Author Topic: Cyclist Hate  (Read 20387 times)

wileyish

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Cyclist Hate
« on: April 15, 2015, 10:26:24 PM »
WaPo article on sharing the road: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/15/dont-make-bicyclists-more-visible-make-cars-stop-running-them-over/?postshare=541429121635147

The article itself isn’t all that interesting or articulate, but the vitriol for bicyclists in the comments is scary. One of many horrific quotes: "Car door em. They'll go to the hospital and get the attention they need. You're doing them a favor."

From where does this anger for cyclists originate? I get that some bike commuters disobey laws (including me…the Idaho stop makes a lot more sense when you can see/hear better at an intersection - stop signs only, not stop lights). But from my experience the ratio of “scofflaws” is about equal between motorists and cyclists. So I don’t understand what makes motorists so bitter and/or homicidal.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3495
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2015, 10:44:55 PM »
This has gone the rounds here on this MMM with plenty of emotion, but a common theme out in the rest of the world is misconception that all bicyclists are snobbish hippies and deserving of scorn.  The author's moniker of "bike snob," his overly dramatic prose, and his "all drivers are evil" attitude certainly doesn't help this debate. 

In my personal experience it's frustration on the part of the driver when they don't realize or they get reminded that bicyclists have as much legal right to be on the road as they do.  On my route to work sometimes I have to go under a 50 meter single lane on each side tunnel that has no bike lane so I'm actually on the road until we clear the tunnel.  I've been passed or nearly crushed against the tunnel wall because that idiot forgot to treat me like any other vehicle.  He didn't hate me or want me injured, but he didn't recognize me as a part of his driving calculus either.  Every now and then when I have to actually remind drivers of the laws (bicycling laws are in DMV handbooks) they get defensive about 1) being proven wrong as an ignorant driver and 2) someone on a bicycle pointing it out like a child embarrassing an adult.

Edit: Just spent the last few minutes scrolling through comments and a fair number of them I would consider healthy debate on the subject.  Some are annoying "get off my road" drivers while there are several honest helmet-effectiveness discussions and bicyclists offering that some of their community are no angels on the road.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2015, 10:52:16 PM by Travis »

Ditchmonkey

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2015, 10:53:28 PM »
I've been a cyclist for almost 30 years now. I remember some bad encounters from when I was young, so angry drivers have always been around. However, it has gotten much worse in the last 10 years. People are more hurried, more distracted, and less patient than ever. Add to that texting teens and half the drivers on the road driving absurdly large vehicles way too fast, and it's become a recipe for disaster. I took up running and it's my primary sport now. I loved cycling but not enough to have it engraved on my tombstone.

darkadams00

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 408
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2015, 11:47:15 PM »
The car vs bike argument is simply another form of the majority vs minority interaction. People of the majority opinion will have little societal impetus to consider the merits of the minority opinion. Because theirs is the majority opinion, their group will include a significant number of "minority haters" simply because there are more people on that side. Percentage-wise, opinionated idiots of the minority persuasion might exist at the same level as of the majority, but the raw counts from the majority group will prevail in public opinion/comments sections.

I know of no minority that does not have to deal with some form of contempt by the idiots in the majority. There will be level heads on both sides, but the most outspoken voices will usually come from the respective minority/majority village idiots.

shelivesthedream

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6191
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2015, 05:52:50 AM »
Enjoyed this article. I have always understood the optimal traffic hierarchy to be:

1. Pedestrians
2. Cyclists
3. Buses
4. Taxis
5. Cars
6. Lorries (sorry, lorries, but you are big and hard to manoeuvre)

My ideal situation would be to make driving a private car so annoying (e.g. Pedestrian crossings are green for pedestrians for twice as long, so the cars are held up for longer and we don't have to run across the road to make it in time; make traffic lights go green for bikes a good thirty seconds before cars; pedestrianise more areas; put in more speed bumps with gaps for cyclists) and expensive that no one drives a car for any given journey unless they have to.

HenryDavid

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2015, 06:19:21 AM »
Car pathology: once behind the wheel, even cyclists become entitled and impatient. "What good is this giant expensive metal box of explosive gases doing me if YOU are in my damn way?"
Also: "I pay taxes!"

Fear: "If I run this bike over they'll blame me even though it's her fault for just .... Being there."

Envy: "oh you think it's ok to be out there in the fresh air, flaunting your health and fitness and vigour while I sit here on my heated leather throne making small hand and foot movements like a helpless marine mammal trapped on land waving it's flippers? Well check out how much I can scare you, ha!"

Self-absorption: " hey, a text. Bit cold in here. That's better. More bass . . .  Yeah. Hey, a text. Whoa, is that a  . . .. ." (Crash).

Roadhog

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Location: PNW
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2015, 06:31:29 AM »
I try to avoid reading the comments because it's just upsetting, part of my quest for the low information diet!   I think part of the issue is that people stereotype, not just cyclists but small minded people like to put people in boxes because they are mentally lazy.    I bike commute, but I also ride the bus and sometimes (although rarely) I drive.   I have read that some of the mean spirited commenters claim that "those damn cyclists" can't possibly own cars, have jobs, own homes, pay taxes, etc.   The implication is that cyclists as a group don't contribute to society and just expect to use the roads for free.

I've also at times suspected that some of the commenters are paid by special interest groups to spew hate against cyclists.   

Carolina on My Mind

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Location: Washington, DC
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2015, 08:02:43 AM »
I've also at times suspected that some of the commenters are paid by special interest groups to spew hate against cyclists.

Several years ago I read an essay on the Internet which pointed out that two of the biggest industries in the United States (Big Oil and Detroit) have a vested interest in discouraging people from riding bikes.  They want people to think riding a bike is dangerous, and now everyone is convinced that you'd have to be crazy to ride without a helmet.  They want people to think of cyclists as a fringe element, and now you regularly see cyclists depicted as maniacal scofflaws. 

