Come on now. Do I really, truly need to argue that biking down a curvy, shoulderless mountain road is significantly more dangerous than driving down it? Okay, I’m game; I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Number one, drivers drive more safely around other drivers than they do around cyclists. They’re more easily noticeable, and the protocols for dealing with them are more well-ingrained. Then, of course, there are the dickbags I’ve known who ACTUALLY feel that bicyclists have no business on the road – and there are plenty of real ones to bitch at; why people feel the need to throw this label at me I will never know – who deliberately drive *more dangerously *around cyclists “to scare 'em off”. Feel free to disagree, but if I took a poll of a thousand cyclists as to which sort of vehicle – two-wheeled or four – drivers afford more respect, I know where I’d put my money.
Number two, the number of car-on-car (or truck, or SUV, etc.) accidents I’ve personally witnessed or heard about from firsthand sources that have resulted in no injury to anyone involved is well into the dozens. The number of car-on-bike accidents I’ve heard of from ANY source that ended the same way is zero. Think for a moment about why that might be, and get back to me.
I have no problem with cyclists. I used to be one myself in my teenage years, though that was in upstate New York, where the traffic was lighter and the roads better equipped to handle it. I really, honestly, truly, absolutely, no bullshit WANT cyclists and drivers to be able to share the road respectfully. If I want cyclists off of certain roads, it’s not because I think they shouldn’t have the right to be there, or because they annoy me, or because my life would be in any way improved if they left. It’s because, in my opinion, given what I’ve seen of drivers around here and the respect they afford cyclists, the speed limit, lane divisions, and the rules of traffic in general…and what I know firsthand about what happens when a car collides with a bicycle…THEY ARE LIKELY TO DIE, and I would honestly prefer that that did not happen. Is that really so terribly hard to believe?
Not at all. But in that case, why are people like the OP pitting the cyclists rather than the drivers? Seems like classic “blame the victim” reaction.
Again, why should we use the existence of these murderous scofflaws as an excuse to complain about the (legal) behavior of cyclists?
Violence against cyclists isn’t some unconquerable force of nature, any more than lynching black people used to be (if I may be excused for comparing a relatively trivial, though still scary and occasionally deadly, form of violence with something as vicious as lynchings). Some people bash bikers for the same reason some people used to lynch blacks: because they enjoyed it and could get away with it. If society condemns and punishes them strongly enough for it, and supports the rights of their law-abiding victims adamantly enough, they will change their behavior.
Of course I support the right of the cyclists, and of course I take umbrage at the actions of the drivers who ignore them or willfully act malevolently toward them. (Incidentally, your tone hints that you think I’m exaggerating about this behavior. I never suggested that I know anyone who deliberately tries to kill cyclists. I have, however, heard more than one driver say the words “watch me freak this guy out”, or something to that effect, before pulling a boneheaded maneuver next to a cyclist.) Of course poor drivers are 100% at fault for their own behavior, and of course it’s entirely avoidable.
Until they get around to fixing it, though, none of this means that I’m not going to say anything to the cyclists in the meantime.
Let me put it this way: I could walk around the bad part of town waving a big ol’ stack of fresh hundreds, and I would have every right to be there and do that. If you saw that I routinely did this, would you voice your support of my legal rights, or would you call me a dumbass and tell me to knock it the fuck off? And if you did the latter, would it mean that you’re in favor of muggers?
Same idea, less obvious risk (and I don’t think cyclists are idiots, just stubborn ;)). If there were a way to correct the behavior of all the drivers in the world, I’d absolutely be in favor of that. In the meantime, my advice is directed to the potential victims, in hopes of decreasing the actual harm done.
Sorry, I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that I thought you were exaggerating. I used terms like “murderous scofflaws” and “violence against cyclists” in all seriousness, and if anything, I expect your description understates the amount of anti-cyclist violence out there.
“The bad part of town” is where I expect the rules of decent, law-abiding society not to operate reliably, because there are too many criminals and not enough protection. I’m not yet ready to give up on roads in general as being the cyclist’s equivalent of “the bad part of town”, where there’s simply no point in hoping to enjoy one’s legal rights in safety without being attacked by a criminal.
Fair enough. There’s probably still a good fight to be fought there, I just don’t want anyone getting hurt while it’s still being fought. The anger in my posts is not toward cyclists in general, but toward the many who’ve presumed that my stake in the matter is pure self-interest. I know those types of assholes, I ain’t one of 'em, and I resent being accused of that by the very people my actual motives are intended to help.
So, thanks for being reasonable about it, even if you did go and ruin a perfectly good head of steam that’s spent ten years or so in the brewin’.
As am I. Not to be too hostile here, but I’ve had plenty of occasions where someone who does not bike insists that that route ‘over there’ was much better for me and my bike (mostly because it wasn’t where they wanted to drive their car). More often than not…excuse me, almost always the ‘better route’ isn’t.*
To give this some perspective here is what has been ‘suggested’ to me and others:
A river MUP full of pedestrians trying to enjoy a nice river walk
A poorly designed ‘bike path’ with a pair of tunnels that would decapitate a cyclist.
