Fu*king Cyclists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Interesting perspective. Dynamic. Equivocal. Balanced. Discursive.

---

Speaking of stfu....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

In this situation, a motor vehicles is more likely to be the problem because they are more numerous, whereas a given cyclist is more likely to be a problem because they have a higher proportion of users who will refuse to pull off.

---

That is such a big assumption. As a city rider if I'm on a narrow street I always take advantage of a hydrant rather than have cars on my ass. I can't be the only one that does that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stfu&gbtw

The pricks who don't like it when cars pass too close or too quickly are the same pricks who go blasting down trails screaming at pedestrians to get out of the way. If bicycles want to share the road, they belong in one place... Under a truck.

---

You are so cute when you puff out your chest online. Very scary!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BmillsSkier

There's some group ride around here on Wednesday nights where apparently all traffic laws are suspended. There's a 4 way stop intersection that you better hope the cyclists have already gone through or you'll be waiting for a long time. No stopping at all, and the entire mile long pack just blows right on through, one after another after another. I'm surprised some one hasn't gotten tired of sitting at the stop sign and just hit the gas.

Tour's that way assholes.

---

I think a buddy of mine started that like 10-15 years ago. Went on one when visiting and it was a blast. Surprised no one got shot honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

You want to cut half the fatalities out, how about banning biking at night. Eliminating say 10% of bike trips will cut fatalities in half, far more effective than cutting the speed limit in half for 99% of road users. I'm not actually advocating such a silly notion, but illustrating to those who want to cut speed limits that these discussions aren't about evidence and effective intervention. They are about entitlement and personal interests.

---

like getting from place to place? how selfish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

Speaking of stfu....

---

Listen, you Communist son-of-a-bitch! You better get your ass down there for your fuckin' physical, or I'll see to it that you get used for fill dirt in some impending New Jersey marsh reclamation! And your girl-friend there will wind up disguised as a series of brooms, primitive ironing boards, or a dog house! Get the... (cough, cough) get the picture?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

I'm not talking about a sidewalk and I never was.

---

Okay. Instead of sidewalk, substitute the term multi-modal at-grade road-adjacent hiker-biker pathway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

Okay. Instead of sidewalk, substitute the term multi-modal at-grade road-adjacent hiker-biker pathway.

---

It's actually about 20 - 150 feet off the road for the most part. Again, it avoids the driveway / motorist problems you were talking about. It is basically a limited-access multiuse-path that parallels the major traffic arteries.

Some bikers don't want to deal with occasional slower users on the path so they make drivers deal with bikers riding slower than traffic. It is a convenience thing for the bikers more than a safety thing, because we know a biker hitting a slower biker is far less dangerous than a bike vs car collision.

To me, it is hypocrisy born of entitlement.

The bike path along the truckee is fun. It's pretty narrow and windy and used by a lot of families and pedestrians so serious cyclists used the road, which is wide enough as long as they ride single file. There are signs painted on the bike path--ride this side, walk this side. As I rode past a walker on the right I told her, not unpleasantly, that she was on the wrong side, she told me the sign said to walk on this (the right) side. I pointed out that the letters on that sign were upside down BECAUSE THEY WERE FOR THE PEOPLE COMING THE OTHER WAY. She still didn't get it. People leave their brains at home when they come to Tahoe.

Plenty of bad pedestrians--mainly walking on the wrong side of the road or bike path. The law here is facing traffic. Also refusing to step off the bike lane to yield to bikes, which is the law in CA and hard to do if you're facing the wrong way.

Then there is another class of offender--roller skiers. XC skier kids training like to ride the bike path along the truckee at a fast walk, slow run pace, on the right, in long packs that make passing them impossible because you can't pass and pull back into the lane because there are no gaps. The kids are also 2-3 abreast so you can't ride next to them.

One thing is clear from this thread--a lot of people like to make up their own rules. Whatever form of transportation you are using, that's the definition of entitlement and self-absorption. Know the laws where you live. If you don't like them get them changed. There is some progress being made in CA towards getting stop signs defined as yield signs for bikes. (Not sure about red lights). Anyone who has tried to ride in the grid of Sacramento where there are stop signs or lights on every corner knows how impractical that is.

