You obviously don’t live in Baltimore.
Or Vegas.
In this town, at any stoplighted intersection where a major thoroughfare is crossed by a side street, it’s pretty much a given that the first two or three cars that come to the intersection after a light turns red are going to run it.
I would prefer they ride either on a road with a bike lane or shoulder, or else on the edge of a road where it is safe and legal to pass cars. A cyclist riding on the edge of a road with no shoulder where passing is illegal creates an unsafe situation for all involved. Upon encountering such a cyclist, your choices are:
-
Attempt to pass cyclist while remaining in your lane. Even if the cyclist is skilled enough to be riding perfectly on the edge of the road, this will leave (depending on car width) only a few inches between you and the cyclist, and will likely scare the hell out of both of you (the cyclist moreso, obviously).
-
Attempt to pass cyclist by cutting partially into the oncoming lane. This is the safest option for the cyclist, but puts you and oncoming traffic at great risk. If it is illegal to pass cars on that road, there is probably a reason.
-
Follow behind the cyclist at 15-30 MPH under the speed limit. No. Unfortunately, this is usually what I end up doing until either the cyclist veers off, or I feel I can safely pass.
Many cyclists I’ve talked to feel they should have the right to ride on any road, any time, anywhere. As far as I know, the law supports them on this. I have nothing against cyclists. But in some places, and at some times, it just isn’t a good idea. Trust me, I have nothing against cyclists. In fact, I used to be one – until my bike got smashed by an idiot driver who felt “right on red after stop” meant he could whip through the turn without breaking pace. Haven’t bothered to get a new one yet.
Well, jeez, I wasn’t publishing a freakin’ manifesto, just suggesting that there might be more dedicated bike lanes if licencing fees were levied on bikes, with the proceeds going to the construction of dedicaterd bikeways (hey, and providing travels routes for all those Segways we’re supposed to be buying as well.
How about a flat fee of 15 bucks a year? Doesn’t have to be that complicated.
Yeah, like road use taxes are wiped out by the collection bureaucracy.
Well, I’m a bike rider myself, so that sort of blows your theory as to my motivations, doesn’t it?
Won’t work, though. If the fee is too big it stifles bike ridership and is inherently unfair, if it is too small it gets eaten up in the beauracracy.
OK, now, what can I expect for my $15? Do children need to pay? How is my bike going to be ‘tagged’ with plates and such? What about the arguements that many bike advocates have that bike lanes are inherently ineffectual and cause more problems? Should those folks have to pay for what they consider segregation?
What road use taxes? Car registration fees? Tolls? Gas tax? Those bring in large amoutns of funds, but yes, they do get eaten up. Most local raods (where bikes are most often seen) get paid for by other methods.
Not really. I’ve seen the “they should PAY” whine quite often and it pretty much comes down to either an ineffectual payment that is a petty tax or an attempt to red tape bikes off the roadways.
And if the road provides no such options?
With the exception of restricted access highways, and certain other restricted roads, this is true in every state I am aware of.
Then don’t bike on it. I say that not because your doing so makes it inconvenient for me – hell, other drivers are inconvenient to me, and I don’t propose outlawing them – but for my safety, and yours as well.
Upon encountering the scenario I described above, most drivers (in my experience) will choose option one, resulting in a scary and dangerous near-miss situation. Having been on the wrong end of one of those that nearly clipped me, I avoid that method if at all possible. Some drivers will instead choose option two, putting themselves and oncoming drivers at risk for the sake of the biker. Lesser of two evils? I leave that for you to decide, but being aware of the result of an abrupt meeting of two fast-moving hunks of steel moving in opposite directions, I’ll be avoiding that option as well. Almost nobody (except for me, and probably a few other individuals I haven’t encountered yet) chooses option three. The end result of this option is a long line of pissed-off drivers waiting for a chance to pass a car that’s moving incredibly slowly for no apparent reason. Barring the potential for road rage, this isn’t exactly unsafe to anybody (which is why I choose this option), but it’s still far from an ideal situtation.
Thus, it seems the safest option for all involved is for cyclists to confine their hobby to those roads where they can safely and legally be passed by other traffic. Alternatively, I suppose the cyclist could pull off the road entirely and stop whenever a car wishes to pass him, but I’ve never once seen anyone do this…and we all know how often other cars abide by a similar rule.
