a lot of people that ride $3000 bikes and more than a few that ride $7000 bikes so I guess it's all relative. When you ride a lot and tally the cost per mile over the lifespan of the bike, it's actually a pretty inexpensive form of transportation. For example, a $3000 bike for someone that rides 6000 miles per year will end up costing 5 cents per mile over 10 years (which is a very short lifespan for a bike). You have to add maintenance to that but that's usually not all that much -- tires, lube, cables, etc. and maybe a derailleur or shifter over that time span. In addition, most people that ride that much tend to do their own maintenance which saves a lot of money. Even if I double the cost to 10 cents per mile, it's still cheaper than bus fare (for me anyway). And that doesn't even come close to the costs of operating a car. I'd be a happy camper indeed if my car only cost me 10 cents per mile.

So, if a person rides a lot, the cost of a more expensive bike can certainly be justified. That said, I don't own any really expensive bikes. Well, not yet anyway. ;)

[JDPriestly]

177. I would not want to risk it because, although I exercise a lot, my

knees hurt when I ride a bicycle. It's been that way since I was about 14.

[Obamanaut]

179. If my tone suggesting recumbents was pushy, I apologize. I am

aware that different bodies act differently. BUT - for some, recumbent trikes are an answer, not necessarily THE answer.

[Spike from MN]

232. Quite often, knee pain on a bike can be caused by improper saddle height.

The rule of thumb is that if the pain is in the front of the knee, raise the saddle. If it's in the back, lower it.

The most common fit issue I see with casual riders is that they have the seat too low which puts a lot of strain on the knee. Proper bike fit can be crucial to avoiding injury and should be done by a competent person that knows how to fit a bike. The "stand over the frame to see if you have enough clearance" that a lot of shops do is woefully inadequate. Proper bike fitting is a lot more involved. Most good bike shops can do it but it's important to make sure the person knows what s/he is doing. (Trust me, just because a shop has the "Fit Kit" system doesn't mean they know how to use it.) There's tons of info on the web regarding proper bike fit for those that want to look into it to try to get an idea as to whether or not their setup is correct.

Not saying this will solve your problem JD. Just putting the info out there in case it can help anyone.

[Spike from MN]

127. I have two bad knees but that doesn't stop me from commuting 15 miles each

way. Not everyone that has knee problems is forced off the bike. The people I know that have had knee surgery all used biking as part of the rehab program afterwards. On a properly fitted bike and using proper technique (spin a small gear instead of mashing a big one), biking can actually be good for the knees.

[ThomThom]

148. not true I have trouble climbing stairs but can cycle

cycling is easier on the knees than walking
gears make all the difference
I ride on the side walks sometimes because of people like the poster of this thread that make it unsafe for me to be in the streets

[backscatter712]

163. Don't have bad knees, but I have really bad feet.

And biking's easier on them than walking. Hell, I've cycled while my foot was in a cast.

[maxsolomon]

184. at least in Seattle, bicycles are allowed on the sidewalk

"no business" is a relative term.

[NoodleyAppendage]

132. Get your self-righteous inconsiderate annoying ass off the bike and just walk.

I bet you suit up and eat tofu energy bars during your "rides." Annoying!

J

[JDPriestly]

178. I prefer walking too -- and riding the train/bus.

[Xithras]

157. I nearly collided with an idiot cyclist on Friday.

Came up to a 4 way stop sign. Looked both ways. Saw a cyclist riding down the cross street at full speed, but knew he'd have to stop. So I went, as it was my turn anyway. He missed my front bumper, and being turned into a bloody speedbump, by inches. The moron blew through the stop sign like it wasn't even there.

I love bike riders, and rode to work for years, until my last job change relocated me too far from home to ride. Still, there is a sizable percentage of the riding population that are clueless, tuned out morons who crank up their iPods and completely ignore the traffic laws and other vehicles on the road.

The bastard even flipped me off.

[WinkyDink]

180. I will, if you wear a skirt and heels and carry a purse while you do.

[JerseygirlCT]

183. Bike riders are supposed to follow the same rules on the road.

You seem to think they're immune.

[datasuspect]

220. some of us have to be grownups

we don't get an extended adolescence until we are 40.

[HuckleB]

223. So what's your excuse?

[datasuspect]

247. there, there

well bless your heart.

[fishwax]

4. .

:popcorn:

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Yes, they should put the stupid bicyclist and stupid drivers in the same bus...n/t

[Mind_your_head]

6. You might need a *smack* upside the head.....

Bicycle riders are self-sufficient, energy-efficient, and STRONG!

You don't *like* them because 'why'? ..... tell me again?!?!

[Better Believe It]

10. I don't like idiots who ride bikes because they can't pass a drivers test to get a car license.

And don't have a clue what "rules of the road" is all about.

Why do you defend those who ride a bicycle like a fricken idiot?

I take it you don't know how to drive a car. Is that right?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

21. And THAT'S part of the problem.

Immunity. You cut off a half-ton truck that can't stop on a dime, and suddenly it's the truck driver who's taking all the heat.

I have no problem with cyclists who obey the rules of the road, but if you expect me to treat you like a vehicle, giving you the proper berth and so on, then you damn well better act like a vehicle, and not act like your random lane changing is my problem.

[Mind_your_head]

30. No. That half-ton truck better be on it's *best driving* behavior and be

able to stop on a dime.

The cyclist, the pedestrian, the horse-n-buggy ALWAYS has the right-of-way. And if you can't control your vehicle....be it a car, SUV, 1/2 ton truck.....YOU are GUILTY.

It's very simple. I won't *buy* your complications.

[darkstar3]

33. It's a damn good thing local judges don't agree with you.

A local case a few years ago exhonorated a driver for hitting a pedestrian because the pedestrian crossed a four lane highway in the dark outside of a crosswalk while wearing all dark clothing. The speed limit of the road was 40 mph. It was found that there was no way to stop the vehicle while it was driving the speed limit in time to prevent hitting the pedestrian due to visibility. Crosswalks are there for a reason, and if that fool had walked 150 feet further on the sidewalk and WAITED for the light to change, he'd be alive.

Immunity does you no good if you are dead, and it certainly can be overridden by the court if you abuse it. Furthermore, in most states, as has been pointed out to you, laws differ between pedestrians and cyclists.

[csziggy]

41. Sorry, but the "right of way" does NOT trump physics

If a bicyclist or small car cuts in front of a truck weighing some number of times greater than they do, there is no way in the world the driver can stop the truck fast enough, no matter how alert or good of a driver the operator of the truck may be.

I drive a three quarter ton truck and sometimes have a horse trailer attached to the hitch. I try to leave one or two vehicle lengths for every ten miles per hour I am traveling, but that seems to be an invitation to morons with a death wish to get in the way. I have been lucky not to have this happen with a bicyclist but I have had idiots in compact cars pull into the space I left in front of me. Then they slam on their brakes or do something stupid. The physics are unassailable - their 2000 pound car can stop in a much shorter distance than my 5000 pound truck even if I am NOT pulling a loaded 10,000 trailer. I haven't rear ended or hit one yet but it has been close.

Now as a former horse rider, I have been on the other end of the equation - where vehicle drivers do stupid things endangering the rider. I had an ankle crushed because of that kind of situation. Oddly enough the most obnoxious vehicle operators around horseback groups were motor and bi- cyclists. They both like to coast up behind the horse and rider and do their best to spook the horses.

And oh yeah - if my horses got hurt because I had to attempt to stop on a dime, I would be after the ass of the asshole who caused the whole situation.

[darkstar3]

45. It's impossible to leave a good length of space in front of you here.

As soon as you follow the standard rule of one car length per ten miles per hour (good for everyone, not just trucks and trailers), people here zoom into and through that space like they're trying to run in a NASCAR race. I can't believe how close people in this city ride bumpers on the highway...

[csziggy]

55. It's true in most urban areas that rely on cars for transportation

And I don't get it. Wedging your car into that space is not going to shorten the commute to work but it could easily shorten your life. I live outside of a smallish town and do not have to commute so I don't deal with it very much. I detest going to cities because of the idiocy. !I know I am lucky that the worst traffic I have had to deal with are the bevies of bicyclists that ignore the rules of the road, though the worst that the groups do is be annoying, not suicidal.)

The same for speeding for most commuter distances - it will not make a significant difference in the length of the commute.

I live ten miles from town and while I do not have to commute, I have checked the numbers. The speed limit on our country road is 45 mph, so if you go the speed limit, it will take a little under 10 minutes to get into town. If you go 60 mph, you might shave a minute or two off - is that worth the hassle of getting a ticket, or worse, getting into an accident? If you go 90 mph it would only take five minutes (if there were no other traffic on the road), but teh roads are not designed for that speed and it would be a life threatening drive for you and anyone who got in your way.

The entire road from one end to the other is only twenty miles, so even if someone lived at the far end, they would not really save any appreciable amount of time. And it is a lovely road to drive. These people should slow down and enjoy it every day rather than act as though it were an inconvenience. If they hate the drive that much, they should simply move into town so their commute is shorter.

[darkstar3]

59. I know exactly what you mean.

The speed limit in MO appears to be a minimum on most roads judging by the way the masses drive.

[Scout]

138. same here ... you CAN'T leave enough space for even one car...

because some asshole who has to arrive somewhere 20 feet sooner will surely cut into the space you are attempting leave as a safe stopping distance for yourself.

