Causing them to have to slow down doesn’t mean that you aren’t safely clear. And making, say, a left turn after passing could force all cars to stop while you wait for an opening.
It happens at an intersection near here all the time. The road expands to two lanes in each direction briefly, then collapses back down to one. Lots of people hop into the left lane, blow past the slower cars, then turn left at the intersection that’s a quarter of a mile away. That’s asshole behavior. It doesn’t endanger anyone and I can’t think of a law it could be violating.
Well, as I said to Princhester last night, the safety and inconvenience issues kind of go hand-in-hand to me. If a car in front of me slams on its brakes, the worst case is that I hit the car. This could be really bad depending on speed, but most likely it will result ina fender bender and a crappy day. If, on the other hand, a bicyclist swerves to avoid a parallel storm drain, and runs even a little bit into my path, and the worst case happens, in all likelihood, he’s going to be smeared, crushed, and killed. The consequences for a misstep are much more dire with a bicyclist, and that’s a concern for the motorist as well as the biker, unless the motorist is a heartless monster.
The other issue that bugs me is that, around here (and I’m perfectly willing to admit that this may have colored my perceptions,) law-breaking bicyclists are the norm rather than the rule. There’s the guy who rides the side of the road against traffic, carrying what appears to be most of his worldly belongings in his handlebar-basket. There’s the guy who rides in the continuous turn lane in the middle of the street…at night. These people are menaces.
As to the “delusional sense of entitlement,” momentary delays in automobile traffic are acceptable. On high-traffic, higher-speed-limit roads, there are normally turn lanes, etc. to minimize the impact of turns on the traffic stream. But a bike is simply not capable of maintaining anything like the pace of an automobile in a traffic stream.
But as it happens, the Lookout Mountain incident serves as a good example. I had been out doing field work, had just finished, and needed to go back to the main office before everyone left for the day. I needed to speak to the manager that day, or else I’d have to take another trip to Chattanooga the next day (75 mile round trip for me,) to see him. On any normal trip down the mountain, the speed limit (or even somewhat slower) would have allowed me to make it back to the office in time. But because of this one biker’s leisurely “delusional sense of entitlement,” I didn’t make it, forcing me to spend a third of my next work day making an extraneous trip to Chattanooga. It annoyed me.
I appreciate your concern, but I think using the roads involves accepting that different vehicles intrinsically have different levels of safety. If you accidentally run into a top-down convertible and flip it, the occupants are much more likely to be seriously or fatally injured than if you do the same thing to a heavily-built closed car. Even more so, of course, for a motorcycle. But we still allow top-down convertibles and motorcycles to drive on the roads. I can’t see any compelling reason to ban bicycles from sharing roads with cars just because bicycles have much less crash protection.
I’m totally with you on this complaint, as is every other law-abiding cyclist. Scofflaw cyclists are irresponsible jerks and assholes. Ticket them all, fine them all, arrest them all. I do not have word one to say in their defense, and I don’t mind if you pit them from now till doomsday.
And because of that, it is generally quite fast and easy for a car to safely pass a bike and leave it behind for the rest of its journey (barring the case of scofflaw cyclists who illegally sneak through intersections, and we already agreed what we think about them). So I don’t see why the momentary delays caused by occasionally having to get around a bicycle should be considered such a hardship.
However, we all already agreed that a cyclist who really is seriously delaying traffic is a genuine problem and should get out of the way if at all possible, so we don’t need to argue about that. If a few seconds’ or a minute’s delay is what caused you to miss your deadline, then you were cutting it pretty fine anyway and shouldn’t blame the cyclist. If the cyclist really held you up for ten minutes or more, on the other hand, I won’t defend him.
Brilliant. Fucking brilliant. That’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve heard in the last month.
Traffic is like some sort of omnipotent being right? Nobody can control it, nothing can alleviate it, it’s just traffic. It’s like a god. So really, what’s the point of even trying? Just sit there in your car on your big ass, eat your Twinkies, and be such a fucking loser with a crappy lifestyle that you’ll get all bent out of shape at a 3 second delay in your commute, and wonder what all of these cars are doing here.
