Why the hate for Cyclists?

[AndreusMaximus]

Are you interpreting the law as saying the cyclist has to stay three feet from the gutter?

Uh... no. Not sure where that came from?

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.

EXACTLY. It's exactly this attitude that honks people off. "You shall pass me when I deem it is safe for you to pass me. If I do not deem it safe for you to pass me yet, I shall manage you by making it as difficult as possible for you to pass me."

 

[HoughMade]

Inflationary pandemic money leading to construction EVERYWHERE has cost me a lot more travel time than cyclists.

Just sayin.

 

[Dholcomb]

Really comes down to not being an a hole and having respect for others around you. Doesn’t matter if you’re in a car, walking, riding a bike, pay taxes, don’t pay taxes, having a bad day, having a great day. The world does not revolve around just you or I. Surprised this thread is still going. This thread needs moved to the first world problems thread.

 

[BugI02]

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.

They already have that on the Interstates, only cyclists paid for that, too

And you should probably refresh you selective memory by rereading the first few pages of this

The upshot is:

The state considers bicycles to be vehicles

The state places no additional restrictions on cyclists use of regular roads beyond those also applicable to drivers

The state does not require licensing or registration of bicycles

By and large, cyclists do not want bicycle lanes and never have. They are a horrible idea much like HOV lanes

A cyclist operating his bicycle on the regular roads is violating no law, and unless and until you can prove there are significant numbers of cyclists who do not also own cars it should be assumed that they are riding on roads that they also pay for

 

[Creedmoor]

Inflationary pandemic money leading to construction EVERYWHERE has cost me a lot more travel time than cyclists.

Just sayin.

Wait,.,. What!!! A rational attorney, Who would have though that.

 

[jamil]

^^^ 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...

Exactly. Excluding immutable characteristics, group hatred is directly proportional to the portion of dickheads within the group. Lots of dickheads = lots of hate. But, I will concede that it’s perception of dickheadery, which is often earned, but not always.

 

[Ingomike]

Uh... no. Not sure where that came from?

EXACTLY. It's exactly this attitude that honks people off. "You shall pass me when I deem it is safe for you to pass me. If I do not deem it safe for you to pass me yet, I shall manage you by making it as difficult as possible for you to pass me."

People that do not understand how this works would likely feel that way. For an example on a narrow county road approaching a tight curve if the cyclist hugs the line the following vehicle will be encouraged to pass, upon attempting to pass an approaching vehicle pops around the curve the passing vehicle now must try to squeeze the cyclist, may even hit them, to give way and not hit the approaching vehicle.

To avoid that for all parties I will definitely be over to the left protecting my flank.

There is nothing wrong with defensive riding, and if it was my butt on the bike damn sure I am managing and defensive riding. Those that do not ride seem to expect cyclists to be sitting ducks…

 

[BugI02]

And why do you keep avoiding the fact that cyclists without motor vehicles do not pay any of the taxes or fees that fund the building or maintenance of public roads?

And why do you keep avoiding the fact that the number of cyclists without motor vehicles is almost certainly not a statistically significant number if we exclude children too young to drive or own cars? Does the mere fact that a few people meeting that description might exist make a difference to anything?

Would you include college kids who have a bicycle but no car because there is little or no no available parking on campus and they had only driven their parents vehicles up until they graduated high school and matriculated? Again, why do you avoid the point that the fees their parents paid for those motor vehicles grace ALL who might drive them in the eyes of the state, not just the owner of record

Some results of a quick and dirty search:

Survey: 90 percent of avid Oregon bicyclists also own, drive cars

Statistics appear to contradict the belief that bicyclists don't pay their way on the roads.

www.oregonlive.com

More cyclists pay ‘road tax’ than car drivers | ETA

The tired old argument that cyclists have less right to be on the road because they don’t pay vehicle excise duty – sometimes still referred to as...

www.eta.co.uk

 

[jamil]

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?

No.

 

[jamil]

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 they’re just imagining the rude dickhead that they encountered and they just like imagining karma catching up.

 

[BugI02]

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.

Maybe be a bit self-aware about the arguably greater numbers of rude, self-entitled drivers infesting the roads. I could tell many stories from when I'm driving a car, so could you I'm sure

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.

