Good point.
Fortunately, I see that threemae has saved the day and granted you a nice vitriol-filled BBQ Pit style argument. 
Because they, like pretty much all of humanity, are terrified by the drivers in Boston.
No, I get just as annoyed at dumbass/asshole motorists who do equally boneheaded and inconsiderate things. But that’s a topic for another rant.
Just as with trandallt’s comment, the fact that auto drivers can be assholes doesn’t give cyclists an excuse to be assholes too.
As well they should be. Fuck, it’s even worse to be a pedestrian (AKA “target”) in this town.
But at least at MIT there’s a nice crosswalk across Mass Ave. Gives the blind students a fighting chance.
Does anyone know what the laws actually say? Aren’t some roads restricted from cyclists? Aren’t there other special restrictions about riding abreast, hand signals, etc?
Aren’t roads paid for through gasoline taxes and are therefore designed primarily for cars? Since that is usually the case, aren’t cyclists taking advantage of what economists call an externality labeled “free ridership”, the use of a good or service for which they haven’t paid?
Or is it that other externalities such as pollution and congestion are offset by having the benefit of some cyclists on the road even though they aren’t paying for it?
I think I accidently switched into great debates mode.
Still, I have this image of Bosda as a fat cow. That made this thread worth opening.
Do you have statistics on how many cyclists don’t purchase gasoline? Many cyclists, especially the ones people love to bitch about (spandex-covered road-bike riding weanies riding together), own cars and purchase gasoline for them.
One difficulty is that there is no pathway designed specifically for bicycles. Cars get roads and feet get sidewalks but bikes have to muddle through using a combination of the two.
When I was visiting Denmark, one thing that impressed me was the number of urban bike paths. Perhaps if gas becomes prohibitvely expensive this is something we might see in the States. (Not holding breath.)
Yeah, but were one to make the gas tax argument, that would be irrelevant. Their gas purchases would pay for their use of the roads while they were driving their cars. They’d still be getting a free ride (so to speak) while using their bikes.
Agree with the OP, mostly.
I’m a big cycler, but cyclists as a group don’t follow traffic laws. They want it both ways - you can bike without a license, and don’t feel they have to obey traffic lights, lane changing laws, etc., but expect drivers to treat them as fully-privileged traffic.
Me failed English? That’s unpossible!
Apologies for the tense and person switching in the post above as I tried to post while distracted.
Ahem.
But who do I voo-doo? Absolute or cards ? 
BTW, Absolute. You wouldn’t happen to drive a white pickup, would you? Hmmmm? :dubious:
I have motorcycled all over the North East, the only time I thought I was somewhere I shouldn’t be was in one of the tunnels in Boston.
What made me think of this was that I’ve joked it’s a good thing the throttle is on the right hand grip. Otherwise in Boston I had the urge to politely slap a few bicyclists on the head going by and shouted watch where the fuck you are going!
Other than then and there I have no problem with those “other” biker types.
Sorry for the hijack, but I just got home from work (never expected this gorgeous biking weather in January) and this mini-rant seems appropriate:
ARGGGHHH !!! To the asshole in front of me: turn signals are NOT OPTIONAL!
If I’m behind you, and you’re turning, please believe me that nothing would make me happier than to pass you on the safe side. If you’re turning right, I’d really like to pass you on the left. If you’re turning left, I’d be thrilled to pass you on the right.
If you don’t signal, but I know you’re turning (because going straight through isn’t an option), what you are actually doing is making me wait behind you for you to do whatever you’re doing. Because if I guess wrong, and pass you on the right when you’re turning right, I’m screwed, and you get all mad and end up ranting to your friends about stupid fucking cyclists who never watch where they’re going. Please try not to be any more of an obstacle than you have to.
Oh yes, and to fuckwad city planners: You know those stoplights, the ones where major streets meet minor streets, where the green on the minor only changes when (a) someone presses the button or (b) a car stops over the sensor?
What the hell is a cyclist supposed to do? Options: (1) Jump up on the sidewalk and press the button (illegal and potentially unsafe). (2) Wait for a break in traffic and run the red through the intersection (likewise, but usually the most expedient option). (3) Dismount, park or walk bike, walk to button and press it, walk bike back to street, mount, wait. (Can you imagine an intersection that an automobile couldn’t pass through until the driver got out of his/her car and pressed a button? Neither can I.)
