What is up with cyclists?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
41

Automobiles require more maintenance and construction per person, and I suspect per mile, for the roads. There isn’t a property tax on automobiles in Florida (and I suspect many other states.)

I don’t think a fair licensing fee for bicycles would be worth the resources it would take to collect it. Let’s say an average urban cyclist drives 2000 miles a year, which is probably an overestimate, that’s equivalent to at the most 40 gallons of gas considering their bicycle wears the road less than autos, which is the equivalent of around $20 in gas taxes.

Now, if there were a city that had fabulous support for bikes, at a bare minimum lots of physically separated bike lanes, I could see charging a $50 or so a year license fee to bike in the city.

42

Re: the one-way street. The cyclist in this case had a legal alternative to riding against traffic on the one-way street-- he could ride on the sidewalk, which is legal in that area.

Re: running red lights. It was not the case that no-one was crossing these intersections-- most of the examples I witnessed were cyclists running red lights when traffic in all directions was stopped for the pedestrian walk signs. This area also has very heavy pedestrian traffic, so there was a very real chance of hitting someone. Also, at many of these intersections, it is very difficult to make left turns, and it pretty much has to be done at the end of the yellow, so there are typically some cars left over in the intersection when all the lights are red. On one day, I almost witnessed a cyclist/car collision because a car turning left almost ran into a cyclist who had run the red. Pretty much every day, I run into a situation where I would have been mown down by a cyclist running the red if I hadn’t been more careful about checking that the intersection was clear before I started crossing the street.

Again, if the cyclist really wants to be on their way, they do have a legal option: they can get off and walk their bike through the intersection.

Also, I find your “it’s OK to break the rules because nobody gets hurt and it’s safer that way” argument dubious. Many traffic rules (such as “don’t run a red light”) prevent situations where the flow of traffic would result in a collision. They also increase safety by reducing the number of possible actions other vehicles can perform that the driver has to look out for. By disobeying traffic rules, you are reducing the safety margin for everyone. If you can’t ride safely and obey traffic rules, you shouldn’t be riding at all.

43

OK, before any more first stones get tossed.

Running Red Lights

Yes, many cyclists run red lights. I do not, but I can understand why some do.

Keep in mind that there is running a red light, where the cyclists stops, then proceeds because they can see that there isn’t a car coming for 3 blocks and then there is blowing red lights where they do not even stop. I consider the latter to be suicidal, the former I don’t consider to be too big of a deal but don’t do it myself.

Now, before you get all huffy let me note that cars certainly run red lights as well. They just do it differently: Most cities have red light cameras, they would not if there was not a problem. How many times have you drivers cleared an intersection as the light went from yellow to red and thought ‘phew, just made it!’ and then see 1/2 dozen cars in your rear-view mirror that also continued through the intersection, Or maybe you’ve watched those few extra cars at a light with a left turn light signal make the turn long after their light has ended? Oh, and there’s also the drivers who consider the ‘No Right Turn on Red’ signs to be a mere suggestion?

As to ‘why’ cyclists run red lights it is a combination of several things: save momentum (it takes much more effort, energy and sweat to start from a complete stop than to examine an intersection and go from a track stand), being nervous around so many cars who demonstrate they don’t have any idea where the right side of their car is (hence why so many states have introduced 3 & 4 foot passing laws) they try to get away as best they can. The last and probably biggest cause is that while drivers talk about cyclists riding legally, when they actually drive around legally driving cyclists they demonstrate their mindset is otherwise: A legally driving cyclist can often get more shit from drivers than a scofflaw cyclist. The irony is that the legally driving cyclist is actually much safer from harm (much of the driver abuse is just bluster), but if a cyclist gets all this abuse as their reward for good behavior they are going to think ‘why bother?’ and turn to more scofflaw antics.

And again, getting back on the ‘casting first stones’ part. Before we continue the typical SDMB hate-on on cyclists let’s not pretend that drivers are paragons of law abiding while cyclists are evil, deadly lawbreakers: How many drivers are yakking on their cell phones while driving, despite numerous studies showing that is worse than driving drunk? The answer is a lot. How many drivers speed? The answer is almost all of them in on any road that isn’t a residential street and many of those who are. Also there are stop-sign intersections in my city where I won’t cross as a pedestrian if I see any cars coming because I know drivers won’t stop at them. What’s up with drivers?

Idaho Stops

I am of mixed minds with regards to these laws. On the one hand, it would decriminalize a behavior that I won’t pretend is uncommon and can benefit cycling overall and puts the liability squarely on the cyclist when they do this. On the other hand vehicle is a vehicle (although, yes, trucks and other large vehicles have special rules) and rules should be consistent.