The other thing that is clear is that there is a lack of common sense--for example, riding a bike in the middle of the lane when it is unsafe for a car to pass makes sense when the the unsafe section is short and the cyclist is moving at a reasonable speed. Doing the same thing for 3 miles at 2 mph does not. And saying that because you are the one most at risk therefore you get to ride any way you want to, regardless of the law or common courtesy displays a shocking lack of common sense.

For a cyclist to accuse drivers who are irritated or angry at them for blocking the road of being dangerous is offensive. I get mad at cyclists blocking the road and if I see them riding two or more abreast and not within the bike lane I may very well give them the horn, but I will not hurt them or risk doing so. And if I'm passing that old guy going up DPR at 2 mph or less on a blind curve and a car is coming the other way, I'll hit the car rather than the bicycle.

The third thing that is clear is that there is a serious lack of infrastructure in this country for bikes. But then there is serious lack or deterioration of infrastructure for a lot of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ml242

That is such a big assumption. As a city rider if I'm on a narrow street I always take advantage of a hydrant rather than have cars on my ass. I can't be the only one that does that.

---

The situation presented was not city riding, but rural/mountain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ml242

like getting from place to place? how selfish.

---

The drivers getting from place to place are not important?

The point of that post was that most road bike fatalities are men riding in the dark, and alcohol is probably large component (for cyclists and drivers). Cutting urban speed limits won't help that.

Cutting the speed limit to 20 on urban roads will make it harder for the vast majority of road users to get where they are going, cost them more money, more time, release more greenhouse gasses, and save very few lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

It is a convenience thing for the bikers more than a safety thing, because we know a biker hitting a slower biker is far less dangerous than a bike vs car collision.

---

So it's dangerous for the bikers but it's not a safety thing. Huh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

So it's dangerous for the bikers but it's not a safety thing. Huh.

---

If they wanted to be safer, they'd be on the bike path. But that is inconvenient. Better to inconvenience the drivers and complain that drivers are unsafe assholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

People leave their brains at home when they come to Tahoe.

Plenty of bad pedestrians...

Then there is another class of offender--roller skiers. The kids are also 2-3 abreast so you can't ride next to them.

One thing is clear from this thread--a lot of people like to make up their own rules.

The other thing that is clear is that there is a lack of common sense--... And saying that because you are the one most at risk therefore you get to ride any way you want to, regardless of the law or common courtesy displays a shocking lack of common sense.

For a cyclist to accuse drivers who are irritated or angry at them for blocking the road of being dangerous is offensive.

I get mad at cyclists blocking the road and if I see them riding two or more abreast and not within the bike lane I may very well give them the horn, but I will not hurt them or risk doing so. And if I'm passing that old guy going up DPR at 2 mph or less on a blind curve and a car is coming the other way, I'll hit the car rather than the bicycle.

The third thing that is clear is that there is a serious lack of infrastructure in this country for bikes. But then there is serious lack or deterioration of infrastructure for a lot of things.

---

Distilled it. For me. Cask conditioned in a few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

The bike path along the truckee is fun. It's pretty narrow and windy and used by a lot of families and pedestrians so serious cyclists used the road, which is wide enough as long as they ride single file. There are signs painted on the bike path--ride this side, walk this side. As I rode past a walker on the right I told her, not unpleasantly, that she was on the wrong side, she told me the sign said to walk on this (the right) side. I pointed out that the letters on that sign were upside down BECAUSE THEY WERE FOR THE PEOPLE COMING THE OTHER WAY. She still didn't get it. People leave their brains at home when they come to Tahoe.

Plenty of bad pedestrians--mainly walking on the wrong side of the road or bike path. The law here is facing traffic. Also refusing to step off the bike lane to yield to bikes, which is the law in CA and hard to do if you're facing the wrong way.

Then there is another class of offender--roller skiers. XC skier kids training like to ride the bike path along the truckee at a fast walk, slow run pace, on the right, in long packs that make passing them impossible because you can't pass and pull back into the lane because there are no gaps. The kids are also 2-3 abreast so you can't ride next to them.

One thing is clear from this thread--a lot of people like to make up their own rules. Whatever form of transportation you are using, that's the definition of entitlement and self-absorption. Know the laws where you live. If you don't like them get them changed. There is some progress being made in CA towards getting stop signs defined as yield signs for bikes. (Not sure about red lights). Anyone who has tried to ride in the grid of Sacramento where there are stop signs or lights on every corner knows how impractical that is.

