Why the hate for Cyclists?

[chipbennett]

No. Again, it was the assertion that motorists should pay to have another lane built just for them if they didn't want bikes in the lane.

Bug appears to have... selective reading comprehension in this thread.

 

[jamil]

The rebuttal is that virtually all cyclists will be found to ALSO be motor vehicle owners

The rebuttal to that is that the roads are built, and however they were funded is irrelevant unless they want to make their kids pay taxes for riding their training wheels around the cul-de-sac.

Furthermore, the idea that all cyclists stay off the roads unless they split the cost of repairing the 1.5 potholes per bazillion miles of roadways they cause annually with their 40lbs bikes is a bit pedantic even for INGO.

If we're gonna complain about the inexplicable over-representation of rude, self-entitled cyclists (present company excluded), I think that's a fair discussion. I think it would also be a fair discussion that the overall situation would be improved if cyclists could be a little more humble about riding their bikes on roadways paid for through fuel taxes.

And when you're out with the cycling clubs, maybe break up into smaller groups and have each group ride in different areas. It's a real pain in the ass to be stuck behind a herd of many dozens of bicycles averaging 7-25 mph on a curvy hilly road, where it's impossible to pass for miles. But it's easier to get around maybe half a dozen.

 

[jamil]

So, are we taking the 'heat' off cyclists?
Cause I hate Yoko

Why not hate both?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Why not hate both?

I she still even alive?

 

[jamil]

I she still even alive?

You can still hate dead people.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You can still hate dead people.

True but they won’t be able to receive any wrath.

 

[jamil]

True but they won’t be able to receive any wrath.

Yeah, I suppose that it's probably more satisfying if you know that the person you hate knows you hate him/her/zer?

 

[Ingomike]

No. This whole rabbit trail started when someone (Ingomike, I think?) suggested that motor vehicle drivers should pay more to have their own dedicated lanes on public roads.

SARCASM! Not literally, in response to posts the cyclist should not be allowed on the road…

 

[Ingomike]

After claiming that cyclists are responsible for roads (historically) being built because of cyclists in the first place.)

Cyclist were responsible for building many of the early roads and posted links attesting to that…

 

[AndreusMaximus]

It's a real pain... to be stuck behind a herd of many dozens of bicycles averaging 7-25 mph on a curvy hilly road, where it's impossible to pass for miles.

^^^ This. This is the thing.

There's been a couple folks in this thread who wanted all bicycles kept off the roads, but that's a minority, AFAIK. For most folks it was just a simple matter of wishing that certain cyclists wouldn't do things like this^^^. If you're significantly impeding motor vehicle traffic, just get out of the way. It's not that big of a deal to pull off to the side for 10 seconds to let vehicles pass, rather than cost a bunch of people several minutes on their commute to work.

Now I can't tell for sure, but it seems to me that @BugI02 and @Ingomike think having that attitude makes one an entitled whiner, or some such thing. Maybe I got them wrong; maybe they're just referring to the folks who literally can't stand waiting 10 seconds to safely pass a bicycle. Maybe they agree that cyclists slowing traffic to a crawl on 55-mph winding highway for miles on end is a rude thing to do, and if so, I'd like to see that clarified.

But it feels to me like the argument they are making is that motorists should be content to wait on bicycles for however long the cyclists feel like, because cyclists have "just as much of a right" to use the road as motorists do.

Now, legally speaking, of course that's true, and I for one am not in favor of changing it. But, as G.K. Chesterton said "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." You can have a right to do something, and that something can still be rude and inconsiderate.

The cold, hard fact is that our current, modern, asphalt roads were built with taxes paid by motorists, and were built and designed with the primary, if not sole, purpose of accommodating motor vehicle traffic. The reason bringing up taxes is relevant is NOT because of some pedantic discussion of who is or is not paying their "fair share", or what someone's "fair share" even is, or who has a "right" to use the road, but because the fact is that if bicycles were banned from roads, NOTHING* would change about the way roads are financed, designed, built, or repaired. (*The few exceptions to this, like bike lanes, have been ill-thought-out, and in general seem to be of no help either to motorists or cyclists.) On the other hand, if motor vehicles were banned from roads, and only bicycles were allowed, it would completely upend the entire system, and drastically change the way roads are designed. And this is the really relevant part: the design. Our modern roads are designed for motor vehicles, with bicycles being an afterthought, or not a thought at all. For this reason, a bicycle being ridden by someone with the "I have just as much right to the road so everyone should wait on me" attitude can create a disruption to traffic that is exceedingly disproportionate to that created by a motor vehicle capable of attaining highway speeds.

