The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: wileyish 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
OK, so we've established that the cars are causing the slow down. You hate the cyclist because . . . ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
If a car did that nobody would wonder why other drivers were infuriated.
I would. Please explain.
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)
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
So the gravel is good enough for a cyclist, but apparently not for entitled motorists...
-
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.
That's a pretty big assumption. What if there was a fender-bender between the cars right ahead of you, and they hadn't had time to pull over before you came roaring, sight-unseen, over the hill? What if someone's tire blew and they spun out in the middle of the lane? What if their car stalled in the lane?
Apparently, the answer is that you would have either hit them, or swerved into oncoming traffic. You seriously don't see why you shouldn't be speeding over a hill when you can't know that nothing's happened on the other side? And you're accusing cyclists of causing road danger?
-
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.
So you claim to have knowledge about any possible accident or defect which could leave a vehicle stranded on that road? You are 100% sure that in each case the vehicle would be able to get off the road?
In Germany, the law is very clear: If you can not stop your vehicle within that distance on the road that you can actually see, you are driving too fast and a collision will be on you (common sens, isn't it? Basically, you are saying you are driving very fast into somewhere you cannot see). I would be surprised if the law was very much different where you live.
-
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.
While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness. It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death
There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).
-
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.
I take no exception to your position. I too would prefer driving if there were no other drivers on the road. I hate everyone equally.
-
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.
A Miata width is 68 inches (5 foot 8 inches), so more or less the 5 feet that I figured above. If the riders are riding two abreast, there's likely going to be about a foot between them, plus their 2 foot body width, meaning that they're now taking up an additional three feet of road space. And even if we assume that the right most rider is riding in the shoulder, that leaves only 2 feet between the left rider and the passing Miata/Focus on a 12 foot wide road. That is illegal in most jurisdictions, thus you were right to wait to give them their own lane when passing. But if you have to do that anyway, then as it was asked above, what does it matter if they're riding 2 or 3 or 4 abreast now, since any driver would have to cross into oncoming traffic anyway? IF they're riding single file, then the driver must maintain that minimum 3 foot spacing between the car and line of cyclists, potentially very long.
There's practical reasons for not using certain paths, and since I don't know the condition of those nearby in the area you brought up, I can't speak directly for them. However, in my area, the "bike paths" are actually multiuse paths that are not at all straight, have many blind corners, are filled with pedestrians, dogs, kids, etc. They're fancy sidewalks that are detached from the roadway. Lycra wearing cyclists simply don't want to be bothered by pedestrians as they're riding fast and don't like stopping or slowing down, hence why they're mostly seen on roadways because it makes more sense than bike paths. If there's an actual bike lane, then depending on how it's designed, it's extremely useful.
-
There's practical reasons for not using certain paths, and since I don't know the condition of those nearby in the area you brought up, I can't speak directly for them. However, in my area, the "bike paths" are actually multiuse paths that are not at all straight, have many blind corners, are filled with pedestrians, dogs, kids, etc. They're fancy sidewalks that are detached from the roadway. Lycra wearing cyclists simply don't want to be bothered by pedestrians as they're riding fast and don't like stopping or slowing down, hence why they're mostly seen on roadways because it makes more sense than bike paths. If there's an actual bike lane, then depending on how it's designed, it's extremely useful.
So you understand *exactly* why drivers don't like bikers on the road...it's exactly the same principle as what you described in bold.
-
Alright, you guys win. I'll turn in my license on my way home from work today, and devote the rest of my life to proclaiming the virtues of cyclists on dangerous roads!
/Sarcasm.
Seriously, this is an incredibly stupid conversation of hypotheticals. I'm facepunching myself for even getting into it; any reasonable person here would look at the situation (if they saw it, apparently I can't describe it very well) and say "wow, yeah, Mtn is right. he wasn't driving recklessly, and it would be foolhardy to ride 3 abreast on this road".
