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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.
"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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.
You can't have it both ways. You are objecting the bike taking the whole lane, which is their legal right, but also objecting to the cyclist traveling down the right hand side. By your logic, if the car driver passes me on my bike in the same lane, that is extra legal as well.
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.
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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.
In your scenario,you described a driver overtaking the cyclist as the cyclist playing chicken. I guess you're saying if the cyclist was at the light first, then they wouldn't be playing chicken? And it also depends on where you are. In my state, it's legal to pass cars on the right if they're stopped, which then raises the question, if it's legal, is the cyclist still playing chicken?
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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.
In your scenario,you described a driver overtaking the cyclist as the cyclist playing chicken. I guess you're saying if the cyclist was at the light first, then they wouldn't be playing chicken? And it also depends on where you are. In my state, it's legal to pass cars on the right if they're stopped, which then raises the question, if it's legal, is the cyclist still playing chicken?
If it is legal, then it is legal. By "playing chicken", I'm implying "intentionally creating a potentially unsafe situation". There are plenty of things that are legal but not recommended if one's primary concern is safety. If the cyclist was at the light first, or if the car was at the light first isn't really relevant. Either way, if the car wants to overtake the cyclist, the car must do so legally and safely. I'm just saying that if the car has to do this 4, 5 or 6 times with the same cyclist who insists on cutting the line, the odds of an unfortunate accident obviously increase. It makes no sense to overtake someone who you know will overtake you seconds later. That is simply creating unnecessary risk. But if one lives for risk, then have at it. I do not promote nor condone driver retaliation against cyclists. For some reason in this thread, if you are not stridently pro-cyclist, you are the enemy. I'm simply trying to voice concern regarding unsafe and in many cases illegal behavior by cyclists which could be avoided and result in a more cooperative environment. But if cyclists feel the need to create animosity and pit Us against Them, we (as a society) clearly aren't ready for cooperation. The same goes for rednecks in pickup trucks who swerve at cyclists. I have no patience, respect or sympathy for a car/truck intentionally antagonizing bikes. Simple courtesy, awareness, knowledge of the law, and common sense go a long way toward sharing the road. Neither side is immune from jackasses.
"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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.
You can't have it both ways. You are objecting the bike taking the whole lane, which is their legal right, but also objecting to the cyclist traveling down the right hand side. By your logic, if the car driver passes me on my bike in the same lane, that is extra legal as well.
I believe you have read something that isn't there. Where did I object to a bike occupying a lane? I object to bikes cutting the line by passing on the right hand side of stopped vehicles. But I never objected to bikes using the roads, and of course they'll be using a lane if they're on the road unless that road has a specific bike lane.
"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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.
In your scenario,you described a driver overtaking the cyclist as the cyclist playing chicken. I guess you're saying if the cyclist was at the light first, then they wouldn't be playing chicken? And it also depends on where you are. In my state, it's legal to pass cars on the right if they're stopped, which then raises the question, if it's legal, is the cyclist still playing chicken?
If it is legal, then it is legal. By "playing chicken", I'm implying "intentionally creating a potentially unsafe situation". There are plenty of things that are legal but not recommended if one's primary concern is safety. If the cyclist was at the light first, or if the car was at the light first isn't really relevant. Either way, if the car wants to overtake the cyclist, the car must do so legally and safely. I'm just saying that if the car has to do this 4, 5 or 6 times with the same cyclist who insists on cutting the line, the odds of an unfortunate accident obviously increase. It makes no sense to overtake someone who you know will overtake you seconds later. That is simply creating unnecessary risk. But if one lives for risk, then have at it. I do not promote nor condone driver retaliation against cyclists. For some reason in this thread, if you are not stridently pro-cyclist, you are the enemy. I'm simply trying to voice concern regarding unsafe and in many cases illegal behavior by cyclists which could be avoided and result in a more cooperative environment. But if cyclists feel the need to create animosity and pit Us against Them, we (as a society) clearly aren't ready for cooperation. The same goes for rednecks in pickup trucks who swerve at cyclists. I have no patience, respect or sympathy for a car/truck intentionally antagonizing bikes. Simple courtesy, awareness, knowledge of the law, and common sense go a long way toward sharing the road. Neither side is immune from jackasses.
