I would suggest a rather large cannister of pepper spray/mace would do you well, next time these fucksticks are planning one of their little parties.
No.
Fewer bicyclists on the road in not what we need.
Fewer assholes on bikes is*.
*-As well as fewer assholes driving and walking.
Sure enough, the moron bike-hating brigade comes out in the wake of a CM hate-on:
Why? Such regulation is not required.
Why? More regulation will not help anything.
Why? Bikes can do nowhere near the damage cars do.
Laughable. The number of scofflaws without licenses and insurance almost puts the system to ‘joke’ status.
I don’t think so. You just want bikes off the road. If all of these things were to be emplaced you’d find some other hinderance to them using the road.
Wonderful, another series of paths that go nowhere. Just what the cyclists of the world need.
This thread so far is a good example of why CM is necessary.
All of you are driving all the time, and you carry the same attitude of “I own the road, not you” all the time, and bikes have to deal with you whenever you are on the same road (I wouldn’t call what you do “share”).
For 2 to 3 hours a month out of 720, the tables are turned in a few places in America.
Let’s have a big pity party for the drivers.
I dodge your asshole moves all the time, and occasionally you hit me anyway.
I have been to numerous bike rider funerals where the driver was at fault, and did the driver ever show up to display respect for the deceased? Not once.
So if you have to look a little harder while at a stop sign to see if more bikes are coming, aww too bad. If you had to wait to see if more cars or trucks are coming, you wouldn’t be complaining.
Meantime, I promise you I will be taking the lane, in a crowd or by myself a lot more often then you might think, and if you are behind me, then too bad. I will be going pretty much the same speed as traffic, so too bad for you if you have to look at me. I am safer there then on the side of the road.
And if you are all so sure of yourself, maybe you can explain yesterday;s incident in Seattle where a van veered into the bike lane as to turn right (there are no witnesses alive to say if he signaled or not), the bike did the right thing to go left to go around him and continue straight, and the van decided to make a uturn to the left. Like I said, the only witness, on the bike is dead.
Is that what you guys really think is the right way to drive when there are bikes around?
Because if that is what you think is right, or if you ever find yourself driving that way, even if no bikes or even other gas vehicles are around, then, frankly, your opinion doesn’t count for much.
Or is it that you are all bluster here, but you drive like a gramma on a sunday drive after church all the time?
Just stay within the lines, don’t make any sudden moves, use your signals, and be aware what is around you, and so will we on bikes.
That is all anyone wants to achieve with CM.
Is it so much to ask?
Do you have information contrary to what is posted here, for example?
Many of us in this thread have professed to be cyclists. I’m a bike person that also has a car that happens to live in a bike-enthusiast town. There are pros everywhere this time of year training on the roads, so I’m on both sides. I know it can really frustrating and often infuriating to be a bike on a street, even on streets with bike lanes. Those things that you posted are not too much to ask.
But it is never necessary to blatantly flaunt road laws to make a point. I think it is dangerous to a stupid degree. 50 bikes against a car, and the car is still going to win. If you run red lights, breeze through stop signs, don’t yield, or attack and yell at cars in hordes in order to teach people a lesson about bicycles on roads, you are a moron who is hurting the cause and putting yourself in needless danger. (You in the general sense here, not you personally not_alice).
It is not going to make the cars think, “Hey! I should start using my signals to not hit bikes!” or suddenly give them an epiphany of safer driving. As I posted earlier, many cities have a Courteous Mass to counter the Critical Mass. These bikers follow all the road rules, and they manage to attempt to coexist with motorists. To me, this is a much better idea, because it presents a more realistic situation to motorists by a positive example. There are also many bike-oriented groups that try to spread auto-biker awareness, and I encourage people to join them. Purposely being a dick to drivers is not going to help anything.
Riding a bike on streets is dangerous enough without being needlessly inflammatory to people driving metal machines that can smash you in an instant.
I don’t know about where you live, but in MN roads are paid entirely by taxing automobiles. They paid for the roads so they do ‘own’ it. Someone that only rides a bike and doesn’t own a car pays $0.00 for the roads.
If bikes want to be treated the same as automobiles, start with the taxes. THEN we discuss how the two can coexist…if enough bike riders do register.
Hopefully when you get dusted, you won’t be hurt too bad. When you deliberately piss off people you cannot expect all of them to react with restraint.
This doesn’t make sense. I pay significantly more taxes than the majority of people in this country, but that doesn’t mean I ‘own’ significantly more of the United States military than the majority of people.
So non-car-owning pedestrians aren’t entitled to protection while on the roads either? That’s not a city I’d want to cross the street in.
