Biking to work doesn't feel like an option for me at all, since I work on top of a mountain and have no desire to get into good enough shape to do that every day. Plus it rains here so much... However, I still live car free, and would encourage anybody who can possibly manage that to do the same, or, if that's not possible, to use their cars as infrequently as they possibly can. I do think people should change their thinking, so that ultimate convenience isn't always the top priority.
And when I first moved to Oregon, the cycling infrastructure made my wife and I owning just one car a no brainer. There was a stand alone bike path that covered about 90% of the distance from my apartment to where I worked.
for you guys who bike to work, don't you sweat? so when you finally get to work don't you smell? this is why i wouldn't bike to work.
I bike 6 miles to work daily 7-8 months of the year. I wear proper bike gear when cycling so yes I sweat, even on cold days. I always have a change of clothes and the usual body odor stuff to use after cycling. But, like many businesses in Colorado, my work has a full shower for me to use if I need it.
Biking to work doesn't feel like an option for me at all, since I work on top of a mountain and have no desire to get into good enough shape to do that every day. Plus it rains here so much... However, I still live car free, and would encourage anybody who can possibly manage that to do the same, or, if that's not possible, to use their cars as infrequently as they possibly can. I do think people should change their thinking, so that ultimate convenience isn't always the top priority.
And when I first moved to Oregon, the cycling infrastructure made my wife and I owning just one car a no brainer. There was a stand alone bike path that covered about 90% of the distance from my apartment to where I worked.
for you guys who bike to work, don't you sweat? so when you finally get to work don't you smell? this is why i wouldn't bike to work.
Not much in the morning. The summers are really dry and it cools down enough overnight, usually into the 40s where I am now.
Agreed, first thing in the morning. It's only half an hour for me; not enough to make me sweat, and I don't usually feel like powering in. Coming home is different, and the weekend rides are different too.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
Don't worry GF president bafoon will make sure we have enough oil for all of us ...
this is not what this thread was about but........ this is the United States of America, a country where even a closet muslim can gather enough fools to vote for him not once but twice....some folks just don't pay attention.
I watched The Birth of a Nation on the plane a few days back and was reminded of that ugly past in your country's history. F**k I wanted to smack a few characters in that show. Ignorant, ugly, cruel, and despicable human beings.
I see that shameful past hasn't completely dissipated.
Yee haw.
Did you see your president shit his pants on the golf course? Did you even see your president on the golf course (it's not hard... he's there all the time doing presidential stuff lol)?
Biking to work doesn't feel like an option for me at all, since I work on top of a mountain and have no desire to get into good enough shape to do that every day. Plus it rains here so much... However, I still live car free, and would encourage anybody who can possibly manage that to do the same, or, if that's not possible, to use their cars as infrequently as they possibly can. I do think people should change their thinking, so that ultimate convenience isn't always the top priority.
And when I first moved to Oregon, the cycling infrastructure made my wife and I owning just one car a no brainer. There was a stand alone bike path that covered about 90% of the distance from my apartment to where I worked.
for you guys who bike to work, don't you sweat? so when you finally get to work don't you smell? this is why i wouldn't bike to work.
I carry one of these in my hydration pack if I bike to work.
Biking to work doesn't feel like an option for me at all, since I work on top of a mountain and have no desire to get into good enough shape to do that every day. Plus it rains here so much... However, I still live car free, and would encourage anybody who can possibly manage that to do the same, or, if that's not possible, to use their cars as infrequently as they possibly can. I do think people should change their thinking, so that ultimate convenience isn't always the top priority.
And when I first moved to Oregon, the cycling infrastructure made my wife and I owning just one car a no brainer. There was a stand alone bike path that covered about 90% of the distance from my apartment to where I worked.
for you guys who bike to work, don't you sweat? so when you finally get to work don't you smell? this is why i wouldn't bike to work.
Yeah, that's a another reason I would never commute on a bike, unless it was just a quick ride with no hills. I would indeed sweat (if I could even cycle up the mountain in the first place), and that doesn't work for me. I could shower at the campus gym, but I'm not willing to do that after getting to work. My hair has to be blow-dried, make up, etc.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Biking to work doesn't feel like an option for me at all, since I work on top of a mountain and have no desire to get into good enough shape to do that every day. Plus it rains here so much... However, I still live car free, and would encourage anybody who can possibly manage that to do the same, or, if that's not possible, to use their cars as infrequently as they possibly can. I do think people should change their thinking, so that ultimate convenience isn't always the top priority.
