Why the hate for Cyclists?

[AndreusMaximus]

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

Most of those folks left this thread around page 3. Go back and re-read mine, BBI's, et al. from the last several pages and find where any of us said no bikes on the road at all.

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.

Where do they say that? And don't point me back to the folks who dropped in at the start to just say "all bike bad ban them." Yes, I'll condemn those folks with you. But at this point in the conversation, maybe you could actually speak to the views of those who are still partaking in the discussion.

Edit: dang, the very next post just had to be one of those folks jumping in again. Still, please, if you want to argue against getting rid of all bikes on roads, go fight with him, because that's NOT my view.

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

How about here, not even a page ago:

"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."

 

[manifest destiny]

Bike riders on roads built for vehicles create their own hazzard. It may be legal for bike riders to be in/on the road, but I lack sympathy for bike riders who feel they have an equivalency to cars. The bikes are the hazzard.

 

[jamil]

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.

Oh. Just wait until I’m elected grand poohbah of the world. I’m eliminating time zones. Everyone will use UTC.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

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

If you're talking about urban streets at 25-35 mph speed limits, sure. If you're talking about 55 mph winding, hilly, country highways, no, they aren't. Neither are combines, horse-and-buggies, or other vehicles that can't come close to 55 mph. That doesn't mean they should be banned, or there aren't reasonable circumstances where they can, or have to use those roads, it just means those roads aren't designed for optimal use with vehicles traveling that slow.

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

By law? All times/places. They're adults, they should be able to make their own decisions without me controlling them. You can't seem to grasp the concept that I can offer an opinion that X constitutes rude behavior in my opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm demanding my opinion become law enforced on everyone else.

If you're not asking about what I think the law should say, but just asking me to rehash my opinion on what is rude, I'll state again: Don't bike at times/places that create an inordinate disruption to the flow of traffic. Best example I can give is biking on 55 mph winding, hilly, country highways at peak traffic times, when you have no other reason to do so than leisure or exercise. Or if you must, at least let folks get by you at reasonable intervals. And again, as I've attempted to clarify before, I can't give absolute numbers like X number of cars behind you or pull over every X minutes. Common courtesy doesn't work that way; if you have an attitude that considers others, you don't need hard rules binding you.

You are not asking for courtesy you are defining courtesy as cyclists staying out of your way.

Completely untrue. I've been challenged multiple times on whether or not I would accept a 5 or 10 second delay due to a cyclist, and I've always said that I would; I think people who won't are generally jerks. It's you who's dealing in an absolute by resisting the notion that cyclists should be expected to observe any form of courtesy towards motorists. If that's not what you're saying, how about you tell me what you think constitutes rude behavior by a cyclist? I've given my example many times, why don't you give yours?

While pretending to be neutral…

When the heck did I pretend to be neutral? I've staked out my position and argued for it from the very beginning.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Oh. Just wait until I’m elected grand poohbah of the world. I’m eliminating time zones. Everyone will use UTC.

He wants us to be like China! COMMIE!!!

 

[jamil]

And don't point me back to the folks who dropped in at the start to just say "all bike bad ban them." Yes, I'll condemn those folks with you.

Why do they need condemned? It’s an opinion. That’s their preference. They even get to vote for bike haters if that’s the top priority on their issues list. Idisagree. But I don’t feel like they need condemnation.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Why do they need condemned? It’s an opinion. That’s their preference. They even get to vote for bike haters if that’s the top priority on their issues list. Idisagree. But I don’t feel like they need condemnation.

Okay, not condemned. I don't have your gift for vocabulary. They need disagreemented? I dunno, I no have way....

 

[Ingomike]

because there is an unavoidable tension between motor vehicles, and bicycles (or any other slow-moving vehicle) on our modern roads."

Yes, there is a tension that is unavoidable. The difference today is the frenetic pace of life escalates those tensions for drivers and cyclists are scared of inattentive drivers, everybody is on edge. As I said earlier I no longer road ride in any serious way as i once did. One thing I would suggest if I did is to get you out there and let you see first had what goes on in a way one cannot without riding significant miles.

 

[jamil]

Okay, not condemned. I don't have your gift for vocabulary. They need disagreemented? I dunno, I no have way....

Was that homage to a Steve Martin bit?

“Some people have a way with words. And other people…oh…uh…not have way.”

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Was that homage to a Steve Martin bit?

“Some people have a way with words. And other people…oh…uh…not have way.”

Yeah, that's the one I was trying to reference.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Feel free to quote posts that prove otherwise, but it sure appears to me that you're arguing a straw man, since nobody in this thread appears to hold that view.

That's why your arguments come across as... hyperbolic.

 

[chipbennett]

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

[Citation Needed]

 

[chipbennett]

Edit: dang, the very next post just had to be one of those folks jumping in again. Still, please, if you want to argue against getting rid of all bikes on roads, go fight with him, because that's NOT my view.

