I’m still not sure. The OP’s main complaint seems to be that he was forced to change lanes to pass the cyclists. If that’s the case, then he is talking about cyclists who ride responsibly and legally.
Well, I’m a Canadian and I have that notion, too. While I don’t go out of my way not to inconvenience others, I won’t deliberately do things that I know will be a pain in the ass for people. scr4 says they are commuting on their bicycle. If s/he is doing this during rush hour and traffic has to slow down to allow him to do this, how much time in total is wasted by everyone on that road for his preference because the traffic has to slow down to accomodate him. While the time per person is small, the total time can be quite large. Yes, the law says you can do this, but why would you want to do it?
Anecdote: I was driving down one of our roads here. It is 5 lanes wide in one direction at the section I was at. I was in the far left lane. In the second to the right lane was a person on a bicycle. The road at this point is downhill and the posted speed is 80km. If you do that speed you are going slower than the traffic around you. There is heavy traffic at this point and the roads were slick from a recent rain. The bicyclist was changing lanes to the middle lane, but obviously was inexperienced in that he didn’t know that the lines painted on the road become very slippery when wet. He went down like he was shot. Luckily he bounced up right away, grabbed his bike, and dodging traffic made it to the side of the road all the while cars were slamming on brakes and swerving to avoid him and each other. I know that accidents could happen to anyone on the road whether on bicycle, or not. I know that I would be following far enough behind him that I could stop if he was in my lane because that is what I’d do with a car in front of me. And yes it was probably legal for him to be on that road at that time. It still doesn’t make it any less stupid for him being there. Because, frankly, if I was passing him in the next lane and he fell off his bike and bounced under my car, I wouldn’t lose much sleep over his fate. Actually, I’d be wondering if he had insurance* to cover the costs to fix my car and where to find a shovel to unwrap him from my axles.
I should also make the point that Calgary has an extensive bike path system that pretty much negates people having to ride on any roads that have a speed higher than 30KM/hour. Unfortunately, the posted speed on the bike paths are 20KM and many bitch that it is two slow for them to commute to work. It is interesting that while it inconveniences them to travel at this slow speed, it doesn’t seem to bother them that I have to slow down to pass them on a main road. Funny how that works.
*Are bicycle riders required to have insurance to cover the cost of any accidents they may cause while riding on the road?
And if you’d stopped to read the rest of the thread, you’d have realized that the original poster did go on to complain about exactly the behavior that scr4 is defending, right?
Emphasis added. In other words, Roadfood is complaining NOT just about cyclists riding two abreast (which may or may not be legal in Roadfood’s jurisdiction, wherever that is), but ALSO about the practice of “taking the lane” by a single cyclist.
Which is exactly the practice that scr4 is defending, and with good reason. In fact, Roadfood and scr4 spent a few posts back-and-forth at the start of the thread getting clear on exactly what sort(s) of cyclist behavior Roadfood was complaining about.
So your complaint that scr4 is “kneejerking” about a criticism that didn’t apply to him is simply wrong.
The OPs complaint was that two idiots in fancy bike-racing duds were riding side-by-side. Side-by-side.
Yeah, and the thread has devolved, although I tend to side with the drivers in terms of “not slowing traffic”–but then again, I’m lucky in that my road to work is only moderately traveled and has two lanes in each direction, and drivers are used to a very slow right lane and a very fast left lane.
If you are driving in rush hour, you are slowing down traffic. How much time in total is wasted by everyone on that road because so many drivers like you are inconsiderately attempting to use the road at that busy time? After all, you could take public transit, or telecommute, or live someplace where you could walk to work. If there weren’t so many cars cluttering up the roads during rush hour, you could have five times as many bicycles on the road and the (fewer) remaining cars would still be able to move faster than they can now.
Yes, the law says you can waste other people’s time and inconvenience them and be a pain in the ass by driving during rush hour, but why would you want to do it?
Again, you’re proceeding from the assumption that the faster vehicles somehow have the God-given right to use the roads as they choose, even when that inconveniences or delays other people, but the slower vehicles don’t. This assumption is completely arbitrary.
Thanks for sharing, but we really didn’t need any additional evidence that you don’t care about what happens to cyclists.
Somehow I’m not inclined to take your word for it that the routes to which you personally want to restrict cyclists are in fact adequate for all their purposes. In any case, as I said, if you really think this is a good idea, by all means make the case to your local legislature.
Why? They’re simply moving to a legal alternate route where they can go faster. You are perfectly free to do the same by driving on one of those limited-access highways that I recommended to you earlier. If you do choose to drive on roads where bicycles are allowed, though, then you have to accomodate their legal use of the road. Just as if bicycle commuters do choose to ride on 20kph-max bike paths, they have to accomodate the slower cyclists there.