And when I first moved to Oregon, the cycling infrastructure made my wife and I owning just one car a no brainer. There was a stand alone bike path that covered about 90% of the distance from my apartment to where I worked.
for you guys who bike to work, don't you sweat? so when you finally get to work don't you smell? this is why i wouldn't bike to work.
Yeah, that's a another reason I would never commute on a bike, unless it was just a quick ride with no hills. I would indeed sweat (if I could even cycle up the mountain in the first place), and that doesn't work for me. I could shower at the campus gym, but I'm not willing to do that after getting to work. My hair has to be blow-dried, make up, etc.
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Yeah, what is the point of riding a bike if you are stuck in traffic jams like everyone else? I totally do understand the frustrations of drivers when it comes to cyclists though, and I don't even drive a car. As a pedestrian, I see SO many cyclists who just don't give a fuck about drivers or rules of the road that apply to cyclists. On the other hand, I have also seen drivers behave so dangerously - they often don't even seem to be driving with their eyes open, don't check their blind spots, open their car doors into bike lanes without looking, etc. This war between cyclists and drivers has to end, lol. Everyone just seems pissed off. As for dedicated bike lanes... well, that is a more complicated topic than some would like to believe. Yes, they are great and so much safer... on the other hand, building them can severely impact local businesses because of the loss of street parking and changes in traffic patterns. Local governments should be a lot more careful about bike lane initiatives than they are IMO. That doesn't mean there should be fewer bike lanes. Just that the consultation process in many cities is sorely lacking, and I don't think many cities use enough imagination when planning such projects.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
it's a constant fight to just get dedicated bike lanes in Winnipeg. the sheer amount of hate from the general public towards cyclists is incredible.
With pretty much anything, it's the annoying 10% that give the whole group a bad rep. I imagine the ones that hate cyclist picture the annoying ones, the ones that ride on the edge of the bike lane so you're afraid to pass, or don't even bother to hug the shoulder when there isn't a bike lane making it impossible to pass. I definitely get my share of frustration with bikers. In my experience it's the serious bikers who are the worst. Which is unfortunate because then it does impede on a city from being more bike friendly. It can get very annoying when you cross paths with a clueless biker. And everyone I know who has that hate towards bikers it's because of scenarios like that, and nothing to do with the concept of biking.
Usually there's good reason to not be fully in the bike lane. There can be glass or some other crap in it, or it can run alongside parked cars, whose drivers open their doors without looking. And not riding as far right as possible is often done to avoid drivers attempting to squeeze between the cyclist and the center lane. If you've been passed by a driver by about 10 inches, you'll understand why they do this. When there's room to pass safely, then they'll be room to pass. Drivers also attempt to do the hole shot between the oncoming car and the cyclist.
Of course there's reasons to leave the bike lane. I'm talking about those who go the whole stretch of the road without ever using it. That would be a lot of broken glass. I don't mind the biker who has to move around an object. But if you're going to ride your bike in the middle of the lane like your a car, but instead drive 12 mph in a 30 zone then they are the ones who make people anti bikers
it's a constant fight to just get dedicated bike lanes in Winnipeg. the sheer amount of hate from the general public towards cyclists is incredible.
With pretty much anything, it's the annoying 10% that give the whole group a bad rep. I imagine the ones that hate cyclist picture the annoying ones, the ones that ride on the edge of the bike lane so you're afraid to pass, or don't even bother to hug the shoulder when there isn't a bike lane making it impossible to pass. I definitely get my share of frustration with bikers. In my experience it's the serious bikers who are the worst. Which is unfortunate because then it does impede on a city from being more bike friendly. It can get very annoying when you cross paths with a clueless biker. And everyone I know who has that hate towards bikers it's because of scenarios like that, and nothing to do with the concept of biking.
Usually there's good reason to not be fully in the bike lane. There can be glass or some other crap in it, or it can run alongside parked cars, whose drivers open their doors without looking. And not riding as far right as possible is often done to avoid drivers attempting to squeeze between the cyclist and the center lane. If you've been passed by a driver by about 10 inches, you'll understand why they do this. When there's room to pass safely, then they'll be room to pass. Drivers also attempt to do the hole shot between the oncoming car and the cyclist.
