Oil, name something .....

brianlux

Noise maker: Hold a thick blade of grass between your two thumbs and blow against it edge-wise.

I could go on all day, ya know?

HesCalledDyer

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.

That's not the law, that's your attitude towards it. The law is that bike can indeed use the road just as any motor vehicle.

CM189191

thought this was relevant
Kentucky Coal Mining Museum converts to solar power
how many nails does that coffin need?!