[Matariki]

64. foo

nevermind. it's been said already.

[madmom]

139. Wrong! My daughter and a friend were hit by a car and THEY got a ticket because

they were in the wrong. They were walking on the wrong side of the road and the car turned wide to make a turn into a driveway and hit them. Even though the car went wide, over the white line, the girls were walking on the wrong side of the rode so they got the ticket, as well as a trip to the ER.

[tblue37]

182. The laws of physics disagree with you. Weight and mass matter.

A vehicle's mass determines how much distance it will cover before it can stop. Even the most careful and conscientious driver cannot change the laws of physics.

You can squawk about bicyclists' and pedestrians' rights all you want, but dead people have no rights, and if they do not use common sense when biking or walking, they are at risk of ending up dead, regardless of their legal rights.

And I am someone who never even owned a car until 4 years ago (I will be 60 in August). The only reason I have a car now is that I have become a bit crippled by disc problems and can't walk distnces. (I use a cane.)

When I rode my bike and walked as my primary means of transport, I encountered a number of motorists who acted like jerks. But that did not excuse me from obeying traffic laws and being alert. If I had been careless enough to tangle with a car, all the rights in the world would not have put Humpty together again!

[Juneboarder]

186. Oh Really?

My mother in law was rear ended by a semi-truck when she stopped at a red light. The truck hit her back, left bumper and pushed the car into the stree light pole, thus wrapping the car around the pole. The police found my mother in law at fault.

So much for that theory...

[JuniperLea]

201. That's pretty ignorant...

Half-ton trucks do not stop on dimes... ever. Never, ever. They cannot.

"I had the right of way" looks really pathetic on a headstone.

[haele]

207. The weight and speed of any vehicle affects breaking time.

I used to bike, now ride a motor-scooter because of a lower back injury (and before you ask, even recumbent bikes hurt my back) as well as drive. My 200 lb 125 cc scooter has a 10' - 12' breaking distance at 30 mph - and half of that is swerve. When I used to bike, I had about the same distance.
Something I learned in the motorcycle safety course I took to get my M2 license to drive my scooter is this, the distance to break at 30mph goes up - because of two things -
1) the momentum of 2000 lbs of steel going 30 mph drags it another five to ten feet, and
2) you can't swerve within a lane when you are suspended on a 4 x 7 ft. rectangle of four wheels.
A half ton truck takes even farther to break, no matter how good the breaks are or how attentive the driver is. His or her "dime" that can be stopped on is at least the length of the vehicle stopping.

The physics are against your defense that somehow someone driving an auto - heck, make it an eco-friendly electric car - is more responsible for an accident than a zoned out bicyclist who is trucking down the street at 20mph blowing through school crosswalks and making sudden left turns across three lanes of traffic (two oncoming) into a bank parking lot, apparently to stop at the ATM.
Which is what I saw on my way home today. At rush hour, on a busy thoroughfare. Idiot nearly took out a woman putting her kid in the car after school, cut off a bus and at least three other vehicles, causing a little bumper tag between two cars. No damage, but it was damn obvious he considered whatever errand he was engaged in as more important than following the common rules of the road.
And that is the sort of bicyclist that causes all sorts of trouble, as the drivers of larger vehicles are trying their best not to cause their insurance rates to go up - even if they don't care about the idiot that's cutting them off and driving as if they were the only people on the road.

You're still responsible to follow the rules of the road just to insure that everyone has the same chance to get home safely. If you cut in front of a truck when you're both going downhill at around 25 mph because you "just remembered" you had to turn right on a cross-street, don't be surprised if you become a hood ornament. Doesn't matter if you're riding a skateboard, a bike, a scooter, or driving a car.

Haele

[datasuspect]

221. idiot cyclists need to be aware they are more than likely not even visible to most vehicular traffic

and ride ultra defensively.

[HuckleB]

225. Most do.

Of course, if bright colored cyclists are invisible to you, you probably should not be driving a motor vehicle.

[enlightenment]

24. No, they do not.

They are required to follow rules of the road, just like autos.

They are not the same rules, but they are certainly NOT 'always have the right of way'.

You might want to remember that before you decide to pedal into oncoming traffic.

[MurrayDelph]

28. ...and there is the problem

1. While pedestrians always have right of way, bicyclists (at least in California) do not. They are expected to follow the rules of the road.

2. The other thing that the state of California vehicle code states is the safest way survive is to NOT demand (or count on) right-of-way. (Years ago, I was travelling with other friends from California to Baltimore. My non-California friends were bemused by my habit of not crossing against the lights. I told them "If I jaywalk and get hit, I am a statistic; but if I cross WITH the light and get hit, I am a PLAINTIFF")

[Mind_your_head]

36. Yeah....common sense DEFINITELY ALWAYS plays a part.

There was an ad campaign many years ago.....

It showed someone who went forward on a green light being T-boned by someone running a red light.....

The ad said something like "he was right to go on the green w/o looking....DEAD RIGHT"

----

Common sense and looking and listening FIRST, is always "good" advice.

[Romulox]

65. No they don't. When in the street, they're vehicles that follow the same right-of-way rules as

everybody else.

[Common Sense Party]

104. Utter nonsense. Misguided thinking like that can get you killed.

Bicyclists most certainly do NOT "ALWAYS have the right-of-way." That's not even debatable.

[JDPriestly]

119. Bike riders do not always have the right-of-way.

They are not supposed to ride on most sidewalks. They have to wait for lights and stay right. It is very annoying when bicyclists drive in the middle of the road right in front of your car. Bicycles are slow. They should keep far right.

Pedestrians cannot walk in the street except where there is no sidewalk and no public easement or when crossing the street. Pedestrians are not always in the right.

Bicyclists should be very careful on city streets. Automobile drivers already have a thousand things to watch for, a thousand distractions. A bicyclist who rides under the assumption that he or she will always be noticed or even seen is a fool.

Bicyclists need to be absolutely respectful of cars and need to give turn signals, ride to the right as far as possible, stop at lights, stop signs, look before moving and stay off the sidewalks.

I had to learn all the traffic rules before my dad would let me ride a bike in the street. All bicyclists should be required to get bicycle licenses before driving in big cities.

[Codeine]

129. No they don't.

They're traffic, and they follow the same rules all traffic does.

[joe black]

133. Uh..

Not if they're on the sidewalk.

[jobycom]

144. That's completely wrong, legally and morally, and you will get someone killed by telling them that.

And yes, I'm blaming you directly if that's your attitude. Bikes have the same regulations and responsibilities on the road as a car. They are required to stop at stop signs and wait for the lights to turn green at stop lights. They are required to yield under the same rules as cars at intersections and in lanes. They are restricted from riding in the center of a lane unless there is an obstruction on the side of the lane or unless traffic conditions otherwise make it unsafe to ride on the side.

If you are telling cyclists they have the right of way or are subject to pedestrian instead of traffic laws, not only are you wrong, but you are putting anyone dumb enough to believe that without checking in danger, and that is beyond irresponsible. Such a statement should have been deleted from this website long ago, for being dangerous and legally inaccurate.

[hayu_lol]

153. Mind Your Head: Here in Oregon...

cyclists walking alongside their bikes are pedestrians. If they are riding their bikes, they are vehicles.

Oregon also has a set of laws just for cyclists which spells out all the things cyclists must do as well as obeying all vehicular laws.

Many cyclists here in my town in Oregon are drivers who have lost their licenses because of DUI or other infractions. They are ticketed frequently by the police for DUI.

[tavalon]

51. Clue by four with a caveat

Yes, bicyclists need to learn better rules of the road while sharing it with cars. They won't be sharing them with cars all that much longer. I don't know how old you are, but it might just happen within your lifetime. The era of the car is ending. Your rant, while valid, has the timing of a marriage proposal at a funeral.

[darkstar3]

52. OK,

enlighten me. Why is this SO ill-timed? It's not like several of us don't say something to this effect on a regular basis while we're driving...

[tavalon]

101. Well, there's this tiny oil "spill" in the Gulf of Mexico

that is really bringing the dangers of continuing to depend on oil to the forefront. Then there's this peak oil thing - it's getting a little more attention lately. Let's get this little problem in the Gulf fixed and then we can go back to our regularly scheduled bashing of those who happen to be on the vanguard of where we're all going to be in a few generations.

Does that clarify things?

[darkstar3]

107. Sure,

because we'll all be biking 20+ miles to work.

The average American citizen spends 45 minutes one-way getting to work. Do you REALLY think bikes are the answer to our dependence on oil? Maybe plug-in electric cars will solve this problem. Maybe public transportation is the answer. Or maybe, just maybe, we haven't come up with an acceptable answer yet. No matter what the real answer turns out to be for solving commuter dependence on oil, I can assure you that in a country with massive urban sprawl, bikes won't be it.

[tavalon]

110. Actually, if you want to get into that conversation

Suburbia will cease to exist. McMansions will cease to exist. We'll be getting to know our neighbors a lot better because we'll be sleeping 10 to a room and learning how to live communally really fast. Those of us who will have work will be substantially closer to our work and a bike could well be a luxury so this whole discussion might be moot. A huge amount of us won't be worrying about any of this because the number of people who currently inhabit the earth is more than we can sustain following the end of oil so most of us will be dead.

