Why the hate for Cyclists?

[KLB]

I mean, you're kind of proving my point. Most motorists, myself included, are quite willing to admit that there is a high number of inconsiderate, unsafe motorists on the road, and to condemn unsafe behavior, like unsafe passing that you pointed out. But the moment I point out any sort of behavior that I perceive as counterproductive on the part of cyclists, and all you can do is try to deflect to "oh, but what about all those unsafe motorists?"

I agree with you that motorists should not pass other motorists unsafely. But if I see someone aiming to pass me in a situation that I deem unsafe, I'm not gonna play cop and floor the gas or push over into the other lane to try to dissuade them from doing so. I'm going to adopt defensive driving, and if they must pass me, all I can do is try my best to stop a collision from happening, whether I'm angry at them or not. Simply saying that cyclists should do the same seems to have gotten you all up in arms, though, and I really don't get why?

His example actually wasn't unsafe. Double yellow lines are far from an always denoting if it is safe or not to pass at a certain point.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Because I suspect we are talking about two different things. Do you somehow have the image in your mind that most interactions between cyclists and cars is of the wide group filling the lane? That is the exception rather than the rule. As a cyclist riding single file or alone, I am almost always within 18 inches of the curb or edge of the road. I don't have anywhere to pull over to to please the people who so desperately need me to yield even though they have plenty of room to get by easily and safely. In just that configuration, riding alone, I have been struck in the back by an orange, an empty pop can and a C or D cell battery among other things and I was doing absolutely nothing but minding my own business and riding within myself

I would absolutely agree that a large group of riders should be single file though I would not say they should break into smaller groups. It is possible they ride in larger groups for the same reasons motorcyclists do - because cage people are the real problem

I'll keep trying to make it clear: I AGREE that jerk motorists are a bigger issue on the road than jerk cyclists. In my experience, I've encountered awful, dangerous, inconsiderate, etc. drivers much more often than cyclists. There's also the simple fact that I've never encountered a cyclist who endangered my life or limb. I cannot NEARLY say the same thing about other motorists I've encountered. There is no excuse whatsoever for motorists who do the sorts of things you describe, or otherwise endanger cyclists due to their own impatience, and I'm not trying to make up excuses, or even reasons, for them.

When I talk about understanding the frustration some people have, I'm NOT saying that I in any way condone or understand endangering cyclists' life and limb, throwing things at them, etc. What I am saying is that I understand the complaining, at least to some degree, because there is an unavoidable tension between motor vehicles, and bicycles (or any other slow-moving vehicle) on our modern roads.

Part of the tension is simply a result of lack of understanding of norms/etiquette on the road. And I'm not just talking about laws here: within the bounds of the law there's still a range of safer/less safe actions, and most motorists of the non-jerk category have a fairly solid understanding of how they ought to interact with other motor vehicles in situations not explicitly covered by law, but a relatively small understanding of how to interact with cyclists. Even within this thread, I've heard completely conflicting accounts from folks who describe themselves as enthusiastic cyclists. Above you just said that cyclists should ride single file, and fairly close to the curb to allow cars room to safely pass. A few pages back, another cyclists was explaining that it's too dangerous for a car to share a lane with a bicycle, so bicycles should plant themselves in the middle of the road if alone, and ride abreast when in groups in order to minimize passing distance. I honestly have no clue which one is right or wrong. There's apparently a lack of understanding, even among fairly serious cyclists, of what the norm should be, so I can't really be surprised if motorists get confused, and thus, frustrated.

But the bigger source of frustration, in my perception, is again, this attitude among cyclists that any criticism directed at any cyclist must be responded to as if it were an attack on every cyclist everywhere. If you were just rebutting those who want to ban bicycles from all roads, I'd get it; I don't agree with those people either. But all throughout your replies, and the replies of a couple other cyclists in this thread, I see all sorts of comments that seem to convey an attitude that there is no such thing as rude behavior by cyclists, and that unless they are breaking the law, no motorist ever has any right to complain about anything a cyclist should choose to do on the road. Like BBI so wittily pointed out, if one simply points at what's legal, and sets no other standard whatsoever for one's behavior, society would devolve into a pretty miserable place.

Maybe I'm just reading way to much into small comments that you make, but there's a bunch of things that just rub me the wrong way. When you make comments like "cage people are the real problem" (I assume "cage people" are motorists) it sounds like you're saying there's only one side to the issue. "The problem" implies that there is only one problem, and there is no such thing as a cyclist ever being a problem. I also don't know what you mean by riding "within yourself", but that phrase would sure tick off a lot of motorists, whether it is said about a cyclist or a motorist. I know public roadways are certainly not the place I go to be "within myself"; one of the most common criticisms I've heard hurled at bad drivers is that they are just absorbed in themselves.