I'm splitting hairs, but there's meaning imbedded in your language. You're basically saying it's dangerous to have a driver do something repeatedly they don't like. I take issue with the use of "accident". If a driver is impatient and decides to make an unsafe pass on time number six, that isn't an accident. A more cooperative environment is one that encourages more responsibilty on the person who can do more damage.
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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.
You can't have it both ways. You are objecting the bike taking the whole lane, which is their legal right, but also objecting to the cyclist traveling down the right hand side. By your logic, if the car driver passes me on my bike in the same lane, that is extra legal as well.
I believe you have read something that isn't there. Where did I object to a bike occupying a lane? I object to bikes cutting the line by passing on the right hand side of stopped vehicles. But I never objected to bikes using the roads, and of course they'll be using a lane if they're on the road unless that road has a specific bike lane.
You said that nobody had the right to impede the free flow of traffic and if a vehicle can't keep up with the flow of traffic it has to pull over. This was in reference to cyclists being slower than cars. Thus, your argument seems to be that if a cyclist can't keep up with the car traffic, and if there is only one lane, they do not have the right to be in the lane.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.
In your scenario,you described a driver overtaking the cyclist as the cyclist playing chicken. I guess you're saying if the cyclist was at the light first, then they wouldn't be playing chicken? And it also depends on where you are. In my state, it's legal to pass cars on the right if they're stopped, which then raises the question, if it's legal, is the cyclist still playing chicken?
If it is legal, then it is legal. By "playing chicken", I'm implying "intentionally creating a potentially unsafe situation". There are plenty of things that are legal but not recommended if one's primary concern is safety. If the cyclist was at the light first, or if the car was at the light first isn't really relevant. Either way, if the car wants to overtake the cyclist, the car must do so legally and safely. I'm just saying that if the car has to do this 4, 5 or 6 times with the same cyclist who insists on cutting the line, the odds of an unfortunate accident obviously increase. It makes no sense to overtake someone who you know will overtake you seconds later. That is simply creating unnecessary risk. But if one lives for risk, then have at it. I do not promote nor condone driver retaliation against cyclists. For some reason in this thread, if you are not stridently pro-cyclist, you are the enemy. I'm simply trying to voice concern regarding unsafe and in many cases illegal behavior by cyclists which could be avoided and result in a more cooperative environment. But if cyclists feel the need to create animosity and pit Us against Them, we (as a society) clearly aren't ready for cooperation. The same goes for rednecks in pickup trucks who swerve at cyclists. I have no patience, respect or sympathy for a car/truck intentionally antagonizing bikes. Simple courtesy, awareness, knowledge of the law, and common sense go a long way toward sharing the road. Neither side is immune from jackasses.
I'm splitting hairs, but there's meaning imbedded in your language. You're basically saying it's dangerous to have a driver do something repeatedly they don't like. I take issue with the use of "accident". If a driver is impatient and decides to make an unsafe pass on time number six, that isn't an accident. A more cooperative environment is one that encourages more responsibilty on the person who can do more damage.
I won't argue with your post, and generally agree with you here. I will point out that I wasn't trying to imply that the driver will lose patience and attempt to make an unsafe pass, although that is obviously a possibility and depending on the driver perhaps even a likelihood. I was speaking to the fallible nature of humans. Any repetitive task a human carries out is subject to mistake. That is why many things are automated. Human error accounts for a lot of loss in business and manufacturing. Likewise, human error accounts for a lot of fender benders I see on the roads almost daily. But I can see how you got the embedded meaning from my post. And I do agree with your last sentence, and try to practice that. Unfortunately not everyone does. If my safety is on the line I am not waiting for the other person to demonstrate an abundance of caution or bear the larger share of responsibility for my safety. I am assuming my life is constantly at risk when I'm on a motorcycle, and put all of the responsibility for my safety on me. I don't trust turn signals, I don't trust drivers in lanes next to me, I don't trust the guy coming up behind me, I don't trust the person waiting at a stop sign, etc... I like to make eye contact. That's when I know they've seen me and they know I've seen them. Until that eye contact, I assume I'm invisible to them.
"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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.
You can't have it both ways. You are objecting the bike taking the whole lane, which is their legal right, but also objecting to the cyclist traveling down the right hand side. By your logic, if the car driver passes me on my bike in the same lane, that is extra legal as well.