At the time I thought the whole thing sounded pretty conspiracy-theory-ish, but it sure seems unlikely that this level of vitriol toward bike riders just sprang up organically.


mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2015, 09:35:54 AM »
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I am a cyclist hater.

Bicycles on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when some cyclist is in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against bikes, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads with speed limits over 25 mph.  I'm fine if there are bike lanes.

Yes, I realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for cyclists because I'm sure you get angry at drivers (like me).  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by cyclists who can't go the posted speed limit.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5882
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2015, 09:43:10 AM »
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I am a cyclist hater.

Bicycles on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when some cyclist is in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against bikes, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads with speed limits over 25 mph.  I'm fine if there are bike lanes.

Yes, I realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for cyclists because I'm sure you get angry at drivers (like me).  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by cyclists who can't go the posted speed limit.

If this is true, then shouldn't you be a city planner hater, instead of a cyclist hater?  It's not the cyclists' fault that city planners don't make bike lanes ubiquitous.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2015, 09:50:06 AM »
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I am a cyclist hater.

Bicycles on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when some cyclist is in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against bikes, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads with speed limits over 25 mph.  I'm fine if there are bike lanes.

Yes, I realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for cyclists because I'm sure you get angry at drivers (like me).  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by cyclists who can't go the posted speed limit.

If this is true, then shouldn't you be a city planner hater, instead of a cyclist hater?  It's not the cyclists' fault that city planners don't make bike lanes ubiquitous.

Yes, true enough.  I don't hate cyclists, per se, I just hate the traffic jams they cause.  I hate it enough that I would never, ever ride a bike on a busy road because I don't want to be that guy.

solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1915
  • Age: 1820
  • Location: CO
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2015, 09:52:15 AM »
I biked to work yesterday. A car came from behind and honked just as it was passing. Scared the bejeebers out of me. My first thought was to flip the bird, but by the time I thought about it, the car was already too far gone.

I live in a small town where a lot of people know a lot of people. I didn't recognize the car, but it's possible this was just a friendly honk.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17384
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2015, 09:52:58 AM »
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I am a cyclist hater.

Bicycles on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when some cyclist is in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against bikes, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads with speed limits over 25 mph.  I'm fine if there are bike lanes.

Yes, I realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for cyclists because I'm sure you get angry at drivers (like me).  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by cyclists who can't go the posted speed limit.

Just a second.  Are you claiming that all of the traffic slow downs in your city are caused by cyclists?  Or are you really claiming that traffic is so bad because of the volume of cars on your road that the fraction of a second it takes to safely pass a cyclist makes your commute unbearable?

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2964
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2015, 09:53:33 AM »
I think part of the issue is that people stereotype, not just cyclists but small minded people like to put people in boxes because they are mentally lazy. 

I think this is accurate.  I've seen it plenty in this forum, too.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2015, 09:55:24 AM »
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I am a cyclist hater.

Bicycles on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when some cyclist is in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against bikes, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads with speed limits over 25 mph.  I'm fine if there are bike lanes.

Yes, I realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for cyclists because I'm sure you get angry at drivers (like me).  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by cyclists who can't go the posted speed limit.

Just a second.  Are you claiming that all of the traffic slow downs in your city are caused by cyclists?  Or are you really claiming that traffic is so bad because of the volume of cars on your road that the fraction of a second it takes to safely pass a cyclist makes your commute unbearable?

I'm saying that having a cyclist on the road often causes cars that would normally be going the speed limit (35-45mph) to slow down to a crawl in order to pass the cyclist.  This slow down causes other cars to slow down and causes a traffic back-up.

Not all traffic slow downs are caused by cyclists...obviously.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17384
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2015, 10:20:11 AM »
OK, so we've established that the cars are causing the slow down.  You hate the cyclist because . . . ?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6276
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2015, 10:35:55 AM »
OK, so we've established that the cars are causing the slow down.  You hate the cyclist because . . . ?
From reading his post, logic indicates that the cyclist is the root cause of the particular case he described.

If cyclists in your area don't ride three-wide on single lane roads, congratulations - they're smarter than some.

Guses

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 915
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2015, 10:50:29 AM »
I also hate traffic, which is why I ride a bike.

Imagine if you could go on your merry way instead of obsessing over slowing down ever so slightly in your car.

I am also not sure that the slowdown is caused by the cyclist. It is most likely caused by the cars that are going too fast, following too closely and not driving defensively that makes them have to slam the brakes at the slightest unexpected event.

If you adapt a relaxed driving style, you can anticipate the need to brake (see those red light far away? they are telling you something) much before you actively need to engage in braking.

cambridgecyclist

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2015, 10:52:05 AM »
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I am a cyclist hater.

Bicycles on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when some cyclist is in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against bikes, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads with speed limits over 25 mph.  I'm fine if there are bike lanes.

Yes, I realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for cyclists because I'm sure you get angry at drivers (like me).  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by cyclists who can't go the posted speed limit.

Just a second.  Are you claiming that all of the traffic slow downs in your city are caused by cyclists?  Or are you really claiming that traffic is so bad because of the volume of cars on your road that the fraction of a second it takes to safely pass a cyclist makes your commute unbearable?

I'm saying that having a cyclist on the road often causes cars that would normally be going the speed limit (35-45mph) to slow down to a crawl in order to pass the cyclist.  This slow down causes other cars to slow down and causes a traffic back-up.

Not all traffic slow downs are caused by cyclists...obviously.

What percentage of the time are you waiting for a cyclist versus waiting for the motor vehicle in front of you? Is this a huge issue where you're driving? How much does this cyclist-generated slowdown slow you down, in terms of minutes or seconds?

Incidentally, cyclists ARE traffic. The perspective that cyclists are not legitimate road traffic is one-sided.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2015, 11:03:11 AM »
My long since forgottend hatred of bikers came from my commute at my summer job from middle school to college. This was a 2-lane (1 in each direction) highway, moderate traffic, 45mph for about 3 miles. Most of it had about 6 inches of paved shoulder and 4-8 feet of gravel shoulder.