Side note: that's not what that post said, at all. That post merely said that, between motor vehicles and bicycles, on shared roads, bicycles are the hazard. It did not say that bicycles should be prohibited from public roads.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Side note: that's not what that post said, at all. That post merely said that, between motor vehicles and bicycles, on shared roads, bicycles are the hazard. It did not say that bicycles should be prohibited from public roads.

I'll agree that the post was too vague to infer that he thinks it should be illegal for bikes to be on the road. But there seems to be a strong suggestion that a road free of bicycles is at least his desire.

Maybe I took it wrong, I don't know.

 

[manifest destiny]

Would it be a compromise to allow bikes/riders access to streets/roads only if they have a designated and marked bike lane? Maybe roads without such designation and marks were left for autos only? The speed differential, visibility and such really place the bike rider in harms way and the auto driver at enhanced risk of liability.

Side thought... If a cyclist were to be at fault for hitting a car and creating damage (even a minor scratch on a brand new 'vette is significant)... should the cyclist be legally compelled to have liability insurance to travel on roadways?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Would it be a compromise to allow bikes/riders access to streets/roads only if they have a designated and marked bike lane? Maybe roads without such designation and marks were left for autos only? The speed differential, visibility and such really place the bike rider in harms way and the auto driver at enhanced risk of liability.

Side thought... If a cyclist were to be at fault for hitting a car and creating damage (even a minor scratch on a brand new 'vette is significant)... should the cyclist be legally compelled to have liability insurance to travel on roadways?

I mean, that's kind of a slippery slope to start down. Lots of other unregistered/uninsured vehicles hop on the road, from horse-and-buggies to lawnmowers to farm equipment to skateboards. (Edit: actually, I think someone said earlier in this thread that buggies are supposed to be registered? I was never aware of that before, if true.)

I really don't think cyclists causing damage to motor vehicles in a situation where the cyclist was at fault is something that happens nearly often enough to warrant the need for more government regulation.

 

[Ingomike]

If a cyclist were to be at fault for hitting a car and creating damage (even a minor scratch on a brand new 'vette is significant)... should the cyclist be legally compelled to have liability insurance to travel on roadways?

Generally this liability portion is covered by homeowners insurance. Obviously those without at least renters insurance will not have any coverage. And, yes, I saw that happen once, a rider in a group hit an expensive car, as you describe, and his homeowners covered the claim.

And it can go the other way also, guy in a $400 junker hits a $5,000-$10,000 road bike, so the bike should have it own coverage with an insurance rider just like some have riders for their gun collection.

 

[manifest destiny]

I mean, that's kind of a slippery slope to start down. Lots of other unregistered/uninsured vehicles hop on the road, from horse-and-buggies to lawnmowers to farm equipment to skateboards. (Edit: actually, I think someone said earlier in this thread that buggies are supposed to be registered? I was never aware of that before, if true.)

I really don't think cyclists causing damage to motor vehicles in a situation where the cyclist was at fault is something that happens nearly often enough to warrant the need for more government regulation.

I'm not much into excessive governance, but if bicycles must obey traffic laws when riding in the road, why not all laws?

 

[manifest destiny]

Generally this liability portion is covered by homeowners insurance.

I guess I didn't know this. I buy an umbrella policy so I'm covered for liability for just about anything I touch or do. I'm not sure most people do. And really, I'm just playing devils advocate here. What about limiting cycling to only the roads designated and marked, a bridge too far?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I'm not much into excessive governance, but if bicycles must obey traffic laws when riding in the road, why not all laws?

I don't know, I guess this is where things start to get too much into the weeds, and I don't really know the specifics of the law. How do bicycles differ/not differ from any of the other non-motorized or slow moving vehicles I mentioned? Am I technically allowed to take my lawn mower across the road? Do I have to obey traffic laws while doing so? If so, should I have to have registration/insurance on my lawn mower before I take it to mow the field on the other side of the highway? If not, how would you differentiate bicycles from lawn mowers or farm equipment? How do mopeds fit into this? (I think they need to be registered and insured, but no license needed, right?) Or skateboards? Or those weird electric scooters that you could rent with your phone and people were zipping around on all over Bloomington a couple years ago?

Among all these oddball vehicles that people take out on the road, bicycles seems an odd one to single out for a requirement to register/insure. And requiring all vehicles of any kind to be registered/insured before they touch the road seems impractical and overkill. Seems to me that the current criteria we have work fairly well; cyclists are mostly putting themselves at risk when they go out on the road, so it seems reasonable to just leave at "obey traffic laws", and not requiring registration/insurance seems like a reasonable reflection of the fact that they are 99.9% less likely to kill/injure someone than a motor vehicle.