Alternatively, I think that I’d rather be in a bike lane during rush hour. I can usually beat the traffic, I get to be outside, I get to enjoy myself, and I know that I’m helping to alleviate the inconvenience of rush hour for others by being on my Fuji instead of my Saab.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: I’ll do my best to be a considerate cyclist, avoid delaying anyone unless absolutely necessary, and in return all I ask is that drivers be attentive, considerate, and not throw bottles at me.
Personal data: I don’t own a car and don’t drive. So cyclists, don’t reply to me by complaining about drivers. I don’t drive.
I have a question for all cyclists who think it’s fine for cars to slow down to accomodate your bike:
When you take your bike onto the sidewalk, or a path or walkway used by pedestrians, do YOU slow down to the pace of the pedestrians around you?
Do YOU let road users slower than you, that is, pedestrians, routinely have the right of way? Do you let them set the pace?
Do you? All the time? Really?
Because if you do, please come to my neighborhood and have a word with all the riders who not only routinely ride on the sidewalk (which is ILLEGAL in Pennsylvania) but think the sidewalk limit is “as fast as I can pedal, dude!”.
And if you don’t slow down for pedestrians, who the hell are you to complain about drivers who complain about you slowing them down?
Questions are welcome. Remember, though, that what the cyclists here are saying is that it’s fine for cars to have to slow down briefly to safely pass your bike. Nobody’s advocating for the right of cyclists to keep long lines of fuming drivers (or even one fuming driver, for that matter) stuck behind them crawling at 10mph for miles at a time.
I never ride my bike on the sidewalk or any other pedestrian-only path or walkway, because that’s against traffic regulations.
When I’m on multi-use paths with both bicycles and pedestrians (and other slower users like wheelchairs, skaters, etc., I always slow down to their pace until I can safely pass them. Just as I expect motorists to do for me on the roads.
Of course I give them the right of way, and of course I let them set the pace until and unless I can safely pass them, as I said above. That’s the rule on multi-use paths.
Yes I do. All the time. Really.
I’d be happy to (though I’m afraid it will have to wait till I move back to the States later in the year). Where’s your neighborhood?
And the word I have for those riders is “stupid scofflaw assholes” (well, that’s three words, actually). And the people I think should be having a word with them are the local law enforcement officials, and the word I think they should be having is “busted”.
You might try reading the whole thread before you ask questions that have already been answered.
And for the record, I never ride my bicycle on a pedestrian sidewalk, unless for some reason it’s unavoidable for a short distance, precisely because it’s illegal, and the ones around here who do, piss me off just as much as they do you.
See, that’s the thing though, you aren’t always entitled to drive the posted speed limit, and in fact, can be ticketed for doing so in conditions that would dictate slower speeds, such as limited visibility due to fog, weather conditions, and yes, slower-moving vehicles in your path, including bicycles. [
[quote=California Driver Handbook]
Speed Limits
California has a “Basic Speed Law.” This law means you may never drive faster than is safe for current conditions. For example, if you are driving 45 mph in a 55 mph speed zone during a dense fog, you could be cited for driving “too fast for conditions.” You may never legally drive faster than the posted speed limit, even if you think it is safe to do so.
Regardless of the posted speed limit, your speed should depend on:[ul]
[li] The number and speed of other vehicles on the road.[/li] [li] Whether the road surface is smooth, rough, graveled, wet, dry, wide, or narrow.[/li] [li] Bicyclists or pedestrians walking on the road’s edge.[/li] [li] Whether it is raining, foggy, snowing, windy, or dusty.[/ul](all emphasis mine)[/li][/quote]
](http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs19thru22.htm) Besides which, that infrastructure exists for everyone’s use, and rules have been set forth that govern how each type of user may and may not use it. When bicyclist are using said infrastructure, they’re not thinking that their hobby takes precendence over what you’re doing – they’re simply doing what they’re doing just like you are, namely, getting from one place to another. They’re not doing it to piss you off, but because that’s the method they’ve chosen to get where they need to go, for whatever reason.