I believe you have read something that isn't there. Where did I object to a bike occupying a lane? I object to bikes cutting the line by passing on the right hand side of stopped vehicles. But I never objected to bikes using the roads, and of course they'll be using a lane if they're on the road unless that road has a specific bike lane.
You said that nobody had the right to impede the free flow of traffic and if a vehicle can't keep up with the flow of traffic it has to pull over. This was in reference to cyclists being slower than cars. Thus, your argument seems to be that if a cyclist can't keep up with the car traffic, and if there is only one lane, they do not have the right to be in the lane.
In my state, on a two lane highway, if they are driving below the posted speed and are holding up more than 5 vehicles, regardless of whether they are on a bike, a scooter, a Harley, a Ferrari, a Mack truck, or a Porsche, they are required to pull over and let the impeded vehicles to by. On roads with passing lanes, this is not an issue, because faster traffic can legally pass slower traffic. So if Granny is impeding traffic on her bike, and cars can't get by, then yes, Granny has to pull over and allow them by. Not looking to have anything both ways. But I do look both ways when crossing the street.
"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.
Your stance is coming from a place of car dominance, not sharing. If a driver is miffed by a cyclist following the law, the cyclist hasn't created an adversarial relationship, the entitled driver has based on their beliefs and expectations of the situation. Drivers intentionally hitting cyclists is not "playing chicken" or a game of physics.
I know you want to read things into my post, but nowhere did I excuse a driver being miffed by a cyclist following the law. I specifically said that if a cyclist wants to practice extra-legal maneuvers in traffic, he/she shouldn't be surprised when that situation gets created. If a car has to wait in line at a stoplight, and a cyclist is expected to obey the laws of the road while on public roadways, then that bike should also be waiting in line like the rest of the vehicles are required to. By passing on the shoulder to "cut" the line, and then requiring cars to once again overtake, a more dangerous and adversarial situation is created. By the cyclist. I do not have any animosity toward cyclists who follow the law, and am not miffed at them. I have been and am supportive of the many programs in my area where projects are made to improve bike safety such as bike lanes. We have many bike lanes and trails in my area that help reduce conflict and car-bike accidents, and I think that is great.
You can't have it both ways. You are objecting the bike taking the whole lane, which is their legal right, but also objecting to the cyclist traveling down the right hand side. By your logic, if the car driver passes me on my bike in the same lane, that is extra legal as well.
I believe you have read something that isn't there. Where did I object to a bike occupying a lane? I object to bikes cutting the line by passing on the right hand side of stopped vehicles. But I never objected to bikes using the roads, and of course they'll be using a lane if they're on the road unless that road has a specific bike lane.
You said that nobody had the right to impede the free flow of traffic and if a vehicle can't keep up with the flow of traffic it has to pull over. This was in reference to cyclists being slower than cars. Thus, your argument seems to be that if a cyclist can't keep up with the car traffic, and if there is only one lane, they do not have the right to be in the lane.
This argument has spawned from opposition to the very simple notion of being courteous as a cyclist and not forcing a vehicle to pass you twice on roads without shoulders (by stopping before the car at a red light once catching it).
Nobody has said they don't want to share the road with cyclists. People have only said that cyclists need to exercise common sense and manners... just like drivers do.
From a common sense perspective, people have also said that- given they are at a significant disadvantage from a mass perspective on the road- cyclists should be ultra aware to not create tension or challenging situations when riding. If people wish to argue this... then feel free; however, don't pretend it doesn't make perfect sense given the volume of unfortunate events between cyclists and cars.
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.
You can't have it both ways. You are objecting the bike taking the whole lane, which is their legal right, but also objecting to the cyclist traveling down the right hand side. By your logic, if the car driver passes me on my bike in the same lane, that is extra legal as well.
I believe you have read something that isn't there. Where did I object to a bike occupying a lane? I object to bikes cutting the line by passing on the right hand side of stopped vehicles. But I never objected to bikes using the roads, and of course they'll be using a lane if they're on the road unless that road has a specific bike lane.