Many times there is no option.
I missed this the first time. Fuck you, bicycling is not a ‘hobby’ for me. It is my primary mode of transportion. I’m not unque.
Most members of the SDMB who’ve been here for a while will likely know my background in cycling at a representative level.
I still compete at age 42, and I still coach juniors, and I still do 500+km per week.
Some observations I’ve made over the years…
(1) In the Western World (read high automobile ownership per capita) it’s just a fact that cycling, like Motorcycling, is an inherently dangerous form of primary transport. Like Motorcycling, if you choose to cycle as your primary form of transport to get to and from work, it’s my considered opinion that the law of statistics will eventually catch up with you. It’s a shame, but it’s true. The Western World revolves around cars, busses, and trucks - and by and large, cyclists and motorcyclists should consider using their bikes as forms of exercise, or fun, but NOT as a primary form of transport.
(2) Don’t ride in the evening. Just don’t do it. If you’re gonna cycle, be smart, change your lifestyle and get up early and do it before work when the roads are quiet and you’re not gonna cause a hassle to an early morning motorist. In my experience, motorists don’t overly mind being delayed for 15 or so seconds early i the morning on a quiet country road because they know they can safely speed up again after passing you. It’s no big deal. Conversely, holding up motorists in the evening is simply frought with danger. People are stressed after a day’s work etc etc. Patience is in short supply etc. In short, NEVER ride in the evening.
(3) I purposely choose to train on the quietest country roads we can find. So do my teammates. If you’re seriously training, riding in built up areas is just plain dumb. You’re forever having to stop for traffic lights etc and it’s simply impossible to maintain high speeds which simulate racing.
(4) I assume that every motorist is trying to kill me. Now don’t get me wrong motorists. I’m a car driver too, indeed one of my cars is a 1966 Shelby Mustang GT350, so I know what it means to be in a wicked car. Nonetheless, I’ve been a competitive cyclist since 1978 and I know this for a fact - if you assume that everyone is trying to kill you, as in, every second of every hour you’re on the road - by extension you make smart moves, not dumb ones.
(5) I always make eye contact with a motorist when signalling what I’m gonna do. I always wait for acknowledgement before making a move. If I don’t get the acknowledgement, I assume they haven’t seen me. If I get a nod to proceed, I ALWAYS, absolutely always, give a very visible and sincere wave of appreciation. Words can’t describe how far such good will tends to go.
What makes biking dangerous is motorists that don’t pay enough attention and hit them. None of the things you mention are relevant, because none of them are usually the cause of bikers being hit. They are just a pathetic excuse.
They are here. I doubt the cost of bureaucracy is much less where you are, or that road use taxes are much higher. Roads are paid for out of general revenue, mostly.
Whether or not biking is your primary form of transportation, biking on the edge of the road in the situation I described is still dangerous for all involved. Interesting that you feel as though calling bicycling a ‘hobby’ merits a “fuck you”, because for many people, it is just that. Some people make a living playing football. That doesn’t mean I’m going to call it a job instead of a game, because for most people who engage in it, it isn’t.
As I said above, if you absolutely must bike on a road where riding on the edge is unsafe, it would be best for all involved if you pull off of the road when somebody wants to pass you. I do wonder, though – seriously, I’m not being a smartass here – are curvy roads with no shoulder and a double yellow line a significant part of your daily commute? Because those are the only roads I’m talking about in all of my above posts.
Incidentally, whether your reasons for using a bike for your primary transportation are economic, ecological or otherwise, I commend you. I wish more people had the energy and willpower to do the same…I certainly don’t.
I’m judging the many by the actions of the OP, who admitted to riding on the sidewalk. I guess if you’re too chicken to confront a motorist, you can just displace your frustration with the road by terrorizing some pedestrians. The attitude of most vehement bikers on this board and IRL seems to be “fuck your laws, decency, and common sense, I’m a great person because I’m protecting the environment so you better get out of my way.”
Speaking of “vehement”…
Other words one might use are: “strawman”, “broad brush” and “slanderous”.