It was/is a dangerous road for cyclists. There was a bike path not 30 yards away from the road, yet cyclists would regularly ride illegally on the road in a dangerous fashion. In certain situations, cyclists could have caused accidents. When the riders were riding legally, there existed very little danger. When they rode illegally, it caused a significant risk. Sure, there are situations that you can draw up that make me look like the bad guy, but they are EXTREMELY unlikely on this road. In theory, a Morris Marina could fall from the sky and hit me too. But I don't account for that risk, since it probably won't happen.
I'm out. Ya'll have fun now!
-
There's practical reasons for not using certain paths, and since I don't know the condition of those nearby in the area you brought up, I can't speak directly for them. However, in my area, the "bike paths" are actually multiuse paths that are not at all straight, have many blind corners, are filled with pedestrians, dogs, kids, etc. They're fancy sidewalks that are detached from the roadway. Lycra wearing cyclists simply don't want to be bothered by pedestrians as they're riding fast and don't like stopping or slowing down, hence why they're mostly seen on roadways because it makes more sense than bike paths. If there's an actual bike lane, then depending on how it's designed, it's extremely useful.
So you understand *exactly* why drivers don't like bikers on the road...it's exactly the same principle as what you described in bold.
I do understand. I never said I didn't. But why do we all as a society have to get so angry at one another because we're too selfish and must yield to other people from time to time? This goes both ways.
ETA: Hence my suggestion to provide a separate lane for only bikes.
-
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.
While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness. It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death
There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).
Actually, after looking at the data for the UK (the first I could find), it looks like the rareness is caused mostly by the number of miles driven, rather than intrinsic safety differences – it looks like motor vehicles are about 4.7 times as fatal to pedestrians as bicycles per mile.
Reasoning: two cyclists caused pedestrian deaths in 2011, while single cars caused 233 pedestrian deaths in the same year.1 However, people drove cars about 50 times more miles than bicycles in that year. 2 233/50 = 4.66, so cars caused about 4.7 times more pedestrian deaths per mile than bicycles.
1 http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/sep/28/road-deaths-great-britain-data
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243957/nts2012-01.pdf
-
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.
In my town in California there are some roads where bikes are not allowed, for this very reason. However, other roads they are allowed. And in the few areas where there is no alternative to the highway, bicycles are allowed there too.
-
I'm a cyclist and a triathlete. But I rarely ride anymore. Too dangerous, especially here in Florida's most densely-populated county.
Distracted driving has taken the danger up a notch. But so too has distracted cycling. At least 80 percent of cyclists I see on our roads are wearing some sort of listening device. Really? You're going to eliminate perhaps your second-most important sense while trying to navigate an inherently dangerous situation.
-
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.
This is a fascinating discussion, really. As someone who walks, used to bike to work, and drives a lot now, I can see all sides.
I grew up in the country in twisty/ windy/ hilly roads. I would fear biking there.
When you are cresting a hill, of course you slow down. But at worst, you are thinking that maybe there is a slow car. So that means you only have to slow down so much. So if you are going 55, maybe you slow down to 40 or 45, because you aren't really expecting someone to be stopped, or moving extremely slowly. Likewise, if I were a pedestrian crossing at a blind spot or walking at a blind spot, I would specifically be walking OFF the road or being very careful to cross someplace else.
My town also has bike paths and bike lanes. It's not clear how well maintained your paths are, but for example, it would have to be paved.
The bike path to work (which is a combo of bike lanes on the road and dedicated bike paths) is 12 miles.
The road path to work (all in bike lanes on the road) is 10 miles.
So of course I prefer the 10 mile ride because it is much shorter and faster for me (at least 10 minutes). Plus the other 2 miles the other way is through the university with a lot of other bike and foot traffic.
As far as bikes yielding to pedestrians or cars. I personally feel that it's much easier for me to yield as a car or a ped to a bike. To start and stop while walking or driving is easy, physically. It takes more work on a bike. Of course I'm going to follow the laws regardless, but this is how I yield to bikes when I'm out.