Phew. Thank you. I feel better.
The thing some cyclists do that I notice most frequently is riding at night with no lights. It’s startling and disturbing to be making a left turn on a dark night, when suddenly you dimly perceive a bicycle whizzing around your front left fender because you didn’t realize it was coming. You think, but for the grace of Og you would have a the blood of a dead cyclist on your conscience. And if that happened, people would naturally tend to blame the person with a car rather than the cyclist.
As for the stuff mentioned by the OP, I agree it’s really aggravating, but I very rarely see it. However, a few years ago there was an organization called Critical Mass that used to intentionally ride in large numbers, on major thoroughfares an at peak times, to tie up traffic. They usually succeeded.
Well, it was GaWd who put that image in my mind, so maybe you should smite him.
No, no, no. You’re conflating two issues. FIRST, your assertion that bicyclists should be glad they’re allowed to use the roads at all is dead wrong. THAT’S what the reponse was about. Bicycles SHARE the road with cars; they have every bit as much right to be there as the cars do.
SECOND, is your complaint about bicycles blocking entire lanes, riding 2 abreast, and weaving - an entirely different matter. That’s a legitimate complaint; they DO NOT have the right to do that. The law requires them to ride as far to the right as practicable. If they are obeying the law, it shouldn’t be irritating or disruptive for you.
There IS a happy medium between “not allowed to use the road at all”, and “completely blocking all automobile traffic”.
[QUOTE=Absolute]
No, I get just as annoyed at dumbass/asshole motorists who do equally boneheaded and inconsiderate things.
[QUOTE]
This isn’t about equally annoying or inconsiderate things. You want to whine about wasted time, then whine about all the assholes blocking the road with their cars next time you are part of a traffic jam.
Why get your panties in a twist over the 10 seconds some inconsiderate ass on a bike waste for you? Next time he slows you up it may be with a Yukon XL turning left in front of you on the off ramp. Would you prefer that?
I suppose you think there’s a 1:1 correlation between the gas taxes you pay and the cost of surfacing the roads you use…
:rolleyes:
To be more polite, I should point out that the funds for maintaining streets and the like come from far more diverse sources than merely gasoline taxes. I doubt there has ever been a bicyclist (excluding homeless people), in the history of roadways in the U.S., who didn’t somehow contribute significant tax dollars to road surfacing. How much wear and tear on streets is contributed by bicycles, anyway?
Furthermore, expecting that only people who pay a certain kind of tax should be permitted to use a particular service is idiotic.
I’ll grant that both cars and bikes legally have the same right to be on the road, but do you really think that the two are on equal footing? People riding bikes outside of cities are doing it for exercise or entertainment, not for basic transportation. The only reason they’re allowed to use public roads for their fun is because the government says, in effect, “who are they hurting?” But I don’t think it would be unreasonable for a small town or county, faced with such colossal bicycling assholes as Critical Mass that Spectre mentioned, to ban bicycles from its roads (not that I think this would ever happen, or would advocate doing so).
That was what I meant when I said that bicyclists should be glad they’re allowed to use the roads. Roads are intended and designed for use by motorized vehicles, and bicycles are permitted on them with the expectation that they won’t get in the way too much. Insofar as cars and bikes have a “right” to be on the road, bikes have a much weaker right than cars.
I’m not talking about ten seconds, and I don’t think anyone else is either. I’m not that excitable.
It takes a combination of circumstances to pass a cyclist safely. Not only does there have to be a gap in oncoming traffic, but you need to be in a passing zone, or have reasonable visibility of the road ahead (if you’re the type to pass in non-passing zones). On certain roads near me, it’s possible to be stuck behind a cyclist for several minutes or more if you’re particularly unlucky, and the guy is a real jerk.
Don’t know what you mean by “equal footing”. As I said, they have an equal right to use the road.
False.
False.
That makes no sense. You find the idea of banning all bicyclists because some bicyclists held up traffic to be reasonable? By that logic, we should ban all cars because some kids drag race on Saturday nights.
That’s real progressive thinking. We have a mode of transportation that uses no fuel and creates no air pollution, and you think it reasonable to ban them.:rolleyes:
Do you have a cite for that? Because I assure you that is incorrect. Maybe that’s your problem - you don’t understand how the rules of the road are supposed to work, hence your frustration when things don’t work in the imaginary way you think they should.
Sorry, that is false.