At least 2 times a week, there would be bikers riding 3-5 abreast. This despite multiple signs saying it is illegal to ride more than 2 abreast. This despite there being a bike trail RIGHT NEXT TO THE ROAD THROUGH A FOREST PRESERVE. Sure, the thign was winding, but it was a 1 mile longer ride--4 vs 5 miles. It was seriously a safety issue, and the fault would have been on the bikers if something happened.

I am pretty sure it was one group, since I would see them pretty regularly W, F, S, S, and not MTTH.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 914
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2015, 11:18:32 AM »
Just because it's LEGAL to ride your bicycle over a narrow, 2-lane (1/direction) bridge in the car lane, even though there's a perfectly functional multi-use path, doesn't mean it isn't demonstrative of sociopathic tendancies to do so.

I've seen traffic jams created by this that added 15 minutes to my crossing this bridge. Had this cyclist had one ounce of empathy for the 75 people they severely inconvenienced, and taken the damend multi-use path that's the same distance as riding on the road, perhaps cyclist hate wouldn't exist.

I say this as a cyclist. But I demonstrate some thought for the flow of traffic and everyone else when riding, and do so in ways that make it safe for me, and don't hold 100s of other people up over the course of my ride.




MLKnits

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2015, 11:30:14 AM »
My long since forgottend hatred of bikers came from my commute at my summer job from middle school to college. This was a 2-lane (1 in each direction) highway, moderate traffic, 45mph for about 3 miles. Most of it had about 6 inches of paved shoulder and 4-8 feet of gravel shoulder.

At least 2 times a week, there would be bikers riding 3-5 abreast. This despite multiple signs saying it is illegal to ride more than 2 abreast. This despite there being a bike trail RIGHT NEXT TO THE ROAD THROUGH A FOREST PRESERVE. Sure, the thign was winding, but it was a 1 mile longer ride--4 vs 5 miles. It was seriously a safety issue, and the fault would have been on the bikers if something happened.

I am pretty sure it was one group, since I would see them pretty regularly W, F, S, S, and not MTTH.

Hmm, hang on though. There's a 6" useful shoulder--eg no shoulder at all--from the bike's perspective, so the safest thing to do is to take the lane. Given that they pretty much have to take the lane, why does riding three abreast, vs. two, matter for traffic purposes? Either way a driver who wants to pass will have to go well across the median and will have to be sure that's a safe decision.

Personally, when there's little or no shoulder I hang to the right--but I'm reasonably likely to be side-swiped, and the much safer and arguably more correct choice is to take the lane.

You can say the forest trail was equivalent, but obviously they disagree or they'd be riding there, since I'm guessing they're not intentionally setting out, multiple days every week, purely to be assholes.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8714
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2015, 11:32:33 AM »
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I am a cyclist hater.

Bicycles on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when some cyclist is in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against bikes, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads with speed limits over 25 mph.  I'm fine if there are bike lanes.

Yes, I realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for cyclists because I'm sure you get angry at drivers (like me).  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by cyclists who can't go the posted speed limit.

Just a second.  Are you claiming that all of the traffic slow downs in your city are caused by cyclists?  Or are you really claiming that traffic is so bad because of the volume of cars on your road that the fraction of a second it takes to safely pass a cyclist makes your commute unbearable?

I'm saying that having a cyclist on the road often causes cars that would normally be going the speed limit (35-45mph) to slow down to a crawl in order to pass the cyclist.  This slow down causes other cars to slow down and causes a traffic back-up.

Not all traffic slow downs are caused by cyclists...obviously.

What percentage of the time are you waiting for a cyclist versus waiting for the motor vehicle in front of you? Is this a huge issue where you're driving? How much does this cyclist-generated slowdown slow you down, in terms of minutes or seconds?

Incidentally, cyclists ARE traffic. The perspective that cyclists are not legitimate road traffic is one-sided.
This is a very good point, really.

Cyclists ARE traffic - especially when you consider there is a single person on one small vehicle, versus a single person driving a behemoth that will fit 5.

In the grand scheme of things, it takes me 15 minutes to get to work and one hour to get home (because I pick up the kids on the way home).

The 45 seconds it takes if I miss a light, or the 1 minute it takes while I have to wait to pass a bicyclist, or the 30 seconds it takes to wait for a pedestrian to cross the street - in the grand scheme of things, is nearly nothing compared to my full day.

I'd much rather slow down and be safe, and make it safe for everyone else.

As far as the snobbishness goes - my town is like that.  There are the hippies that bike, the young guys that bike.  It's rare for me to see another female on a bike.

But there are a lot of poor people here who bike too because they don't have cars.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8714
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2015, 11:34:42 AM »
Just because it's LEGAL to ride your bicycle over a narrow, 2-lane (1/direction) bridge in the car lane, even though there's a perfectly functional multi-use path, doesn't mean it isn't demonstrative of sociopathic tendancies to do so.

I've seen traffic jams created by this that added 15 minutes to my crossing this bridge. Had this cyclist had one ounce of empathy for the 75 people they severely inconvenienced, and taken the damend multi-use path that's the same distance as riding on the road, perhaps cyclist hate wouldn't exist.

I say this as a cyclist. But I demonstrate some thought for the flow of traffic and everyone else when riding, and do so in ways that make it safe for me, and don't hold 100s of other people up over the course of my ride.
Down by the beach we have a 2-lane road (with parking on one side), a multi-use path that is paved, some grass, and a wide sidewalk.

Why the eff do I see bicycles on the effing sidewalk?? There's a ROAD and a BIKE PATH get your a$$ off the sidewalk!!

MLKnits

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2015, 11:35:02 AM »
Are y'all familiar with the concept of attribution bias?

Basically, when I do something stupid or thoughtless, I know all of my reasons (I'm tired! It made sense in context! That guy shouldn't have tried to cut me off!).

When someone else--say, a cyclist on the road in front of me--does something that appears to me to be stupid or thoughtless, it's because he's a fucking sociopathic jerkface who doesn't care about anyone but himself.