So, is there a solution? I see two opposite extremes being proposed, on the one end there's the faction who says "ban all bicycles", on the other end there seems to be faction who says that motorists just need to shut up and learn to accommodate bicycles no matter where, when, or how they choose to use the road, and if you complain about being stuck at a crawl for 15 minutes on a country highway, you're a whiny Karen. I don't buy either of those extremes. Personally, I think if all cyclists would just exercise common courtesy (and most do) and recognize and own the fact that using their bicycle on the road has the potential to significantly disrupt traffic, and act accordingly, there wouldn't be any issues. Well, there would still be issues caused by inconsiderate and careless motorists endangering cyclists, so this magical solution would have to occur on both ends. I'm sure it won't be happening any time soon, but one can dream...

 

[Ingomike]

And when you're out with the cycling clubs, maybe break up into smaller groups and have each group ride in different areas.

Then should this not apply to cars and trucks at rush hour? Not let people leave work until the packs are broken up into smaller groups and force people to drive in different areas?

 

[chipbennett]

Cyclist were responsible for building many of the early roads and posted links attesting to that…

The posted links said no such thing. They said that cycling clubs advocated for better roads, but that the movement only truly gained traction (pun intended) once horse-drawn wagons and, more importantly, automobiles got behind that advocacy.

 

[chipbennett]

Then should this not apply to cars and trucks at rush hour? Not let people leave work until the packs are broken up into smaller groups and force people to drive in different areas?

I'm not advocating for or against such recommendations. However, I will point out that in many places, traffic laws and patterns are modified to accommodate rush-hour/congestion conditions: e.g. no turns, two-way streets becoming one-way, no street parking, and similar.

 

[Creedmoor]

Cyclist were responsible for building many of the early roads and posted links attesting to that…

They should have invented bikes with suspensions and used the paved roads that were already available.

 

[Ingomike]

^^^ This. This is the thing.

There's been a couple folks in this thread who wanted all bicycles kept off the roads, but that's a minority, AFAIK. For most folks it was just a simple matter of wishing that certain cyclists wouldn't do things like this^^^. If you're significantly impeding motor vehicle traffic, just get out of the way. It's not that big of a deal to pull off to the side for 10 seconds to let vehicles pass, rather than cost a bunch of people several minutes on their commute to work.

People are so self centered and selfish today, It is the norm not just for cyclists. People get pizzed if they must wait for someone to write a check at the grocery.

Now I can't tell for sure, but it seems to me that @BugI02 and @Ingomike think having that attitude makes one an entitled whiner, or some such thing. Maybe I got them wrong; maybe they're just referring to the folks who literally can't stand waiting 10 seconds to safely pass a bicycle. Maybe they agree that cyclists slowing traffic to a crawl on 55-mph winding highway for miles on end is a rude thing to do, and if so, I'd like to see that clarified.

If one has never ridden to destinations 20-100 miles from home they just do not have any concept so they espouse the taking of cyclists freedoms for their own convenience.

But it feels to me like the argument they are making is that motorists should be content to wait on bicycles for however long the cyclists feel like, because cyclists have "just as much of a right" to use the road as motorists do.

Now, legally speaking, of course that's true, and I for one am not in favor of changing it. But, as G.K. Chesterton said "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." You can have a right to do something, and that something can still be rude and inconsiderate.

So how many times per mile should a cyclist pull over for cars? The law says three cars backed up.

The cold, hard fact is that our current, modern, asphalt roads were built with taxes paid by motorists, and were built and designed with the primary, if not sole, purpose of accommodating motor vehicle traffic. The reason bringing up taxes is relevant is NOT because of some pedantic discussion of who is or is not paying their "fair share", or what someone's "fair share" even is, or who has a "right" to use the road, but because the fact is that if bicycles were banned from roads, NOTHING* would change about the way roads are financed, designed, built, or repaired. (*The few exceptions to this, like bike lanes, have been ill-thought-out, and in general seem to be of no help either to motorists or cyclists.) On the other hand, if motor vehicles were banned from roads, and only bicycles were allowed, it would completely upend the entire system, and drastically change the way roads are designed. And this is the really relevant part: the design. Our modern roads are designed for motor vehicles, with bicycles being an afterthought, or not a thought at all. For this reason, a bicycle being ridden by someone with the "I have just as much right to the road so everyone should wait on me" attitude can create a disruption to traffic that is exceedingly disproportionate to that created by a motor vehicle capable of attaining highway speeds.

The whole tax deal is a way to express frustration at the few moments cyclists delay motorists.