The irony of the timing of this rant was all I was commenting on.

[darkstar3]

112. I'm afraid I don't buy that nightmare scenario.

But I suppose in 10-20 years we'll find out.

[tavalon]

115. All I really hope for at this point is a reprieve

We really don't deserve much more than a stay of execution and there are some days when I wonder if I should even hope for that. In the microcosm, humans can be really neat creatures, in the macrocosm, we suck.

[ThomThom]

154. Wouldn't it be great if we had designed our communities so

people could live and work in the same areas and walk to work. Our society would be much healthier. So given that we didn't, we must spend more money on mass transit and bike FRIENDLY roads. Urban sprawl is a huge problem because it is people's choice to live 45 minutes from work. We need to make cities more livable so you can move close to your job.
A one hour bike ride to work is a very enjoyable way to start the day if people like the poster of this thread don't threaten us with their 2000 lbs car. When car meets cycle the cyclist loses ever time.

[fishwax]

8. I've seen cyclists ticketed

[hlthe2b]

9. well, congratulations.. you've opened Pandora's Box now...

This one swings both ways... The car drivers who aggressively target or who have wanton disregard for the safety of cyclists, pedestrians--or even other drivers remains a very large part of the problem. Tonight for instance, I saw a car pass the one in front of him while stopping at a stop sign in a 15mph park. This guy was so incensed that someone would actually be stopping per the law, that he passed him on the left nearly hitting and potentially killing a crossing pedestrian. So, say what you will about some of the reckless cyclist--and I know they are out there-- these kind of drivers need to be addressed even more.

[Better Believe It]

13. Put them all in jail and throw away the key!

That'll teach em!

:)

[Incitatus]

16. Or you can let natural selection take care of them.

:)

[Better Believe It]

193. That's true. The Neanderthal's who can't control a bike and ignore traffic laws will die out.

Yippee!

The roads will be safe again from predator bikers!

[HuckleB]

216. So predator bikers are threatening the safety of automobile drivers!

Incredible!

It's almost like homeopathy!

[JuniperLea]

204. I would agree... except when they do something really stupid...

And die because of their own stupidity, they asked for it... I, on the other hand, did NOT ask to witness their final stupidity. Yet I would no doubt remember it forever, and be permanently damaged for having been forced to watch another human being kill themselves.

[cliffordu]

11. Bummer.

Fail.

[tkmorris]

12. Bite my crankset

:)

[jobycom]

14. They ticket cyclists. Not enough, but they don't ticket drivers enough, either.

I've seen cops ticket cyclists for riding on sidewalks, blowing though stop signs (that's one they could really balance a city budget on, though, if they gave it some attention), and all sorts of crimes. In most places it's not a crime to ride a bike in the middle of a lane under some circumstance, although I think that's a law that needs to be modified.

But I watch cars run signs and lights, speed in crowded areas, zigzag through traffic... Put more of both in jail, is my opinion.

[HuckleB]

25. +1

[Spike from MN]

125. They've been targeting cyclists here along a bike path and ticketing them

for not coming to a complete stop at intersections. I commute by bike and that's fine with me but I wish they would target drivers in a similar manner at certain problematic intersections.

I agree that they definitely don't ticket motorists enough. A couple of years ago, a driver killed a cyclist that was riding in a bike lane. He claimed he stopped at the stop sign but forensics showed that he was going 35 MPH when he hit her and that she flew 70 feet. Given that he hit her about 50 feet after the stop sign, they said that there was no way that he could have stopped and gotten back up to that speed in that short of a distance. So, despite the fact that he killed a cyclist and then lied to the cops about stopping at the stop sign, the county prosecutor declined to press charges. She said that she wasn't going to bring charges because there was no alcohol involved. Apparently in her book, it's OK to kill a cyclist as long as you haven't been drinking beforehand.

I go by that intersection every day on my commute and have almost been hit several times. People just don't want to stop at that stop sign. I usually try to time it so that I have a car alongside me when passing that particular stop sign as drivers will generally stop for a car but not for a cyclist. Since the accident, they put up cones, signs, markings, etc. and kind of re-routed it a bit in order to try to convince drivers stop. That has helped a bit but I still get ready to slam on the brakes and/or take evasive action every time I go by that intersection.

[jobycom]

166. I dunno, Austin's different.

It's a very bike-oriented town. They close traffic lanes to build bike lanes, and build multi-million dollar bike bridges across the river (they call it a lake but it's really a river) so bikes don't have to ride on the busy thoroughfare fifty yards away. They are now extending said bike bridge because cyclists complained that they had to go a block to cross the street when they got off it, and are trying to close down one of the downtown streets and devote it exclusively to cyclists. Business owners are upset, as are motorists, but it will probably happen.

We've had a strong activist community here, and it's had an affect. The Austin Cycling Association is a strong lobbying group, and there area couple of bike shops that pull a lot of weight. The university has some influence, too, since most of the 50,000 students live off campus, near enough to bike. It's a great liberal town that, rather than trying to cling to its hippie past, tries to move forward as a liberal, hippie town. It's a beautiful place. :)

That may be the difference. Cops here ticket bikes, especially around campus, but there's no real bias (amongst cops) against them, and a motorist striking a bike gets a lot of attention, even when it's the bike's fault. There are a lot of yahoos who hate cyclists and whine when they get some new law past, but they are in the minority. When problems like you're talking about pop up here, the roads and intersections are changed in favor of bike safety. I watched them once build a curb island on a shoulder of a major highway out here, pretty near my house. It cost a ton of money, but it was part of a road construction project to make an intersection safer. However, the new curb jutted too far onto the shoulder and interrupted bike traffic. This wasn't even an official bike route, just a recreational route cyclists use a lot, but the city closed the side road, tore out the new curb, and completely rebuilt the intersection so the curb wasn't in the cyclists' way anymore. Then they reopened the road. It cost them more to rebuild the curb than to build it the first time, but they didn't hesitate. And that's normal, you see it all over town.

It's not really all about the cyclists as much as about safety. They do it for pedestrian routes, too. But Austin usually would fix an issue like you're talking about.

[Spike from MN]

172. Wow. Sounds like Austin is very proactive when it comes to safety for

cyclists and pedestrians. They would never do something like that here. Generally, someone has to get killed before they will think about doing anything and even then, it's usually more of a Band-Aid type fix rather than ripping something up and doing it right. And sometimes it takes multiple deaths at the same intersection before you can get them to even think about it.

As for the cops here, they generally don't like to ticket motorists when they hit cyclists (when the motorist is in the wrong). A friend of mine was hit and and called the cops. The driver was plainly in the wrong but the cops didn't want to cite him and/or even make out a report. In fact, they didn't even know the law. My friend had to inform them of it by citing the statute and then had to convince them file a report. She needed it on record as she was injured but even with that, the cops were reluctant to do anything until she pretty much made them. (And no, she wasn't snarky or anything. She was very polite throughout the whole thing.) Had she been driving a car, they would have filed an accident report right away. But when it's a cyclist, they just want to blow it off for some reason.

[RandomThoughts]

15. The problem right now.

Is the bad drivers ruining everything are the ones that think they give and evaluate the tests.

So the ideology spirals to what they think is best based on their own way of thinking.


I do think everyone has to decide what is good and bad, and think and feel on things, but the concept of having a licence, does not come from a few people trying to only take care of themselves.


And I don't say I know more then other people, but I do think representative democracies, and civilian participation, with good information allows for a better social result.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Actually I have seen cops ticket

bike riders. Not an easy thing to do, but hey I have seen it. Usually for the lovely... running a red light.

:-)

[prolesunited]

18. WRONG!

More than 52,000 bicyclists have been killed in bicycle traffic accidents in the U.S. over the 80 years the federal government has been keeping records. When it comes to sharing the road with cars, many people seem to assume that such accidents are usually the cyclist’s fault — a result of reckless or aggressive riding. But an analysis of police reports on 2,752 bike-car accidents in Toronto found that clumsy or inattentive driving by motorists was the cause of 90 percent of these crashes. Among the leading causes: running a stop sign or traffic light, turning into a cyclist’s path, or opening a door on a biker. This shouldn’t come as too big a surprise: motorists cause roughly 75 percent of motorcycle crashes too.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/who-causes-cyclists-deaths/

[Statistical]

20. +1

Every group has its bad seeds but for ever bad biker rider there are thousand (maybe a million) bad vehicle drivers.

The fact that 4 wheel motorists are equal opportunity killers of motorcyclist, bicyclist, and pedestrians is very telling.

[darkstar3]

23. Come to my city and say that.

It's illegal here for cyclists to ride on the sidewalk. Therefore they must ride in the street. Because of this pedestrian safety regulation, it is the law in MO to treat all cyclists as if they were vehicles, and for all cyclists to treat themselves the same.

Yet without fail, every time I carefully pass a cyclist on my drive home, he passes me and the entire line of cars I'm in at the red light in order to cross in the crosswalk (without walking) and keep on going. In one part of town I repeatedly see cyclists switch back and forth from sidewalk to street.

So let me see if I can put this in an effective form: YOU, the cyclist, are playing chicken with a 1000+ lb weapon. You should show it just as much respect, if not more, than the respect we tell our teenagers to show that weapon when we teach them to drive.