To boil it down, IMHO, public roads are NOT the place to adopt the attitude of "I have just as much right to be on the road as anyone else, so as long as I don't break the law, people had better let me drive/ride at whatever speed or pace I feel like and avoid hitting me while I just stay within myself." Lots of motorists get on the road with that attitude; I condemn them. Evidently some cyclists get on the road with that attitude; maybe I read you wrong and that's not you, but I just have to wonder why you seem so uncomfortable with criticism of rude cyclists, as if rude cyclists don't really exist? I don't know, maybe it just all goes back to confusion over specific examples. Is it safe for a car to share the lane with a cyclist when passing? Is it rude for a large group of cyclists to string out single file? It seems like the cyclists in this thread can't even agree on those things, so no wonder motorists have trouble coming to an understanding. Me, I don't like to get hung up on specifics, because I'm honestly not that experienced. I try to give examples that illustrate my points, but I'm not really trying to say that cyclists need to ride X number of inches from the curb, or pull over every X number of minutes to let cars by, or anything else. I'm just saying, don't be a self-absorbed jerk, and just because one has the right to do something like hold up a mile-long string of commuters trying to get to work because you want to exercise by riding your bike up that one winding hill, doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. JMHO.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

His example actually wasn't unsafe. Double yellow lines are far from an always denoting if it is safe or not to pass at a certain point.

I wasn't quite sure how to interpret his example, but it sounded to me like he was describing a 55 mph highway with someone going at 20mph over the speed limit and swerving into the opposite lane to pass without first slowing down and waiting for a passing zone. Sounds unsafe to me.

 

[KLB]

I wasn't quite sure how to interpret his example, but it sounded to me like he was describing a 55 mph highway with someone going at 20mph over the speed limit and swerving into the opposite lane to pass without first slowing down and waiting for a passing zone. Sounds unsafe to me.

I think it is about perspective. He can chime in, but it sounded like he was describing a situation where "someone" might pass which would make the person being passed react as you suggest, but it really wouldn't be. I may or may not have had that exact scenario play out in the past, including the upset person.

There are many no passing zones that have plenty of room to safely pass, if you have a vehicle capable of doing so.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There are many no passing zones that have plenty of room to safely pass, if you have a vehicle capable of doing so.

I'm sure there are intersections where you can blow through a red light if you have the skills and a vehicle capable of dodging any traffic you might encounter while doing so too. Doesn't make it legal or advisable.

 

[ditcherman]

We could debate the merits of staggered shifts, tax credits for the same, traffic control for large employers, etc.

But to do so in this context is intellectual dishonest as it implies an equivalence to people making a living doing set shifts vs people playing with toys on the street recreationally with no set schedule. Nobody, likely even you, truly believes that to be the case.

WE CAN'T EVEN CHANGE THE CLOCKS TWICE A YEAR!

And one of the reasons given was that neighboring businesses would not know if they could call someone and do business at 8 or 4 or whenever it was wherever, and the state was losing money on tax revenue! Think how bad this could be, I'd hate for the state to not get all the money they deserved, after all, no one has paid for those bike lanes yet.

 

[ditcherman]

I'm not sure even you are being as introspective as you think. How do you feel about a faster driver tucking up behind you on a two lane because he wants to pass? Is it a rational understanding that he needs to be close to minimize the time needed to complete the pass or is it anger that that guy is 'riding your ***'

Or what if I come up upon you at a high enough differential speed that I can blow around you in a second? I guarantee you many people will be incensed, especially if I do it where there is a double yellow, but really the only concern is length of sightline. At 55 the rolling chicane is going about 80 feet per second, at 75 I'm going 110 feet per second. I can cover the 80 feet you will travel plus the 20 foot length of your vehicle in less than one second. Most sightlines on even twisty roads are several hundred feet long. Rather than slowing to match your speed and waiting for a patch of passing zone (which are usually quite short and sometimes in places I certainly wouldn't start a pass) I am by in less than a second and you will never see you again - but I guarantee that except for another enthusiast, most drivers on the receiving end probably are angry at the 'maniac' that just passed them

I actually agree with this and wish more people understood simple math and physics.
It seems as if so many people come up behind me and slow down before they pass, even when its perfectly safe. When I'm wide and slow or heavy and slow and someone does this and I see them coming and give them the opportunity to pass and they don't take it they will NEVER get another opportunity given by me to pass. Do not slow down before passing.