If so, I’d like to ask the OP to come back and clarify that he’d be OK with cyclists taking the lane, as long as they are not riding two abreast. If he does, I’ll apologize for my “knee jerk” misunderstanding.
Yes, I know. And subsequently (in post #11, to be exact), the original poster went on to also complain about single cyclists “taking the lane” so that drivers had to change lanes to pass.
And after that, scr4 made the post that you complained about in defense of the “taking the lane” practice.
In other words, scr4’s post was completely relevant to the current content of the thread when it was posted, and you’re bitching that it doesn’t specifically apply to the OP. To which I can only wonder: So the fuck what?
Y’know, if you’d’ve READ post #11, he was complaining that he’s seen people ride side-by-side on roads where it’s difficult to pass one bicyclist already. Comprehension is your friend.
Roadfood has constantly limited his complaints to bicyclists riding in violation of the law or safety, and the knee-jerk cyclist contingent keeps bashing him because he’s not strewing rose petals from his car windows in front of their two-wheelers while simultanously fellating the town council in exchange for wider bike lanes.
Yeah, I’m overreacting a touch. Call it fair turnabout for the whining I hear from all the bicyclists on a constant basis. Look, I ride my bike to work, I don’t slow the flow of traffic, and I stick to roads where I won’t slow the flow of traffic. That’s just common freakin’ courtesy. I don’t ride tandem, I don’t take the lane unless a car is doing something illegal to force me to, because I’ve got enough of a brain in my head to only ride where it’s safe and convenient for everyone to do so. Yes, bicyclists deserve a share of the road, and more bike paths and paved shoulders are something to work for, but it’s not helping that cause any when the bicyclists people notice out on the road are by and large inconsiderate, law-flouting idiots.
Extended, long winded hijack over, hopefully.
Notice I said if you travel at the posted limit you’d be travelling slower than the average speed? Apparently you didn’t.
When I did commute to downtown, I took that road to drive to the train station. I took the train into downtown and after worked I walked back to my car (about two miles) along the bike path. If I didn’t drive to the train station, it would take another 1.5 hours of bus travel to get to where I lived vs. 20 minutes of travelling by car.
Yeah, okay. There is only so much faster than the speed limit that you can travel at before you have to speak to the local police force.
You’re proceding from the assumption that slower vehicles somehow have a god-given, blah, blah, blah… No, I’m proceding from the assumption that if, by your actions, you are unecessarily inconveniencing and endagering others by your choice of driving a very slow and not as visible vehicle on a main thoroughfare where it is not anticipated that you will be there, then you are an asshat even if you have every legal right to be one.
No, I don’t care what happens to idiots. As someone who rides a bicycle myself, I attempt to do so in a manner that maximizes my safety and minimizes the inconvenience to others.
Just a quick link. The location from my anecdote is easily accessable to a bike path.
Bike paths Calgary
If you can’t travel at a reasonable speed that approaches what the other traffic on the road is doing then you shouldn’t be there. You can whine all you want about it, but riding your bike down roads with higher speed limits is dangerous to you and, more importantly, the other people on the road.
I see what you mean, Zeriel, and on consideration I think you’re right; sorry. (However, there have been other posts like Jackmannii’s criticizing the “taking the lane” practice by single cyclists, so I still think scr4’s post was appropriate to where the thread was at the time. And I don’t think the rest of us have been specifically “bashing” Roadfood so much as the general attitude, amply evidenced by posters like Uzi, that bicycles just don’t belong on the roads at all if cars have to slow down for them.)
Ok, this relates to my rant about bicyclists- when it’s dark out, you need lights AND relectors. Reflective tape is very cheap, there is no excuse whatsoever to not have reflectors/tape on your bike. NONE. I have almost hit two bicyclists in the last month who were riding with no lights, no reflectors and dark clothing. Idiots.
Roadfood, you’re right.
God, you’re an idiot.
I think the law has more authority than your opinion of what’s dangerous. You can whine all you want, but the fact remains that cyclists taking the lane are riding according to law, and riding in the safest possible manner for that road.
Well, if the cars are going on average faster than the posted speed limit, then I really fail to see how momentarily slowing in order to pass a bicycle is a significant hardship for them. If bicycles are keeping long lanes of cars stuck behind them for miles and miles unable to pass, that would be a problem, but that doesn’t sound like any of the complaints I’m hearing here.
Again, this is just an arbitrary, car-centric assumption that bikes don’t belong on the roads. It’s not up to you to say whether the bike’s presence is “unnecessary”. Every time you drive on the road instead of leaving it empty for other vehicles, you are inconveniencing and endangering others too. Do I get to decide when it’s “necessary” for you to drive and when it isn’t?