This will have already happened in most group rides. The Cat A riders are off the front, far up the road and riding in small groups that can work together to maintain a comfortable speed. As I mentioned, they will be riding single file in some form of pace line and only be two-up when queuing to turn

The Cat B riders will also be up the road from the gutter-bunnies, but there will be more of them, of a wider range of abilities, and it will take some time for them to sort themselves out - much like freeway traffic takes a while to self sort after any kind of lane restriction is cleared. In the city of more densely populated suburbs, the density of traffic light controlled intersection will delay this sort by interrupting the process prior to completion again and again. These are likely the larger, untidy groups that are pictured in most photographic examples in this thread

The Cat C riders are noobs or of very limited ability - or both - and never really will get self-organized. their bike handling skills are lacking and they are a danger to themselves and others. No one else wants to be anywhere near them until they get some experience under their belt spandex

 

[jamil]

Gutter bunnies?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

People that do not understand how this works would likely feel that way. For an example on a narrow county road approaching a tight curve if the cyclist hugs the line the following vehicle will be encouraged to pass, upon attempting to pass an approaching vehicle pops around the curve the passing vehicle now must try to squeeze the cyclist, may even hit them, to give way and not hit the approaching vehicle.

To avoid that for all parties I will definitely be over to the left protecting my flank.

There is nothing wrong with defensive riding, and if it was my butt on the bike damn sure I am managing and defensive riding. Those that do not ride seem to expect cyclists to be sitting ducks…

"I'm afraid they may try to pass me when it's too dangerous, so I'll be sure to make it even more dangerous if they do decide to pass me."

Which part of that is defensive driving again?

Seems about the same mentality as the folks who mash the gas pedal to the floor when they seem someone start to cross the dashed line in their rear view mirror.

But you do you...

 

[miguel]

Really comes down to not being an a hole and having respect for others around you. Doesn’t matter if you’re in a car, walking, riding a bike, pay taxes, don’t pay taxes, having a bad day, having a great day. The world does not revolve around just you or I. Surprised this thread is still going. This thread needs moved to the first world problems thread.

Verily I say unto thee...is such wisdom still found on INGO?

 

[BugI02]

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.

Then why are there so many threads about slow people camping in the fast lane? Is it possible that not caring about 'significantly impeding motor vehicle traffic' or 'cost[ing] a bunch of people several minutes on their commute to work' is a human behavior and not unique to cyclists

Are we allowed 'two minutes hate' for people who like to take a leisurely drive in the country on roads frequented by higher performance drivers (think of The Dragon) or would that somehow be different because now you're the one causing the angst? How about people in motor homes or towing fifth wheel trailers?

I stand by my assertion that all the self-righteous anger has no basis in righteousness and only provides rhetorical cover for people who want to 'share the road' in the same way Hamas wants to 'share a two state solution' with Israel

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Then why are there so many threads about slow people camping in the fast lane? Is it possible that not caring about 'significantly impeding motor vehicle traffic' or 'cost[ing] a bunch of people several minutes on their commute to work' is a human behavior and not unique to cyclists

Are we allowed 'two minutes hate' for people who like to take a leisurely drive in the country on roads frequented by higher performance drivers (think of The Dragon) or would that somehow be different because now you're the one causing the angst? How about people in motor homes or towing fifth wheel trailers?

I stand by my assertion that all the self-righteous anger has no basis in righteousness and only provides rhetorical cover for people who want to 'share the road' in the same way Hamas wants to 'share a two state solution' with Israel

I've tried to make clear a few times already that I don't harbor any particular resentment towards inconsiderate cyclists as opposed to inconsiderate motorists. Personally, I've encountered the latter a lot more often, and even when I've encountered inconsiderate cyclists, they never put my life or limb at risk. Hence, I started out this entire thread wondering why cyclists get any hate at all, I'd never really understood it, when inconsiderate motorists seem a much more present and dangerous problem, in my own experience.

I think this thread has enlightened me a little bit as to the attitude that provokes people into such resentment. Whenever we point out inconsiderate motorists, the general response from other motorists seems to be "yeah, those guys are jerks. I don't think good people should drive like that." When inconsiderate cyclists are pointed out, though, the knee-jerk reaction of other cyclists seems to be "How dare you, you whiny, entitled Karen! Don't you know they have as much right to the road as you, and probably pay more taxes than you poors?"

I can see now why some people would start to over-generalize if their interaction with cyclists was overall similar to what I've seen in this thread.

 

[chipbennett]

And why do you keep avoiding the fact that the number of cyclists without motor vehicles is almost certainly not a statistically significant number if we exclude children too young to drive or own cars? Does the mere fact that a few people meeting that description might exist make a difference to anything?