I personally think riding 3-5 abreast is incredibly rude. But on the other hand, 6 inches of shoulder isn't enough when I'm biking.
-
Not to change the subject too much but motorcycling has taken up the risk quite a bit lately with the distracted driving as well.
-
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 $$,$$$ property damage
etc.
While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness. It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death
There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).
Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible." Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident. I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc.
Also, appearing in the article that you linked:
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists – the annual average in the UK is usually less than one – none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.
-
If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk). Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel. One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.
While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness. It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death
There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).
Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible." Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident. I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc.
Also, appearing in the article that you linked:
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists – the annual average in the UK is usually less than one – none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.
Right I said it was rare. But it's rare mostly because of the greater rate of car driving(about 90% of the difference in frequency) rather than the innate danger of cars compared to bicycles (about 10%).
-
If I did any number of road infractions on a bike, it would be practically impossible to *directly* kill anyone through my carelessness (though I absolutely could put myself at risk). Contrast that to a motorist in a 3,000+ pound cage of steel. One slip of the foot or other act of carelessness at the wrong moment could:
Kill a person on or off the road
Kill an animal
Cause $$,$$$ property damage
etc.
While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness. It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death
There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).
Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible." Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident. I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc.
Also, appearing in the article that you linked:
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists – the annual average in the UK is usually less than one – none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.
This 2014 article points out that when you also consider severe injuries into the equation cars are 60 times dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists per mile walked. http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians (http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians)
-
Just a little word from the other side: as a driver in a city with busy traffic, it's my worst nightmare that my car might hit and kill a pedestrian, cyclist, zooming Rascal operator or other unarmed creature. My 'anger' at disobedient bipeds is mostly fear, not rage.
-
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.
While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness. It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death
There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).
Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible." Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident. I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc.
Also, appearing in the article that you linked:
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists – the annual average in the UK is usually less than one – none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.
This 2014 article points out that when you also consider severe injuries into the equation cars are 60 times dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists per mile walked. http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians (http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians)
Interesting figures, but that article has terrible analysis. Yes, cars are 60 times more dangerous to pedestrians per mile walked using their assumptions - but since cars travel 50 times more miles than bicycles, then cars are only 1.2 times as dangerous as bicycles to pedestrians.
-
Interesting figures, but that article has terrible analysis. Yes, cars are 60 times more dangerous to pedestrians per mile walked using their assumptions - but since cars travel 50 times more miles than bicycles, then cars are only 1.2 times as dangerous as bicycles to pedestrians.
Sure, but your numbers also include HIGHWAY miles, where there shouldn't be any bikes or pedestrians anyway! There's a million different ways to spin it.
I'll put it to you this way: If you were walking down the street, would you rather get hit by a cyclist at 18mph, or a 3,500lb car?
-
FWIW, I get anger towards cyclists when they're doing stupid stuff. And I do see cyclists doing stupid stuff on a regular basis. I don't see them doing it on a greater basis than vehicle drivers though (for every cyclist who runs a stop sign there are a dozen drivers who break the speed limit).
The part that is disturbing to me is anger towards cyclists who are cycling safely on the road where they belong.
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.
While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness. It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death
There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).
Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible." Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident. I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc.
Also, appearing in the article that you linked:
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists – the annual average in the UK is usually less than one – none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.
This 2014 article points out that when you also consider severe injuries into the equation cars are 60 times dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists per mile walked. http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians (http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians)
Interesting figures, but that article has terrible analysis. Yes, cars are 60 times more dangerous to pedestrians per mile walked using their assumptions - but since cars travel 50 times more miles than bicycles, then cars are only 1.2 times as dangerous as bicycles to pedestrians.