Well ... no. Obviously that's bullshit. But that's attribution bias: we assume that other people do shit out of spite and because they're bad people, while our own bad behaviour is instantly justified because we know all of the factors that went into it.

This applies pretty heavily in this conversation, I think. Most people, on bikes or otherwise, do not set out to go ruin drivers' days just for the fun of it. There are usually reasons for the things they do, just as you have reasons for the decisions you make (like, say, driving a route that requires a narrow and often jammed route).

ash7962

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2015, 11:51:24 AM »
So I live in Chicago which is both a high traffic area and fairly bike friendly.  A lot of roads downtown have dedicated bike lanes, and I've even seen intersections with lights specifically for bikes (the light is bike shaped).  However, all the time I still see bikers who run red lights or skip stop signs.  I am a biker myself and agree bikes are legit road vehicles, but seeing that kinda behavior is super annoying to me.  Even from the point of view as a pedestrian, I've been trying to cross the street when the light is green my way and red for oncoming traffic and then a biker speeds by.  I understand that its fairly easy for a biker to avoid me, but it still freaks me out when they pass real close going really fast.  I've also got a friend who hates bikers with a passion even knowing I am a city biker myself, and its pretty hard to convince her that bikes have a right to share the road when we can see them running red lights and disrupting traffic.  I'd love to see those bikers ticketed.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2015, 11:52:50 AM »


Incidentally, cyclists ARE traffic. The perspective that cyclists are not legitimate road traffic is one-sided.

Let's go with this...."cyclists are traffic".

Why then, are cyclists allowed to go only 10-15 mph on the road, regardless of what the posted speed limit is?  If a car did that nobody would wonder why other drivers were infuriated.

In my home state of Virginia, this is the law: "No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic." 

So if bikes are traffic, why do they get a separate set of rules?

My point is only that bikes and cars should each have their own space, and neither should be forced to deal with the other in that space.

MLKnits

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2015, 11:55:11 AM »


Incidentally, cyclists ARE traffic. The perspective that cyclists are not legitimate road traffic is one-sided.

Let's go with this...."cyclists are traffic".

Why then, are cyclists allowed to go only 10-15 mph on the road, regardless of what the posted speed limit is?  If a car did that nobody would wonder why other drivers were infuriated.

In my home state of Virginia, this is the law: "No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic." 

So if bikes are traffic, why do they get a separate set of rules?

My point is only that bikes and cars should each have their own space, and neither should be forced to deal with the other in that space.

So petition your municipal government for real, functional bike lanes. Until they're put in place, cyclists will continue to bike on the street, because they're not permitted to ride on the sidewalk (and shouldn't be, as it's dangerous to all concerned).

Also, the words "motor vehicle" appear in the quoted law. Bikes are part of traffic, but they aren't motor vehicles.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2015, 12:05:23 PM »
My long since forgottend hatred of bikers came from my commute at my summer job from middle school to college. This was a 2-lane (1 in each direction) highway, moderate traffic, 45mph for about 3 miles. Most of it had about 6 inches of paved shoulder and 4-8 feet of gravel shoulder.

At least 2 times a week, there would be bikers riding 3-5 abreast. This despite multiple signs saying it is illegal to ride more than 2 abreast. This despite there being a bike trail RIGHT NEXT TO THE ROAD THROUGH A FOREST PRESERVE. Sure, the thign was winding, but it was a 1 mile longer ride--4 vs 5 miles. It was seriously a safety issue, and the fault would have been on the bikers if something happened.

I am pretty sure it was one group, since I would see them pretty regularly W, F, S, S, and not MTTH.

Hmm, hang on though. There's a 6" useful shoulder--eg no shoulder at all--from the bike's perspective, so the safest thing to do is to take the lane. Given that they pretty much have to take the lane, why does riding three abreast, vs. two, matter for traffic purposes? Either way a driver who wants to pass will have to go well across the median and will have to be sure that's a safe decision.

Personally, when there's little or no shoulder I hang to the right--but I'm reasonably likely to be side-swiped, and the much safer and arguably more correct choice is to take the lane.


Interesting point; unfortunately it doesn't hold up. There were 3 hills that made this the case. I had no idea what was on the other side of the hills, and at least three times over the 4 years of driving that commute, I had to make the decision "If I don't slow down fast enough, do I swerve into oncoming traffic, or take out the bike?"  The answer usually depended on what car I was in.

Had they been riding single file and within 6 inches of the shoulder (giving them 12 inches of pavement), in any vehicle, I would have been able to get past within my lane.

Frankly, it was a dangerous move on their part. There is no defending it without saying "The rewards of riding on a straight course outweighed the risk of me losing my life or causing someone else to be in a head-on collision". That is essentially what it comes down to; any justifications are alright, but they are still highly dangerous. And this is coming from someone who races cars, jumps on jetskis every chance I can, goes skiing, etc.

MLKnits

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2015, 12:13:45 PM »

Interesting point; unfortunately it doesn't hold up. There were 3 hills that made this the case. I had no idea what was on the other side of the hills, and at least three times over the 4 years of driving that commute, I had to make the decision "If I don't slow down fast enough, do I swerve into oncoming traffic, or take out the bike?"  The answer usually depended on what car I was in.

Had they been riding single file and within 6 inches of the shoulder (giving them 12 inches of pavement), in any vehicle, I would have been able to get past within my lane.

Frankly, it was a dangerous move on their part. There is no defending it without saying "The rewards of riding on a straight course outweighed the risk of me losing my life or causing someone else to be in a head-on collision". That is essentially what it comes down to; any justifications are alright, but they are still highly dangerous. And this is coming from someone who races cars, jumps on jetskis every chance I can, goes skiing, etc.