Would you include college kids who have a bicycle but no car because there is little or no no available parking on campus and they had only driven their parents vehicles up until they graduated high school and matriculated? Again, why do you avoid the point that the fees their parents paid for those motor vehicles grace ALL who might drive them in the eyes of the state, not just the owner of record

Some results of a quick and dirty search:

Survey: 90 percent of avid Oregon bicyclists also own, drive cars

Statistics appear to contradict the belief that bicyclists don't pay their way on the roads.

www.oregonlive.com

More cyclists pay ‘road tax’ than car drivers | ETA

The tired old argument that cyclists have less right to be on the road because they don’t pay vehicle excise duty – sometimes still referred to as...

www.eta.co.uk

I've never avoided that assertion. Though, even in the link you provided, I'd say that 10% is statistically significant. And I suspect that the percentage has a distinct urban-vs-rural divergence - especially urban areas with established public transportation means. In Indiana? I suspect that there are very few cyclists who don't own automobiles. I'd guess that it's a thing in the more hipster parts of, say Indy or Bloomington; but not much to speak of outside of such places.

Regarding your second link, this is an absurd argument: "The tired old argument that cyclists have less right to be on the road because they don’t pay vehicle excise duty – sometimes still referred to as road tax – received another blow this week when it transpired that cyclists are more likely to also drive cars, and pay VED, than the population as a whole."

It's also unlikely to be true. A) The data are for the UK, not for the US, B) The numbers (83% of cyclists own vehicles, compared to 82% of the overall population) are an estimate based on survey data, and C) The results (83% vs 82%) are almost certainly within the margin of error for the survey in question.

 

[KittySlayer]

"I'm afraid they may try to pass me when it's too dangerous, so I'll be sure to make it even more dangerous if they do decide to pass me."

Which part of that is defensive driving again?

Seems about the same mentality as the folks who mash the gas pedal to the floor when they seem someone start to cross the dashed line in their rear view mirror.

But you do you...

Please see the illustration in post #248 before commenting on the two examples below. See example #2 and #3 as well as the commentary at the bottom.

If a cyclist hugs the white fog line (gutter bunny) they allow the following auto driver to begin (mis)calculating if there is enough room to "share" the lane or only cross the yellow line a "little bit". If an oncoming car suddenly shows up the driver who miscalculated squeezes in and hits the cyclist.

By moving your bike into the lane a bit (3 feet) then the auto has to decide if it is safe to cross over the center line or not. Which means the driver should look up the road for an oncoming car and if they can't see over a hill or around a curve then make a safe decision.

 

[actaeon277]

I've tried to make clear a few times already that I don't harbor any particular resentment towards inconsiderate cyclists as opposed to inconsiderate motorists. Personally, I've encountered the latter a lot more often, and even when I've encountered inconsiderate cyclists, they never put my life or limb at risk. Hence, I started out this entire thread wondering why cyclists get any hate at all, I'd never really understood it, when inconsiderate motorists seem a much more present and dangerous problem, in my own experience.

I think this thread has enlightened me a little bit as to the attitude that provokes people into such resentment. Whenever we point out inconsiderate motorists, the general response from other motorists seems to be "yeah, those guys are jerks. I don't think good people should drive like that." When inconsiderate cyclists are pointed out, though, the knee-jerk reaction of other cyclists seems to be "How dare you, you whiny, entitled Karen! Don't you know they have as much right to the road as you, and probably pay more taxes than you poors?"

I can see now why some people would start to over-generalize if their interaction with cyclists was overall similar to what I've seen in this thread.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Please see the illustration in post #248 before commenting on the two examples below. See example #2 and #3 as well as the commentary at the bottom.

If a cyclist hugs the white fog line (gutter bunny) they allow the following auto driver to begin (mis)calculating if there is enough room to "share" the lane or only cross the yellow line a "little bit". If an oncoming car suddenly shows up the driver who miscalculated squeezes in and hits the cyclist.

By moving your bike into the lane a bit (3 feet) then the auto has to decide if it is safe to cross over the center line or not. Which means the driver should look up the road for an oncoming car and if they can't see over a hill or around a curve then make a safe decision.

My comments began in the context of a situation where it was a one-way street, one lane, so no possibility of a car unexpectedly appearing from the other direction, and there was clearly enough of a shoulder on the road for the passing vehicle (a bus) to share the lane with the cyclist while allowing for a 3-foot distance, but the cyclist, upon perceiving that the bus wanted to pass, began inexplicably moving further away from the curb in order to try to prevent it. So not the same as what your illustration is referring to, since there was no opposing lane for the bus to move into.

That being said, regarding situations on a 2-lane road, the fact still remains that being further to the right will make any pass that does occur shorter and safer. Nice-looking illustrations notwithstanding, I'm just not buying the idea that making a pass more dangerous will dissuade inconsiderate motorists from attempting the pass just the same, and when I bike I just try to give myself as much distance as possible from a vehicle that might pass me on the left. I still think the best thing to do is to pull over periodically and let other folks by, and/or don't bike on hilly, winding, 55-mph highways. In which case it really wouldn't matter how far from the edge of the road you are.

But again, that's just me; you do you.