As for drivers’ “not anticipating” that bikes might be on the roads, that’s their fault, not the cyclists’. Drivers should always anticipate that there will sometimes be slower vehicles sharing the roads.
This is the same bizarre notion that I mentioned before: i.e., that the average speed on a road ought to be regarded as a minimum speed. And it’s nonsense. All traffic laws (except on roads with posted minimum speeds) allow for the presence of a minority of significantly slower vehicles as a normal and reasonable use of the roads.
And the reason that the laws allow it is that sensible people realize that the advantages of letting a reasonable variety of vehicles use the roads outweigh the disadvantage of the faster vehicles’ occasionally having to slow down for the slower ones. If you really believe this isn’t the case, then by all means get those traffic laws changed, as I suggested. Otherwise, your constant reiteration that slower vehicles “shouldn’t be there” means nothing more than “I wish they weren’t there”.
Oh, so you do think that bicycles belong on the roads even if cars have to slow down for them? You just said that “If you can’t travel at a reasonable speed that approaches what the other traffic on the road is doing then you shouldn’t be there”. How is that substantially different from “bicycles just don’t belong on the roads at all if cars have to slow down for them”?
Look, roads are a public space. If you’re on one, you should show the basic courtesy of not slowing everyone behind you down, wether you’re in a car, or a bike, or a pair of rollerskates. I don’t see why this concept is so hard, except for the towering sense of self-entitlement displayed by bicyclists. You don’t own the road, folks: other people need to use it, too. If you can’t keep up, you should get the hell out of the way. That goes for slow drivers, as well. It’s simple courtesy, is all.
I do want to address one comment in particular, though:
Are you fucking kidding me? Drivers don’t complain about traffic? What planet are you driving on?
Are you fucking kidding us? Look, roads are a public space. If you’re in a car on one, you should show the basic courtesy of respecting the LEGAL RIGHTS of others to use it, whether they’re in a car or on a bicycle. I don’t see why this concept is so hard, except for the towering sense of self-entitlement displayed by automobile drivers. You don’t own the road, folks; other people need to use it to, AND HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO. If you can’t share the road safely with bicylcists, you should get the hell out of the way. It’s simply the law, is all.
I think all the whiners in this thread should have to live here, where sharing the road generally means sharing it with horses and buggies or combines. No one walks away from those accidents (well, except the combine drivers).
Look, if roads are going to be legally accessible to different types of vehicles with varying rates of speed, then sometimes the slower vehicles will slow down faster ones behind them. I don’t see why this concept is so hard, except for the towering sense of self-entitlement displayed by drivers.
It’s not in dispute that bicycles should try not to slow down vehicles behind them more than necessary. That is, bicycles should keep in the right lane, use shoulders and lane edges where available, etc. Nobody here is objecting to that basic “slower vehicles keep right” principle.
But if the cyclist feels s/he has to “take the lane” for safety—i.e., take up space in the center of the lane so that following vehicles have to change lanes to pass—then “slowing down everyone behind you” is necessary, and “everyone behind you” simply has to accept that. You don’t own the road, folks: other people need to use it, too. If they can’t keep up, you should slow the hell down till you can get around them safely.
As I said, if this road-sharing is causing hideous traffic bottlenecks with lanes of drivers stuck for miles on end behind cyclists, a la Critical Mass rides, then we do have a problem, and we need to change the policy. But nothing I’ve seen here suggests that drivers in general are having to do anything more than slow down for a few seconds to move around a bicycle. I really don’t see why you would rather banish cyclists from the roads altogether instead of just sucking it up. Is a few seconds’ delay really such a terrible hardship to you?
For every thousands of car drivers there is a single bicycle rider on the road. Yes they have every legal right to be there. All I’m saying is that if a bike rider can’t keep up with all those thousands of cars, then why is it the obligation of the car driver to cater to the bike rider (and I’m not saying he shouldn’t if there is a bike rider there. I don’t advocate running bike riders off the road for christ sake!)? I think that lone bike rider should be courteous enough to know that he is inconveniencing others by his actions and not do it. Sometimes what is legal and what is right are two different things. This is one of those times. Keep up with traffic, or pull off the road and travel along another path that is more in keeping with your mode of transport.
It amazes me that on roads with posted speeds of 80km/hour that a person with a bike can think they won’t be a hazard by riding there. Legal or not, you are a hazard.
And another thing: with petroleum prices going where they are, do drivers really want to discourage cyclists from using the roads? Surely you realize that everybody who’s biking instead of driving to work is reducing the demand for ever-scarcer and ever-more-expensive fuel, and therefore there will be more of it at cheaper prices for you? Looking at the big picture, wouldn’t you vastly prefer to have lots more cyclists instead of fewer or none?