I am? Funny, doesn’t seem that way to all the other bike commuters. Hell, cowgirl expressed similar feelings in this very thread. You must have missed it.
Sorry, bucko, much as you might like to deny it, experienced bike riders can be slowed down by cars very easily and very often. It doesn’t even take any special effort, its just the nature of the machines.
Ok…you and I meet at the intersection of highway 494 and 169…we will go north. Let’s see who can go the speed limit or, if not that, who has cars bunching up behind him and who doesn’t.
When I lived near here as a kid I was regularly slowed down by cars on the mild downhill slope (granted, one right before a severe right turn where the only other option is to go straight into Chautauqua Lake.)
This happened about half the time, in the summer at least, as that well-trafficed road would always have someone going the speed limit of 35 and thus slowing everyone else down.
How about you ‘go the speed limit’ on 36th street in West Philly during rush hour first.
I never claimed to be able to go the speed limit on fast roads. I only stated that by standards you set down it is a reasonable opinion that cars should be off the road when they are causing delays to my commute.
The is not a matter of who can go how fast or slow. It is a matter of who and what type of vehicle has a right to be on a given road. On some roads, bikes (or tractors, for that matter) are not allowed. Those roads ususally have a minimum speed as well as a maximum. And if a vehicle can’t make the minimum speed, it doesn’t belong there.
If a bike, or a tractor, or a car driven by a 90 years old who prefers 15 mph to 65, has a legal right to operate in that manner, it is up to the other drivers to accommodate them.
Oh, that is very nice of you! See, I ride a motorcycle. And cars clog up the roads in front of me all the time because they can’t maneuver or accelerate like a proper vehicle should.
So am I to understand that you’re of the opinion that cars should - what was it - “pound sand and get off the road” when they’re holding me up? Because I’d like that.
See…like I posted above…we are talking past each other.
Agreed. We can put it to a vote. Whoever gets the most votes, the other vehicle drivers can pound sand.
So you’re saying that the presence of other cars on the road never slows you down?
Either you have never experienced rush hour, or I am not understanding you correctly, or you are lying.
Sigh, I give up.
I am either inept at describing things or you all are dense as neutron stars.
Probably both.
Please correct me where I am wrong:
You said that cyclists who slow down traffic should not be allowed on the road.
I conclude from this that you are saying that vehicles that slow down traffic should not be allowed on the road (unless there is something unique about cyclists in this respect, which you have not outlined).
I know that cars regularly slow down traffic (evidence: the slower rate of traffic flow commonly experienced during rush hour).
Therefore, according to your theory, cars should not be allowed on the road (since they slow down traffic).
What am I missing?
Oh. I thought you were espousing some sort of principled stance. But it appears to boil down to “we have the numbers, so fuck you, we’ll slow you down if we want”. Which happens to be the moral low ground already occupied by Critical Masses, so it’ll be a bit crowded, but I’m sure you’ll have plenty to talk about.
Embrace as a premise for the discussion that traffic=cars, and the logic is impeccable.
After all, they have the numbers.:rolleyes:
This is pretty much how I read it. Whatever BlinkingDuck’s problem is, it isn’t with our understanding or his explanations.
The misunderstanding is that nothing is personal. Not bikes who slow a road shouldn’t be on but SINCE bikes slow down traffic and cars bunch behind them they shouldn’t be on the road. No personalness…but as a group.
Sure, some bikes are speedy fast, some cars are slow. there are ALWAYS exceptions (except for that statement 
) but OVERALL, bikes should not be on a busy 55mph road. Simple.
Now, downtown…where speed limits are, IIRC 25mph where I live…sure…let the bikes be on the road. No problem. This happens often where I drive.
My position is simple and so logical I cannot see how one would disagree. To disagree, you would have to say it is perfectly acceptable to have bikes tooling down a 55mph road backing up cars for miles. If you think that is fine…we disagree and can never agree…and frankly, you are an asshole if you do such a thing. The other people who disagree are people who, intentionally or not, misstate my position. Since my position is really simple…my dense as neutron stars comment.
I do not think bikes shouldn’t be on the road. However, and this is what irritates other people, cars are the default. They are the most common BY FAR vehicle on the road. They pay large amounts of taxes for the roads. If another type of vehicle causes traffic problems…that vehicle (not individual but as a whole) shouldn’t be on the road. Again, there may be a few asshole bikers who deliberately cause problems but I’m not talking about them but talking about bikes as a whole.
There may come a future time when bikes are the dominant vehicle. If cars cause huge problems for bikes then, they shouldn’t be on the road but will need their own traffic system separate from bikes or be outlawed.
I don’t give a flying fuck WHAT vehicle is dominate (I have a bike and would love to drive it to work - though winters might be a problem)…what I want is as smooth moving a traffic system as can be had…and if I have to sacrifice minority vehicles that cause traffic problems to attain this…so be it.
No, you are dense. Don’t be so dense as to dismiss this observation out of hand…really examine it. 
The trouble with this approach is that roads are not just about maximizing smooth traffic flow. They are also about maximizing transportation access. Just because cars are the majority vehicle doesn’t mean that car drivers’ desire for optimum speed and ease of driving automatically trumps other vehicle users’ desire to use the road to get where they’re going.
Yes, there need to be compromises between access and convenience for the majority road users. That’s why we have limited-access roads where vehicles that can’t maintain a certain minimum speed aren’t allowed.
And if drivers can make a reasonable case for limiting access to particular roads where they don’t want to deal with bicycles, they’re at liberty to try to put it over with the voters. But they don’t automatically get the roads to themselves just because they’re the majority of road users, and minority road users are not automatically obligated to defer to their wishes.
We’re thinking of a variety of situations, not just one type of road+traffic.
In many situations, cars prevent other cars from going as fast as they like. This most often happens when there are too many cars on a given road.
In some situations, bicycles prevent cars from going as fast as they want.
In both cases, it’s vehicles interfereing with other vehicles. There’s no reason why one should be considered normal and inevitable, while the other is unacceptable.
I think it can be dealt with. Minimum speed limits say 10mph less than actual speed limit (baring weather, heavy traffic and the like). If you can’t do it, get off the road (say bike confiscated, $1000 fine if a cop pulls you over going under the minimum speed limit with a line of cars behind you. Second offense, jail time - Third offense street execution )
The main difference is that in one case it’s a multitude of vehicles that’s causing a problem, and in the other it’s a single vehicle causing the problem. The single vehicle has much more ability to change the situation than any one vehicle in the multitude does. (And regardless of the situation, my advice to the single vehicle is the same–pull over and let others pass). Unfortunately, when it comes to bikes there are places where they can’t help but be that single vehicle. In those places, it can be a bit of a tossup whether or not the bike should be there at all.