ETA: This goes for pedestrians too. Cross in the fucking crosswalk. Don't just jump out between cars on a four lane highway and then flip ME the bird when it's a close call on wet pavement. Legal immunity and the attitude it brings will get you so far, and then it will get you killed.

[HuckleB]

53. You have never been anywhere else in the world, have you?

[darkstar3]

56. Ha...there's an effective argument.

Firstly, I've lived in several places here in the US, and secondly, your post does nothing to answer my points.

[HuckleB]

73. It's not an argument.

It's just a statement.

Your comments make it clear that your perspective is quite insular.

[darkstar3]

74. And your attacks on my character make it clear that you have nothing of import to say. n/t

[HuckleB]

77. Thanks for the excuses.

And the confirmation on my suspicion.

[darkstar3]

79. Which is what, exactly?

Did you even have a point? Go back and read #23 and then provide me with some semblance of a response to the actual content rather than a non-sequitur.

[HuckleB]

82. Got mirror?

Go take a look, and then get back to me.

Your BS was buried long ago. I've no need to do it again.

[darkstar3]

84. Got anything but ad hom?

'Cause I haven't seen it so far. Where, do you suppose, that anything I've said has been buried?

[HuckleB]

87. Well, it's all you've offered.

Especially in response to actual research on the matter at hand.

Are you ready for this Friday?

http://mobikefed.org/content/st-louis-bike-work-day-and-bike-work-celebration-may-21st-2010

Keep hating! No one cares.

[darkstar3]

89. Where?

Where in this thread have I offered nothing but ad hom? Should I provide you a link to what ad hom means?

[HuckleB]

92. The actual question: Where have you not?

Meanwhile, the only people to offer actual research on the matter are those who have shown your wild, unprovable anecdotes to be pure BS.

[darkstar3]

96. So you are claiming that

#23 is an ad hom attack? Against whom, exactly? Read this and then get back to me.

[HuckleB]

98. Is that what my post said?

Epic fail, dude. Basic comprehension awaits.

Maybe you should print the rant in post 23 and tape it on your wall.

[darkstar3]

108. Let's see,

tracking #84-#92, yes, that IS what you said. After all, you claimed I had offered nothing but ad hom, and yet #23 is something I've offered in this thread.

See me again when you have the ability to respond to points and topics instead of attacking posters.

[HuckleB]

213. I love it.

You can't follow the discussion, and you can't consider the real world evidence, so you try pretend that a whole list of posts equates to what you want to argue against.

You really are one big crack up.

[booley]

168. So cars weigh less in other parts of the world?

I too have lived in different regions of the country.

And in all locales cars outweigh bikes by a great deal.

[HuckleB]

226. Yup.

And you miss the point completely!

Shocking!

[Romulox]

81. You. Are. Not. An. Amateur. Traffic. Cop. Call 911 if you witness a crime, and quit whining, please

If you witness someone breaking a traffic law, you are not empowered to make a citizen's arrest. You'll have to do the same thing I have to do about people speeding down my residential street; call the police.

[darkstar3]

85. Whoa, there.

Who said I was planning on making a citizen's arrest, or in fact taking any action at all? I merely pointed out that attempting to place the blame for cycle-car accidents squarely on the shoulders of motorists is unfair in light of the fact that many cyclists have no respect at all for the rules of the road or for the danger in which they often place themselves.

[Romulox]

94. Do you truly mean to argue that you witness more reckless cyclists than motorists on a daily basis?

Because if the answer is no, one wonders why the former stick in your craw so much more so than the latter?

The allocation of blame in a bicycle/automobile accident is by no means certain--but it is for a police officer and then perhaps a jury to decide. Not a rubbernecking moralist. I just mention this because almost everyone I speak to that has this mindset seems so worked up with what others are "getting away with" (rolling stops or "passing" between a car an a curb, e.g.) I don't care what others "get away with". I want to arrive in my destination with everyone in one piece. That's it.

It's not my job (or yours) to enforce what you perceive as "fairness" on the roadways. That way lies madness!

[darkstar3]

105. I see more egregious behavior from cyclists.

I see more frequent traffic infractions from motorists (although the argument can be made that this is simply because they are more numerous), but when I see truly dangerous and egregious infractions on the road, they are more often committed by cyclists in this area.

In the last year, I have seen 3 dangerous and egregious traffic infractions committed by motorists. Two involved running through an intersection illegally while there was cross traffic, the other incident involved two vehicles in a road rage fight, one trying to pass and the other speeding up beyond reason to prevent it on a two-lane road.

Meanwhile, since the cycling season started I have watched no less than 7 cyclists (three at one time) ride their bikes in crosswalks through red lights without batting an eye. I have seen 2 cyclists make sharp and unexpected turns on a divided county road without signaling first. Not to mention the aforementioned sidewalk hopping.

I'm not worried about what other people are "getting away with". I'm worried that one of these reckless bikers might careen into me, and I'll be forced to pay the price. I'm also upset at the implication that motorists are always to blame when it is quite clear that cyclists need to step up just as much if not more than motorists.

[Romulox]

109. This is where you depart from reality in two respects:

1) the statistics simply do not bear you out; and
2) It is not your job to adjudge the relative egregiousness of infractions. You admit yourself that you witness far more infractions by motorists, but you take it upon yourself to judge which infractions are serious, and which not (and in apparent total disregard for the statistics regarding highway fatalities, no less?)

Meanwhile, since the cycling season started I have watched no less than 7 cyclists (three at one time) ride their bikes in crosswalks through red lights without batting an eye. I have seen 2 cyclists make sharp and unexpected turns on a divided county road without signaling first. Not to mention the aforementioned sidewalk hopping.

I question your methodology with regard to ranking relative "egregiousness" of traffic violations.

I'm not worried about what other people are "getting away with". I'm worried that one of these reckless bikers might careen into me, and I'll be forced to pay the price. I'm also upset at the implication that motorists are always to blame when it is quite clear that cyclists need to step up just as much if not more than motorists.

Your understanding of the law is...incomplete, to be kind. Your fears are baseless, and would be better assuaged with some reading of basic tort law, rather than this aimless fretting (not to mention resentment-building!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort

[darkstar3]

111. One of us certainly has a problem with reality.

1. Which statistics? A single flawed study in Toronto?
2. You asked what I had seen, and I told you. My methodology in guaging egregiousness is based entirely on the level of needless risk to life and property, both of the violator and of bystanders. Meanwhile, what makes you think for a moment I'm unfamiliar with tort law? I still have to hire a lawyer, don't I? I still have to take time off work to appear in court or give depositions. There is definitely a price involved for both parties when a bike strikes a car (or the other way around), and I'm not interested in paying it, which is why I obey the laws of the road.

[Xithras]

160. Just to clarify something....

You cannot make a citizens arrest for an infraction (like riding on a sidewalk). You CAN make a citizens arrest for a misdemeanor or felony offense (like riding drunk, or dangerously riding down pedestrians on a sidewalk) that would have resulted in an arrest if an officer had been present.

Like all citizens arrests, however, you had better have witnesses or other evidence to corroborate your claim that a crime occurred, or you could find yourself charged with unlawfully detaining someone.

[flamingdem]

26. For the life of me I don't know why cyclists risk riding near heavy traffic

death wish?

[darkstar3]

29. And then some of the same people who tell me,

"you know, I think I should bike more" turn around and tell me "I'd never buy a smart car because I don't want to die."

There's a hell of a disconnect there...

[flamingdem]

31. After reading 50 thousand cyclists die a year .. I wonder the stats on smart cars

Why would they say that?

[darkstar3]

35. They actually cited the Mythbusters' "Compact Compact" episode,

and then said "that's what a smart car will look like if hit by any two vehicles."

[Rhythm]

57. It said that 50k have died over an 80 year period...

Not per year.

Still, that breaks down to over 600 bicyclist deaths a year.

[jobycom]

141. That's a really, really bad paragraph that borders on BS.

I can't read what the other poster said since I have them on ignore, but come on, use a little reason to analyze it. It starts out talking about the number of cycling deaths in the US, then studies non-fatal accidents in one city in Canada only involving auto-cycling collisions to argue that cycling deaths in the US are mostly the fault of motorists. That alone should tip someone off that the paragraph is combining random facts to support a conclusion already arrived.

But dig deeper. The study doesn't even prove that the accidents are the motorists' faults, it just assumes, for instance, that if the car was in the intersection it must have been the motorist's fault. And even though the author of the study argues how greatly laws and attitudes vary in different regions, he makes no attempt to analyze ANYTHING in the US. And the study is ten years old, so it doesn't even take into account the last decade (notice how the number in the "freakonomics" blog you use is so much higher than in the actual study cited?)

And last, it's only on reported accidents. Cyclists who cause accidents are not often going to hang around if they are able to move, and since this study doesn't focus on fatalities (even though it starts off talking about fatalities as though it were going to), the sources it uses are flawed and slanted.

To do an affectice study, someone would have to analyze US cycling accidents, and set some paramateres on the data used. I can tell you, since I'm involved in cycling in Austin (less than I used to be, but still involved) that most fatalities here, where the laws definitely favor cyclists and where there are many bike routes marked out, and many bike lanes, are the cyclists' faults. They ride across long lane merges instead of cutting directly across them, or they pull into traffic, or the run through a stop sign and just expect a half-ton vehicle traveling 45 to yield to them in an instant, or they just lose control of their bikes. Read the paper, there are far more cycling deaths caused here by cyclists than motorists. There was even a recent case of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist, and anyone who lives here has seen cyclists blow through stop signs (the biggest cause of problems, although illegally taking a lane is closing in fast because there is so much bad information out there about when that is legal) and injure pedestrians, and then ride away to escape consequences. Since bikes don't have any type of tag, it's impossible to catch them when they ride away.