If they aren’t abiding by the rules of the road, then yes, they’re assholes. If they cause a long line of traffic to queue up behind them without moving over, they should get ticketed just like a car driver would. Not every bicyclist is courteous about abiding the rules (here, the big offense is blowing through stop signs, where you are, it’s apparently more likely to be not moving to the right if safe to do so), and they deserve everyone’s scorn. But neither are all drivers courteous to cyclists and other drivers, either. There are assholes everywhere, on that I think we can agree.
Can’t speak for cars cutting off other cars in this manner, but it is expressly forbidden wrt cars and bicyclists. Again: [
[quote=California Driver Handbook]
[ul]Drivers must:[list]
[li] look carefully for bicyclists before opening doors next to moving traffic or before turning right.[/li] [li] safely merge toward the curb or into the bike lane.[/li] [li] not overtake a bicyclist just before making a right turn. Merge first, then turn.[/ul][/list] (bolding in original document)[/li][/quote]
](http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike)
My neighborhood is University City, so called because it has 3 university campuses and a lot of students. Many of them ride bikes. And since there is no mandatory licensing and education for bike riders, as there is for drivers, many–hell, most–of them ride extremely badly. With the ratio of “stupid scofflaw assholes” to law-abiding riders standing at perhaps 500:1, local law enforcement has their job cut out. Furthermore, whenever law enforcement does move against asshole riders, all riders, asshole and otherwise, begin complaining bitterly: it’s unfair, the drivers are worse, bike riding should be encouraged, blah blah blah.
So good for you law-abiding riders, but if you came here you’d be very lonely creatures indeed. In 19 years of living and walking in Philadelphia, I have seen 2 riders signal turns, and exactly one rider sit at a red light and wait for it to change when there was no cross-traffic in her way. That’s about it for law-abiding riders. In 19 years. I’ve seen more riders than that run red lights when there was cross-traffic, weaving around slow cars or sprinting to beat fast ones.
I’ve seen bike riders ride on the sidewalk when there was a bike lane AND no traffic in the street right next to them. I’ve seen riders ride “no hands” in traffic, and routinely ride “no hands” on pedestrian walkways. I’ve seen riders windowshopping on the sidewalk, riding with their heads turned sideways. I’ve been cut off in the crosswalk, when I had a green light, by bike riders running the red light. I’ve been cut off in this way on Market Street at 30th Street, a grim intersection at the best of times, by a rider yelling “I’ll call ya after class!” into her handsfree cell phone as she went by. I’ve had riders yell at me for being in their way ON THE SIDEWALK. Red lights, stop signs, “One Way” signs? Mere decorations.
The street past my apartment building has a slight slope. There is a traffic light at the bottom of the slope. Bad as Philadelphia drivers are, I’ve never seen a car freewheel down the slope and roll through the red light without even slowing down. I’ve seen so many bike riders do that I expect all bike riders to do it.
That’s what it’s like around here. I EXPECT bike riders to break the law, and to behave like idiots, and they rarely surprise me. They don’t know the law, or if they do they don’t care. And with no testing or licensing of riders, such as drivers have to undergo, there’s no way to make them at least pretend to learn the law.
So given the amount of respect I see bike riders give to pedestrians and the traffic laws, can you forgive me for not having a whole lot of sympathy for bike riders complaining that they don’t get enough respect? (Reminder: I don’t drive. I walk or take public transport everywhere I go.)
And one more question: would you support mandatory education and licensing of bike riders? Along with demanding rights on the road, should bike riders assume at least one of the responsibilities of drivers, and pass a test on the traffic laws before going out to break them?
ryobserver, as a law-abiding cyclist, I agree completely with you and others complaining about cyclists who do not obey the rules of the road. That said, there is a double-standard for expectations of behavior. As a cyclist, I expect motorists to speed. I expect them to cut me off, to pass too close whilst speeding, to honk at me, to drive recklessly and to fail to obey the rules of the road. Like you, I am rarely surprised. Reckless and inconsiderate driving by motorists poses a far greater danger to other road users than does reckless and inconsiderate driving by bicyclists, but which group catches all the shit? Cyclists. That doesn’t make it right for cyclists to fail to obey the rules, but it is incredibly unfair.