Bicycle Licenses

Of all the stupid ideas that come up every time a cyclist complaining thread gets started this one is the worst. You think any cycling license is going to even pay for the administration needed to run it? Don’t make me laugh, anyone who proposes a license for cyclists is just trying to get cyclists off the road. Anything they would pay beyond a penny would be overpaying for the infrastructure they use and out wear and tear on. Driver’s licenses don’t keep bad driver behavior in check, they just try to make sure that the driver isn’t going to kill a bunch of people with 2 ton machines that have been proven to be deadly.

Paying for the roads

Let’s make this clear: Cars do not pay for the roads. They.do.not. Don’t tell me your state is special, it is the same everywhere in the US. Gas taxes, license fees and car registration fees are lucky if they pay for 1/2 of the road’s costs. Usually it is much, much lower. The rest of those funds come from the general fund which we pay with property taxes and sales taxes. And yes, cyclists pay property tax despite what some bigots may say.

And if you were to introduce a bike license, would you treat cyclists any different? I doubt it, so why should any cyclist welcome this idea? ("Pay $25 more a year and still have drivers treat me like I have no right to be there? Sign me up!!!)

**Holier than Thou **

This is just an attitude complaint and is often just a straw man, but let me point this out: I am a cycling commuter. I ride to and from work. My use of a bike wasn’t done for some self-righteous reason, but because it was, overall much less of a hassle. I do not use fossil fuels (which, while environmentally friendly is more of a concern to me when gas is over $3 a gallon), don’t have to pay tolls (only a problem on certain job commutes, I’ll admit) and I get exercise that I need. The benefits others reap are that I am one less car on the road potentially bottlenecking the streets (despite the common complaint, in my experience cars slow me down much more than I slow them down) and one less parking space being used when I have jobs in areas where street parking is at a premium. This does mean that I wear spandex because I will be sweating - that does not make me a fucking ‘Tour de France wannabe’ it makes me someone who is wearing clothes to keep cool and are easy to clean of sweat.

Alright, maybe some more later. That’s enough for now.

44

I do think that the right to ride a bicycle thru certain parts of a city should require some sort of ID tag or license. If anything it will help stop bicycle thieves but the biggest is to help police identify bicyclists breaking the law and endangering others.

In our area as I’ve said the problem isnt bicyclists on streets its them on the bike/walking trails and its not always their fault because many walkers think its ok to take up the whole pathway or people walking their dogs have this long leash out creating a hazard.

45

Is anyone familiar with these “Critical Mass” bike runs in San Fransisco that cause problems?

46

Just how large a tag are you talking about?
And do you really believe that bicycle theft is a high priority for police?

47

I’m probably ok with the Idaho stop too, but right now, that is not the law. The law, at least where I am, is that they have to stop. Full stop. They don’t.

I almost hit a bicyclist last year, or more he almost hit me. I’m full stopped at a four way stop. It’s my turn to go. I see a bicyclist approaching the stop sign on my left, and I know with 99% certainty, that this bicyclist is not going to stop at the stop sign. For some reason, split second decision, I go anyway. Normally, I would just stay put, and give up my right of way to avoid problems. But, I proceed this time. Slowly, because, again, I’m pretty damn sure that this bicyclist is not going to stop. Bicyclist doesn’t stop until right next to the broad side of my car in the middle of the intersection, audibly (and profanely) pissed off at me.

I think the laws should be changed to allow bicyclists to proceed slowly through stop signs. If no other cars are around. But, right now, when I approach an intersection, I need to know which laws this particular bicyclist is following. Right now, it seems like it’s an individual decision.

48

You mean this critical mass? video

One can’t say this was just one guy. All of the bicyclists in this video are intentionally running red lights, riding the wrong way through traffic, and blocking and intimidating cars.

49

Why do you assume it’s only two and they’re being legal? Why do you assume that I resent their exercising? The exercising isn’t the problem. It’s the demonstrated lack of giving a damn about anyone else on the road.

The inconsiderate twits I’m speaking of ride 8 abreast – yes, I counted – and did so for half a mile, during rush hour, so all I got to see were their asses in their ridiculous outfits as they merrily blocked traffic while people who work in the two office parks on the road tried to get to their jobs. Hundreds are inconvenienced when they pull this crap.

(There is one, two-lane road here, with enough room on each side for bikes to ride single-file and not block traffic. If they had done so, I would’ve noted the cyclists’ presence and just carried on.)