Of course there's reasons to leave the bike lane. I'm talking about those who go the whole stretch of the road without ever using it. That would be a lot of broken glass. I don't mind the biker who has to move around an object. But if you're going to ride your bike in the middle of the lane like your a car, but instead drive 12 mph in a 30 zone then I'm going to treat you like a car and cut you off when I get the chance.
Which touches on a big problem. The sense of driver entitlement and lack of responsibilty. If you're moving 4000 lbs in a space shared with vulnerable users, you carry a greater responsibilty of safety. If someone is making you slower than you want to go, you don't get a pass on your responsibilties.
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
it's a constant fight to just get dedicated bike lanes in Winnipeg. the sheer amount of hate from the general public towards cyclists is incredible.
With pretty much anything, it's the annoying 10% that give the whole group a bad rep. I imagine the ones that hate cyclist picture the annoying ones, the ones that ride on the edge of the bike lane so you're afraid to pass, or don't even bother to hug the shoulder when there isn't a bike lane making it impossible to pass. I definitely get my share of frustration with bikers. In my experience it's the serious bikers who are the worst. Which is unfortunate because then it does impede on a city from being more bike friendly. It can get very annoying when you cross paths with a clueless biker. And everyone I know who has that hate towards bikers it's because of scenarios like that, and nothing to do with the concept of biking.
Usually there's good reason to not be fully in the bike lane. There can be glass or some other crap in it, or it can run alongside parked cars, whose drivers open their doors without looking. And not riding as far right as possible is often done to avoid drivers attempting to squeeze between the cyclist and the center lane. If you've been passed by a driver by about 10 inches, you'll understand why they do this. When there's room to pass safely, then they'll be room to pass. Drivers also attempt to do the hole shot between the oncoming car and the cyclist.
Of course there's reasons to leave the bike lane. I'm talking about those who go the whole stretch of the road without ever using it. That would be a lot of broken glass. I don't mind the biker who has to move around an object. But if you're going to ride your bike in the middle of the lane like your a car, but instead drive 12 mph in a 30 zone then they are the ones who make people anti bikers
The cyclist has just as much right to the lane as the motorist. That's the law. Besides, it is much more dangerous for the cyclist to hug the shoulder. That's where rocks and other debris collect, which could cause a cyclist to wreck and be laying in the road. Then you come up like barney badass and run over their body. Look, if a cyclist is using the road lane, a simple honk of the horn to alert them you'd like to pass is all it takes. And I don't mean laying on the horn, a short, simple beep suffices. Like I previously said, it takes zero to little effort to not be a dick behind the wheel of a passenger vehicle.
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
Yeah, what is the point of riding a bike if you are stuck in traffic jams like everyone else? I totally do understand the frustrations of drivers when it comes to cyclists though, and I don't even drive a car. As a pedestrian, I see SO many cyclists who just don't give a fuck about drivers or rules of the road that apply to cyclists. On the other hand, I have also seen drivers behave so dangerously - they often don't even seem to be driving with their eyes open, don't check their blind spots, open their car doors into bike lanes without looking, etc. This war between cyclists and drivers has to end, lol. Everyone just seems pissed off. As for dedicated bike lanes... well, that is a more complicated topic than some would like to believe. Yes, they are great and so much safer... on the other hand, building them can severely impact local businesses because of the loss of street parking and changes in traffic patterns. Local governments should be a lot more careful about bike lane initiatives than they are IMO. That doesn't mean there should be fewer bike lanes. Just that the consultation process in many cities is sorely lacking, and I don't think many cities use enough imagination when planning such projects.
I work on Palm Beach Island about a mile south of the southern White House. Four days out of the week I ride five miles to work which is far better than trying to drive those miles past Mar a Lago. The PB sheriffs allows bicyclists through to travel north of the SWH but not cars unless you're a resident in the area. I'm lucky I live and work south of there. On longer cycling rides I'll ride north up there just to see how pissed off motorists gets when the President Trump is in town. Which by now you'll know he's been down here at least 5-6 times making life miserable for lots of folks on the island.....Rich folks, really rich folks. Come down all you want in the summer all the rich snowbirds are long gone with far less people in and around town. Hopefully his wife will be with then and he won't want come down here as often.....Its TOO DAMN HOT then!
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
If a pass is dicey, then there shouldn't be a pass. They should only happen when it's safe.
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.
Exactly. It's one of the reasons I use my bike so frequently.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.
I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.
Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.
I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.
Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?
That is why Mayor Moonbeam is on a massive bike lane kick. It is thought by many to be his main concern, which is kind of funny to me. The city has evolved a lot in terms of cycling since you were an undergrad, and that includes changes to traffic patterns to accommodate cyclists on the kinds of routes you're talking about.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.