 

[MuttX7]

I believe the context of that post was about the collision of vehicles such that a bicycle striking your car would not do much damage or put your life at risk, but a 3000+ lb vehicle piloted by a stoner certainly would

Sounds like even a reasonably fast runner in a similar collision would have damaged her. Not sure what her available time to react was, but unless she couldn't see up the Grimes Street Overpass hill at all, it sounds like she did the deer in the headlights thing and didn't get off the X. Do pedestrians have the right of way on those trails? A quick goto says it is a multi-use trail. Here some of our trails are purely bike paths, and pedestrians have to give way and should not have unleashed children or pets, and others are multi-use and pedestrians have the right of way - with the caveat that having the right of way w/o being attentive can bring about bad results. I'm surprised there was no citation issued, she should probably sue his ***

Sorry, I thought you meant getting hit by a bike wouldn't hurt you too bad and didn't take into account you meant getting hit in a car by a bike. I believe (but can't remember what the sign says about right away) that pedestrians have the right away.

Spoiler: video of bike hitting woman

Bike_crash

A pedestrian walks on the B-Line Trail on Aug. 18 and gets struck by a bicyclist whose bicycle lacked operational brakes.

www.heraldtimesonline.com

 

[KLB]

I'm sure there are intersections where you can blow through a red light if you have the skills and a vehicle capable of dodging any traffic you might encounter while doing so too. Doesn't make it legal or advisable.

Not even close to the same.

Where do you get dodging traffic out of anything I said?

I'm sure you would rather drive behind someone playing with their phone, speeding up and slowing down. That's your prerogative. I think I'd rather get around and away from them as soon as I am safely able to.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Not even close to the same.

Where do you get dodging traffic out of anything I said?

I'm sure you would rather drive behind someone playing with their phone, speeding up and slowing down. That's your prerogative. I think I'd rather get around and away from them as soon as I am safely able to.

I would go around them too. Once I was beyond the no passing zone. You know, like the law dictates 'n stuff. You were advocating passing in a clearly marked no passing zone. Not really any different from ignoring red lights or stop signs.

 

[BigMoose]

Cyclists are annoying.
Not for any of the previous reasons...

They make the perfect go kart super speedway, and only ride bikes on it..

At least as a kid that was my thinking.

 

[chipbennett]

As I said, quick and dirty search. Those were the best numbers available therefrom. Sure, England is quite different from us but closer than many countries where bicycles would be MUCH more common, such as Denmark, and where they often keep records in greater depth than we do . British data seems to be well respected when using it to compare vaccine effectiveness or outcomes with the US. There will be some percentage of both US and UK citizens who only take public transportation, also, adding to the numbers that don't own cars. I found the numbers interesting in that the rate of exposure to fees was the same whether one owned a bicycle or not

Other estimates show about 8% of US households own a bicycle but 91.7% own at least 1 car (22.1% own three or more). It is likely that something close to 92% of all US bicycle owning households also own at least one car

Here's why I don't think it's particularly relevant, though: some taxes are taken from specific people and applied to specific uses. My property tax helps fund Avon High School (including what looks like a major renovation/expansion project currently in progress). As a local resident and tax payer that has funded the school and its facilities, I don't have free access to/use of those facilities. If the school wants to make the tennis courts unavailable to the general public at certain times (e.g. while school is in session), they apparently have the authority to do that. I didn't pay taxes as a tennis player to build/use those tennis courts; I did pay taxes as a local homeowner to build/use those tennis courts.

In a vacuum, I see the underlying argument here to be much the same. I disagree with the assertion that cyclists, also being motor vehicle owners, have paid taxes that build/maintain roads, and therefore have the right to use those roads however they see fit. (And just to be clear, again: I'm not against cyclists using the roads. I share the roads with cyclists. I don't get impatient when I encounter them. I follow at a safe distance and then pass when it is clear and safe to do so.)

 

[KittySlayer]

They make the perfect go kart super speedway, and only ride bikes on it..

See how polite these cyclist are being, the entire group pulling over to the right to allow any cars to pass.



Then there is the annoying group pictured below taking the entire lane and blocking faster traffic behind them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Sarcasm. Geezzz…

Ah. So instead of actually addressing Jamil's concerns with some completely indefensible nonsensical false equivalency, then moving the goal posts to some other false equivalency when called on it, it was 'sarcasm' and you just completely failed to address Jamil's point. Got it.