Does this additional information change your response? :dubious:

Oh, and this comment you made makes it sound as if you think the cyclists should be vehicles when convenient (2 abreast in the 40-mph lane), and do what they want when convenient:

Wow, I’d like to have that kind of flexibility when driving!

50

I looked at the road in Google Earth. There is no shoulder or room for bikes in single file and be passed safely by traffic. Riding abreast prevents squeezing by and the more certain collision.

A typical rider can hit 15-20 mph easily for that half mile. You lost, at most, 1.5-2 minutes.

And if it’s during rush hour, I doubt that hundreds can go to the same destination on a one lane road and maintain the speed limit.

51

Hardly see any single speed riders around here. Way too many hills.

52

Riding on the sidewalk is unsafe for anyone riding at a pace beyond a slow jog. I don’t care what the law permits.

Obviously there are unsafe ways to run lights, but that doesn’t mean it is ALWAYS unsafe to do so.

Sometimes I do this, but I don’t wear cycling shoes. Shoes that clip in are not for walking.

You have to look out for people breaking traffic rules when you are walking, biking, or driving. You can’t just cruise on out into the intersection without looking just because the light is green or cross a road on foot without looking both ways just because you have a walk signal. I mean you can of course, but having had the right-of-way won’t make up for the fact that you are dead or maimed.

Many cities have added horrifically unsafe “bike lanes” post facto to existing roads–these lanes often disappear without warning, force cyclists to cross in front of cars turning right, etc. Probably after each intersection has resulted in a horrific accident someone will realize it needs to be corrected, but I refuse to be the victim of obeying bike laws. I ride defensively, yield when appropriate, use traffic signals to predict the behavior of those around me, while remaining alert and aware that the laws of physics are the ones that matter. I’ve never caused nor been involved in a bike accident, so my strategy is working.

53

The passengers generally do the throwing.

When I ride on a narrow road, I move near the center of my lane, because otherwise some jackass will try to force their way by, possibly resulting in my death. People don’t like having to pass me like I’m a car, but too bad. If these people were riding eight abreast in a lane and you find this upsetting, was it because you would otherwise have passed them within the lane had there been only two? Sounds pretty unsafe and selfish.

I think bicycles should be allowed to use the roads. I don’t care if some drivers are inconvenienced. We’re all inconvenienced sometimes–a delay of a few minutes is not an onerous burden for you to bear. Maybe you should leave yourself more time to reach your destination so you don’t get so angry about having to slow down.

54

Grumpy, normal etiquette is single file and as near to the right side as is safe to do so, if safe to do so. Note however: IF SAFE TO DO SO. Most locales have laws like Chicago’s which require an overtaking motorist will give “not less than 3 feet, when passing the bicycle or individual and shall maintain that distance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual.”

How often do you think it is, when I am riding as close to the right end edge as possible, as I usually am when I am bike commuting, that drivers give me three feet or more? How often do think it is that the side view mirror comes within inches of me, at 40 mph (okay net of 25 since I am averaging about 15 to 20). Give you hint, the first hardly ever happens.

What I should be doing is what AnaMen does. Unless a lane is clearly wide enough for a car to easily pass me within the lane with a 3 foot plus margin (meaning 14 feet wide or wider) I should ride in the center of the lane as doing otherwise is, perhaps more considerate, but less safe.

Again there are subjects that are getting conflated here.

Some bicyclists ride unsafely. They are idiots. Usually no helmet, swerve, often dark clothes and no lights, never signal, do not appreciate the risks they take flying through intersections. I am a driver and I hate these cyclists.

Some of us are very safety conscious. We wear our helmets and bright clothing, are well lit if it is not broad daylight, and very aware not only of the traffic around us but that despite our bright clothes and multiple lights some drivers do not perceive us (they are looking for cars and trucks and do not see that which they are not looking for) … and that some motorists feel that it is funny to engage in “a war” with cyclists as a group … not quite getting or at least not caring, that they are committing assault with a two ton deadly weapon. We don’t ride too far to the right side parking lane because we are fearful of parked car doors that suddenly open. And when we do ride as far to the right as is possible many cars literally brush past us instead of giving us the safe berth they could and are legally obligated to give.

Of this latter group some ignore laws that have no impact on safety. We will slow at a stop and if no traffic in either way will pedal through without coming even close to a complete stop. Yes that is treating a stop sign as a yield sign. And we will treat a stop light as a stop sign, going through it after coming to a full, or at least a near full, stop, if it is clearly safe to do so.