The other thing that is clear is that there is a lack of common sense--for example, riding a bike in the middle of the lane when it is unsafe for a car to pass makes sense when the the unsafe section is short and the cyclist is moving at a reasonable speed. Doing the same thing for 3 miles at 2 mph does not. And saying that because you are the one most at risk therefore you get to ride any way you want to, regardless of the law or common courtesy displays a shocking lack of common sense.

For a cyclist to accuse drivers who are irritated or angry at them for blocking the road of being dangerous is offensive. I get mad at cyclists blocking the road and if I see them riding two or more abreast and not within the bike lane I may very well give them the horn, but I will not hurt them or risk doing so. And if I'm passing that old guy going up DPR at 2 mph or less on a blind curve and a car is coming the other way, I'll hit the car rather than the bicycle.

The third thing that is clear is that there is a serious lack of infrastructure in this country for bikes. But then there is serious lack or deterioration of infrastructure for a lot of things.

---

Cease your sensible discussions immediately!!! This thread is about being angry and illogical! :yourock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

It's actually about 20 - 150 feet off the road for the most part. Again, it avoids the driveway / motorist problems you were talking about. It is basically a limited-access multiuse-path that parallels the major traffic arteries.

Some bikers don't want to deal with occasional slower users on the path so they make drivers deal with bikers riding slower than traffic. It is a convenience thing for the bikers more than a safety thing, because we know a biker hitting a slower biker is far less dangerous than a bike vs car collision.

To me, it is hypocrisy born of entitlement.

---

That's great for the single MUP (multi-use path) in your situation...or are you talking about one MUP and applying it to everyone?

MUPs are typically not places to ride over 20mph for miles on end unless they are basically unused by others because of the user priority (peds >> joggers/skaters >> cyclists)

Roads on the other hand are great for that. And they're great for riding in a group, especially one that goes fast.



I don't think any pro-bike writer in this thread is supporting the dicks who create trouble and act shittily towards the other folks.

I do react, though, to the idea that bikers should just cede the road to cars purely out of "courteousness" or "safety". Bikes have a right to be there.

I think we need to focus on rollerbladers and roller skiers. Problems is, a thread like that would have no legs. Bravo BMills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

If they wanted to be safer, they'd be on the bike path. But that is inconvenient. Better to inconvenience the drivers and complain that drivers are unsafe assholes.

---

But I only hear you complaining. I dare say the cyclist who knowingly opts to trade his safety for convenience (and your convenience for others' safety) is the right person to assess the situation. Is the path overloaded? Is the road? What are the relative speeds involved? These questions are not for you and by the time a cyclist decides conditions favor the road he's probably paid attention to all of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

There is some progress being made in CA towards getting stop signs defined as yield signs for bikes. (Not sure about red lights).

---

The Idaho law does that and basically turns red lights into flashing reds for bikes. Still fully responsible for being safe and yielding in the same situations but you get to watch for cross traffic instead of cops in the bushes--the sort of thing that might just make sense for all vehicles.

Quote:

---

The other thing that is clear is that there is a lack of common sense--for example, riding a bike in the middle of the lane when it is unsafe for a car to pass makes sense when the the unsafe section is short and the cyclist is moving at a reasonable speed. Doing the same thing for 3 miles at 2 mph does not. And saying that because you are the one most at risk therefore you get to ride any way you want to, regardless of the law or common courtesy displays a shocking lack of common sense.

---

Agreed. Do you think anyone is actually saying that though?

ALCOHOL
24% of bicyclists over age 16 had blood alcohol concentrations of BAC > = 0.08 when they were killed
35% of deadly crashes involving motor vehicles, either the driver or the bicyclist had BAC >= 0.08

ROADS AND PATHS
65% of cyclists killed died on major roads
76% of cyclists with access to bike paths use them some to all the time.
72% of cyclists with access to bike lanes use them some to all the time.

OF OTHER INTEREST:
60-84% of biking fatalities, the cyclist was NOT wearing a helmet but only 46% of cyclists never wear helmets...
Florida is 6.2% of the US population but accounts for 19% of US cyclist deaths... deadliest in the US.... cyclists account for 5% of FL traffic fatalities.... number one state in the nation! WTF?