Wait, why would you ever be going fast enough over a hill you can't see past to have to make that decision? One of the first rules I learned as a teenager was "always assume there's a three-year-old lying on the other side of the hill, because once in a very long time, there will be." Racing over the top of a hill is just reckless.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17384
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2015, 12:19:52 PM »

Interesting point; unfortunately it doesn't hold up. There were 3 hills that made this the case. I had no idea what was on the other side of the hills, and at least three times over the 4 years of driving that commute, I had to make the decision "If I don't slow down fast enough, do I swerve into oncoming traffic, or take out the bike?"  The answer usually depended on what car I was in.

Had they been riding single file and within 6 inches of the shoulder (giving them 12 inches of pavement), in any vehicle, I would have been able to get past within my lane.

Frankly, it was a dangerous move on their part. There is no defending it without saying "The rewards of riding on a straight course outweighed the risk of me losing my life or causing someone else to be in a head-on collision". That is essentially what it comes down to; any justifications are alright, but they are still highly dangerous. And this is coming from someone who races cars, jumps on jetskis every chance I can, goes skiing, etc.

Wait, why would you ever be going fast enough over a hill you can't see past to have to make that decision? One of the first rules I learned as a teenager was "always assume there's a three-year-old lying on the other side of the hill, because once in a very long time, there will be." Racing over the top of a hill is just reckless.

Passing people blind on a hill is about as sociopathic as it gets.  Did you get your driver's license in a crackerjack box?

Guses

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 915
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2015, 12:20:24 PM »
[Interesting point; unfortunately it doesn't hold up. There were 3 hills that made this the case. I had no idea what was on the other side of the hills, and at least three times over the 4 years of driving that commute, I had to make the decision "If I don't slow down fast enough, do I swerve into oncoming traffic, or take out the bike?"  The answer usually depended on what car I was in.

If you had no idea what was on the other side of the hill and you were going so fast that you would have been unable to stop in time to avoid an accident, I would posit that you were the one with the dangerous and reckless behaviour.

We would all be better off if we would not jeopardize a human life in order to gain 15 seconds or so (to watch HGTV?). Speeding reckless motorists are no better than stop sign and light avoiding cyclists in that regard.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17384
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2015, 12:26:33 PM »
[Interesting point; unfortunately it doesn't hold up. There were 3 hills that made this the case. I had no idea what was on the other side of the hills, and at least three times over the 4 years of driving that commute, I had to make the decision "If I don't slow down fast enough, do I swerve into oncoming traffic, or take out the bike?"  The answer usually depended on what car I was in.

If you had no idea what was on the other side of the hill and you were going so fast that you would have been unable to stop in time to avoid an accident, I would posit that you were the one with the dangerous and reckless behaviour.

We would all be better off if we would not jeopardize a human life in order to gain 15 seconds or so (to watch HGTV?). Speeding reckless motorists are no better than stop sign and light avoiding cyclists in that regard.

Worse actually . . . the cyclist is only killing himself.  The retard causing a front-end collision is likely to kill others.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2015, 12:53:03 PM »
[Interesting point; unfortunately it doesn't hold up. There were 3 hills that made this the case. I had no idea what was on the other side of the hills, and at least three times over the 4 years of driving that commute, I had to make the decision "If I don't slow down fast enough, do I swerve into oncoming traffic, or take out the bike?"  The answer usually depended on what car I was in.

If you had no idea what was on the other side of the hill and you were going so fast that you would have been unable to stop in time to avoid an accident, I would posit that you were the one with the dangerous and reckless behaviour.

We would all be better off if we would not jeopardize a human life in order to gain 15 seconds or so (to watch HGTV?). Speeding reckless motorists are no better than stop sign and light avoiding cyclists in that regard.

Worse actually . . . the cyclist is only killing himself.  The retard causing a front-end collision is likely to kill others.

And once again, the internet has hidden the truth behind the matter. It seems like I was reckless describing it; in actuality I was not. I actually had my drivers license test on that road, and drove it as I normally do, and passed with flying colors.

Also, please don't use the word retard like that.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2964
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2015, 01:02:06 PM »

Interesting point; unfortunately it doesn't hold up. There were 3 hills that made this the case. I had no idea what was on the other side of the hills, and at least three times over the 4 years of driving that commute, I had to make the decision "If I don't slow down fast enough, do I swerve into oncoming traffic, or take out the bike?"  The answer usually depended on what car I was in.

Had they been riding single file and within 6 inches of the shoulder (giving them 12 inches of pavement), in any vehicle, I would have been able to get past within my lane.

Frankly, it was a dangerous move on their part. There is no defending it without saying "The rewards of riding on a straight course outweighed the risk of me losing my life or causing someone else to be in a head-on collision". That is essentially what it comes down to; any justifications are alright, but they are still highly dangerous. And this is coming from someone who races cars, jumps on jetskis every chance I can, goes skiing, etc.

Wait, why would you ever be going fast enough over a hill you can't see past to have to make that decision? One of the first rules I learned as a teenager was "always assume there's a three-year-old lying on the other side of the hill, because once in a very long time, there will be." Racing over the top of a hill is just reckless.

Passing people blind on a hill is about as sociopathic as it gets.  Did you get your driver's license in a crackerjack box?

Here attribution bias comes roaring in!  Mtm was obviously saying that the bikers were on the other side of the hill, not that they were passing bikes while unable to see the road ahead.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17384
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2015, 01:05:54 PM »
Wait, I'm genuinely confused now.

- Cyclists going the other direction on the road . . . only a problem if the car is driving in the wrong lane coming over the hill
- Cyclists going the same direction on the road . . . only a problem if the car is passing unsafely, or driving unsafely (can't see far enough ahead to stop properly)

So which of his errors is the motorist blaming the cyclists for?

« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 01:08:22 PM by GuitarStv »

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2964
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2015, 01:10:41 PM »
Wait, I'm genuinely confused now.

- Cyclists going the other direction on the road . . . only a problem if the car is driving in the wrong lane coming over the hill
- Cyclists going the same direction on the road . . . only a problem if the car is passing unsafely, or driving unsafely

So which of his errors is the motorist blaming the cyclists for?