I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.
Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?
That is why Mayor Moonbeam is on a massive bike lane kick. It is thought by many to be his main concern, which is kind of funny to me. The city has evolved a lot in terms of cycling since you were an undergrad, and that includes changes to traffic patterns to accommodate cyclists on the kinds of routes you're talking about.
Okay fair enough.
When I'm there these days though... 1st avenue is unrideable and 10th leading into and out of the university is as well. Am I wrong here? My suggestion for these routes is the side routes instead.
Remember... I only offer what I did as food for thought. Many cyclists feel he roads were designed for them and forget the facts that driving is stressful, congested, and not all drivers will respect them the way they should (there's a ton of cyclists who have been hit by cars that can testify to this). Further, many cyclists feel they don't have to be courteous as well- which prompted the 'don't make them pass you again' comment.
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.
I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.
Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?
That is why Mayor Moonbeam is on a massive bike lane kick. It is thought by many to be his main concern, which is kind of funny to me. The city has evolved a lot in terms of cycling since you were an undergrad, and that includes changes to traffic patterns to accommodate cyclists on the kinds of routes you're talking about.
Okay fair enough.
When I'm there these days though... 1st avenue is unrideable and 10th leading into and out of the university is as well. Am I wrong here? My suggestion for these routes is the side routes instead.
Remember... I only offer what I did as food for thought. Many cyclists feel he roads were designed for them and forget the facts that driving is stressful, congested, and not all drivers will respect them the way they should (there's a ton of cyclists who have been hit by cars that can testify to this). Further, many cyclists feel they don't have to be courteous as well- which prompted the 'don't make them pass you again' comment.
Well they aren't done yet, and the Commercial Drive/1st Ave area is next on the "hit list", which is REALLY pissing of the people who live and work in the neighborhood. Anyway, just FYI, public transit and bike routes are a HUGE hot button issue in Vancouver now. There are so many opponents to bike lanes, and so many supporters, and then there is the whole public transit strategy... they are putting an underground skytrain line out to UBC next BTW.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.
I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.
Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?
That is why Mayor Moonbeam is on a massive bike lane kick. It is thought by many to be his main concern, which is kind of funny to me. The city has evolved a lot in terms of cycling since you were an undergrad, and that includes changes to traffic patterns to accommodate cyclists on the kinds of routes you're talking about.
Okay fair enough.
When I'm there these days though... 1st avenue is unrideable and 10th leading into and out of the university is as well. Am I wrong here? My suggestion for these routes is the side routes instead.
Remember... I only offer what I did as food for thought. Many cyclists feel he roads were designed for them and forget the facts that driving is stressful, congested, and not all drivers will respect them the way they should (there's a ton of cyclists who have been hit by cars that can testify to this). Further, many cyclists feel they don't have to be courteous as well- which prompted the 'don't make them pass you again' comment.
Well they aren't done yet, and the Commercial Drive/1st Ave area is next on the "hit list", which is REALLY pissing of the people who live and work in the neighborhood. Anyway, just FYI, public transit and bike routes are a HUGE hot button issue in Vancouver now. There are so many opponents to bike lanes, and so many supporters, and then there is the whole public transit strategy... they are putting an underground skytrain line out to UBC next BTW.
I'm all in favour of everything you have described here.
Vancouver congestion is brutal. Anything to ease the constriction on antiquated infrastructure is a step in the right direction.
I loved it there, but the traffic was so brutal I had to leave. Every time I come back, the tension begins to build in me. The routes leading into Vancouver from the east are at least 10,000X better. Man, I can remember sitting in Langley with traffic in both lanes at a standstill. four hours before a concert and you're wondering to yourself, "I wonder if I gave myself enough time?"
In fact, last year I got stuck on Capilano Drive as people tried to go over the Lion's Gate Bridge. My gawd... I thought I'd seen the worst it could be. I was wrong.
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.
If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.
I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
In the example, the cyclist's average speed is faster than the driver's. So maybe let the faster vehicle lead the way? Edit: or at least they are at the same average speed.
Play this out and no it's not. It's only for a moment in the journey. The car keeps passing the cyclist and eventually leaves it in well behind. The cyclist gains when the car gets stopped behind other cars only to become something to negotiate again.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
That depends on the traffic. In a lot of cities, no car is moving faster than a bike during long periods of the day, depending on the location.