You said that nobody had the right to impede the free flow of traffic and if a vehicle can't keep up with the flow of traffic it has to pull over. This was in reference to cyclists being slower than cars. Thus, your argument seems to be that if a cyclist can't keep up with the car traffic, and if there is only one lane, they do not have the right to be in the lane.
This argument has spawned from opposition to the very simple notion of being courteous as a cyclist and not forcing a vehicle to pass you twice on roads without shoulders (by stopping before the car at a red light once catching it).
Nobody has said they don't want to share the road with cyclists. People have only said that cyclists need to exercise common sense and manners... just like drivers do.
From a common sense perspective, people have also said that- given they are at a significant disadvantage from a mass perspective on the road- cyclists should be ultra aware to not create tension or challenging situations when riding. If people wish to argue this... then feel free; however, don't pretend it doesn't make perfect sense given the volume of unfortunate events between cyclists and cars.
Your last point does make sense, but it makes sense because of the car-centric cultural bias. That bias is often encouraged and leads to enabling in the legal system and ultimately, an acceptance of irresponsible/bad driving. There's a continual theme of "oh, well" and passive acceptance to drivers killing people. Legally, in a lot of areas, it's accepted reasoning when the driver says "I didn't see them". This is even the case when they've done something illegal (run a light/stop or don't yield). There's a continual theme that drivers don't really have to take driving seriously, because there are no real consequences. It irks me to see people go with the thinking that cyclists just need to kowtow to drivers because they win the physics battle. It perpetuates attitudes that leads to bad driving.
Your last point does make sense, but it makes sense because of the car-centric cultural bias. That bias is often encouraged and leads to enabling in the legal system and ultimately, an acceptance of irresponsible/bad driving. There's a continual theme of "oh, well" and passive acceptance to drivers killing people. Legally, in a lot of areas, it's accepted reasoning when the driver says "I didn't see them". This is even the case when they've done something illegal (run a light/stop or don't yield). There's a continual theme that drivers don't really have to take driving seriously, because there are no real consequences. It irks me to see people go with the thinking that cyclists just need to kowtow to drivers because they win the physics battle. It perpetuates attitudes that leads to bad driving.
I commute by car and bike, depends on the day. When I'm on my bike I fucking hate cars! And when I'm in my car I fucking hate bike riders.. road rage is road rage
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.
They don't actually have as much right as a car in most cases. In my example I said it only bothers me when they don't use the bike lane or if the lane is wide enough to ride in the shoulder and they don't. Most cases the biker wouldn't have to hug the curb to have plenty of room, or at least those aren't the examples I had in mind. There's about a 2 mile stretch of road I drive to get to the freeway every day. The road is very wide, wide enough to where cars could park along the curb and not obstruct traffic. However, there are "no parking" signs, giving a a biker more than enough room to not ride in the middle. That's when it pisses me off when they do, or when you see that couple riding side-by-side. It's just dumb, and you can actually get a ticket for that. And they should. The only instance where a bike has equal right to the road is when there isn't a bike lane and the road is too narrow to safely ride in the shoulder and allow cars to pass. I think being a dick is when a biker ignores the bike lane, forcing all traffic to flow at his speed. I edited my original post because it came across more aggressive towards bikers than I meant. I merely tried to say it's these small percent of bikers that result in the bad attitude towards bikers. I know it's a small percent, so I'm all for more bike friendly roads. But if you want to pretend to be a car, then drive a car.
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?
Several years ago there was a push for electric cars and you could qualify for a tax break by getting an electric car. As a result, street legal golf carts became popular in some areas since they qualified as an electric car if they had all the requirements to make them street legal. I looked into getting one, they were available with a Hummer body, or hot rod, etc. they had a max speed of about 20 mph on a flat road. The only reason I didn't get one is because due to their speed capabilities they were not legal in streets with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or higher. Also, even if on a road with a limit of 30mph where it was legal, if it was on a hill the car may only have the ability to travel about 10 mph or so, and could easily get a ticket for obstructing traffic. Why shouldn't the same laws apply to bikers? Traffic laws shouldn't be designed for the one grandma in mind, but for the mass public or the majority of people. Should traffic laws be written for the one grandma or the 100 cars she is holding up? So in your example you see nothing wrong with someone who decides to ride their bike on a 30mph road, gets tired and is struggling to keep a speed of 10mph on that road? In your mind she isn't obstructing traffic because she is the traffic? Why is that fine, but me in a street legal golf cart is illegal? Both in my mind should not be acceptable.