Also, in my city, the roads aren’t paid for 100% by the taxes. So your logic actually defends the rights of cyclists to be treated like cars here. Thanks!
Yes.
Pedestrians should not walk down a busy highway taking up a lane.
Mainly because a truck or car comes a hell of a lot faster than a bike does, and if I have come to my full and complete stop, and I have what would normally be a safety margin for going with a car or truck in the distance, I might miss the biker with NO fucking lights on, no reflectivity and dressed in dark clothing…
I am also in favor of licensing bikes, and requiring insurance, and requiring safety gear. I almost got a biker last weekend at noght, no lights, dark clothing, no reflective gear, and only the little reflective doohikeys on pedals…
I dont have radar like a bat, and I dont see like an owl so how the fuck am I supposed to see that stealthed biker?
But they can certainly cross city streets, and in fact infrastructure was installed at great expense to ensure that they can do so, often at the inconvenience of taxpaying automobile drivers.
How does that jibe with your position that since automobile drivers pay for the roads, they “own” it? Why do non-car-owning pedestrians have the right to use the road safely, if non-car-owning cyclists do not?
Furthermore, you seem to support the position that cyclists should have the same rights as automobiles, as long as
- they are in your city and own automobiles (and therefore pay taxes), or
- they are in a city where roads are not supported 100% through car taxes
In future, these kinds of threads would go better if you would ensure to direct your ire specifically at those cyclists who live in your city and don’t own automobiles. That way, innocent and responsible cyclists won’t get tarred with your brush.
Thanks!
If bicyclists pay taxes to upkeep the roads, then hell yes, they have a right to the road. The state needs to either eliminate the taxes the bicyclists pay for roads or implement a true solution to allow bikes and cars to coexist. Taxing people for something and then not allowing/implementing them to use what they are taxed for is a crappy thing to do. In the same way, funding something like roads exclusively by taxing autos and then allowing other, nonpaying groups to screw things up is also a crappy thing to do.
Your pedestrian argument I have a hard time visualizing. First, I live in MN where people tend not to walk. Also, there needs to be intersections and I see pedestrians not adding any significant complexity since they cross at the light as well. If the problem of pedestrians crossing causes real problems and backups then that intersection should have a overhead walkway (which should not be funded exclusively by taxing autos). Minneapolis has a skywalk system that is awesome!
Do homeless people have a right to protection by the police?
Are you seriously comparing human life with whether bikes should be allowed to take up lanes of a busy highway?
No, I am seriously comparing your idiotic assertion that “I paid for this” is relevant when it comes to government provision of services.
Idiotic?
Idiocy is trying to equate bicyclists who don’t pay to support the road system not being allowed to take up lanes of a busy highway with homeless people not deserving police protection.
Completely different things…unless you are idiotic.
Where did I equate them?
I asked IF you thought homeless people should have police protection. It appears you do. It is therefore apparent that you believe in some circumstances whether a person pays for a government service is not relevant to whether they receive it.
The next stage is determining where you draw the line. Should people who don’t pay taxes be allowed to have their children educated, for example? I would think you would probably say yes. I would certainly hope so… How about using public libraries?
My point is that whining about there not being a bike tax, so they shouldn’t be on the roads isn’t such a winning argument as you seem to think it is.
As an aside, I would be very surprised to find out that the Minnesota road system is paid for in entirety out of auto taxes, that the money raised in such taxes is completely protected from other uses, that the road system makes no use of other forms of government funding, that it does not take advantage of the borrowing capacity of state and local government (thereby increasing the debt costs for all other projects), and, most importantly, even if this was the case today, that a net present value of all the investment in the past by public money into the road system that was not paid for by automobile taxes (including the value of the land on which the roads were built) has been repaid to the general fund out of automobile taxes and those taxes alone. It could be the case, but I doubt it. Even if it is, it is still a bloody stupid argument to make in the arena of provision of government services.
Awesome. Really. When I first saw the Critical Mass shin-dig, I thought it was a really cool way to raise awareness. Then we tried to get out of their way, because frankly, what they were doing seemed to be dangerous, and we thought it would be safer to, you know, not be driving behind them.
Trying to be courteous and all.
Then they decide to deliberately stage an accident. We were being careful. A guy who had been stopped, walked his bike into the path of our slowing car.
Bike advocacy? Yay. Even to the point of inconveniencing drivers a bit? Fine. But when you cause a wreck, on purpose, you’re a criminal.
Some (not all) semi truck drivers need to pay more attention. Would it be ok if I drive my car up in front of one and slammed on my brakes to make my point?