And since we are talking about whether stop signs are yield signs for bikes... (and I've always thought "yes")... worth noting that 35% of cyclists killed were killed in intersections... is that partially because cyclists are misjudging when they can blow through traffic control? I don't know but I have to wonder now...

http://www.nhtsa.gov/nti/811841
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pe...facts/bicycles
http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812018

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acinpdx

That's great for the single MUP (multi-use path) in your situation...or are you talking about one MUP and applying it to everyone?

---

Of course not! I was looking for debate, as I said in my initial reply on the subject of my local MUP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

... worth noting that 35% of cyclists killed were killed in intersections... is that partially because cyclists are misjudging when they can blow through traffic control? I don't know but I have to wonder now...

---

or: because drivers don't look for bikers, they look for big metal boxes...
not sure you can pin the stat on anyone with just that number alone

intersections are likely the sites of most road incidents, period...doesn't matter the mode of transport.
that is more likely to due to different vectors crossing rather than an assumption of stupid decisions, tho i'm sure those feature in almost all the collisions...very few true accidents occur, right? collisions are the result of poor decision-making usually



my two incidents where i was hit were in intersections...both not my fault, though I learned a bit about defensive riding in each of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

And since we are talking about whether stop signs are yield signs for bikes... (and I've always thought "yes")... worth noting that 35% of cyclists killed were killed in intersections... is that partially because cyclists are misjudging when they can blow through traffic control? I don't know but I have to wonder now...

---

Just my anecdotal experience from bike commuting. Intersections are the time of highest danger because, in order of frequency, (1) cars traveling the same direction don't see you, so they right hook across the bike lane; (2) oncoming left turning cars don't see you, or can't judge bike speed, and fail to yield; (3) cars entering from the right and turning right don't see bikes or can't judge bike speed, and fail to yield; and (4) a cyclist blows the intersection and causes a (near or actual) collision.

Many cyclists blow stop signs/stop lights (which sucks because it will make some driver pissed at me by association). Most of these guys don't do it when there's an oncoming car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Cutting the speed limit to 20 on urban roads will make it harder for the vast majority of road users to get where they are going, cost them more money, more time, release more greenhouse gasses, and save very few lives.

---

actually, PBOT's studies here in portland say it will save lives
reposting the earlier link
http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/...nd-pedestrians

slower traffic reduces fatalities
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...phic-small.jpg

that doesn't make it any easier for drivers to get where they are going though, that's for sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acinpdx

intersections are likely the sites of most road incidents, period...doesn't matter the mode of transport.

---

This is not correct, at least not for fatalities.

"Fatalities in crashes occurring at intersections account for slightly more than 20 percent of all motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the United States every year. "
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/810682

Bikes have twice proportion of intersection fatalities vs motor vehicles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FormerKnuckleDragger

Just my anecdotal experience from bike commuting. Intersections are the time of highest danger because, in order of frequency, (1) cars traveling the same direction don't see you, so they right hook across the bike lane; (2) oncoming left turning cars don't see you, or can't judge bike speed, and fail to yield; (3) cars entering from the right and turning right don't see bikes or can't judge bike speed, and fail to yield; and (4) a cyclist blows the intersection and causes a (near or actual) collision.

Many cyclists blow stop signs/stop lights (which sucks because it will make some driver pissed at me by association). Most of these guys don't do it when there's an oncoming car.

---

This makes a lot of sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acinpdx

actually, PBOT's studies here in portland say it will save lives
reposting the earlier link
http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/...nd-pedestrians

slower traffic reduces fatalities
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...phic-small.jpg

---

Let me just take your infographic at face value. ETA The data is from a 1994 Australian study.

1. You are applying pedestrian speed v mortality data and extrapolating it to cyclists, which may be warranted but I highly doubt percentages would follow.
2. Nationwide about 720 cyclists are killed per year in the US. Tragic, but a very small number compared to the 32,675 killed in car accidents.
3. Most cyclist deaths are at dusk/night where the primary problem is visibility and impaired rider/drivers.
4. 1/3 of cyclist deaths involved drunk biking/driving where speed limit is probably a minor factor.
5. 70% of cyclist deaths are major roads, highways, or interstates where you won't be dropping the speed limit to 20mph.

So given that information:
How many cyclists will you save per year by lowering the speed limits on urban streets?
Justify why we should lower speed limits versus passing/enforcing helmet laws and cracking down on drunk biking (and driving)?