Without addressing anyone specifically, there are some points to make.
Why ride a bicycle on public, high-speed roads?
Because I want to. I want to go to work, or to school, or to the store. Or I just want to go for a ride. These are perfectly acceptable reasons to use the roads.
Bike-specific facilities such as bike lanes and bike paths do not go everywhere I want or need them to. Furthermore, even if they did, I do not see such facilities as a solution. The fact remains that cyclists have the right to use the roads, that the roads may be shared safely by vehicles of different sizes and speeds, and that segregationist facilities do little to enhance the safety of bicyclists. It is in fact possible that they may do harm. Personally, I don’t think that bike lanes generally make me less safe, but they don’t make me more safe, either. In fact, laws that restrict me to use of the bike lane when there is one present are dangerous and foolhardy, as they effectively prevent me from taking necessary steps to protect myself under certain conditions. Another concern is the total lack of established standards and rules as to how bicycle lanes interact with normal vehicle lanes at intersections. No thank you. Bicyclists belong on the road, and they should stay on the road. There is no alternative. Same rights, same rules, same road.
Why inconvenience motorists?
Most of the “inconvenience” caused by cyclists is totally imaginary. I do not understand where the attitude of entitlement and right to proceed along the roads without ever slowing down comes from. Drivers must lose a few seconds to slow-moving grandmas, turning cars, merging traffic and so on, but just blow their tops when forced to wait ten seconds before swinging around a cyclist. Do construction vehicles have the right to use the road? They pose a considerably greater inconvenience than a cyclist, as they are far more difficult to safely pass, but do not drive much faster than cyclists, if at all. Oddly enough, I see no one demanding that construction vehicles never make use of public roads.
Believe it or not, cyclists are NOT out to inconvenience you. It’s not about YOU. They don’t care about YOU. In fact, no one cares about who YOU are or really cares about how YOU feel. Like most road users, cyclists just want to get where they are going as safely as possible. A conscientious cyclist (and they should all be conscientious) will seek not to delay other vehicles unless it is necessary to do so in order to protect their safety. For the record, riding somewhere else is not a reasonable option. Yes, there are assholes out there, and they suck. But there are considerably more of them driving cars, and those assholes pose a danger to your safety. The cyclist is just a dick.
Re: taxes and road maintenance - although, as already pointed out, this is irrelevant to use of the roads, I would point out that cars and trucks impose considerable wear and tear on the roads that they make use of. Bicyclists cause effectively zero road damage.
Regarding the question asked by another poster, no, I would not support mandatory licensing of bicyclists. Education, yes, but there is simply no good reason to require a license for use of a bicycle on public roads. Drivers must be licensed and cars insured because they pose a considerable risk to public safety and private investments (i.e. other cars). In spite of driver licensing and education, motorists are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and millions of dollars in property damage each year. Your typical dickhead cyclist poses a considerable risk to one person: his or her self. A couple of hundred cyclists die each year. Much of the time, I am sad to say, it is because they were not riding according to the rules of the road, or failed to act in a way to preserve their own safety.
I earnestly hope that we will come to feel that building a culture entirely around the private automobile has been foolish and misguided, but I’m not stupid. There is a place (and a need, unfortunately) for cars, but there is also a place for bicycles, and that’s on public roads.
I think that bike lanes are great because you can frankly move out of them whenever necessary, at least here in Colorado, but they certainly aren’t required to ride anywhere.
10mph on a major road with a posted limit of 40-50 mph? Yeah, you’d be an inconsiderate asshole alright. You shouldn’t even be there unless there was a wide enough shoulder for you to ride on. If you were doing it during rush hour you’d cause a slinky effect and all traffic would end up slowing down to a crawl.
Who’s the dumbass? She said that a considerate cyclist would move out of the way if they were travelling at 10mph to keep to a minimum the annoyance of those behind them. She didn’t say that vehicle shouldn’t be on that road in the first place. And in my experience cyclists are less than considerate.