Why are you starting from the point that he's wrong?  Can you really not imagine a scenario where you don't know what's on the road ahead when there are 3 big hills you can't see the other side of?  I've driven on interstates like this.  The posted speed limit is 45 mph, and the bicyclists were unlikely to be able to go at that speed.  Sure, it's possible that mtm was driving unsafely – but the fact that you assume that he is, but that the bikes were obviously going perfectly safely (even though they were already riding illegally) is a perfect example of bias.

Guses

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 915
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2015, 01:11:00 PM »
Here attribution bias comes roaring in!  Mtm was obviously saying that the bikers were on the other side of the hill, not that they were passing bikes while unable to see the road ahead.

I understood Mtm correctly the first time.

When you are driving (regardless of the vehicule), you should drive at a speed that allows you to avoid obstacles. It is reasonable to expect the possibility of an obstacle being present when you cannot visually deny it. The correct response in that situation is to slow down until you are able to confirm that there are no obstacles.

This has nothing to do with bias. The same would apply to a cyclist, pedestrian or driver. If you can't see around the corner, don't just continue on your merry way and assume that there is nothing there.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 01:13:53 PM by Guses »

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4113
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2015, 01:14:59 PM »
I was wondering if this was going to be Seattle related.  Yup.

The traffic here is so utterly terrible that bicycles are, in many cases, literally faster than cars to get anywhere.  This tends to upset drivers, who drive like crap, and generally refuse to acknowledge that bike lanes are places for bicycles, not for their wheels to sit.  So then you have cyclists going past stopped traffic, who are blocked by some large SUV that literally cannot stay in between the lines because either the driver doesn't know where the right side is, or they don't care.  So you have to stop, squeeze past, sometimes going up onto the sidewalk, because someone can't stay out of the bike lane.  And, then, in other areas, people use the bike lane to try (usually unsuccessfully) to squeeze past traffic so they can turn right ahead, totally ignoring the bicycle coming up behind them at 15mph.

And then, logically, the conclusion is to be upset at the bicyclists.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2015, 01:15:56 PM »
The road authorities made this video as a part of a campaign to get people to show consideration and share the road (del veien): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_W4xE7_7TI

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2964
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2015, 01:18:13 PM »
Here attribution bias comes roaring in!  Mtm was obviously saying that the bikers were on the other side of the hill, not that they were passing bikes while unable to see the road ahead.

I understood Mtm correctly the first time.

When you are driving (regardless of the vehicule), you should drive at a speed that allows you to avoid obstacles. It is reasonable to expect the possibility of an obstacle being present when you cannot visually deny it. The correct response in that situation is to slow down until you are able to confirm that there are no obstacles.

Sure, and you suggested the possibility that mtm was the one at fault.  You didn't leap to the conclusion that he was a sociopath, and you didn't use offensive language.  I have no quibble with your post.

Ditchmonkey

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2015, 01:21:54 PM »
Even as a cyclist I am sometimes annoyed by cyclists behavior on the road. Not too long ago, a woman was run over by a log truck near here. Regardless of what you feel your "right" is to the road, you don't want to end up under a log truck so wise up.

However, I still don't understand all this "hate" for cyclists. If this kind of thing makes you so angry, seek counseling because you have issues.

MLKnits

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2015, 01:22:43 PM »
Here attribution bias comes roaring in!  Mtm was obviously saying that the bikers were on the other side of the hill, not that they were passing bikes while unable to see the road ahead.

I understood Mtm correctly the first time.

When you are driving (regardless of the vehicule), you should drive at a speed that allows you to avoid obstacles. It is reasonable to expect the possibility of an obstacle being present when you cannot visually deny it. The correct response in that situation is to slow down until you are able to confirm that there are no obstacles.

This has nothing to do with bias. The same would apply to a cyclist, pedestrian or driver. If you can't see around the corner, don't just continue on your merry way and assume that there is nothing there.

This, exactly. There is no reason whatsoever to continue blithely at the same pace while cresting a hill, any more than you'd continue blithely at the same pace if you suddenly found yourself in a whiteout. If you can't see, you slow down. To do anything else is to utterly and completely fail to observe basic road safety.

Children, animals, stopped cars, and objects of all kinds end up on the road all the time; driving at the right speed to stop safely once you've seen one is pretty much the central tenet of good driving, and that means matching your speed to how far ahead you can see on the road. If you can't see ahead, you drive much, much slower, regardless of the reason that your sight is impeded.

(But: let's seriously not use either "sociopath" or "retard." They're both ableist as fuck and not effective rhetoric either, so not worth it.)

Runge

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Location: TX
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2015, 01:28:19 PM »
My long since forgottend hatred of bikers came from my commute at my summer job from middle school to college. This was a 2-lane (1 in each direction) highway, moderate traffic, 45mph for about 3 miles. Most of it had about 6 inches of paved shoulder and 4-8 feet of gravel shoulder.

At least 2 times a week, there would be bikers riding 3-5 abreast. This despite multiple signs saying it is illegal to ride more than 2 abreast. This despite there being a bike trail RIGHT NEXT TO THE ROAD THROUGH A FOREST PRESERVE. Sure, the thign was winding, but it was a 1 mile longer ride--4 vs 5 miles. It was seriously a safety issue, and the fault would have been on the bikers if something happened.

I am pretty sure it was one group, since I would see them pretty regularly W, F, S, S, and not MTTH.

Hmm, hang on though. There's a 6" useful shoulder--eg no shoulder at all--from the bike's perspective, so the safest thing to do is to take the lane. Given that they pretty much have to take the lane, why does riding three abreast, vs. two, matter for traffic purposes? Either way a driver who wants to pass will have to go well across the median and will have to be sure that's a safe decision.

Personally, when there's little or no shoulder I hang to the right--but I'm reasonably likely to be side-swiped, and the much safer and arguably more correct choice is to take the lane.


Interesting point; unfortunately it doesn't hold up. There were 3 hills that made this the case. I had no idea what was on the other side of the hills, and at least three times over the 4 years of driving that commute, I had to make the decision "If I don't slow down fast enough, do I swerve into oncoming traffic, or take out the bike?"  The answer usually depended on what car I was in.