It would be cool if there was a breakdown of how many accidents/deaths occurred due to side-walk cycling. What we're talking about in this thread are cyclists who are on the road, where typically pedestrians aren't around to be hit/injured.
-
Just a little word from the other side: as a driver in a city with busy traffic, it's my worst nightmare that my car might hit and kill a pedestrian, cyclist, zooming Rascal operator or other unarmed creature. My 'anger' at disobedient bipeds is mostly fear, not rage.
I agree with your sentiment. It's important that we realize that "cyclist" and "car" haters are really a minority of the population, they just stick out in our brains and we ignore the 90% of interactions that pass with zero incident.
I will say, that when I'm driving my car, I make DAMN sure not to do anything that would cause a cyclist to shake his/her fist at me! I respect that they are in much more potential danger than I.
-
Interesting figures, but that article has terrible analysis. Yes, cars are 60 times more dangerous to pedestrians per mile walked using their assumptions - but since cars travel 50 times more miles than bicycles, then cars are only 1.2 times as dangerous as bicycles to pedestrians.
Sure, but your numbers also include HIGHWAY miles, where there shouldn't be any bikes or pedestrians anyway! There's a million different ways to spin it.
I'll put it to you this way: If you were walking down the street, would you rather get hit by a cyclist at 18mph, or a 3,500lb car?
Sure. I'd love to only use highway miles, but those numbers are hard to find.
As for your question, of course I'd rather get hit by the bike. I've never argued that cars are safer for pedestrians. I'm just saying that using raw numbers - without adjusting for relative frequency - misses the point entirely.
-
FWIW, I get anger towards cyclists when they're doing stupid stuff. And I do see cyclists doing stupid stuff on a regular basis. I don't see them doing it on a greater basis than vehicle drivers though (for every cyclist who runs a stop sign there are a dozen drivers who break the speed limit).
The part that is disturbing to me is anger towards cyclists who are cycling safely on the road where they belong.
It would be cool if there was a breakdown of how many accidents/deaths occurred due to side-walk cycling. What we're talking about in this thread are cyclists who are on the road, where typically pedestrians aren't around to be hit/injured.
I completely agree that it would be interesting. But most pedestrian injuries caused by cars occur on the road - cars rarely (in a relative sense) drive up onto sidewalks to injure pedestrians.
-
FWIW, I get anger towards cyclists when they're doing stupid stuff. And I do see cyclists doing stupid stuff on a regular basis. I don't see them doing it on a greater basis than vehicle drivers though (for every cyclist who runs a stop sign there are a dozen drivers who break the speed limit).
The part that is disturbing to me is anger towards cyclists who are cycling safely on the road where they belong.
It would be cool if there was a breakdown of how many accidents/deaths occurred due to side-walk cycling. What we're talking about in this thread are cyclists who are on the road, where typically pedestrians aren't around to be hit/injured.
I completely agree that it would be interesting. But most pedestrian injuries caused by cars occur on the road - cars rarely (in a relative sense) drive up onto sidewalks to injure pedestrians.
Many cyclists choose to cycle on the sidewalk despite this being a more dangerous place for them and for pedestrians due to fear of cars and widespread social acceptance of this practice. I'd be interested to see how the stats work out for the cyclists who are in the road where they should be.
Were a large number of car drivers socially accepted on sidewalks I suspect that the car stats would slant heavily towards more injury with pedestrians.
-
Seriously, this is an incredibly stupid conversation of hypotheticals. I'm facepunching myself for even getting into it; any reasonable person here would look at the situation (if they saw it, apparently I can't describe it very well) and say "wow, yeah, Mtn is right. he wasn't driving recklessly, and it would be foolhardy to ride 3 abreast on this road".
I know I'm late to the party, but I feel the need to throw this out there. If the above statement is actually true, the road would be dangerously under-designed. Vertical curves are designed so that a driver can see far enough down the road to observe an object at rest (forget one that's moving forward at 15-20mph) in the road and react, brake and come to a stop prior to colliding with the object. If you can't do that at least one of the following is true: (1) you're exceeding the speed limit by a wide margin (the road is customarily designed for a speed 5-10 mph higher than the posted limit), (2) the posted speed limit is too high for the road's geometry.