I've been involved in cycling my whole life. My grandfather owned a bike store in New Orleans (Prytania's Hardware, if there's anyone around to remember it), and I've been taking bikes apart and putting them together since I was about eight. I was involved in the Austin Cycling Association for a while (my name used to be on their web site as a contact). I'm not an activist and haven't been front and center, but I'm certainly biased towards bikes, not cars. But the attitudes of cyclists in the last fifteen years has changed. You used to know to stop at stop signs, to only take the lane when the shoulder was obstructed, to use common sense when riding near a half ton vehicle that would win any difference of opinion.

Now cyclists are given bullshit opinions like the one in the article you cite, are told they can do no wrong, are encouraged by peers to blow through stop signs. More than who causes each individual accident, the majority of accidents and the majority of tension on the road (at least in Austin, where I have knowledge and experience) is caused by the attitude of the cycling community. They are militant at not obeying any regulations, and always believe that, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, when a cyclist does it it's not wrong. THAT's what makes cycling so dangerous nowadays. I don't know what cycling in Toronto ten years ago was like.

[tabatha]

22. I don't mind bike riders who know the rules of the road.

What irks me beyond belief are those bikers who ride abreast knowing a car is behind them. They are supposed to go in single file.

[HuckleB]

27. I don't mind automobile drivers who know and follow the rules of the road, either.

[tabatha]

39. I have been very tolerant of bicycle riders.

Even on some back country steep hills, I go slowly even to the point of a stall, so that they can bike to the top.

However, after following one bicyclist almost stalling my car a few times, when we got to the flat where I wanted to overtake, the bicyclist went screaming down the middle of the road, so I could not pass.

I just stopped my car and waited for a while. I could not ruin it being polite and patient.

[HuckleB]

47. And we can all remember many more automobile drivers who've done ludicrous things.

For some reason, automobile drivers choose to remember cyclists as the scapegoats, however.

[tabatha]

246. Actually, I judge them by what I would do.

I am very polite; when the road is narrow, I always pull off and let the other car go first, regardless of whether I am uphill or downhill. If I was on a bike, I would do the same thing.

However, I have always found that on narrow roads car traffic ALWAYS pulls over; bicycle traffic almost NEVER pulls over to single file unless I hoot/beep. I hardly ever have to hoot/beep for a car.

The difference is quite remarkable.

So, your statement is incorrect for my experience.

[izzybeans]

32. This thread reminds me of this movie scene.

Why not work with your local cycling community to make biker commuting safer for everyone?

[fizzgig]

34. why do cyclists get worked into such a lather when somebody complains about idiot cyclists?

how is it that i'm the asshole for being pissed about a cyclist blowing a stop sign while i'm going through the intersection or for riding three or even four abreast and impeding traffic? why am i the asshole because i expect cyclists to follow the laws they are required to follow? yes, there are plenty of stupid drivers and they are dangerous, but i don't see other drivers reacting with such righteous indignation when someone complains about a shitty driver.

there are a lot of bikes on the roads in my city and i am extremely aware of them, however, cyclists are still responsible for doing their part. i occasionally bike rather than drive and i always follow the rules of the road. furthermore, i know that it is my responsibility to keep myself safe while on my bicycle, which means i don't do things like run stop signs or veer across the lanes of traffic without first checking that it is safe.

cars and bikes have to coexist and cyclists have to do their part.

[Mind_your_head]

37. B/C cyclists almost ALWAYS lose when they have a "run-in" with a car, etc.

It's life-altering and/or life-ending for the cyclist.

[fizzgig]

42. i don't think anyone is disputing that

my question is why get pissed at a person complaining about a cyclist riding in an unsafe fashion? i nearly hit a cyclist not long ago. i was proceeding through an intersection one night and this idiot, wearing all black with no lights or reflective gear on a street with little lighting, blew through the stop sign and out in front of me. thank gods i saw him in time, but whose fault would it have been if i'd hit him?

a friend of mine got hit by a car while riding his bike because he ran a stop sign at night. whose fault was that?

i would think that cyclists would have a vested interest in educating their fellows and expecting them to respect the rules of the road rather than get pissed at people who expect that of them.

[Incitatus]

38. Good question. I would think the cyclists that follow the rules would be just as pissed at them

as drivers.

weird

[fizzgig]

48. it boggles my mind

[ThomThom]

162. I am

they give all of us a bad name... as you can see by this thread

[Romulox]

66. I witness mind-numingly stupid behavior from motorists so frequently it escapes mention

That's why.

Try ordering some perspective.

[fizzgig]

68. i see complaining here about idiot drivers

and no one, NO ONE defends them. idiot cyclists, on the other hand, seem to get a free pass from their peers.

on edit: is the perspective you want me to get one that allows cyclists to do as they please without criticism because there are stupid drivers?

[Romulox]

70. Link? I've never seen a thread in GD started to complain (or threaten) automobile drivers

But I won't say it didn't happen until you have an opportunity to provide a link...

[fizzgig]

100. gd isn't the only forum here, you know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=986354&mesg_id=986354

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9365987

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9346816

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6010394

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7715805

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4601518

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3369670

and threads about a motorist killing someone are full of complaints about bad drivers:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5594617

i don't see people getting indignant at others for complaining about idiot drivers.

[Romulox]

103. That's thin gruel...no generalized threats of violence, as in this thread, for example. nt

[darkstar3]

113. That's THREAT.

Not plural. A single person (as far as I can see) made an inappropriate joke. Certainly it was in poor taste, but I question whether it was even a threat of violence let alone grounds for this accusation of multiple threats.

[Ignis]

214. +1. Just because asshole cyclists STAND OUT...

Doesn't mean they're dangerous. :freak:

Asshole drivers, on the other hand? Very, very fucking dangerous. :thumbsdown:

[William Z. Foster]

40. public transportation

While we argue over bikes or not, buying a Prius or not, the political solution - as opposed to consumer solution - to a public issue, a social and political issue - not an issue of personal lifestyle choice or preference - is neglected: public transportation.

[Overseas]

140. +1

When more of us are using public transit here, service is being cut and prices are going up.

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. Absolutely agreed! Same wtih motorcyclists. Get the stupid ones off the road.

Not only fucking annoying, they're goddamn dangerous - putting not only their own lives at risk, but the lives of many others. And totally self-absorbed that they don't even think of the psychological trauma that the people they force to kill them will undergo, unble to forgive themselves for a fatal accident, even when the accident was the fault of the asshole stupid cyclist or motorcyclist.

[tavalon]

44. Well, while I see your point, your timing sucks. I mean it really sucks

IBTL with :popcorn:

[obliviously]

49. That's what car doors are for, just sayin'

[Romulox]

63. You're advocating battering cyclists? What a hilarious "joke" you've told!

:puke:

[Matariki]

58. I hear ya'

a couple months ago a guy came whizzing down the street in the wrong direction and through a stop sign (without stopping) just as I was making a left turn. I damn near hit him and I definitely didn't see him coming. As it turned out he ended up in the same garage as me - probably a coworker in fact, so I politely pointed out to him that he might want to be more careful and stop at stop signs, etc and that he nearly got hit - and the little shit started yelling at me as if riding a bike automatically made him in the right and he didn't need to follow traffic rules. Oy. It's the fucking self righteousness that really irks me.

I stopped riding with my ex for that same reason. He was one of those assholes that rides down the center of the street and weaves in and out of traffic like he thinks he's on a motorcycle - or as you put it - is Lance Armstrong or something. I saw him get in near misses so many times I couldn't stand riding with him any more. When people yelled at him (often) he'd get all righteous and yell back at them.

I've put in thousands of miles on my bike - long trips here and abroad. I've never felt the need to get all arrogant about riding and consider my safety mostly my own responsibility.

[Romulox]

60. The reactionary things I read on this website on a daily basis never cease to shock me...

And no matter how idiotic the proposition, there are never a shortage of idiots shouting "amen".

[MajorChode]

187. Amen

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Iggo]

61. Well, in truth, we actually do own the roads.

:P

[Gormy Cuss]

62. Good idea. Let's get the stupid drivers off the road too. In fact, start with them

because they're more likely to cause injury and deaths than those stupid bike riders.

[The Midway Rebel]

67. I met a motorist with an attitude like the one you are displaying

...once. I easily crushed his skull between my knees with quadriceps of steel.

[Terra Alta]

69. The same could be said for people who drive a car.

Or a motorcycle, or any vehicle. And bikers get ticketed all the time, at least here.

BTW, text messaging or talking on a cell phone should be illegal no matter what transportation you are using.

[underseasurveyor]

72. BOTH are guilty of being reckless, careless and stupid!

Drivers and bicyclists alike.

I see drivers doing stupid things and not paying attention and I see bicyclists doing stupid things and not paying attention.

Both should be more courteous and aware when out on the roads.

[gcomeau]

91. On the one hand...

...as a cyclist I have a strong urge to tell you to go to hell after reading that post title.

