So the OP thinks that falling asleep at the wheel and being an inexperienced driver equal being anit-cyclist. You now so artfully stereotype drivers while insisting that doing the same to cyclists is “blaming the victim.”
I confess, I would very much like to see this majority of cyclists who actually behave. I would also like to see the smokers who don’t throw their butts on the ground as though the world were their ashtray. And I’d like to see those slot players who actually make money at the casino.
I really cannot work out the ignorant attitude of the car driver (its hardly ever lorry drivers who do this) who complain about being stuck behind cyclists.
In most countries with a highway code, there is always a recommendation that overtaking must only take place when conditions are safe to do so, and most of these codes specifically state which conditons are especially unsafe.
If the car driver were stuck behind a road roller plugging along at 10mph, there would be no question about the time to overtake, the idea of simply harrassing, pushing past and squeezing the offending vehicle would not arise, and its the same with just about any slow moving ambulatory road vehicle.
Most car drivers simply accept they must wait until conditions allow before overtaking such vehicles, and yet, somehow, they can’t see the point that the cyclist has just as much right to be on the road as the slow moving vehicle, or that overtaking the cyclist must only be done when its safe to do so.
Why do so many car drivers question the right of cyclists to be on the road, and yet not question the same right of other slow moving vehicles ?
One of the pet hates of car drivers is that of a club run of maybe a dozen or so cyclists doubled up and taking up road space.
What the car driver does not understand, is that in single file, those cyclists would represent an overtake longer than most trailer lorries, whilst doubled up, the total length is obviously half this.
Motorists try ambitious passing manouevers, and half way through, it is quite common for them to have to take some avoiding or corrective action.
The longer the line of cyclists, the more likely the motorist is to be too ambitious, and they end up literally pushing the cyclists off the road to avoid themselves hitting oncoming traffic.
By being doubled up, the motorist has to take a much wider line, but its also far shorter, so the overtaking time is less, and it forces the driver to choose the overtaking moment more carefully instead of chancing it.
Yes the motorist gets delayed by cyclists a little, but, the motorist would be delayed by any slow moving obstruction, somehow the cyclist get picked out for abuse simply because of bullies and idiots.
I don’t believe we are talking about “most drivers.” The drivers discussed here would be sputtering and swearing if they were stuck behind a roller, too, but as they have learned from Bugs Bunny cartoons, in a match between a car and a roller the car loses quite spectacularly. Cyclists are easy meat and if you do it right you can drive them off the road without a scratch on your car. Their jerkish behavior with people on vehicles smaller than theirs is because they are (all together, class):
I know of at least one code that clearly instructs cyclists to ride in a manner that does not block the flow of automobiles. If, in the jurisdiction controlled by that code, a cyclist is blocking the flow of automobiles, then it is not the motorists who are being ignorant.
In such codes, any vehicle travelling slower than another and within the speed limit must pull over to allow faster ones to pass(within the speed limit), because that is the logic of those particular codes, so cites would be nice, just so we can see where the absurdity lies, I have no doubt some states are this stupid.
In any case, I seriously doubt that any driving code in the world states that its ok to force other road users off the track merely becuase they are slower, i would expect that would be a matter for the traffic authorities to deal with.
If one cyclist is blocking the flow of automobiles I would suggest that this is an extremely narrow road indeed for there to be no room for overtaking.
Now if you mean to ride in a way to deliberately block the flow of other vehicles, like right in the middle of the road, that’s somewhat differant, and any cyclist who did so would be a fool.
I won’t pretend that a lot of cylist behave badly, however, I have all too often heard that misbehavior used as an excuse for almost murderous behavior by drivers. If you don’t think that is true, you are living in a dream world.
I don’t stereotype drivers, I attack the poor/malicious drivers’ enablers.
Most states use variations of the Uniform Vehicle code, which is written ass-backwards and confusing (not surprising, its intent was to get bikes off the road without saying as much). But the bottom line is that if the lane is large enough for car and bike to safely share, the bike must stay to the right as possible.
But there are few roads in the world that don’t have the exceptions that allow a cyclist to take the lane. Where the conditions are met, most often someone has already planted a bike lane. I have yet to see a cyclist taking the entire lane when it is safe to share.
Case in point this morning (they’re just popping up unprompted, it’s amazing); I was on a B-road - not a farm track by any means - and there was about half a dozen vehicles held up by one cyclist. He was pulling maybe 15-20mph, not bad for a velocipede, next behind him was a biggish lorry, then three or four cars and my mo’bike bringing up the rear.
The road was too winding, and the lorry too devoid of acceleration, for anyone to have much hope of getting past the bicyclist for quite a while. Did he pay attention to what was going on behind him and pull over to wave the motorised traffic through? Um… no. Eventually we reached a straight that was long enough for the lorry to get past, and then it was somewhat easier for the rest of us to follow suit. And Mister I’ve-A-Moral-Right-To-Hog-The-Road carried on his own sweet way.
Fwiw, when I’m in a cage I give cyclists the whole width of the lane when I’m passing them, and if I can’t, I don’t pass 'em. But riders like the two I’ve mentioned in this thread sometimes cause me to wonder why.