I cycled for three years throughout Vancouver doing my undergraduate at UBC. The roads are extremely narrow with no shoulders. Passing a cyclist can only occur when ther is a gap in the left lane so that the car in the right lane passing the cyclist can veer into the left lane to get by the cyclist on the right.
Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?
That is why Mayor Moonbeam is on a massive bike lane kick. It is thought by many to be his main concern, which is kind of funny to me. The city has evolved a lot in terms of cycling since you were an undergrad, and that includes changes to traffic patterns to accommodate cyclists on the kinds of routes you're talking about.
Okay fair enough.
When I'm there these days though... 1st avenue is unrideable and 10th leading into and out of the university is as well. Am I wrong here? My suggestion for these routes is the side routes instead.
Remember... I only offer what I did as food for thought. Many cyclists feel he roads were designed for them and forget the facts that driving is stressful, congested, and not all drivers will respect them the way they should (there's a ton of cyclists who have been hit by cars that can testify to this). Further, many cyclists feel they don't have to be courteous as well- which prompted the 'don't make them pass you again' comment.
No, cyclists don't forget that driving is stressful and not all drivers will respect them. We live that every day. It's far more stressful being in traffic and knowing that if you get hit you're seriously injured at best, or killed at worst, compared to how the car driver will fare.
Yes, both sides need to be courteous and obey the rules of the road; however, drivers need to lose the assumption that the road is for them and the other vehicles (like bikes) aren't real vehicles and just need to get out of their way.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.
If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.
I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.
I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.
In short...
1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business). 2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed. 3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.
If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.
I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.
If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.
I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.
I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.
In short...
1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business). 2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed. 3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.
If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.
I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.
Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.
Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.
If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.
I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.
I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.
In short...
1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business). 2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed. 3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.
If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.
I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.
Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.
Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?
Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.
I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
For cyclists sharing the road... if a car passes you, then it hits a red light ahead of you, don't pass the car using the shoulder so that it has to pass you again.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
For motorists sharing the road, how about no? Does no work for you? I ride my bike in the city because I can get around faster than a car. I'm not slowing down to suck your exhaust fumes. So, no.
Not a fantastic attitude. 'No' doesn't work for me. You'd be stopped at the light too and now... to gain :08 seconds... you want the motorist to negotiate around you again on a tight road.
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
Why do you need to negotiate around the cyclist? Motorists don't share the road with cyclists, we're not some inferior charity case method of transportation. Cyclists own the road as much as motorists do.
If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.
I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.
I described the situation above in another post. Read more carefully.
In short...
1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business). 2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed. 3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.
If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.
I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.
Slow cyclists don't back up traffic. Slow cyclists are traffic.
Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?
Yup. Nobody using the roads has the right to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. On a two lane highway if you are impeding more than 5 vehicles, you are required to pull over in my state. And the notion of a bike getting to overtake a car at a stop by passing on the shoulder on the right tells me that some bike riders think that they have some extra-legal right to not only be treated as a vehicle for purposes of driving laws, but also to be exempt from some of those same laws (like multiple vehicles occupying 1 lane at the same time, and passing on the shoulder) that bother them. If you're catching and overtaking cars by passing them on the right at a stoplight, and then requiring them to legally overtake you because you're impeding the flow of traffic, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. In addition to driving cars I ride motorcycles, practice situational awareness and defensive driving regardless of what vehicle I am using, am aware and courteous to bikes (both motorized and non) as well as other cars. But if a cyclist wants to play chicken while I'm in my car, I'm going to win the physics game every time. So if you, as a cyclist, are creating an adversarial relationship with drivers of motorized vehicles around you, you do so at your own peril.
I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.
Well thanks, man. I can't respond any better than what you have here.
For a second... I was beginning to think I was in left field.
Comments
I wear proper bike gear when cycling so yes I sweat, even on cold days. I always have a change of clothes and the usual body odor stuff to use after cycling.
But, like many businesses in Colorado, my work has a full shower for me to use if I need it.
You don't make up much time and ultimately, the driver has to pass you again which begins to generate frustration among motorists towards cyclists.
I see that shameful past hasn't completely dissipated.
Yee haw.
Did you see your president shit his pants on the golf course? Did you even see your president on the golf course (it's not hard... he's there all the time doing presidential stuff lol)?
Sheesh (lol).