-
Take the bicycle safety quiz before biking. Ask yourself, "on the route I'm about to take would my spouse believe it is safe to take our 1 year old on the back? " If the answer is probably not, then the route is not safe for biking. Many of the biking situations I've seen described here appear unsafe for the bikers.
-
FWIW, I get anger towards cyclists when they're doing stupid stuff. And I do see cyclists doing stupid stuff on a regular basis. I don't see them doing it on a greater basis than vehicle drivers though (for every cyclist who runs a stop sign there are a dozen drivers who break the speed limit).
The part that is disturbing to me is anger towards cyclists who are cycling safely on the road where they belong.
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.
While rare, it's quite possible for bicyclists to kill through carelessness. It's pretty easy to find examples, here are the first two from Google:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375553/Death-dangerous-cycling-New-offence-crackdown-bikers.html
http://road.cc/content/news/6442-cyclist-jailed-causing-pavement-death
There's also a huge number of negligent ways a cyclist can indirectly cause death or the other effects you list, just as a car or pedestrian could (e.g. running a light or stop sign, causing other vehicles to collide or swerve).
Note I said "practically impossible" not "impossible." Of course, we weren't there so it also highly depends on the circumstances of the individual incident. I don't make excuses for irresponsible cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by riding the wrong way, riding on the sidewalk, etc.
Also, appearing in the article that you linked:
According to Dft figures 2007 was a particularly bad year resulting in a total of 3 deaths being caused by cyclists – the annual average in the UK is usually less than one – none of those who died were killed on the pavement. In the same year of over 600 pedestrians killed 54 were killed on the pavement by motor vehicles.
This 2014 article points out that when you also consider severe injuries into the equation cars are 60 times dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists per mile walked. http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians (http://road.cc/content/news/109269-are-drivers-and-cyclists-just-dangerous-pedestrians)
Interesting figures, but that article has terrible analysis. Yes, cars are 60 times more dangerous to pedestrians per mile walked using their assumptions - but since cars travel 50 times more miles than bicycles, then cars are only 1.2 times as dangerous as bicycles to pedestrians.
It would be cool if there was a breakdown of how many accidents/deaths occurred due to side-walk cycling. What we're talking about in this thread are cyclists who are on the road, where typically pedestrians aren't around to be hit/injured.
There are a lot of problems with those statistics. Usually they are derived from surveys, and they seldom ask kids (who very often travel by bike or foot). Also, surveys are often skewed towards people wealthy enough to have computers/internet.
-
FWIW, I get anger towards cyclists when they're doing stupid stuff. And I do see cyclists doing stupid stuff on a regular basis. I don't see them doing it on a greater basis than vehicle drivers though (for every cyclist who runs a stop sign there are a dozen drivers who break the speed limit).
The part that is disturbing to me is anger towards cyclists who are cycling safely on the road where they belong.
It would be cool if there was a breakdown of how many accidents/deaths occurred due to side-walk cycling. What we're talking about in this thread are cyclists who are on the road, where typically pedestrians aren't around to be hit/injured.
I completely agree that it would be interesting. But most pedestrian injuries caused by cars occur on the road - cars rarely (in a relative sense) drive up onto sidewalks to injure pedestrians.
Many cyclists choose to cycle on the sidewalk despite this being a more dangerous place for them and for pedestrians due to fear of cars and widespread social acceptance of this practice. I'd be interested to see how the stats work out for the cyclists who are in the road where they should be.
Were a large number of car drivers socially accepted on sidewalks I suspect that the car stats would slant heavily towards more injury with pedestrians.