So, is there a solution? I see two opposite extremes being proposed, on the one end there's the faction who says "ban all bicycles", on the other end there seems to be faction who says that motorists just need to shut up and learn to accommodate bicycles no matter where, when, or how they choose to use the road, and if you complain about being stuck at a crawl for 15 minutes on a country highway, you're a whiny Karen. I don't buy either of those extremes. Personally, I think if all cyclists would just exercise common courtesy (and most do) and recognize and own the fact that using their bicycle on the road has the potential to significantly disrupt traffic, and act accordingly, there wouldn't be any issues. Well, there would still be issues caused by inconsiderate and careless motorists endangering cyclists, so this magical solution would have to occur on both ends. I'm sure it won't be happening any time soon, but one can dream...

A big part of the disconnect are the mistaken beliefs of motorists, many of which are posted in this thread. The whole topic started when a cyclist with a signboard marking the three feet the law says motorists must give cyclists, was hit by a vehicle and some thought it was funny, just, and deserved.

Uninformed motorists think cyclists must ride single file, they do not. They think cyclists must get out of their way, they do not. The think cyclists must ride in the very edge of the shoulder, ride on side paths, they do not. I used to carry the bike laws because even many LEO does not know bike laws, just as some gun carriers do.

There are rude bad cyclists just as there are motorists but people like to paint with broad brushes…

 

[printcraft]

If you notice traffic piling up behind you the “courteous” thing to do would be to pull to the side and let it pass.
Slow vehicles pulling heavy trailers, campers and farm equipment all seem to be able to accomplish this on their own, even though they have “the right to the road”.

 

[Ingomike]

If you notice traffic piling up behind you the “courteous” thing to do would be to pull to the side and let it pass.

Agreed.

Slow vehicles pulling heavy trailers, campers and farm equipment all seem to be able to accomplish this on their own, even though they have “the right to the road”.

I see the same proportion of jerks in all groups…

 

[AndreusMaximus]

If you notice traffic piling up behind you the “courteous” thing to do would be to pull to the side and let it pass.

Agreed.

Well, we agree then. Thank you for clarifying.

There are rude bad cyclists just as there are motorists but people like to paint with broad brushes…

Also agreed.

So how many times per mile should a cyclist pull over for cars? The law says three cars backed up.

The whole topic started when a cyclist with a signboard marking the three feet the law says motorists must give cyclists, was hit by a vehicle and some thought it was funny, just, and deserved.

I think this is where we differ. I really don't get hung up on what the law says: "3 cars backed up", "3 feet passing distance", the law needs objective criteria. But if everyone in society was a courteous, moral person, we wouldn't need those sorts of hard numbers.

A significant point of my own personal morality is that I care as little as possible what "the law" says when considering what I think is right or wrong. If a cyclist wants to stick a three-foot pole off the side of his bike and then keep pulling further and further away from the shoulder in an attempt to stop a bus from passing him, sure, that's legal. If a driver wants to pull out their camera and scream "am I being detained!?" over and over when they get pulled over, that's legal, too, AFAIK. If I see a video of a cop pulling that person out of their car and tasing them, or a video of a bus bumping into the cyclist's sign and knocking them over, I am going to say: Is it funny? Yes. Deserved? Probably. Just? Probably not. Legal? No. The right thing to do? Definitely no. Do I get some unhealthy satisfaction out of seeing such a thing happen to a jerk? Definitely yes.

 

[Ingomike]

If a cyclist wants to stick a three-foot pole off the side of his bike and then keep pulling further and further away from the shoulder in an attempt to stop a bus from passing him,

Are you interpreting the law as saying the cyclist has to stay three feet from the gutter? The cyclist must ride as far right as is practicable then vehicles must give three feet. The cyclist decides what is practicable, meaning what is safe for them under the conditions. Conditions that include road surface defects, debris, and traffic.

Another disconnect is when motorists see a cyclist out in the lane, go by honking and cursing about getting over not knowing the conditions are such it is dangerous to ride on the far right. That is why the law says practicable.

Skilled road cyclists also manage the traffic behind them for everyone’s safety. The cyclist can make it easy to pass when safe and more difficult when not safe to pass.

 

[jamil]

No. This whole rabbit trail started when someone (Ingomike, I think?) suggested that motor vehicle drivers should pay more to have their own dedicated lanes on public roads.

Actually I think that was me. And it was not, or at least not completely, serious. The non serious part was that if cyclists ride on public roads, they must fund bike lanes and use them. The serious part was that if we have bike lanes the people who use them should pay for them.