I didn't bike to work when I lived in Portland (Park and Ride to Max), but I loved bike riders. More cars off the street is less pollution and traffic. I would yield to them more often than not. 1) it is safer 2) lives aren't worth gaining 30 seconds. 3) I am not a dick.
For the most part Bikers are 1000x more considerate than a car.
I didn't bike to work when I lived in Portland (Park and Ride to Max), but I loved bike riders. More cars off the street is less pollution and traffic. I would yield to them more often than not. 1) it is safer 2) lives aren't worth gaining 30 seconds. 3) I am not a dick.
For the most part Bikers are 1000x more considerate than a car.
F'ing entitled society is the problem
I loved riding in Portland when I lived there. No problems with drivers at all.
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?
Several years ago there was a push for electric cars and you could qualify for a tax break by getting an electric car. As a result, street legal golf carts became popular in some areas since they qualified as an electric car if they had all the requirements to make them street legal. I looked into getting one, they were available with a Hummer body, or hot rod, etc. they had a max speed of about 20 mph on a flat road. The only reason I didn't get one is because due to their speed capabilities they were not legal in streets with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or higher. Also, even if on a road with a limit of 30mph where it was legal, if it was on a hill the car may only have the ability to travel about 10 mph or so, and could easily get a ticket for obstructing traffic. Why shouldn't the same laws apply to bikers? Traffic laws shouldn't be designed for the one grandma in mind, but for the mass public or the majority of people. Should traffic laws be written for the one grandma or the 100 cars she is holding up? So in your example you see nothing wrong with someone who decides to ride their bike on a 30mph road, gets tired and is struggling to keep a speed of 10mph on that road? In your mind she isn't obstructing traffic because she is the traffic? Why is that fine, but me in a street legal golf cart is illegal? Both in my mind should not be acceptable.
The same laws wouldn't apply because electric cars and bicycles are regulated differently. For example, I imagine you still have to get a driver's license to drive a street legal golf cart on the road. Whereas a 13 year old is able to ride their bike in the street, no problem.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Your last point does make sense, but it makes sense because of the car-centric cultural bias. That bias is often encouraged and leads to enabling in the legal system and ultimately, an acceptance of irresponsible/bad driving. There's a continual theme of "oh, well" and passive acceptance to drivers killing people. Legally, in a lot of areas, it's accepted reasoning when the driver says "I didn't see them". This is even the case when they've done something illegal (run a light/stop or don't yield). There's a continual theme that drivers don't really have to take driving seriously, because there are no real consequences. It irks me to see people go with the thinking that cyclists just need to kowtow to drivers because they win the physics battle. It perpetuates attitudes that leads to bad driving.
Again... nobody here is excusing poor driving and everybody here is in support of cyclists.
I think it's fair to say that cyclists need to be mindful of drivers when sharing the road with them without having a volley of 'drivers need to be mindful of cyclists in response' as if this is what was the implication.
Again (again)... this discussion has spiralled away from a suggestion for cyclists on how to display mindfulness and courtesy.
To be frank, I'm shocked that people actually think exercising such a tactic was unnecessary and too bad for the driver if they had to negotiate their way past the cyclist again... or that the driver shouldn't even try to overtake the cyclist- they should just go the speed of the cyclist.
Again... nobody here is excusing poor driving and everybody here is in support of cyclists.
I think it's fair to say that cyclists need to be mindful of drivers when sharing the road with them without having a volley of 'drivers need to be mindful of cyclists in response' as if this is what was the implication.
Again (again)... this discussion has spiralled away from a suggestion for cyclists on how to display mindfulness and courtesy.
To be frank, I'm shocked that people actually think exercising such a tactic was unnecessary and too bad for the driver if they had to negotiate their way past the cyclist again... or that the driver shouldn't even try to overtake the cyclist- they should just go the speed of the cyclist.
That's partly due to the fact in the example that the driver and the cyclist end up covering the same distance at the same time. I've had several situations where a driver has aggressively passed me, and I inow it's because they perceive that I'll slow them down. What usually end up happening is that I'm alongisde them further down the road, or their in front of me slowing me down.