Some cyclists also like to bend the rules to whichever is most convenient - ever watch a cyclist riding on the road, then they hit a red light with a walk signal and ride across the crosswalk as if they were a pedestrian? :P
I biked to work for years in a decent sized city (Gainesville FL) and I respect considerate cyclists. The problematic ones are the ones who don't think of themselves as a vehicle - riding against traffic, at night with no lights, crossing the road wherever they want, towards or against traffic, changing from sidewalks to roads, etc. I worked for a college-town police department for years. When talking about in-town stuff, bicycles were generally (percentage-wise) far worse regarding traffic laws than cars (specifically running stop signs - and yes, I would stop them).
I expect the inconsiderate cyclists are the ones who garner the most rage, which is then distributed to all cyclists, deserving or not.
-
ever watch a cyclist riding on the road, then they hit a red light with a walk signal and ride across the crosswalk as if they were a pedestrian? :P
Saw this last year when I was in Kuwait. I was stopped at a T-intersection in the left turn lane waiting for traffic to clear. A cyclist behind decided he didn't want to wait and swerved over and started walking his bike on the crosswalk almost right through traffic. All the vehicles had to stop for him.
Sidebar: On my ride back home I sometimes get stuck on a left turn signal that is pressure sensitive and never activates if I'm the only one in the lane. Once or twice I've "cheated" and just took an immediate left onto the crosswalk to get across. I've thought about sliding over from the turn lane and going straight through to get in line to go the other direction, but the road configuration could make that dangerous for me. Thoughts?
-
Sidebar: On my ride back home I sometimes get stuck on a left turn signal that is pressure sensitive and never activates if I'm the only one in the lane. Once or twice I've "cheated" and just took an immediate left onto the crosswalk to get across. I've thought about sliding over from the turn lane and going straight through to get in line to go the other direction, but the road configuration could make that dangerous for me. Thoughts?
This is why it's legal to ride through red lights if they don't turn for you within a cycle (assuming it is otherwise safe), and why I never bother waiting at the few lights I know don't trigger
-
This is why it's legal to ride through red lights if they don't turn for you within a cycle (assuming it is otherwise safe), and why I never bother waiting at the few lights I know don't trigger
Note that is a Wisconsin state law - might not apply elsewhere.
-
Wow. As a traffic guy who is wading through the politics/economics/engineering of getting transit and cycling lanes on major roads, this thread is quite interesting.
I don't even know where to start.
Lets try here... What is a cyclist? We see three (sometimes four) subsets of 'cyclist' that need to be served. Some of these work differently than others, and some have different interests.
Subset 1: kids - up to about 8 years old, a child on a bicycle will behave unpredictably, and need a load of guidance. We encourage these kids to ride on sidewalks and paths. We know they have a high probability of getting in trouble on the roads. Usually ride with parents or other kids.
Subset 2: Recreational cyclists - these are folks who have bikes in their garden shed and take them out a few times over the summer. They may go to the park or for an evening ride through the neighbourhood. These folks will mostly be on trails and roads, they will use bike paths if they are provided, but mostly they don't care as long as they feel safe. They will be nervous in heavy traffic and may or may not have good discipline with regards to rules of the road. Usually they ride alone or in pairs/families.
Subset 3: Utilitarian cyclists. These folks use their bike for errands and commuting. They include older kids and teens riding to school and most Mustachians. They use a bike the way most families use a car. They prefer to be on the road since foot traffic on sidewalks slows them down. They like bike lanes for safety. Their discipline is usually pretty good on the road. They are comfortable in traffic, but not fearless. Usually they ride alone.
Subset 4: Sport/training/courier cyclists. These guys prefer to be on the road with mixed traffic. They will often not use bike lanes even if they are available since the utilitarian cyclists slow them down. If they do use the bike lanes, they will leave them in order to pass other cyclists. Often they ride in large groups, sometimes very large. The groups will ride 1, 2, or 3 abreast (more on this later). They don't tend to have good discipline, although they will stop if a threat is percieved (ie. at a busy intersection they will stop for the red light, but then go as soon as traffic clears). They tend to be fearless in mixed traffic relying on the rules of the road for safety and disregarding the 'dead right' rule. Many have a disdain for cycling lanes considering them to be for newbies/casuals.
