Oil, name something .....

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

PJ_Soul said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

Exactly.

CM189191

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

PJ_Soul said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

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.

Actually, yes it does.

CM189191

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

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.

If conditions are challenging, you should not be passing. You yield until it is safe to pass.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

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.

If conditions are challenging, you should not be passing. You yield until it is safe to pass.

As opposed to running the cyclist over? Correct.

You're almost there: when you say 'until it is safe to pass'... you show that opportunities present themselves for a motorist to overtake the cyclist clogging up traffic.

Now... take this understanding a little further: let's have the cyclist understand that motorists are looking out for them and, despite being held up with their glacier like pace, they have managed to get by them safely and are commencing with their commute as they thought it might go when they left their house that morning. Don't put them in the situation where, once again, they are held up and need to pass you once more with limited opportunity to do so.

CM189191

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

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.

If conditions are challenging, you should not be passing. You yield until it is safe to pass.

As opposed to running the cyclist over? Correct.

You're almost there: when you say 'until it is safe to pass'... you show that opportunities present themselves for a motorist to overtake the cyclist clogging up traffic.

Now... take this understanding a little further: let's have the cyclist understand that motorists are looking out for them and, despite being held up with their glacier like pace, they have managed to get by them safely and are commencing with their commute as they thought it might go when they left their house that morning. Don't put them in the situation where, once again, they are held up and need to pass you once more with limited opportunity to do so.

Once again, you're saying the cyclist is clogging traffic. Cyclists are part of traffic.

But when the car & bike get to the next red light, the cyclist has every right to ride past those cars waiting for the light and pull up to the intersection.

rgambs

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

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.

If conditions are challenging, you should not be passing. You yield until it is safe to pass.

As opposed to running the cyclist over? Correct.

You're almost there: when you say 'until it is safe to pass'... you show that opportunities present themselves for a motorist to overtake the cyclist clogging up traffic.

Now... take this understanding a little further: let's have the cyclist understand that motorists are looking out for them and, despite being held up with their glacier like pace, they have managed to get by them safely and are commencing with their commute as they thought it might go when they left their house that morning. Don't put them in the situation where, once again, they are held up and need to pass you once more with limited opportunity to do so.

Once again, you're saying the cyclist is clogging traffic. Cyclists are part of traffic.

But when the car & bike get to the next red light, the cyclist has every right to ride past those cars waiting for the light and pull up to the intersection.

So you can have your cake and eat it too?
Part of traffic and yet subject to different rules...

CM189191

rgambs said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

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.

If conditions are challenging, you should not be passing. You yield until it is safe to pass.

As opposed to running the cyclist over? Correct.

You're almost there: when you say 'until it is safe to pass'... you show that opportunities present themselves for a motorist to overtake the cyclist clogging up traffic.

Now... take this understanding a little further: let's have the cyclist understand that motorists are looking out for them and, despite being held up with their glacier like pace, they have managed to get by them safely and are commencing with their commute as they thought it might go when they left their house that morning. Don't put them in the situation where, once again, they are held up and need to pass you once more with limited opportunity to do so.

Once again, you're saying the cyclist is clogging traffic. Cyclists are part of traffic.

But when the car & bike get to the next red light, the cyclist has every right to ride past those cars waiting for the light and pull up to the intersection.

So you can have your cake and eat it too?
Part of traffic and yet subject to different rules...

Yes. Bikes can occupy the lane while traffic is flowing. They can pass on the shoulder when it's stopped. Them's the rules.

jeffbr

CM189191 said:

I don't understand why this is still being debated.

Sounds like most of us have a pretty good understanding about how to coexist on the roads and have had a healthy and reasonable discussion about it here. Any remaining debate is likely due to someone being unwilling to see beyond their rigid view.

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

this is one of my peeves about some cyclists. when I'm riding, I don't inch my way to the front of the line between cars and the curb. I stay "in line". If you want to be on the road, act as if you are in a car. Stay in your own space. I don't mind if a cyclist is riding in the middle of his lane. that's his right. I'll change lanes if he's going too slow. But don't sidle up to me at an intersection. it pisses me off.

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

I have seen so many times a cyclist passing cars while they are stopped in traffic and the cyclist hits a mirror or something on the passenger side of the vechile and somehow it's the fucking car's fault. "why are you so close to the shoulder?". "hey, fucky, I'm in my lane. I can be anywhere I want to be in my lane. You pass me in that lane and hit me, it's your fault".

PJ_Soul

Some cyclists really are douche bags, it's true. Of course, so are some drivers. I have seen drivers veer towards cyclists in an effort to scare them (presumably in an attempt to dissuade them from cycling). I guess they don't mind that such behaviour could actually end up seriously hurting or killing the cyclist.

CM189191

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

I don't understand why this is still being debated.

Sounds like most of us have a pretty good understanding about how to coexist on the roads and have had a healthy and reasonable discussion about it here. Any remaining debate is likely due to someone being unwilling to see beyond their rigid view.

This is not my rigid view. These are the rules of the road.

mace1229

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

They are regulated differently, but that doesn't affect how they impede traffic. My response was based off the statement that there is no such thing as a biker impeding the flow of traffic because they are the flow of traffic. To me that is nonsense. Even a biker should have an obligation to keep a reasonable pace or make it safe for cars to pass

CM189191

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

They are regulated differently, but that doesn't affect how they impede traffic. My response was based off the statement that there is no such thing as a biker impeding the flow of traffic because they are the flow of traffic. To me that is nonsense. Even a biker should have an obligation to keep a reasonable pace or make it safe for cars to pass

Yes, but in your example - where does the biker go? End of the line, behind your car? What about the car behind you, and behind that one? There will always be another car behind you that is travelling faster than the bike. Before you know it, the cyclist is sitting on 13th street, waiting for the light to change on 1st. It just doesn't make any sense.

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

They are regulated differently, but that doesn't affect how they impede traffic. My response was based off the statement that there is no such thing as a biker impeding the flow of traffic because they are the flow of traffic. To me that is nonsense. Even a biker should have an obligation to keep a reasonable pace or make it safe for cars to pass

is there a miminum speed limit law?

Go Beavers

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

They are regulated differently, but that doesn't affect how they impede traffic. My response was based off the statement that there is no such thing as a biker impeding the flow of traffic because they are the flow of traffic. To me that is nonsense. Even a biker should have an obligation to keep a reasonable pace or make it safe for cars to pass

is there a miminum speed limit law?

In the US, I've only seen that on interstate highways.

HughFreakingDillon

Go Beavers said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

They are regulated differently, but that doesn't affect how they impede traffic. My response was based off the statement that there is no such thing as a biker impeding the flow of traffic because they are the flow of traffic. To me that is nonsense. Even a biker should have an obligation to keep a reasonable pace or make it safe for cars to pass

is there a miminum speed limit law?

In the US, I've only seen that on interstate highways.

me too. so the point is moot. I see many cyclists that actually go faster than cars in rush hour. should they be giving the finger to the drivers?

PJ_Soul

I personally like it best when I am just walking and still passing all the cars. Happens all the time - it's pretty satisfying.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

I personally like it best when I am just walking and still passing all the cars. Happens all the time - it's pretty satisfying.

in the summer i often get off the bus and walk. it's faster.

brianlux

Mud pies.
Sand castles.
Weed seed scissors.
Goldsworthy style art in your back yard.
Rock walls.
Dandelion root tea made in clay pots over a wood fire.
Lean-too shelter made of branches and bark.
Etc.