On the other though, as someone who just today, as I was leisurely biking in to the office to grab some things, was passed by three chatting idiots who decided they needed to ride three abreast so they could carry on their conversation... with one of them in the bike lane, one of them 3 feet into the right hand lane of the 2 lane street.. and one of them over halfway across that lane and blocking it completely and none of them showing the slightest inclination to move their asses out of the way when they were overtaken by traffic... I just can't do it.

I was silently urging the drivers being forced to funnel around them to just forget about it and drive right over the morons.

[backscatter712]

114. Can we also get stupid car drivers off the roads?

Speaking as a person who both drives and rides his bike from time to time, for every biker that rides idiotically, there's at least one car driver that's just as idiotic.

Using a cell phone or texting while driving - people should be horsewhipped for that...

[depakid]

122. The economics of petroleum depletion will take care of that soon enough

Nothing like commuting on the bike and watching gas prices rise toward $5 bucks a gallon. It'll really start to get "interesting" when Americans have to pay $7 and then $10.

[Raine]

118. I would like to see Bike riders quit riding on the damn sideWALK

and stop being a danger to people walking ... it's called a sideWALK for a reason. :think: If enough of them were ticketed maybe they would get the message and GET OFF THE DAMN SIDEWALK!! :mad:

on edit: I'm not talking about little kids riding on the sidewalk with training wheels. I'm talking about adults who are way too big to be riding on the sidewalk!

[ThomThom]

165. if the streets were safe for bikes then sidewalks won't be used

I am fortunate to live where there are bike paths. I try to ride only on back streets and the paths but sometimes my only alternative is the sidewalk because the streets are too dangerous.

[Raine]

199. I can certainly understand that and most

of the riders are fine but it's frightening to have someone come full speed behind you especially when you're walking a dog. I've even had a couple riders scream at me to get out of THEIR way! :-(

[MajorChode]

205. Riding on the street is safer than riding on the sidewalk

The biggest hazard to riding on the sidewalk is crosswalks, where a lot of bike/car accidents happen, but there are also lots of other hazards on sidewalks.

Most of the fear of riding bikes on the street is irrational. The accident rate is about the same as motorcycles, and just like motorcycles that risk can be greatly minimized if you know what you are doing.

[Spike from MN]

234. Fully agree.

When you ride on the road, ride predictably and the drivers know what to expect and how to react to you. Stop at stop signs, stop lights, signal your intentions (when possible), etc. It's amazing how easy it is.

However, ride unpredictably and all bets are off.

[MajorChode]

237. Exactly

That's the problem with riding on sidewalks. Cars aren't expecting fast moving traffic zipping through a crosswalk. That's also another reason (among several others) why multi-use trails are hazardous when they cross roadways. The vast majority of bike/car accidents happen at intersections and crossways. So yes, riding where you are most visible and predictable is the best bet.

[Spike from MN]

241. Boy, you're definitely right on that.

A couple of weeks ago as I was riding out of my complex, I stopped a short ways before I got to the main road as I needed to adjust my CamelBak. As I was doing that, a minivan made a left onto the road I was on. Suddenly, she slammed on her brakes and called out "Sorry!" and I saw a cyclist swerve around the front of her van and keep going. He was riding on the sidewalk WAY too fast (it's a slight downhill) and came within inches of getting hit. The driver was only looking for oncoming traffic and wasn't expecting someone to be barreling down the sidewalk in the same direction she had come from. (Had he been coming from the other direction, she would have seen him.) I didn't see the cyclist because the view to my right was obstructed by trees or I would have warned him. That's one more reason the cyclist should have slowed down. If I had been a car, I probably wouldn't have been able to see him until it was too late. Even if I had pulled out on my bike I'm not sure I would have seen him in time. Pedestrians aren't traveling at breakneck speeds so the hedge has never been an issue in that regard. I've gone out that way hundreds of times on my bike and have never had a problem with not seeing a pedestrian in time.

The driver pulled into the driveway to my left and as she was unloading her van, I told her "That's the reason people shouldn't be riding on sidewalks." She agreed, though she still felt bad about almost hitting him. At any rate, the guy should have slowed down and checked for traffic both from behind and the side instead of just barreling through the road crossing like he did. It doesn't much matter who's in the right when you're lying in a hospital bed (or, even worse, dead).

[Spike from MN]

233. Oh, the irony.

When we ride on the road, we get yelled at to get on the sidewalk. LOL!

That said, I agree with what you're saying. In the event that a cyclist has to take a sidewalk for whatever reason, like if it's the only way to get around on campus for instance, they need to slow way down and warn pedestrians of their approach. A simple "On your left" goes a long way.

I never ride on the sidewalk. I'm just fine with roads, bike lanes and bike paths.

[NecklyTyler]

120. Ever had a car pass and then make a right hand turn in front of you 2 seconds later?

The rules of the road are the same for all wheeled vehicles, be it cars or bicycles. The requirements to yield apply equally to both, yet car drivers seem to think they can assume the right of way over a bicycle at anytime.

Ever been on a narrow road and have some knuckle dragging redneck lay on the horn for a full minute as you are going up a steep hill 20 miles into a 25 mile ride?

Ever been spit on by some humorous prankster?

Ever try to make a left hand turn in traffic, and get honked and yelled at by drivers that were required by law to yield right of way?

I do ride aggressively, as a forward defense against arrogant drivers

[HuckleB]

224. Indeed! +1,000,000,000,000

[marmar]

121. That's why we need more bike lanes

[backscatter712]

161. We need more bike lanes like THAT!

As in physically separated from car traffic. Painting a stripe on the pavement and calling it a "bike lane" doesn't cut it - that's what they do around here, and every few months, I read yet another story in the paper about a cyclist that got killed after being clobbered by a car that drifted into the bike lane.

I know this is offensive to the people who say "Bikes should obey the same laws as cars!!!", but bicycles are not cars. They're a lot smaller, operate on human power, so they're a lot slower, and they're pretty fucking vulnerable in roads that have lots of 2,000 pound motorized death machines on them. I don't like riding in traffic. So sometimes, I will ride on the sidewalk. It's better than being run over.

[DailyGrind51]

123. Or, how about the bike riding dad with his 2-year-old in a kid seat blowing a red light!

I bet these idiots all have their PA attorneys on speed-dial!

[lunatica]

126. Maybe it's where I live but every single bicyclist

I've seen knows how to be in traffic better than some car drivers I've seen. I live in the Bay Area and work in Berkeley.

[Bluenorthwest]

128. Texting while riding is illegal here

So is driving while using a cell phone, but in the last week three different cars have nearly hit me in my car, because they were illegally playing with their phones. One of them was ticketed by cops, who were, incidentally, on bikes, which is why they saw her.
You do not seem to know much about the laws of the road. Where do you live?

[berni_mccoy]

130. Seriously? On DU, I never thought I'd see the day where a post criticized human-powered vehicles.

[Xithras]

164. I don't think it's criticizing bicycles....

...just some of the clueless people who ride them.

Like all things, it's the minority ruining it for the majority. I rode to work for years, and still ride on a near daily basis after I get home from work. I have no axe to grind against bicyclists.

Still, there are some (a small percentage overall, but enough to be annoying) who completely tune out of their surrounding world, ignore traffic laws, and cause accidents...or at least swearing and fist waving. Complaining about them isn't anti-bicycle, it's anti-idiot. A bad driver is a bad driver whether he's in a Saturn or on a Schwinn. He shouldn't be on the road either way.

[Strelnikov_]

188. Lotta "never thought I'd see the day" regarding DU posts lately

IMHO.

[FailureToCommunicate]

131. Still waiting for "Fumesucker"s take on this thread... (I ate ALL my popcorn, sorry)

[Robb]

134. When you almost kill someone because of nothing you've done wrong, it's frustrating.

It's happened to me over the years with cyclists, motorcycles, pedestrians, other cars.... The reaction I have is always the same, the guy's an idiot and because of him I almost killed him.

Of course it makes you angry.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

135. Brilliant Analysis!

You sure got right to the heart of the problem, you brave internet warrior! :eyes:

[Jakes Progress]

136. Riding a bicycle does several things.

It saves energy. It is good exercise.

It does not give someone the right to be a self-righteous, ignorant, arrogant pig. Yes. There are lots of those in cars. But getting on a bike doesn't make it okay to act stupid and break laws.

From some of the posts here, one would glean that cyclists are childish and not very bright. I know that not to be the case. Some of my best friends ride bikes.

So ride a bike and obey the laws. If you are an arrogant pig in a car, you are an arrogant pig. If you are an arrogant pig on a bike, you are still an arrogant pig -- but one who will soon exit the gene pool by virtue of the natural selection process that culls those with poor self preservation skills from the breeding population.

(By the way: Sixteen years on a bike. Most of the year I average a little over five miles a day. I stop at red lights and stop signs. I avoid traffic. i never insist on my right of way with a vehicle that out weighs me by ten fold.)

[Strelnikov_]

192. "I stop at red lights and stop signs."

I stop at red lights. If there is no opposing traffic, and no way I can impede other traffic, I then proceed. No smoker, no way to get hit.

I slow down to ~2x walking speed at all stop signs. If no cars (or pedestrians or bikes) are present or approaching, I proceed, otherwise I stop, regardless of having right-of-way. At low volume intersections, I let all smokers clear before I proceed. Can't get hit by a smoker that has already passed.