Had they been riding single file and within 6 inches of the shoulder (giving them 12 inches of pavement), in any vehicle, I would have been able to get past within my lane.

Frankly, it was a dangerous move on their part. There is no defending it without saying "The rewards of riding on a straight course outweighed the risk of me losing my life or causing someone else to be in a head-on collision". That is essentially what it comes down to; any justifications are alright, but they are still highly dangerous. And this is coming from someone who races cars, jumps on jetskis every chance I can, goes skiing, etc.

6 inches of shoulder? You do realize that road tires are more or less an inch wide, and also realize that the shoulder width of the actual biker is likely around 2 feet...correct? So if said biker even managed to keep his one inch wide tire in that 6 inches, he'd still have a roughly a foot of his body width still in the lane. Couple that with the standard 3 feet of spacing when passing a cyclist rule, there's now 4 feet of road width that is occupied by the cyclist. US Highways uses a standard 12 foot wide lanes, Ford F150's are 80 inches wide (6 foot 8 inches), and Ford Escapes are 6 feet wide. Best case scenario, that leaves you with 5 feet between the cyclists and worst case of 4 feet. That's with the cyclist all the way to the right and you all the way to the left. Yes, you could technically pass them while staying in your lane, and it sounds like plenty of room to split the lane, but realistically, it's severely pushing the limits.

The cyclist isn't naturally going to want to right all the way to the right, as it gives him/her zero room to maneuver away from traffic for obstacles, so this will close the gap even further. The driver isn't going to want to ride on the center line because hitting an oncoming car is always a terrible thing to do, thus closing that gap even further. Thus, the driver must wait on a safe time to cross into the oncoming lane to give enough clearance to pass the cyclist. Often this requires that the driver slows down and yields to the cyclist, just like they would when approaching a slow moving car.

If someone has a problem with this situation, then they need to petition the city/county/state to install proper, separated bike lanes, not get angry at other people who are also trying to get from A to B. Lack of proper infrastructure for the local community is the root cause.

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boulder, CO
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2015, 01:29:37 PM »


Incidentally, cyclists ARE traffic. The perspective that cyclists are not legitimate road traffic is one-sided.

Let's go with this...."cyclists are traffic".

Why then, are cyclists allowed to go only 10-15 mph on the road, regardless of what the posted speed limit is? 

the speed limit is a maximum legal speed, thus any speed below that would be legal unless otherwise noted.

Quote
If a car did that nobody would wonder why other drivers were infuriated.

I would. Please explain.

Quote
In my home state of Virginia, this is the law: "No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic." 

I assume you follow this to mean "bicycles shall not operate at such a slow speed as to impede..."\
(a) please define impede
(b) please define normal and reasonable movement
(c) please show that a bicycle is defined as a motor vehicle in Virginia (you seem to be conflating "motor vehicle" with "traffic"... still)


Quote
So if bikes are traffic, why do they get a separate set of rules?

one reason would be that a bicycle operator is far less likely than a car driver to kill someone else in a collision.

Quote
My point is only that bikes and cars should each have their own space, and neither should be forced to deal with the other in that space.

you asked a bunch of questions, hardly making a point. In statement form, why should bikes and cars have their own space?

WerKater

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Location: Germany
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2015, 01:32:50 PM »
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I am a cyclist hater.

Bicycles on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when some cyclist is in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against bikes, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads with speed limits over 25 mph.  I'm fine if there are bike lanes.

Yes, I realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for cyclists because I'm sure you get angry at drivers (like me).  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by cyclists who can't go the posted speed limit.
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I basically hate nobody.

Cars on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when massive amounts of car drivers are in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass their stupid >2m wide vehicles with only one person in them, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against cars, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads narrower than 20m.  I'm fine if there are special car lanes.

Yes, I realize that cars have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for car drivers because I'm sure you get angry at cyclists.  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by clown car drivers who clog up the roads for no good reason.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17384
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #46 on: April 16, 2015, 01:34:33 PM »
Here attribution bias comes roaring in!  Mtm was obviously saying that the bikers were on the other side of the hill, not that they were passing bikes while unable to see the road ahead.

I understood Mtm correctly the first time.

When you are driving (regardless of the vehicule), you should drive at a speed that allows you to avoid obstacles. It is reasonable to expect the possibility of an obstacle being present when you cannot visually deny it. The correct response in that situation is to slow down until you are able to confirm that there are no obstacles.

Sure, and you suggested the possibility that mtm was the one at fault.  You didn't leap to the conclusion that he was a sociopath, and you didn't use offensive language.  I have no quibble with your post.

Point made.  My mistake in using charged words (and in misunderstanding what had been typed).  I apologize.


Were there a broken down car just over the crest of the road, MTM would have been less able to stop in time than for cyclists.  He would have been completely at fault for the accident as well.  His issue is related to his own (admittedly repeated) bouts of reckless driving, and not to the cyclists on the road.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 01:39:00 PM by GuitarStv »

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #47 on: April 16, 2015, 01:36:46 PM »
My long since forgottend hatred of bikers came from my commute at my summer job from middle school to college. This was a 2-lane (1 in each direction) highway, moderate traffic, 45mph for about 3 miles. Most of it had about 6 inches of paved shoulder and 4-8 feet of gravel shoulder.

At least 2 times a week, there would be bikers riding 3-5 abreast. This despite multiple signs saying it is illegal to ride more than 2 abreast. This despite there being a bike trail RIGHT NEXT TO THE ROAD THROUGH A FOREST PRESERVE. Sure, the thign was winding, but it was a 1 mile longer ride--4 vs 5 miles. It was seriously a safety issue, and the fault would have been on the bikers if something happened.

I am pretty sure it was one group, since I would see them pretty regularly W, F, S, S, and not MTTH.