I totally do understand the frustrations of drivers when it comes to cyclists though, and I don't even drive a car. As a pedestrian, I see SO many cyclists who just don't give a fuck about drivers or rules of the road that apply to cyclists. On the other hand, I have also seen drivers behave so dangerously - they often don't even seem to be driving with their eyes open, don't check their blind spots, open their car doors into bike lanes without looking, etc. This war between cyclists and drivers has to end, lol. Everyone just seems pissed off. As for dedicated bike lanes... well, that is a more complicated topic than some would like to believe. Yes, they are great and so much safer... on the other hand, building them can severely impact local businesses because of the loss of street parking and changes in traffic patterns. Local governments should be a lot more careful about bike lane initiatives than they are IMO. That doesn't mean there should be fewer bike lanes. Just that the consultation process in many cities is sorely lacking, and I don't think many cities use enough imagination when planning such projects.
I don't mind the biker who has to move around an object. But if you're going to ride your bike in the middle of the lane like your a car, but instead drive 12 mph in a 30 zone then they are the ones who make people anti bikers
For the record, I'm speaking to the situation where the lane is shared with motorist and cyclist- with no shoulder. The lanes are not extra wide and a cyclist slows down all traffic behind them. This is the situation in our city in many places where wide sidewalks are in place but no shoulder.
I'm not going to argue this. If people feel that motorists should suck it up and renegotiate the inevitable dicey pass again then fine. We can agee to disagree. Remember... I'm an advocate for cyclists. I want harmony on the road.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Is it your (and Beaver's) expectation that a cyclist will determine the speed of the right hand lane- ultimately slowing traffic and backing everything up so that a cyclist can have the right of way regardless of speed?
When I'm there these days though... 1st avenue is unrideable and 10th leading into and out of the university is as well. Am I wrong here? My suggestion for these routes is the side routes instead.
Remember... I only offer what I did as food for thought. Many cyclists feel he roads were designed for them and forget the facts that driving is stressful, congested, and not all drivers will respect them the way they should (there's a ton of cyclists who have been hit by cars that can testify to this). Further, many cyclists feel they don't have to be courteous as well- which prompted the 'don't make them pass you again' comment.
Vancouver congestion is brutal. Anything to ease the constriction on antiquated infrastructure is a step in the right direction.
I loved it there, but the traffic was so brutal I had to leave. Every time I come back, the tension begins to build in me. The routes leading into Vancouver from the east are at least 10,000X better. Man, I can remember sitting in Langley with traffic in both lanes at a standstill. four hours before a concert and you're wondering to yourself, "I wonder if I gave myself enough time?"
In fact, last year I got stuck on Capilano Drive as people tried to go over the Lion's Gate Bridge. My gawd... I thought I'd seen the worst it could be. I was wrong.
If we occupy a lane, and there's not sufficient room for you to safely pass then back off. If you occupy a lane, and it's safe for me to pass, I'm going around your car.
I don't understand what sidewalks have to do with anything. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.
Yes, both sides need to be courteous and obey the rules of the road; however, drivers need to lose the assumption that the road is for them and the other vehicles (like bikes) aren't real vehicles and just need to get out of their way.
In short...
1. Narrow lanes and no roadside curb (only sidewalk where... you are correct... pedestrians do their business).
2. Slow cyclist backs up busy traffic where the only opportunity to pass is when a gap presents itself in the left lane that a car trying to pass the cyclist in the right lane can access to safely get around cyclist and drive at the posted speed.
3. Car that passes cyclist has to stop at red light. While waiting, cyclist steers past car again and, once again, leaves motorist with the task of negotiating his car past slow moving bicycle in a few moments.
If a bicycle cannot travel at the posted speed then they should be courteous to people in vehicles that can. Telling cars to 'back off' because slow poke is in their lane isn't right. Such a situation isn't a 'share' situation... it's an 'own' situation by the cyclist that feels traffic can go suck rocks if they're not happy travelling 20km under the legal limit.
I'm in good shape capable of cycling at a high speed, cycled throughout a large metro center, used to cycle to work, and followed my advice which was given to me by other avid cyclists. I felt it was a fair thing to do. Obviously you don't. No problem.
Are you telling me grandma has no right to ride her bike in the street because she can't keep up with rush hour?
I'm all for sharing the road. Note that that requires the cooperation of everyone sharing the general space. It sounded like all Thirty was suggesting is that cyclists also cooperate and accommodate cars. It sounds like that is unacceptable to some cyclists.
For a second... I was beginning to think I was in left field.