The topic also brings up a majority vs. minority dynamic. As a white guy, cycling is one of the few times I experience some of the dynamics that minorities do. In this case, I'm pressured to account for the bad behavior of a small amount of cyclist because their bad behavior is generalized across cyclists as a whole. Drivers will focus hostility at me because of bad interactions they had with other cyclists. There is also the resulting mentality of 'I'll respect cyclists when they respect me'. Naturally drivers do not do this with other drivers, because their the dominant group. A sub category is made for poor drivers, "crazy a hole drivers" etc. The bad driver needs to show their bad drivers with their behavior, and even then, that behavior isn't generalized across the whole group. Occasionally sub group generalizations are made though, like when I keep my distance from someone with California plates - jerks!
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.
My best friend, who lives just on the North Delta side of the Alex Fraser Bridge, is very seriously considering taking his family and business and leaving the rest of his friends and family to move to Penticton solely because he can't handle the traffic in metro Vancouver anymore. It is driving him fucking crazy, and as a plumber/gas fitter with his own business, he has to drive all over the place for work. It sucks to think that my best friend, who is like family to me, is being forced out of town because Metro Vancouver's leaders have been incapable of dealing with its population growth properly in terms of road infrastructure and public transit. There are some good things to be said for some of the efforts - i.e. the Skytrain is a fabulous system if you live near it (which I do - I found my place while the Millenium line was being built, specifically to live by the skytrain. 4 minute walk from my door to a station), and will be that much better once it goes down the Broadway corridor. But that doesn't help all the people out in the rest of Metro Van, like in Delta, Surrey, Langley, etc (a brand new line just opened into Coquitlam though - the Evergreen line - which is good... I don't think there are enough stops along it, but still). And of course, with housing prices totally out of reach for most people in Vancouver now, everyone is being forced to move farther and farther out, which is exacerbating the problem and making everyone spend 2 - 4 hours of their days commuting. Terrible.
Anyway, back on topic, with such traffic problems out of the burbs, people need a public transit system that goes out there and will actually save them time rather than making their trips even longer. Without extremely viable options out of the suburbs, people will continue to have way too much of a dependency on cars, and therefore gasoline, which constitutes about 50% of all oil use in North America (the US still uses 25% of the world oil btw - pretty shocking). If gasoline use was significantly reduced, that would take care of so much of the oil problem right there, without sacrificing any other convenience created vicariously through the oil industry. Of course the entire transportation industry - movement of goods factor - would need to evolve right along with everyone else as transportation issues are addressed and modernized.
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.
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?
I have to agree with others.... You can't just hop on a bike and toodle your way around high traffic areas with a baguette and a bouquet of flowers in the basket on your handle bars, going 15 km an hour with cars unable to pass you. Cyclists have to be as considerate of other drivers and the flow of traffic as everyone else. That is why dedicated bike lanes are the best option. Bike lanes work the same as all lanes - slow to the right, pass on the left.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Again... nobody here is excusing poor driving and everybody here is in support of cyclists.
I think it's fair to say that cyclists need to be mindful of drivers when sharing the road with them without having a volley of 'drivers need to be mindful of cyclists in response' as if this is what was the implication.
Again (again)... this discussion has spiralled away from a suggestion for cyclists on how to display mindfulness and courtesy.
To be frank, I'm shocked that people actually think exercising such a tactic was unnecessary and too bad for the driver if they had to negotiate their way past the cyclist again... or that the driver shouldn't even try to overtake the cyclist- they should just go the speed of the cyclist.
That's partly due to the fact in the example that the driver and the cyclist end up covering the same distance at the same time. I've had several situations where a driver has aggressively passed me, and I inow it's because they perceive that I'll slow them down. What usually end up happening is that I'm alongisde them further down the road, or their in front of me slowing me down.
The topic also brings up a majority vs. minority dynamic. As a white guy, cycling is one of the few times I experience some of the dynamics that minorities do. In this case, I'm pressured to account for the bad behavior of a small amount of cyclist because their bad behavior is generalized across cyclists as a whole. Drivers will focus hostility at me because of bad interactions they had with other cyclists. There is also the resulting mentality of 'I'll respect cyclists when they respect me'. Naturally drivers do not do this with other drivers, because their the dominant group. A sub category is made for poor drivers, "crazy a hole drivers" etc. The bad driver needs to show their bad drivers with their behavior, and even then, that behavior isn't generalized across the whole group. Occasionally sub group generalizations are made though, like when I keep my distance from someone with California plates - jerks!