"I avoid traffic." Always, which includes crossing at mid-block of major ribbons of death when possible. Crossing with the pedestrian signal at major signalized intersections is a death trip. One is depending on the smoker honoring the right-of-way. At mid-block, by gaging closing velocity of smoker, I am in control (unless my chain breaks, then I am screwed).

"I never insist on my right of way with a vehicle that out weighs me by ten fold." The number one rule. Always assume the smoker is out to kill you.

[backscatter712]

222. I'll admit it. I also California-stop at stop signs.

There are physics-related reasons for this. It's actually a significant amount of effort to constantly start and stop your bike - it consumes a lot of energy.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/04/the_physics_of_why_bicyclists.html
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/04/physicsofstopping.pdf

So I'll do a California stop, or shall I say, an Idaho stop (since Idaho has recognized the laws of physics and allows cyclists to do a rolling-no-quite-stop at stop signs when it's safe to do so), at stop signs (when cops aren't looking... :evilgrin:) Granted, physics-based conservation of energy does have to take a back-seat to safety, so I do slow down and look at stop signs, and stop when the traffic situation demands it, but chances are good that my wheels won't come to a complete stop, and my feet won't leave the pedals when I look and conclude it's safe to cross.

[tammywammy]

137. I agree

Stupid cyclists, motorcycle riders (you know the type that do wheelies on the highway, or drive waaaay too fast weaving in and out of traffic) and 4-wheeled car drivers that are stupid. I wish we could get rid of them all.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomThom]

145. bikes have just as much right to the roads as cars, bikes are vehicles

More bike lanes would be good.
I agree many cyclists run red light and stop sign but so do cars.
I personally got involved in bicycle advocacy because a cop pulled me over for running a red light on my bike.
Cell phones are a problem for people driving cars also so singling out bikes seems a little petty.
I have been threaten by more cars as I follow the laws on my bike then I can even count. I have even had guns pointed at me by out of control automobile drivers.
Get a grip share the roads.

[HuckleB]

212. +1000

[arcadian]

149. This post brought to you by the oil execs at BP.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

150. no joke. All those "stupid" bicycle riders!

It's incredible how so many people are willing to not only love the hand that beats them but will lick it given any opportunity.

[Ignis]

215. ...

:spray:

Oh, you! It's just a coincidence, I'm sure!

:thumbsup:

[me b zola]

152. It may be only Monday,

but you stand a good chance of this being the stupidest post of the week.

[ParkieDem]

155. I have no dog in this fight.

I don't ride a bike very often, but do take public transit quite a bit (which can be a challenge in Texas). But necessity demands that I do drive to many places.

What irritates me is that in my neighborhood, there are several bike trails, some of which parallel streets. At one intersection in particular, bikers are required to use the same roadway as cars, but immediately after the intersection, there is easy access to a bike trail that parallels the street. However, bikers are notorious in this area for ignoring the bike trail (which is clearly marked, in good condition and goes exactly the same place as the street) and using the street, causing a major backup of slow-moving cars in the intersection.

Rant over. I don't mind bikers, just the ones who feel the need to hold up vehicular traffic for no reason.

[Spike from MN]

171. There are sometimes reasons cyclists ride on the road instead of

a trail. Part of it has to do with trail design. If the trail crosses a street every block, they can be dangerous. At every street crossing, you have the potential of getting hit by someone turning right since they're not looking at the traffic on the trail when they make their turn. You also have to watch for those turning left as they're only watching for an opening in traffic and again, not looking at the traffic on the trail. They you have those that come up in the cross street and block the crosswalk area, making you stop until they proceed. If you get there slightly ahead of them and start to cross, you also run the risk getting hit because again, they're generally not watching for traffic on the trail. Aside from the safety issues, slowing and/or stopping at every single intersection just isn't an efficient way to get from point A to point B. When driving across town, it's much quicker and more efficient to take the through streets with few stops instead of side streets where you have to stop at every single intersection. Biking is no different in that regard.

Another issue with trails is that a lot of them have a max speed of 10 MPH posted. While 10 MPH is perfectly fine for a family to tool around on the trails, it's a huge limitation for a commuter. Granted, you may not get ticketed for speeding but it's more of a safety thing as the trails will often have people walking their dogs, joggers, rollerbladers, and kiddies running around not looking where they're going. Awhile back, I came across a stat that said you're 2.5 times more likely to get in an accident on a bike trail than you are on the road. I can see why.

That said, some trails are very well-designed and I use those every chance I get. About 5 miles of my commute is on a bike trail that parallels a busy 4-lane road. It runs between the road and the river so not only is it very scenic but also there are no cross streets to contend with. There are separate pedestrian and bike paths and the trail is heavily used by bike commuters. There is no speed limit so we can go as fast as safety allows. (Though admittedly, with my tired legs this morning, my commute wasn't all that fast. ;) ) This is an example of a well-designed trail and that's one of the reasons it sees such high usage.

I can see why you would be frustrated with people not using bike trails in your area but hopefully my explanation will shed some light on the subject. Cities really need to consult cycling groups to get their input when designing bike trails. It does no good to build them if they are poorly designed and won't get used. If the road is safer than the trail, I will take the road every time.

[ParkieDem]

173. Thanks for the info.

And I can appreciate it under certain circumstances. However, from what I understand Dallas has one of the highest-rated trail systems around. And this trail is exclusive for bicycles -- no pedestrians, dogs, etc. And I know it doesn't intersect many if any busy streets.

Just seems like it would be safer for all involved if they'd just use the trail that was built for them!

[Spike from MN]

181. You're certainly welcome.

If it's a well-designed bike trail with not many street crossings like you say, then yeah, cyclists should be taking advantage of it. I know I would be. Along with the safety factor, it's often just more pleasant to ride on a nice trail rather than have to dodge potholes (like we have here in MN) along with the traffic.

Once in awhile, I see cyclists riding on the 4-lane road I had mentioned in my other post, even though it has a beautiful trail right next to it. The road has no shoulders in some spots and the traffic goes about 50 MPH. Now, I can understand that sometimes they have to ride on the road until they reach a curb cut for the trail. But most will ride right past those and just stay on the road. Makes no sense at all to me. It gives me the impression that they think they're "too good" to relegate themselves to a bike trail. It's frustrating and frankly, I think it reflects poorly on the rest of us cyclists when they do that.

[MajorChode]

191. I've done a lot of bike commuting, very little of it on trails

I live in the Dallas area and I know of no such trails that are restricted to bicycles. Everyone one I've seen is a multi-use trail either by design or by practice. The vast majority of these trails aren't designed for bike commuting. They are designed so that people can walk their dogs, rollerblade, putting Skip or Dakota out on their big wheel, and maybe a few bike riders who ride in the 5-10mph range. It would be great if we had a comprehensive system of real bike commuting trails, but that's just not the case.

Most of the arguments used against bike riders on public roads just don't hold any water. Obstructing traffic doesn't hold water. Most of the roads bikers use have 30mph speed limits or less. If the traffic is heavy, you won't even come close to averaging that speed. 15-20mph is more realistic, which just so happens to be in the range of a serious bike rider who would be likely to be on that road. So they might slow you down between stop lights, but your average speed is the same. If traffic is light, it's no problem going around them. The safety argument also doesn't hold water. A cyclist is much safer on a road than on a bike trail.

[Spike from MN]

239. I wouldn't ride on those trails either.

I've been on trails like that before and had enough close calls that I avoid them like the plague now.

Luckily the trail I take on my route to work is technically a multi-use trail but has separate biking and pedestrian paths for the most part. They're combined in some portions due to space limitations but it really doesn't cause any problems. The trail is used by walkers, joggers, rollerbladers and cyclists and is wide enough to accomodate everyone without a problem. The only issues I've ever had are with the occasional pedestrians that are staring off into space and not paying attention to where they're going. A quick "Bike up." or something similar brings them back to reality.

You're definitely right that the arguments used against cyclists on public roads just don't hold up to scrutiny. Bikes are often going at the same or nearly the same speed as the traffic. Actually, I can get through downtown faster on a bike than I can in a car. It's great!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

156. I'm a regular bicyclist, motorcyclist, driver, and pedestrian (me & my dog).

Bicyclists worry me the most no matter what mode I'm in.
People in general need to get more tuned in to their surroundings.

[zappaman]

158. wow

some people love to complain about everything

[bridgit]

159. I agree, some are stupid *&* dangerous - the other day here in town...

a cyclist was killed after contributing to his own death just peddling along willy nilly henny penny in his couple hundred buck cycling helmet & uniform *and wearing ear buds* right through a red light and got crushed by an elderly woman causing her to crash into a tree, receive serious injuries herself and left having to deal with being part of someone losing their life because they weren't paying attention

And when you're out on a levee when a cycling club wants to ride out on a delta full of warm blue sky & puffy white clouds forget it! They take up nearly the entire road surface and block traffic for hours & miles while people have to wait for just the right moment in time to go around them or they'll cuss your ass out and flip you off

Cyclists, and motorcyclists (though they aren't quite so bad), need to understand more completely that they are sharing the roads with cars - they do not own the roads

[Quezacoatl]

167. The problem is that there are too many cyclists,

motorists and pedestrians that willfully break the law. It's not isolated to one mode of transportation. We could list hundreds of anecdotal examples of each type but that would be pointless and personally biased.