I suspect the reason for all the 'sarcasm', hyperbole, and red herrings is that even our cyclists know how indefensible playing with toys in the road and obstructing traffic is in the context of 'why do people hate us' actually is.

 

[Ingomike]

Ah. So instead of actually addressing Jamil's concerns with some completely indefensible nonsensical false equivalency, then moving the goal posts to some other false equivalency when called on it, it was 'sarcasm' and you just completely failed to address Jamil's point. Got it.

I suspect the reason for all the 'sarcasm', hyperbole, and red herrings is that even our cyclists know how indefensible playing with toys in the road and obstructing traffic is in the context of 'why do people hate us' actually is.

Don’t want bikes on the road just get enough people to support changing the laws allowing them. Though it will likely be more difficult than getting national constitutional carry…

@jamil said “maybe break up into smaller groups and have each group ride in different areas”

I said back, NOTE THE QUESTION MARKS.

“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 did not in any way propose this, just asked if other permitted road users should have similar restrictions on their legal movements.

 

[chipbennett]

Don’t want bikes on the road just get enough people to support changing the laws allowing them. Though it will likely be more difficult than getting national constitutional carry…

Dude, read this statement from the perspective of a non-cyclist, and consider the context of the OP. This statement reads as if it comes from an entitled cyclist who completely ignores the responsibility and etiquette of cyclists while continually asserting their rights.

Why the hate for cyclists (the thread title)? Where it exists, consider that it derives from exactly the attitude displayed in this comment.

 

[Ingomike]

Dude, read this statement from the perspective of a non-cyclist, and consider the context of the OP. This statement reads as if it comes from an entitled cyclist who completely ignores the responsibility and etiquette of cyclists while continually asserting their rights.

Why the hate for cyclists (the thread title)? Where it exists, consider that it derives from exactly the attitude displayed in this comment.

The entitlement is the province of those that want to take the freedom to travel in public roadways away from those allowed by law to do so, because of momentary delays they may have.

My post simply stated what must occur for the wet dream of many to come to fruition. Also my posts were taken out of context and I was correcting that.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The entitlement is the province of those that want to take the freedom to travel in public roadways away from those allowed by law to do so, because of momentary delays they may have.

My post simply stated what must occur for the wet dream of many to come to fruition. Also my posts were taken out of context and I was correcting that.

This "wet dream" that you're talking about is simply that folks not have to experience inordinate delays due to rude cyclists using roads and times and places that are ill-suited for bicycles and cause excessive disruption to motor vehicle traffic.

So... you're saying that the only way for this to come to fruition is for bicycles to be made entirely illegal for public roadways? In other words, cyclists, on the whole, are so incapable acting like courteous adults and not letting their leisure/sport significantly impact the ordinary flow of traffic, that the only way to solve the issue is to completely ban them from our roads?

Sounds like you've just delivered a bigger insult to cyclists as a group than anything else I've heard in this thread.

Or are you just being sarcastic again? I admit I've having trouble following at this point...

 

[Ingomike]

This "wet dream" that you're talking about is simply that folks not have to experience inordinate delays due to rude cyclists using roads and times and places that are ill-suited for bicycles and cause excessive disruption to motor vehicle traffic.

The wet dream expressed by several here is no bikes on the road at all.

So... you're saying that the only way for this to come to fruition is for bicycles to be made entirely illegal for public roadways? In other words, cyclists, on the whole, are so incapable acting like courteous adults and not letting their leisure/sport significantly impact the ordinary flow of traffic, that the only way to solve the issue is to completely ban them from our roads?

If on rereads many of these posts they clearly say they do not want to be delayed at all and there is only one way to achieve that.

Sounds like you've just delivered a bigger insult to cyclists as a group than anything else I've heard in this thread.

Or are you just being sarcastic again? I admit I've having trouble following at this point...

If one took this thread and replaced the words cyclist, biker, etc. with gun owner many posts sound just like the anti-gunners INGO makes despises.

Some her have posted of assaults on cyclist and not a single poster suggested they were out of bounds.

 

[Ingomike]

In other words, cyclists, on the whole, are so incapable acting like courteous adults and not letting their leisure/sport significantly impact the ordinary flow of traffic, that the only way to solve the issue is to completely ban them from our roads?

Bicycles are a normal part of the ordinary flow of traffic.

When would you allow a cyclist to access the public roads? What roads would you allow them access to?

You are not asking for courtesy you are defining courtesy as cyclists staying out of your way. While pretending to be neutral…