Since there is such huge disparity between the types of cyclists, its pretty hard to broad-brush label all cyclists as being of one behaviour or another. And even at that, within those 4 subsets there is pretty strong crossover between the groups. In most of our cycling design work here, we try to meet the needs of the utilitarian cyclist. When we do that, there is a lot of backlash and misunderstanding from the public - including cyclists.
At red lights -yeah - not all traffic signals go to sidestreet - many run on a rest-in-green timing which means mainstreet will stay green until something with enough metal in it rests on the induction loops to trip the signal to change. This doesn't give you the right to just roll through the light. There are 2 ways to trip the light. One is to hit the pedestrian button. This will force the light to enter a clearance phase (usually 10-15 seconds, then change. A second way is to trick the light into believing you are a car. To do this, tape a rare earth magnet to teh bottom of your bike at its lowest point (chainstay or bottom bracket, or even a pedal). Stop with the magnet right over the black line rectangular cutout at the intersections. The magnet will force teh loop to detect you, and the light will go through its clearance phase and then cycle to sidestreet.
What we build:
Cycling facilities designed into the upper tier (county/regional) road network are limited to on-road and off-road improvements. On road we have paved/widened shoulders and bike lanes. Off road we have Multi-use paths. All of these except shoulder hardening meet public disdain. Some of the more common complaints we get are that bikes don't contribute to road-building so why would we build roads/lanes/paths for them? We also hear about maintenance - cyclists like to see paths and shoulders in the same condition as roads, and sometimes we aren't able to sweep/plow/paint paths and bike lanes as regularly as we'd like. Roads have tires and fast vehicles rubbing the dirt away. Bike lanes don't always self-clean the same way. This results in an increased maintenance cost to the taxpayer. Widened shoulders tend to be favourable to everyone since both sides feel they are being served (all rural paving jobs in my jurisdiction now call for a minimum 2ft paved apron).
Our challenges with the bike lanes/paths are often related to topography (setting a multi-use path requires that we meet minimum grades and crossfalls) and property ownership. Very few landowners are willing to give up frontage for a bike lane or path. Cost to expropriate can create huge project budget overrides due to legal and real-estate values. Once we hash through the whole gammut of getting property then regrading for the bike lane, we are often stuck at structures (bridges) where we simply don't have space to fit a bike lane. It is also difficult to set up the lanes and paths to have destinations - especially in rural areas where we will incorporate a bike lane into a road project, only to have it lead to nothing until phase 4 or 5 of the project gets approval years later.
I am in the middle of a project now where I have managed to get bike lanes in phase 1 and 4 which have both been built, but phase 2, 3, and 5 have been shelved due to budget restraints. It may be 20 years before the middle piece of this project gets built. In the mean time, we have a busy road with bike lanes leading nowhere, and 100m (+/-) of bike lane at every crossing intersection.
Riding 1-2-3 abreast
In my jurisdiction, it is legal today for cyclists to ride 2 abreast. Most drivers aren't aware of this and get angry when they are held up by a peloton. Since they don't want to be run off the road, many riders will only go out single file. This is very considerate, and reduces the space needed for a car to pass. A number of cycling clubs are now petitioning for 3-abreast riding to be allowed in our highway traffic act, which is interesting to me to watch played out. I'm not sure which scenario I like best. Here's why.
Lets pretend a group of 12 racers go out for a training ride (common around here) in an area without bike lanes. By the books (Union Cyclise International), a single bike takes up about 1.85 m in length. For riders who aren't too aggressive, the bikes will be spaced about 2 feet (0.6 m) apart in a peloton. This puts your single unit length at 2.5 m. Considering that a standard lane width around here is 3.5 m (11.5 ft), read on...