What should be looked at is the threat to safety and the costs to society. The facts are clear. From the healthcare costs of collisions and pollution, to deaths, police resources, inefficient land use and oil spills, the overwhelming threat and cost comes from the use of motor vehicles.

The time to turn our attention to the minor problem of scofflaw cyclists is AFTER we solve the humongous problems surrounding motorists and motor vehicles.

[vanamonde]

200. Yes, we need to get those idiots off their bikes

and into multi-ton vehicles whose use drives the deadly demand for oil (see: Gulf of Mexico) and which are capable of delivering deadly force due to the combination of velocity, mass and idiot operators (we've already established that they are idiots).
Great idea. Got any more jewels for us?

[vanamonde]

202. sorry Quetz - meant to reply to original poster. You get it.

[Taverner]

169. Y'know a person gets his ASS kicked in SF for sayin' such things...

[G_j]

170. since this is flame bait..

can I call you an arrogant ass?

[MajorChode]

206. Not and stay within DU rules

But if you did, I wouldn't disagree.

[HughBeaumont]

174. 170 + posts and taterguy is nowhere to be found.

Damn.

[Forkboy]

189. He's probably busy dodging idiot vehicle drivers.

[taterguy]

198. Hey, I work for a living

Thread started late Sunday night. I was asleep.

Didn't notice it until now because, well, I was working.

Don't feel like reading the whole damn thing now.

So you'll just have to wait a bit for my reply.

ps Can't decide if I should alert the mods for your CallOut. I'll probably just let it go.

[kestrel91316]

176. Environmentalism and tolerance FAIL.

[Forkboy]

190. Dumb

[La Lioness Priyanka]

236. very very dumb

[Starbucks Anarchist]

194. I was shocked to see your post had no false accusations against Obama.

[Better Believe It]

195. Your post doesn't make any sense. Are you defending unsafe bicycle riders?

Responsible people (like me) who are safe bicycle riders haven't been in the least annoyed or offended by the lead post.

However, if you and a few others wish to defend the idiots who ride their bikes without any regard for the safety of others that is your right.

Do you have a valid drivers license?

:)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

196. I neither drive nor bike, so I don't give a damn either way.

I just commented that this post of yours was the first of its kind.

[Better Believe It]

209. Are you still claiming that my posts lie and make false accusations against President Obama?

[NoPasaran]

197. Holy Frack!

I've recommended a Better Believe It post.

The End must be near. Very near.

:scared:

[HuckleB]

211. It's time to turn in that moniker.

This OP is ludicrous.

[JuniperLea]

203. I drive 7 miles to the beach every Saturday and Sunday morning...

And without fail, I have to watch out for hordes of bicyclists as they traverse The Pacific Coast Highway with little to no regard of the cars, trucks, and motorcycles doing 60mph in their own damn lanes.

When my car is in my lane, you don't belong there... period. If there is a car parked along the road, that doesn't give you the right to jump into my lane to avoid the need to slow down or stop. No, slow down or stop you ignorant biotches! It will not kill you to slow down or stop... it may very well kill you to jump into my lane right in front of me doing a legal 60mph! When you are on the road, you are a moving vehicle and you must obey the laws! If you jump in front of me and I have to watch you die before my very eyes, I will curse your bloody soul forever and ever, amen, because you asked to die! I didn't ask to watch you die... you forced that upon me, you motherfuckingsonofabitch.

[Romulox]

217. Almost everything in this post is wrong!

I'm not sure where you get the idea that a) bikes aren't allowed to change lanes (to avoid an obstruction in the road, or to make a left turn, e.g.); or
b) that your desire to move at a fixed rate of speed without making allowance for other vehicles or road conditions is in any way justified...

In short, you don't automatically have the right of way simply because you desire to go fast... :eyes:

[Spike from MN]

231. You're absolutely right.

In most (and I'm guessing, all) states, bikes have the right to take the lane when necessary. For example, if a utility truck is parked in the bike lane, I look back at traffic, signal my intentions (whenever possible) and move over into the traffic lane. Not once have I ever had a driver not allow me to do so. They see that the bike lane is blocked up ahead and know I'll need to come over so they adjust their speed to allow me in, just like they would do for a car. When I can move back over into the bike lane, I give the driver a friendly wave and a thumbs up. Invariably, they give me a friendly wave back. It's called sharing the road.

[JuniperLea]

244. That's fine... but they don't have the right to jump in front of a vehicle...

Or force them into oncoming traffic.

In California, bikes are vehicles and unless there's a designated bike path on the road, they must obey all laws just like a car.

The problem is when I'm doing 60, the legal speed on that stretch of road, and without warning, a bike jumps right in front of me... there's nowhere to go except OVER the bike and rider, or into opposing traffic. If I were to do that in a car, I would be to blame for any accident. In California, same goes for the biker.

It's called obeying the law.

[JuniperLea]

243. You're flat wrong...

They can change lanes all they want as long as they don't jump in front of me doing 30 while I'm doing the legal speed limit of 60! Where the fuck do you want me to go? Into opposing traffic for fuck sake? Or should I just run them over... the bike and body would be a hell of a lot less carnage than the 10 or so bikes and bodies behind the first! Ignorant... your post is just ignorant.

Your last sentence is pure bullshit... so is the first for that matter... well the whole damn post makes no sense in the context of mine. Try again.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

208. get over yourself. nt

[camio]

218. I agree, but it must be hard for cyclists.

I live in NYC. I don't drive, myself, because I walk everywhere or occasionally take the train, but when I am in a car or taxi I am struck by how insane some of these bikers behave in the middle of the road. There is no excuse for riding anywhere other than the bit of road closest to the sidewalk - bikes should not be in the middle of the road!! You don't pedal fast enough, for one thing, and you're in the way. And for another, why do you all even think it's acceptable to be right there? Every day I see bikers doing this and then going through red lights seconds before another car is about to hit them. Plenty of other pretty maddening antics that will remain nameless but have names. I really want to clobber most bikers in the street.

At the same time, I understand they can't ride very well (or at all) on the sidewalk, so I concede they deserve a bit of road. But for crying out loud... Get out of the damn way.

I have no bad feelings towards bikers that remain in their own lane, and in fact, I prefer them to all the cars in this fabulous city.

[TampaAnimus2010]

219. I love riding my bike and I never ride on the road...

I agree, people that block traffic, or cars to swerve into the next lane to go around them create FAR to much risk to themselves and others. Ride on the friggen sidewalk for pete's sake. I dont care if it is illegal - I've been riding mine there for a decade and I have never been ticketed. Use some common sense and get out of the road unless you have an explicit bicycle lane separate from the auto lanes.

[HuckleB]

227. That's your choice.

Cyclists have every right to the road.

[TampaAnimus2010]

235. Oh I never said there wasn't a legal right to use the road....

I just said it was dangerous, foolhardy, and unnecessary in most cases.

[Onceuponalife]

228. Motorists are way more dangerous than cyclists

A responsible cyclists will make eye contact with a driver to make sure s/he sees them. After that, the motorist should just wait until the cylist makes his move. They will be gone and on their way in a second. We cyclists know what we're doing. I have almost been hit numerous times by motorists who weren't looking. Drivers are lazy and impatient. If everyone who could bike to work actually got off their lazy asses and did it car traffic would decrease dramatically, leading to far fewer accidents and deaths.

[Better Believe It]

238. This makes just as much sense.

A responsible motorist will make eye contact with a cyclist to make sure she/he sees them. After that, the cyclist should just wait until the motorist makes his/her move. They will be gone and on their way in a second.

We motorists know what we're doing. Cyclists are lazy and impatient.

If everyone walked to work or took public transportation instead of riding a bike or using a car traffic would decrease dramatically, leading to far fewer accidents and deaths.

[Strelnikov_]

240. "Cyclists are lazy and impatient. "

Yes, I have always viewed those who transport themselves using their own muscle power, as lazy.

[taterguy]

245. In a perfect world, your OP would apply to everyone who uses the roads

Does it?

Well no.

Do you have to really know how to drive to get a drivers license?

I took my road test when I was 16 and haven't had to take it again. So for about 30 years the government has no way of knowing how good a driver I am. And my selective memory is that the road test just consisted of a few simple maneuvers on basic streets. I don't think I actually had to merge onto a major highway or do anything remotely challenging.

So as a practical matter, how many resources should the government devote to insuring that everyone knows how to drive? Should we all be tested every year? And given a really good test? Something tells me that won't go over very well.

How are we gonna pay for it? People bitch when they have to wait in line an hour at the DMV. If comprehensive road tests on a regular basis are required then you're going to have much longer waits, unless they hire a shitload more examiners.

And should traffic laws be more vigorously enforced? Maybe.

We have a certain amount of carnage on the roads. The way to reduce that carnage is to exponentially increase the number of cops enforcing the laws along with more courtrooms, prosecutors, prisons etc.

Currently we do a decent job of balancing safety before we hit the point of diminishing returns, at least I like to think so.

As for why this thread has drawn so many flames, you singled out cyclists as the source of a problem, when everyone knows that even when a cyclist breaks a law it rarely leads to severe injury or property damage. At least for anyone other than the cyclist in question.