Hmm, hang on though. There's a 6" useful shoulder--eg no shoulder at all--from the bike's perspective, so the safest thing to do is to take the lane. Given that they pretty much have to take the lane, why does riding three abreast, vs. two, matter for traffic purposes? Either way a driver who wants to pass will have to go well across the median and will have to be sure that's a safe decision.

Personally, when there's little or no shoulder I hang to the right--but I'm reasonably likely to be side-swiped, and the much safer and arguably more correct choice is to take the lane.


Interesting point; unfortunately it doesn't hold up. There were 3 hills that made this the case. I had no idea what was on the other side of the hills, and at least three times over the 4 years of driving that commute, I had to make the decision "If I don't slow down fast enough, do I swerve into oncoming traffic, or take out the bike?"  The answer usually depended on what car I was in.

Had they been riding single file and within 6 inches of the shoulder (giving them 12 inches of pavement), in any vehicle, I would have been able to get past within my lane.

Frankly, it was a dangerous move on their part. There is no defending it without saying "The rewards of riding on a straight course outweighed the risk of me losing my life or causing someone else to be in a head-on collision". That is essentially what it comes down to; any justifications are alright, but they are still highly dangerous. And this is coming from someone who races cars, jumps on jetskis every chance I can, goes skiing, etc.

6 inches of shoulder? You do realize that road tires are more or less an inch wide, and also realize that the shoulder width of the actual biker is likely around 2 feet...correct? So if said biker even managed to keep his one inch wide tire in that 6 inches, he'd still have a roughly a foot of his body width still in the lane. Couple that with the standard 3 feet of spacing when passing a cyclist rule, there's now 4 feet of road width that is occupied by the cyclist. US Highways uses a standard 12 foot wide lanes, Ford F150's are 80 inches wide (6 foot 8 inches), and Ford Escapes are 6 feet wide. Best case scenario, that leaves you with 5 feet between the cyclists and worst case of 4 feet. That's with the cyclist all the way to the right and you all the way to the left. Yes, you could technically pass them while staying in your lane, and it sounds like plenty of room to split the lane, but realistically, it's severely pushing the limits.

The cyclist isn't naturally going to want to right all the way to the right, as it gives him/her zero room to maneuver away from traffic for obstacles, so this will close the gap even further. The driver isn't going to want to ride on the center line because hitting an oncoming car is always a terrible thing to do, thus closing that gap even further. Thus, the driver must wait on a safe time to cross into the oncoming lane to give enough clearance to pass the cyclist. Often this requires that the driver slows down and yields to the cyclist, just like they would when approaching a slow moving car.

If someone has a problem with this situation, then they need to petition the city/county/state to install proper, separated bike lanes, not get angry at other people who are also trying to get from A to B. Lack of proper infrastructure for the local community is the root cause.

The county (since this was unincorporated township areas) has the bike lanes (paths). The cyclists don't use them. I assume because other, less hardcore, cyclists do and it slows them up, or because they didn't want to curve through the forest. Dunno. When I used to ride to work, I'd use the path, and found it took about 2-5 minutes longer.

And note, that my hatred for them grew when they would regularly ride [illegally] 3 abreast. It was dangerous, and caused dangerous situations. If the rode single file, and even 2 abreast with a reasonable amount of room I'd have no issue staying in my lane and getting around them--even when I drove a 3/4 ton truck. Most of the time was in a Miata. And usually I'd pass on the flat areas and give them the whole lane.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #48 on: April 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM »
Here attribution bias comes roaring in!  Mtm was obviously saying that the bikers were on the other side of the hill, not that they were passing bikes while unable to see the road ahead.

I understood Mtm correctly the first time.

When you are driving (regardless of the vehicule), you should drive at a speed that allows you to avoid obstacles. It is reasonable to expect the possibility of an obstacle being present when you cannot visually deny it. The correct response in that situation is to slow down until you are able to confirm that there are no obstacles.

Sure, and you suggested the possibility that mtm was the one at fault.  You didn't leap to the conclusion that he was a sociopath, and you didn't use offensive language.  I have no quibble with your post.

Point made.  My mistake in using charged words (and in misunderstanding what had been typed).  I apologize.


Were there a broken down car just over the crest of the road, MTM would have been less able to stop in time than for cyclists.  He would have been completely at fault for the accident as well.  His issue is related to his own (admittedly repeated) bouts of reckless driving, and not to the cyclists on the road.

Broken down car would have been off the road; there was more than adequate shoulder that was gravel.

And it was not reckless driving. If it was, every single driver, and every single bicycle rider on that road would have to be ticketed. Seriously.

jmusic

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
  • Location: Somewhere...
Re: Cyclist Hate
« Reply #49 on: April 16, 2015, 01:46:25 PM »
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I am a cyclist hater.

Bicycles on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when some cyclist is in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against bikes, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads with speed limits over 25 mph.  I'm fine if there are bike lanes.

Yes, I realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for cyclists because I'm sure you get angry at drivers (like me).  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by cyclists who can't go the posted speed limit.
Here is my personal opinion...please keep in mind that I basically hate nobody.

Cars on roads slow down traffic...period.  And that annoys the holy hell out of me.  Traffic is lousy enough as it is, but when massive amounts of car drivers are in the road, causing a traffic jam because nobody can safely pass their stupid >2m wide vehicles with only one person in them, it's really disruptive.

I don't have anything against cars, per se...I just don't think they belong on roads narrower than 20m.  I'm fine if there are special car lanes.

Yes, I realize that cars have a legal right to be on the roads...but that doesn't make it logical in practice.  I feel bad for car drivers because I'm sure you get angry at cyclists.  But 100% of my anger is about the traffic slowdowns caused by clown car drivers who clog up the roads for no good reason.

That's awesome! 

Anyway, modern cycling is exactly the scenario why our "Democratic Republic" style of government is so important (if it actually worked any more, but that's for another day).  The "Majority Rule, Minority Right." 

As a cyclist who also drives, it infuriates me that impatient drivers get annoyed enough to PUT MY LIFE AT RISK.  If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk).  Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel.  One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.