Bolding mine… I suspect that most reasonable people will see that bolded comment for what it is… namely… righteous sanctimonious rubbish.
However, for the benefit of those souls who come to the SDMB for informed debate - here’s why it was rubbish…
Firstly, let’s consider the concept of road rage, and the desire to have the last word - especially if there’s no way the recipient can come back at you. By and large, road rage exists because people feel they can be unusually aggressive and demonstrative towards a fellow citizen - and why does this minor dellusion exist? Because a vehicle (any motorised vehicle) provides a sense of security that if, perish the thought, things get out of hand, you can always drive away.
And when you think about it, that’s precisely what happens in road rage, isn’t it? Some other driver screams at you, or gives you the middle finger in front of your children, or blasts their horn at you - and then they drive off before you even had a chance to respond - let alone enter into a civil debate regarding the merits of the other driver’s position.
Hence, the person who’s indulging in road rage more often than not is actually the coward - they’re the person who actually intends all along to scamper off as soon as they can after being outragously rude and offensive etc.
Now, consider the full extent of the ludicrous assertion in the bolded quote above. I ask my fellow Dopers… you’ve got a cyclist here who’s just trying to get home from work and the roads they’re riding on are too dangerous - hence, begrudgingly, our cyclist chooses to ride on the sidewalk against their personal preference purely to save their own soul. Somehow, such a situation has been turned by a motorist in this thread as being a display of cowardice on the part of cyclist, and that further, the cyclist should instead have the guts to confront motorists. I mean seriously… come on… how the fuck is a cyclist gonna confront a motorist? Especially as it’s the motorist with upper hand. It’s the motorist who can do the road rage thing and speed of like a coward. It’s the motorist who is the road user approaching the cyclist from behind and it’s the motorist who is in a vehicle with sufficient momentum to kill the cyclist, and not vice verse.
Seriously, what sort of bizarre parallel universe is it that a cyclist who is choosing to use a sidewalk out of self preservation then deserves further condemnation from a motorist who is no longer even being hindered by said cyclist?
Can anyone else see the obvious need here for a course in anger management? Going by the mardiscordia’s logic, it’s akin to arguing he once saw heaps of black guys selling drugs in East LA, ergo, by extension all black guys across the entire USA should be locked up and treated like the cowards they truly are. It’s a bullshit position, and it’s totally full of self serving, cyclical logic designed to rationalise just one thing - he’s a fucking angry man. I bet you he’s the type of guy who gets held up for 8 seconds by a cyclist on a road somewhere and delights in blasting his horn as he drives past - as close as he can - all the while condescendingly dismissing said cyclist for not having the “guts to confront him” as he safely speeds off like the coward most angry men truly are.
Aaah, yes, BBF, that well known look of guilt, mixed with defiance and outright fear when fuckwit motorist who has just cut me up something chronic realises that the light is going to turn red and I’m going to catch up and give them a piece of my mind and that they aren’t quite as brave as they thought they were when they thought they could run away.
I don’t know what the situation is in Australia, but I’ve lived in several US cities, I’ve only had a car recently and used to walk or bus everywhere, and I know what I’ve seen in cyclists. It doesn’t justify the drivers who go out of their way to make cycling hard, but it seems like most drivers get the whole “stopping at red lights” and “not driving on the sidewalk” thing while almost no cyclists do.
Which is why I take the lane. I do not take actions that invite the driver behind me to take action that is risky to my health (lane splitting).
The fact is this: You sem to feel that cycliing should be avoided on certain roads because you feel it is an unneccessary risk since cycling is merely a ‘hobby’. You fail completely to understand why you merit a “fuck you”. In one swoop you dismiss any of the practical aspects of cycling in favor of the “they’re just playing in the road” appraoch.
“Cyclists fare best when they act as, and are treated as vehicles.” -Effective cycling.
Meekness gets nothing, and in fact invotes more trouble. If the cars sees one cyclist pull over for his impatient ass, he’ll expect the next one to do the same, and he will fly of the handle faster if they do not do so.
They are not anymore, but when I was in CA there were portions of my commute that were like that. My present commute has an urban street that is actually worse than the situation you describe. Pulling over is simply not an option.
Prejudice much?