A limited access interstate.
A path that was 7 miles longer than the route I used.
Because the cyclist is making the choice of a route where 99+% of the traffic is cars going 45mph on a twisty, narrow road. Because the cyclist has an alternate choice where it is far safer, a choice with a designated bike lane. Not to mention, but this cyclist isn’t a victim, yet. He’s making choices that are more likely to turn him into a victim, I’m not sure what to call that, but it’s not blaming the victim.
Two things about this calculation. First, there are probably 200 cars using the twisty road for every cyclist, and every single one of them has to lose 2 minutes to save one cyclist 4 minutes. Second, it’s not just this one twisty road, if you expect cars to drive at all times as though a cyclist may be around the corner, you have to add this type of time to multiple stretches of your route, 2 minutes on this stretch, 3 minutes on that stretch, etc, etc, etc.
But sadly this was not done with cyclists in mind but rather snowplows. If it had been done with cyclists in mind it probably would have been more dangerous than it is since the shoulder would be like 3 feet instead of 6
Exactly. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (I know, we’re talking about bicyclists here, but it’s still relevant) has a saying – “‘I had the right of way’ will look great on your headstone.”
Jesus, I’d never ride on such a road. I think what a lot of bikers forget, as others have said, in their huffing and puffing, is that dead is dead, whether you had the right to be there or not.
I don’t know about “significantly,” but if it is more dangerous, so what? At what danger do you draw the line between “you should do it carefully” and “you shouldn’t do it”? Or is it based on more than just the (perceived) danger level?
I’m sure there are at least a couple of intersections in your town where multiple fatal car crashes have taken place. Do you tell your family members to take a detour and avoid those intersections, or do you tell them to be careful when they go through there?
Well, I do disagree, but only have my personal experience to back it up. I see more reckless behavior when I’m on the car than when I’m biking. Most drivers take extraordinary pains to pass me with enough clearance. There’s an occasional idiot who passes with less than 1 ft to spare, but I’ve never actually had to make evasive maneuvers. There are occasional drivers who fail to notice a cyclist, but the cyclist can do something about that (I use a 200-lumen flashing light at all times, for example). There are a few drivers who are obviously hostile to cyclists, but it’s usually limited to verbal insult. In the past 10 years I’ve only seen three drivers actively endanger a cyclist - two who threw empty soda cans at me, and one who drove through an organized bike ride screeching his brakes behind every group of cyclist. But neither of them was actually trying to ram a cyclist.
I think you have a skewed sample. I’ve been in two car/bike accidents in the past 10 years (i.e. I was the cyclist). One incident where I was rear-ended while waiting at a stop light: no injury. The second one where I hit a car coming out of a parking lot (driver didn’t see me, that was before the 200-lumen light) - that did cause a big bruise on my thigh, but nothing worse than that, I got back on the bike and rode home.
Again, I’m not claiming that cycling is safer than driving. I’m just saying both are potentially deadly forms of transport that should be used carefully. But neither is so dangerous that you should be advising other people not to use at all.
Don’t bother using logic. You see, a bike can use that road…even tool along at 5 mph and the cars are supposed to be pleasant and ‘share the road’ with the bike.
Bikes on the road are fine…so long as they can keep up with the traffic speeds. However, this reasonable opinion makes you an asshole to many.
Well yeah, you are a selfish asshole if you define “traffic speed” to be your speed (neglecting the fact that bicycles, semi-trailers, farm tractors, etc. are also traffic), and expect all vehicles to match it.
I’ve come across my share of forklifts and semis blocking traffic, but usually these are at relatively straight stretches of road (meanings I have plenty of time to slow down/stop) and they’re not there long. Bikes are far more annoying because I’m stuck behind them until they pull off–which is never–or until I decide to pass. And when you’re on a narrow, curvy road with no shoulder–which, where I grew up, is everywhere–it can be a good while before you hit a stretch straight enough to be safe to pass, especially at bike speeds. There are some areas where I can expect to need to slow down, but bikes are rare enough that I’m not going to drive extra slow on the very slim chance there might be one around the next corner.
I’ve never had an issue slowing down for bikes, but I always hated it when the yearly cross-country group came through. Locals joy-riding would usually pull onto the gravel shoulder to let cars pass. These guys never did, and there could be a dozen of them at a stretch, spread out in groups of twos and threes. Fortunately, I rarely ran into them going the same way. Sure, they have every right to be there. As I have every right to be annoyed at being forced to drive at 25% of normal speed.
GQ-ish question (I’m not trying to make a point; I’m actually curious about this): It’s pretty standard for there to be laws prohibiting motor vehicles from holding up too much traffic. Are there analogous regulations that apply to bicycles?
Cars on several roads around me have slowed me down tons of times or kept me from going at a decent pace due to their poor driving skills or the limitations of their vehicles. By your standards, it is a reasonable opinion that cars should be removed from those roads.
There are laws about impeding traffic, which many hysterical folks have decreed must mean bikes have to move off the road. However, the courts have ruled that a bike making a reasonable effort to go at his/her full speed is not impeding traffic. Trotwood vs. Selz is one such case, there are a few others.