I think local or learned context is responsible for placing us at a slight odds.
To your first point... it's not often the case in my area where the cyclist manages to stay ahead of the car for very long. As I expressed, the car, inevitably, will need to negotiate their way around the cyclist in a very short period of time. The time saved passing the car that has already passed you and proven to be faster versus the challenge presented to the driver (having to pass you once again on a narrow lane) is not worth it all from a holistic and fair approach.
In other areas- ones I'm certainly not picturing- there might be such a situation where congestion favours the cyclist and in such an instance, overtaking the car again to move past it and never see it again makes perfect sense. I guess common sense should prevail.
To your second point... as many times a story you've tried to illustrate the experiences of minoroties in pragmatic fashion... you've successfully done so here. I get what you are saying and it makes sense for sure. A frustrating experience.
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?
I have to agree with others.... You can't just hop on a bike and toodle your way around high traffic areas with a baguette and a bouquet of flowers in the basket on your handle bars, going 15 km an hour with cars unable to pass you. Cyclists have to be as considerate of other drivers and the flow of traffic as everyone else. That is why dedicated bike lanes are the best option. Bike lanes work the same as all lanes - slow to the right, pass on the left.
Lol
Hey why'd you have to describe yourself cycling to UBC in the example you offered?
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?
I have to agree with others.... You can't just hop on a bike and toodle your way around high traffic areas with a baguette and a bouquet of flowers in the basket on your handle bars, going 15 km an hour with cars unable to pass you. Cyclists have to be as considerate of other drivers and the flow of traffic as everyone else. That is why dedicated bike lanes are the best option. Bike lanes work the same as all lanes - slow to the right, pass on the left.
Yes of course the cyclist must be considerate and aware of their surroundings. Where cyclists and vehicles are sharing the road (i.e. no bike lanes), and the motorist is unable to safely pass the cyclist, they must yield to the cyclist. Full stop. I don't understand why this is still being debated.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
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?
I have to agree with others.... You can't just hop on a bike and toodle your way around high traffic areas with a baguette and a bouquet of flowers in the basket on your handle bars, going 15 km an hour with cars unable to pass you. Cyclists have to be as considerate of other drivers and the flow of traffic as everyone else. That is why dedicated bike lanes are the best option. Bike lanes work the same as all lanes - slow to the right, pass on the left.
Yes of course the cyclist must be considerate and aware of their surroundings. Where cyclists and vehicles are sharing the road (i.e. no bike lanes), and the motorist is unable to safely pass the cyclist, they must yield to the cyclist. Full stop. I don't understand why this is still being debated.
You mean versus run them over? Well duh.
We're discussing the situation and why it shouldn't be a situation at all. If you can't keep up with traffic... you shouldn't be in traffic. Period. Having a bike and being able to ride it doesn't give you a license to go wherever you want on it regardless of your abilities.
And in the event slowpoke insists on getting on the road then fair enough... but when a motorist passes you... don't make them pass you again when conditions are challenging to do so.
Comments
Nobody has said they don't want to share the road with cyclists. People have only said that cyclists need to exercise common sense and manners... just like drivers do.
From a common sense perspective, people have also said that- given they are at a significant disadvantage from a mass perspective on the road- cyclists should be ultra aware to not create tension or challenging situations when riding. If people wish to argue this... then feel free; however, don't pretend it doesn't make perfect sense given the volume of unfortunate events between cyclists and cars.
There's about a 2 mile stretch of road I drive to get to the freeway every day. The road is very wide, wide enough to where cars could park along the curb and not obstruct traffic. However, there are "no parking" signs, giving a a biker more than enough room to not ride in the middle. That's when it pisses me off when they do, or when you see that couple riding side-by-side. It's just dumb, and you can actually get a ticket for that. And they should.
The only instance where a bike has equal right to the road is when there isn't a bike lane and the road is too narrow to safely ride in the shoulder and allow cars to pass.