Theoretically we risk being ticketed for doing so but we are not risking our or anyone else’s safety.

Now there is room for debating the ethics of ignoring the law versus rigidly following it because well, it is the law. Not sure why I would stay sitting at a stoplight in my car at 3am on a deserted intersection with no traffic for miles but have no ethical problem proceeding through a red light after a near complete stop if there is no traffic on my bike. My guess is that it does have to do with less perceived risk of getting a ticket (even if I cannot see anywhere a cop could be in that 3 am scenario) and the additional “cost” of getting unclipped and coming to a complete stop on the bike. But hard to argue against my legal obligation to stay stopped even if safety is, if anything, diminished by it. (Crossing with a large group of cars going past me at my slowest as the light changes, when they have the least likelihood of having room to move over to their left at all, is less safe than getting ahead of that herd and being closer to speed of traffic when they approach.)

Putting the latter though, who treat red lights as stop signs and are, if anything, safer themselves and for motorists as well, as a result, with the former fly through group, is however confused.

55

If drivers want to whine about losing time behind cyclists (and the idea of losing time because of cyclists during rush hour as GrumpyBunny claims makes me laugh) then you do not want to bring that ledger up to me and compare it to my loss of time behind drivers, because you will be very, very deeply in debt.

Of course, losing time behind a slow moving car (one that is looking for a parking space or something) is something drivers have no problem dealing with, however if they have to wait behind a cyclist for 3 seconds their heads explode.

56

There was an incident in Toronto on Thursday involving a minor collision between a car and a bicycle in which no one was injured. The only reason it made the news is that the paragon of virtue emerged from the shield of self-righteousness long enough to reach in through the driver’s window, remove the keys, and throw them down the sewer drain. Then he cycled on.

Not that this is all that unusual. There was another incident not long ago when a cyclist attempted to attack a driver who had caused some offense, such as the crime of existing, and the driver I think ended up being charged because, fearing for his life, he tried to drive off with the screaming idiot clinging to his door.

Not that some drivers can’t be total assholes, too, and/or careless. But cyclists aren’t required to meet any standards at all and are rarely held to any. I’m certain that the key-throwing paragon of virtue in the above incident was astounded that he was stopped by police, and that they got a good dose of his righteous wrath.

57

Actually, it pretty much is.

If you are referring to the Michael Bryant incident then I would point out that incident was six years ago, the driver wasn’t an innocent angel and the striking point was not that the cyclist was a cyclist but a man struggling with rampant alcoholism.

Their negligence just tends to end in other people’s deaths.

Bull, for one thing there is no justice for bicyclist. Police won’t believe your accounts, D.A. almost never prosecute, and juries rarely convict a driver who kills a cyclist unless the driver is drunk.

58

FWIW I personally have had drivers intentionally pull up close behind me and blast their horns thinking it was funny to see me swerve and almost lose control, and others swerve in front of me as they pass trying to push me off the road. I guess my fluorescent green biking shirt and spandex padded bike shorts offended them. And my wife, not a cyclist, was intentionally run over by a driver upset over a parking spot conflict (ran over her ankle and caused a tibial plateau fracture in the process).

This is not scouring the internet for the occasional jerkwad cyclist who at worst dents a car, or in righteous road rage threw away someone’s keys. Being a cyclist is no immunization against being a jerk or mental illness but I see many more jerks and those with serious anger management issues behind the car wheel than on bicycles, and the danger they pose with their rage is much greater.

59

So your theory is that there’s something about being a cyclist that renders one’s testimony lacking in credibility, but the driver is always believed because … he owns a car! :rolleyes:

I’d like to propose a different theory. Maybe drivers aren’t prosecuted as often as you might like because drivers aren’t the guilty party as often as you might think. Let’s start with this:

This is not unusual. I know it’s not unusual because I see it myself. I see these freaking idiots riding unlit bikes wearing dark clothes along unlit country roads! As a law-abiding citizen with a flawless driving record I am frankly not happy about the prospect of one of these brainless loons with obviously zero knowledge of traffic safety being responsible for involving ME in a serious personal-injury accident with all its attendant legal consequences.

60

If you want example of a cyclist being an asshole I would think you could maybe have found a better example than the car driver making an illegal left turn and trying to kill the cyclist.
Hell if anything this is an example of how polite Canadians are. Here in the U.S. pull that shit and the guy you hit (bicyclist, motorcycle rider, car or truck driver) just might kick the living shit out of you on general principle.
I don’t know about you, but when somebody tries to kill me I take it personally.