You know, today we were driving across town on the four-lane arterial streets (there are no freeways here). While we were in the left lane we kept having to slow down and even stop for left-turning cars. In the right lane we kept having to slow down/ stop for busses, delivery trucks, people turning right waiting for pedestrians to cross, people trying to park (sometimes very very badly), and bicyclists. Sometimes we would switch lanes to continue progress to the next red light a bit quicker. We got home.
The OP was on a FOUR LANE. What was the problem? Was the other lane dirty or something? Would you blow a gasket if you waited for someone to finish street-parking?
The problem is though, others have pointed out using facts and logic why it can often be reasonable to ride side by side, and your response is just to be abusive.
It ain’t going to get you anywhere till you deal with the arguments. And by the way, attempting to assert that disagreeing with you is insane isn’t going to get you anywhere on these boards, ever.
Sure, other tax supplements roads but car users still pay way more taxes specific to road use than bike users, unless they too use cars. I think Holland has the answer: bike tracks on every road. We have a few here but not enough.
A bike versus cars thread and it takes till page three for someone to bring up the taxes gambit. A new record.
Anyway, the simple response is this: while it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in most places taxes from road tax and petrol go into general revenue. Certainly in both NZ and Australia. Money then comes out of general revenue to pay for stuff, including roads. Which is just as well for road users, because road user taxes are not sufficient to cover the cost of roads.
If you want to start arguing that your access to public facilities should depend upon the taxes that you pay, then fine. I’m a partner in a successful law firm. Modesty forbids, but it’s basically going to be true that I pay a shitload more tax than most people I meet on the road. I assume they’ll all be getting out of my way? Or would you not be happy with that?
Dude, my hobby doesn’t dictate traffic conditions. My hobbies are reading and candlelit dinners and walks on the beach… oh wait. Wrong thread. But still, I don’t ride bikes. I have no sense of balance and would end up squashed.
And, as I pointed out waaaay up above, people have lots of reasons for riding bicycles, just as you might have lots of reasons for speeding. Those reasons don’t go away just because you’re in a hurry. Other people don’t go away just because you’re in a hurry. They never ever will.
I think a normal person gets impatient every once in a while. If you’re upset every time someone slows you down, well, that’s a problem. But it’s your problem, not someone else’s.
When it’s a real emergency, feel free to bitch if you’re delayed. I was delayed once going to a hospital because the person in front of me hit a deer. Considering how many times I’ve been party to a rush to the hospital moment, it’s a mercy there haven’t been more delays. In the case of a real emergency, call 9-11. They have sirens for that sort of thing.
You, sir, are a fool or a liar. Read this thread. Go through this thread and do a count. You are living in an alternate universe.
I think he was refering to the bikers he was ranting about in his OP, not the bikers who posted to this thread.
I’ve already mentioned lots of reasons people might be on bicycles, but you seem sure that everyone has the option to be driving. Is your world that narrow?
I live in an expensive area. I pay more council rates than average. My garbage should be collected more often that yours.
My expensive house meant I paid more State stamp duty than average. My children should get first choice of teachers and schools, and I should go on a fast track when waiting on hospital lists.
My income means I pay more Federal Income tax than most. I should get a sticker that allows me to drive down a special fast lane on Interstates so I’m not held up by people who don’t pay as much tax.
You agree with all that, doncha MelCthefirst?
I assume then that you never create traffic for recreatonal purposes. Yeah, right.
That does sound inequitable when you paint it broadly like that but it kind of happens anyway. I pay less tax on my property because it is in a lowsocioeconomic area and the council will not put gas lines down my road, whereas they will in richer areas. Ditto schools other facilities.
Hey, you haven’t read the whole thread- I was initially responding to a post that said that bikers paid taxes too.
You and Roadfood can’t even follow the flow of a conversation in an ongoing, chronological thread, and you’re calling me an idiot? It’s called context. When you remove the post I was specifically addressing, as well as the sentence I typed immediately preceding the line you’re extracting, of course it’s going to sound stupid – it doesn’t address anything all by itself! Here’s the whole thing, in context, with the obviously intended reference (there’s some grammatical term for it, but I can’t think of it at the moment – go ahead, call me an idiot) stuck in there for your edification. . . [
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7042814&postcount=83) And Roadfood might want to take note of that post, as well, seeing as how therein lies yet another example of where I said I agreed with him.
