I’ve been around long enough to know* that when a person brings up one of three ‘arguments’ he just wants bikes off the road, no matter what else he may claim. Those arguments are:
Bikes don’t pay, cars do. Therefore bikes have no right to the road. (Which is false)
Bikes need to be removed from roads with cars for ‘their own safety’ (nonsense)
Bikes need to be removed from the roads because they cause traffic problems (which is ludicrous as cars demonstrate they are capable of causing traffic on a scale bike couldn’t hope to cause)
So far, BlinkingDuck, you have invoked #1 and more recently #3. You’ve also hinted at #2 with your ‘separate facilities’ hogwash.
OK, bike advocate John Forrester actually noted these arguments and their fallaciousness in ‘Effective Cycling’ decades ago, but the point stands.
Yes…those are good arguments. However, I would amend #2 to say for their safety and to encourage others to bike ride you aren’t assholes (do not want to cause #3)
You really believe bikes should be removed from the roads because they cause traffic problems?
Eliminating some of the traffic to “solve traffic problems” seems counter-productive to me. But if we had to do it, why bicycles in particular? How about eliminating the vehicles that pollute the most (per passenger), or pose the greatest safety risk to others (e.g. revoke drivers licenses from those with poor safety records)? With fewer cars on the road, the remaining cars can maneuver around slower vehicles much more easily.
See, I think it’s perfectly fair for people to argue either of those points, as long as they then agree that a significant amount government expenditure for roads/highways should be diverted into building dedicated cyle roads. That would suit me down to the ground.
Failing that, then I’ll just count myself lucky to live in a country where the right of cyclists as a road user are well specified in the highway code, and thus I’m perfectly within my rights to cycle along pretty much any road other than a motorway.
True. We had an accident like that here, a college student was hit by an SUV and killed only a few blocks away from campus (and just down the road from my office).
In this case the driver admitted she was “glancing down” at her cell phone when her SUV struck the cyclist. No charges filed against the driver.
No, they are not good arguments. They are the excuses to get bikes off the road for no other reason that mostly imagined delays and rationalization for their own poor driving skills. As problems, they are entirely delusions dreamed up by selfish drivers to justify reducing or eliminating the rights of others so they can, at best, save a handful of seconds.
Bikes hardly cause traffic delays in comparison to cars. Every rush hour in America is a delay caused by cars, not by bicycles. Blaming cyclists for traffic in any way is like blaming a salad for making you fat after you wolfed down a 64 oz. steak.
Any such network of ‘bike paths’ is doomed to failure. The paths just do not have any way of going where all the roads go. California tried to force bike paths on riders in the 60’s & 70’s and it was mostly a major flop.
I’m not familiar with that attempt, so couldn’t really say I see why it failed.
What I will say is that most motorists I know who think that cyclists should not be allowed on main roads get apoplectic at the idea that billions should be spent building an alternative network for them.
But most motorists who support such a position are complete fucking idiots, frankly. They’re too stupid to see how encouraging many more people to cycle would benefit them. For instance, the easiest way to ease road congestion is to get more people cycling or using mass transport, thus making commuting more pleasant for those who still want to use a car. You’d think that would be a great incentive for car lovers to get behind cycle lanes and other such schemes.
But for some reason they prefer just to vent, splutter and moan. That’s why I have to conclude that they’re just depressingly stupid.
Agreed. Basically what these folks want is for cyclists to just magically go away. But that isn’t about to happen, and if it did traffic would not improve one bit. I don’t think its so much stupidity as it is plain old selfishness.
I also hate dangerous drivers but that is a subject for another thread,pitting ALL forms of idiocy on the road would result in too broad a subject for a reasonable debate.
As to your broad categorisation of drivers as in MOST only staring straight ahead I would remind you that MOST cars have something we call mirrors,this allows the motorist to see behind him.
As he also has at least side windows and his head is not restrained he can also see to the side.
Be honest now have you ever actually passed a driving test …ever.
And yes cars do go faster then bycycles but they usually have the braking power commensurate with their horsepower.
No I haven’t seen a motorist or passenger killed directly by a cyclist,that wasn’t my point at all.
But a motorist who swerves to avoid killing an idiot cyclist CAN kill someone else.
Did you actually read the part of my post about cyclistswho have never had an accident but have been the cause of many?
Or did you just not understand it,apologies if English isn’t your first language.
People who lack awareness or follow bad practices on the road fuck up more often then those who DO have awareness and follow good practices.
I’ll leave you to ask your friends in the playground this one as I’m an adult.
No my post is quite rational but I suspect that yourself and rationality aren’t on very close terms and I understand how confusing adult debate must be to someone of your undoubtedly limited intellect.
And once again my answer is NO,I do not hate certain cyclists for wearing certain types of clothing but I DO hate idiot,ignorant and arrogant cyclists who put other peoples lives and safety at risk and who as a general norm in my rather extensive experience tend to wear the outfits that I described upthread.
I hope to god that you do not drive any sort of vehicle(which seems likely judging by your ill informed ranting).
Or even cycle without trainer wheels(which sadly for us all I think is very likely)
Because if you get this hysterical because of your obvious embarassment about your fondness for wearing lycra without any logical reason, then I hate to think what a very real menace to other road users you must be when you’re out for the day with your care assistant and the medication has worn off.
I hope that I haven’t used too many long words for you,using the incoherancy of your post as a rough guide I have tried to make it as easy as possible for you to understand.
If you’re still having problems perhaps you ask teacher tomorrow to help you out with some of the grown up words after lessons.
I find this reply to be very amusing as you were the one who brought up the incident in the first place. What’s wrong? Does being called on not having all your facts together trigger a ‘Wah! You’re immature’ insults in place of a reasoned reply?
You may consider it a minor nitpick, but it says a lot about you that you don’t think of bicycles as vehicles. It’s a dangerous and incorrect mentality that endangers cyclists everywhere every day.
And since you chose to ignore my first question, I guess you can’t cite even one example where a driver swerved to avoid a cyclist and killed someone. (I certanly haven’t heard of such a case.)
Well, there was an incident in Bangalore last month. Authorities believe the speeding–and possibly drunk–driver swerved onto the sidewalk and mowed down five pedestrians in an attempt to avoid a cyclist. The cyclist was killed instantly and four of the pedestrians were DOA.
The driver ran off but surrendered 12 hours later.
I expect that you’re very easily amused,do you giggle to yourself in public places?
Haven’t I given you my loose change on several ocassions at your pitch outside the bus station toilets?
Your style certainly seems very familiar.
I dont know if its really worth my while replying to someone whos only posted because I’ve upset their boyfriend but I’ll make the attempt anyway.
Printchester brought up the absurd argument that as everyone in the world has made some sort of mistake at some time,and that there are dangerous people in motor vehicles and no doubt people who ride different kinds of bike or who are pedestrians that no one group (even if they are a recognisable sub section of traffic) or by her reasoning any individual should ever be castigated ever for endangering other peoples lives EVER.
I find that an infantile argument not worthy of refutation(Look it up,you’ve obviously lot a lot more time on your hands then the rest of us).
I DONT call that not having all of my facts at my fingertips.
I dont know what language you are reading in but the rest of us are posting in English.
Now perhaps you could get your crayons out before your nap.