I think being a dick is when a biker ignores the bike lane, forcing all traffic to flow at his speed.
I edited my original post because it came across more aggressive towards bikers than I meant.
I merely tried to say it's these small percent of bikers that result in the bad attitude towards bikers. I know it's a small percent, so I'm all for more bike friendly roads. But if you want to pretend to be a car, then drive a car.
The only reason I didn't get one is because due to their speed capabilities they were not legal in streets with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or higher. Also, even if on a road with a limit of 30mph where it was legal, if it was on a hill the car may only have the ability to travel about 10 mph or so, and could easily get a ticket for obstructing traffic.
Why shouldn't the same laws apply to bikers? Traffic laws shouldn't be designed for the one grandma in mind, but for the mass public or the majority of people. Should traffic laws be written for the one grandma or the 100 cars she is holding up?
So in your example you see nothing wrong with someone who decides to ride their bike on a 30mph road, gets tired and is struggling to keep a speed of 10mph on that road? In your mind she isn't obstructing traffic because she is the traffic? Why is that fine, but me in a street legal golf cart is illegal?
Both in my mind should not be acceptable.
For the most part Bikers are 1000x more considerate than a car.
F'ing entitled society is the problem
I think it's fair to say that cyclists need to be mindful of drivers when sharing the road with them without having a volley of 'drivers need to be mindful of cyclists in response' as if this is what was the implication.
Again (again)... this discussion has spiralled away from a suggestion for cyclists on how to display mindfulness and courtesy.
To be frank, I'm shocked that people actually think exercising such a tactic was unnecessary and too bad for the driver if they had to negotiate their way past the cyclist again... or that the driver shouldn't even try to overtake the cyclist- they should just go the speed of the cyclist.
The topic also brings up a majority vs. minority dynamic. As a white guy, cycling is one of the few times I experience some of the dynamics that minorities do. In this case, I'm pressured to account for the bad behavior of a small amount of cyclist because their bad behavior is generalized across cyclists as a whole. Drivers will focus hostility at me because of bad interactions they had with other cyclists. There is also the resulting mentality of 'I'll respect cyclists when they respect me'. Naturally drivers do not do this with other drivers, because their the dominant group. A sub category is made for poor drivers, "crazy a hole drivers" etc. The bad driver needs to show their bad drivers with their behavior, and even then, that behavior isn't generalized across the whole group. Occasionally sub group generalizations are made though, like when I keep my distance from someone with California plates - jerks!
Anyway, back on topic, with such traffic problems out of the burbs, people need a public transit system that goes out there and will actually save them time rather than making their trips even longer. Without extremely viable options out of the suburbs, people will continue to have way too much of a dependency on cars, and therefore gasoline, which constitutes about 50% of all oil use in North America (the US still uses 25% of the world oil btw - pretty shocking). If gasoline use was significantly reduced, that would take care of so much of the oil problem right there, without sacrificing any other convenience created vicariously through the oil industry. Of course the entire transportation industry - movement of goods factor - would need to evolve right along with everyone else as transportation issues are addressed and modernized.
To your first point... it's not often the case in my area where the cyclist manages to stay ahead of the car for very long. As I expressed, the car, inevitably, will need to negotiate their way around the cyclist in a very short period of time. The time saved passing the car that has already passed you and proven to be faster versus the challenge presented to the driver (having to pass you once again on a narrow lane) is not worth it all from a holistic and fair approach.
In other areas- ones I'm certainly not picturing- there might be such a situation where congestion favours the cyclist and in such an instance, overtaking the car again to move past it and never see it again makes perfect sense. I guess common sense should prevail.
To your second point... as many times a story you've tried to illustrate the experiences of minoroties in pragmatic fashion... you've successfully done so here. I get what you are saying and it makes sense for sure. A frustrating experience.
Hey why'd you have to describe yourself cycling to UBC in the example you offered?
We're discussing the situation and why it shouldn't be a situation at all. If you can't keep up with traffic... you shouldn't be in traffic. Period. Having a bike and being able to ride it doesn't give you a license to go wherever you want on it regardless of your abilities.
And in the event slowpoke insists on getting on the road then fair enough... but when a motorist passes you... don't make them pass you again when conditions are challenging to do so.