I know you think you’re being cute, but this was actually covered all the way back on page 1, post #10, wherein I posted the relevant California Code that says:
So yeah, walk away (so long as it’s actually legal to do so, and you aren’t intentionally avoiding a pedestrian sidewalk, which, depending on your jurisdiction, you might be required by law to use), and we’ll move around you when it’s safe to do so. We’re as obliged by law as any other vehicle to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians.
Dinner beckons, but by all means, go right on twisting your panties in a knot because you don’t understand the rules of the road and think you have full right to possess them and screw anybody else who dares to use them in an equally legal manner, if Og forbid they slow you down for 5 seconds. They’re just selfish assholes with an irritating hobby, afterall.
Such places already exist; they’re calld multi-use trails. There are a couple of them here in my town, and you’re welcome to come over and walk on them your heart’s content. I ride on them all the time (Indian Creek Trail, usually weekend mornings, if you want to block me specifically). I have no trouble slowing down for pedestrians and riding around pedestrians. I’ve never heard a fellow cyclist say pedestrians should get off the trail and use the sidewalks on nearby highways.
You dont’t need as good a sense of balance as you might think. The angular momentum of the spinning wheels keeps you afloat. I think this is the only thing I learned from a certain physics class. 
That’s probably because Indian Creek Trail has nothing even close to the volume of traffic or the safety hazards that an average 35-45 mph roadway has. My stroll along Indian Creek Trail does not compromise the safety of myself and other people.
(And I’ve been there. I’ve even ridden it.)
And yet, how many times have I heard “Out of the way!” from a bicyclist coming up behind me? Lots. Next time, I’ll just spit.
And as for the California vehicle code, yeah, I understand that it’s legal for bikers to be on the road with cars moving at high speed. I’m arguing that it should not be legal. It creates unnecessary safety hazards and delays by forcing automobiles to slow down/avoid them. I understand the rules of the road. I just think they’re stupid.
Immaterial. My use of the road in an automobile is at the same speed as the rest of the traffic. My mere presence does not cause an undue safety hazard.
But do you think this is a good thing? Do you support it or is it something you don’t like?
Sure. And they do. And whether they pay more or less tax than motorists alongside them depends on a whole load of factors not relevant to whether they are a biker or a motorist.
Not immaterial. Your vehicle creates traffic. Collectively, traffic slows down use of the roads. If every recreational motorist stopped driving and every motorist only used their car when essential, roads would move more quickly. Basically, as others would have it, using crowded roads for recreational use is simply rude.
Just ask Miller, he agrees, doncha Miller? 
As to safety, no one on your side of the debate has commented upon let alone rebutted my comments about the type of nonsensical twaddle you are peddling here.
To the anti-bike crowd: can you cite even one example where a cyclist, riding on the road legally, caused harm to others? Because that seems to be what you’re claiming, without any cites.
This particular suggestion was rebutted in controlled experiments in the early seventies. Unfortunately, the idea that angular momentum is what makes bikes stable is such a cool meme to physics teachers and nerds[sup]*[/sup] that it propagates vociferously despite being wrong.
Google it. The concept you are looking for is “steering trail”.
(*I include myself in that term, I don’t intend it as an insult)
I don’t want to add any more fuel to the fire, but there were two things addressed to me specifically a while back, so:
If I only ride on residential roads, then I cannot get to very many places.
A number of other posters have addressed this strange view of yours, namely that all cyclists have a choice to get a car, and that their travelling isn’t necessary, while yours is, but here’s my go:
I am a terrible driver. It is safer for everyone involved that I am not driving a car. It is also more than I can afford financially. I also feel that is immoral to burn gasoline unneccesarily. (I don’t mean this judgementally, I just mean as a personal decision.) Ergo, I don’t feel getting a car is a viable option.
I think it is neccesary for me to travel out of my residential neighborhood (3 short streets), as do you think it is neccesary for you to do the same. Why do you assume my travel is for a different purpose than yours, just because I am on a bike? I even go grocery shopping on my bike (front basket + backpack). I’m allowed to eat, right? I guess you can assume I’m not going to a furniture store on my bike…
Upon preview, I guess I learned nothing from that particular physics class