I have no problems with Cyclists that follow the rules of the road - my problem is with the cyclists that pick and choose those rules - running through red lights, going against the flow of traffic, passing stopped traffic on the right, and so on. Decide that you want to be treated as either a pedestrian, or a vehicle, then STICK TO THOSE RULES.
Its been ages since I have been stuck behind one, but drive in a congested area long enough and anyone will tire of mobile pedestrians.
Yup , right in the ontario hand book somewhere , does a lot of good on a major artery in toronto
Again , works great if you have the space , if not , even some six lane roads become choke points.
They don’t , that slower moving vehicle has a registration , licence plate and pays insurance and taxes on gas, the mobile pedestrian has a smaller foot print, but thats the most that can be said.
See above
This is essentially correct , remove the bikes from the road and I still have to contend with transport and other logistics vehicles , road repair , on going construction and other factors.
Since your posting from the UK , your geographical area will determine the transportation culture that your used to , in North America , we have an automotive culture that determines the surface routes that vehicles travel in, while it can be conceded that in Europe and in other continents , bicycles are just one more mode of transportation.
In any urban setting , your going to get people with war stories regarding the sanity of the other , cars v bikes , bikes v pededestrians , etc , and since most people that use bikes in a daily commute , do so more for economic reasons ,than for health and pleasure , they are not going to be banned from automotive surface routes anytime soon.
That’s “jeopardy”, numbnuts. Never use any word you can’t spell. Now read my post again. I might wonder why I go around being considerate and good-mannered, but I do it anyway. Would you prefer it was the other way around? :rolleyes:
That’s just for the audience. For you, Mr. Miskatonic:
Now this is the classic argument we are presented with as cyclists.
The reality in the UK is that the costs of roads are provided for under two differant schems of funding.
Designated national roads like motorways and major arteries are paid for through nationa funds which is derived from genral taxation, which we all pay, and loacl authoruty roads are paid for by local administrative bodies who derive their income through a mix of local taxes and central government allowances, which again we all pay.
Add to this that all goods and services are moved by road and the cost of transport is part of the final cost of them, including taxation, and there is no person, even the unemployed and on state benefit, that does not pay in some waytoward the cost of our roads.
Cyclists do not need most of the measures needed to keep vehicular traffic moving safely on the roads, but they still contribute, we don’t need street lights, road markings, speed limit signs and speed control measures, in fact cycle lanes should be very cheap, except that UK road planners have no idea whatsover of how to cater for cyclists and what their needs are.
Road planners treat cyclists as simply slower moving one person cars, but fail to understand that although the speeds can be up around 25mph, they are usually much lower, and are initimately affected by things like hills, road camber, road surface, wind and personal fitness and quality and type of machine.
They also fail to understand that a cycle path catering for maybe 10mph is not adquate for a cyclist whose usual riding speed is 15mph, nor do they understand that the 5mph differance makes a huge differance in travelling time and is a big reason why some cyclists may wish to have reason to want space to overtake slower riders.
Cyclists and cars can and do mix easily and well, go to most European cities, particualarly France, the lowlands, Germany and you see this work well.
The roads often cater extremely well for cyclists, however, where they do not, its attitudes that make all the differance.
This is what I was leading to, attitudes, because most of the problems expressed here in this board, which is very US centric, are simply down to intolerance and nothing else.
The cyclist’s car (and lets face it, most of us DO have a car) has a registration and licence plate; and they pay insurance, and taxes on gas. The cyclist has a smaller footprint, produces no noise, sound, or air pollution. Seems to me, the cyclist has more going for them than the motor vehicle does.
So why tire of bikes when your obvious problem is congestion caused by cars? I love how people complain about bikes in traffic siutations when it is the multiple automobiles that are slowing them down. Blaming the bike is like eating a huge, multicourse meal and then saying the green salad made you fat.
Are there so many cyclists where you live that they are causing choking on six lane roads? Wow.
Oh wait, the cars cause the problem, and then you again try to blame the bicycles. Riiiight.
No, no, no a thousand times no!
Registration pays for little more than the needed state administration of motor vehicles (and very often does not pay for itself), gas taxes pay for arteries and other retricted roads (only partially in most states) that cyclists are not allowed to use.
My property taxes pay for the roads I use. So don’t give that me that old saw.
But hey, if you want to license bikes, go ahead. How do you want to do it? By weight? cost? potential for damage? I’ll happily pay an annual fee, but you don’t want that to actually happen since you’d lose your primary arguement for hating bikes.
Wonderful, and they complain that bicyclists are arrogant.
When cyclists start causing significant injuries, it will matter. You and others of your ilk will crap on forever about cyclists committing irrelevant misdemeanors as a way of excusing your appalling attitude, despite the fact that those misdemeanors don’t matter jack shit because cycling isn’t particularly dangerous to others, even when performed illegally.
Shitforbrains, people have a right to do what the law says they do. The law says bikes have a right to be on the road, so they have that right. People do not lose the right to do an activity because they do not pay a tax on the activity that the law does not require them to pay. Truly you are clueless.
Furthermore, roads are paid for from consolidated revenue. Consolidated revenue derives from a variety of taxes. Rich people pay more taxes. Do you think they should have rights to government services that people who pay less tax do not?