If our 12 riders go in single file, a car will have a 100 ft (30 m) long line of cyclists one meter wide (3 ft) to pass. This may be difficult maintaining the additional 1m (3 ft) clearance between car and bike as required by the highway traffic act. Basically, the driver will have to straddle the centreline in order to pass. In fact, data has shown that the longer it takes a car to pass the cyclists, the closer they will come to the lead bikes in the pack since they feel threatened the longer they are shifted out of their normal driving position. Unfortunately, since the chain is so long, there is noplace for the driver to pull back in if an oncoming vehicle approaches. In fact, if an oncoming vehicle threatens the driver, he is most likely to drive into the peloton, injuring the cyclists.
Now if those cyclists were riding 2 abreast, the story would be different. Riding 2 abreast, the cyclists still take 1 m (3 ft) at the edge of the lane for the first file, plus another 60cm (2 ft) for the second file. We know that the cyclists on the edge will encroach less into the lane when they have other bikes beside them, pushing them over with less risk. So now we have a peloton width of 1.6 m plus 1 m clearance for a total of 2.6 m (8.5 ft) in a 3.5 m (11.5 ft) lane. The passing driver is still forced to straddle the centreline, although encroaching a little further into the oncoming lane, however now the peloton is only 15m long since the riders are side by side instead of strung out in a line. This means the driver only straddles the centreline for half the time, and is less likely to meet an oncoming vehicle. If he does though, he will pull into the peloton, risking contact with twice the cyclists.
Finally, if the cyclists are three-abreast. We now get a full lane of bikes. The car coming up on the peloton is forced to wait behind them until it is safe to pass. This is the same scenario as would happen with any slow moving vehicle (ie. farm tractor/tour bus/maintenance equipment) Once it is safe, the car will pass entirely in the oncoming lane. The advantage though is that our peloton is only 1/3 the length of riding single file, so the car only has 10 m (32.8 ft) to pass, which can be done very quickly once a gap in oncoming traffic presents itself.
Now I'm not condoning any one of these scenarios as best or better than the others, just giving another way to look at it. Really cyclists riding in a peloton should take a page from the motorcycle safety handbook and limit the size of their groups to prevent long pelotons that trap faster vehicles behind them for extended periods. Once your peloton is stretched out longer than truck, you are creating a safety risk for yourself. Also, pick routes that do offer paved shoulders and lighter/slower traffic wherever possible.
That's enough for now. Need to get back to what I'm supposed to be doing.
-
At red lights -yeah - not all traffic signals go to sidestreet - many run on a rest-in-green timing which means mainstreet will stay green until something with enough metal in it rests on the induction loops to trip the signal to change. This doesn't give you the right to just roll through the light. There are 2 ways to trip the light. One is to hit the pedestrian button. This will force the light to enter a clearance phase (usually 10-15 seconds, then change. A second way is to trick the light into believing you are a car. To do this, tape a rare earth magnet to teh bottom of your bike at its lowest point (chainstay or bottom bracket, or even a pedal). Stop with the magnet right over the black line rectangular cutout at the intersections. The magnet will force teh loop to detect you, and the light will go through its clearance phase and then cycle to sidestreet.
In Toronto the lights with timers have three long cuts that go down the center of the lane spaced about two feet apart. If you rest both your wheels directly over one of these cuts it will trigger the sensor just like a car 99% of the time. No need for magnets or doo-dads.
(I've only tried this with regular aluminum rims, not sure if it still works for fancy carbon fiber race type ones.)
-
Correct Guitar - You are doing it exactly right. We get a lot of calls from cyclists and motorbikes with too little metal in them to trip the lights. For them the rare earth magnets usually work.
Here's the "how stuff works" on it: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/question234.htm
At some locations we have tried infra-red and video detection, but we end up cycling the lights for rain drops and stray dogs with those, so the good old induction loop is still used 90% of the time.