Fucking drivers!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Commute into work this morning. Turned onto a street (1-way, bike lane in right hand side) that I'm on for 3 blocks before turning left. 1/2 way through the first block a car with blinkers on is blocking the bike lane. At this point, I just move across all the lanes to the far left since I'm making a left turn shortly and traffic is clear.

On the last block before I turn left an SUV runs up behind me, starts honking and tailgating. Dude then watches me turn left, turns left too, and gets stopped at the same stoplight as me on the next street, where he proceeds to roll down his window and shout all kinds of nasties at me about using bike lanes, not allowed in left lane, etc etc etc.

Fuck Drivers.

---

maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like -- on a street with a bike lane -- you rode 2 1/2 blocks in the left lane? Sounds like the SUV should have had the opportunity to get ahead of you, but couldn't? Sure, he might only have gained 3 seconds of time, and it wasn't worth berating you over, but it sounds like you were in the wrong (and in my view, "in the wrong" in car/bike interactions is where the biker is not obeying traffic rules AND that results in slowing down a driver that is obeying traffic rules).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like -- on a street with a bike lane -- you rode 2 1/2 blocks in the left lane? Sounds like the SUV should have had the opportunity to get ahead of you, but couldn't? Sure, he might only have gained 3 seconds of time, and it wasn't worth berating you over, but it sounds like you were in the wrong (and in my view, "in the wrong" in car/bike interactions is where the biker is not obeying traffic rules AND that results in slowing down a driver that is obeying traffic rules).

---

Totally allowable in CO bike law. No where in CO law are you required to ride in the bike lane at all times: http://colobikelaw.com/coloradolaw.html . I was reasonably preparing for a left-turn when it was easy to move across traffic, rather than interrupt multiple cars as I crossed 3 lanes of traffic a block later.

"A person operating a bicycle or an electrical assisted bicycle upon a one-way roadway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near to the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as judged safe by the bicyclist, subject to the following conditions:
- If the left-hand lane then available for traffic is wide enough to be safely shared with overtaking vehicles, a bicyclist shall ride far enough to the left as judged safe by the bicyclist to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicles unless other conditions make it unsafe to do so.
A bicyclist shall not be expected or required to:
- Ride over or through hazards at the edge of a roadway, including but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow lanes; or
- Ride without a reasonable safety margin on the left-hand side of the roadway."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Commute into work this morning. Turned onto a street (1-way, bike lane in right hand side) that I'm on for 3 blocks before turning left. 1/2 way through the first block a car with blinkers on is blocking the bike lane. At this point, I just move across all the lanes to the far left since I'm making a left turn shortly and traffic is clear.

On the last block before I turn left an SUV runs up behind me, starts honking and tailgating. Dude then watches me turn left, turns left too, and gets stopped at the same stoplight as me on the next street, where he proceeds to roll down his window and shout all kinds of nasties at me about using bike lanes, not allowed in left lane, etc etc etc.

Fuck Drivers.

---

Sounds like you took over the left lane, held up traffic, and then turned left a couple blocks later. correct?

Maybe i am reading it wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Sounds like you took over the left lane, held up traffic, and then turned left a couple blocks later. correct?

Maybe i am reading it wrong.

---

Correction: I held up one driver, for less than one block, in the left lane of traffic on a one way (legal in CO) before making a left hand turn. Said driver then proceeded to spew bullshit that isn't true in CO and generally ruin my pleasant morning commute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Correction: I held up one driver, for less than one block, in the left lane of traffic on a one way (legal in CO) before making a left hand turn. Said driver then proceeded to spew bullshit that isn't true in CO and generally ruin my pleasant morning commute.

---

Is it now one block or two? Share the road buddy, nobody cares what the law says. Then again, that driver can go fuck themselves nothing you did was that bad.

I saw a few bikers blow through a busy intersection in SF this month. They were hauling ass, I’ve never seen anything like it for blowing through anything before at that speed. Cars were waiting for them, then it looked clear so this mom and kid in a car slowly went through and another biker blew through the stop sign and almost hit her. The mom had her window down already calmly said something like, ‘Hey, you shoulda stopped!’ Biker girl yelled at her from two feet away, “We don’t stop, bitch!!”

So many clowns biking these days, go back to driving you are making it bad for the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

Always go with this one... always.

---

Yeah, I regretted it immediately. Unfotunately I reacted viscerally before my rational brain could step in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted

Biker girl yelled at her from two feet away, “We don’t stop, bitch!!”

---

Wow, she deserves to get greased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted

Is it now one block or two? Share the road buddy, nobody cares what the law says. Then again, that driver can go fuck themselves nothing you did was that bad..

---

Right there in the first post. It was 2 1/2 blocks that I was in the left lane. But he only was in the lane for the last block after turning onto the street.

The problem is no one cares what the law says and everyone wants to cite the law when they feel wronged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted

Is it now one block or two? Share the road buddy, nobody cares what the law says. Then again, that driver can go fuck themselves nothing you did was that bad.

I saw a few bikers blow through a busy intersection in SF this month. They were hauling ass, I’ve never seen anything like it for blowing through anything before at that speed. Cars were waiting for them, then it looked clear so this mom and kid in a car slowly went through and another biker blew through the stop sign and almost hit her. The mom had her window down already calmly said something like, ‘Hey, you shoulda stopped!’ Biker girl yelled at her from two feet away, “We don’t stop, bitch!!”

So many clowns biking these days, go back to driving you are making it bad for the rest of us.

---

That's nuts even for the entitled bikers of sf. What intersection / direction? I can't image too many around me you could get away with that for long before ending up on a windshield

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

The problem is no one cares what the law says and everyone wants to cite the law when they feel wronged.

---

Agreed. Kinda sounds like what you are doing here, though.

We weren't there so we can't know how egregious the situation was, but from the way you wrote it, sounds like you were the one that was in the wrong initially. A VERY small wrong that did not warrant the drivers reaction.

I see the issue being one of cyclists choosing to ride on roads and in situations where they cannot either ride safely separate from traffic (specific bike lanes), or safely with traffic (keeping up with traffic, empty side streets, etc). And in those cases, they expect all drivers to make allowances for them that increase the hazard to all road users. Cyclists also get pissed when drivers accidentally don't see them- they fail to realize that they themselves are choosing an very exposed transportation method in which they are also making themselves difficult to see.

Too many people feel special. Cyclists feeling entitled to lanes of traffic, and motorists thinking that saving 30 seconds is worth risking someone else's life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Agreed. Kinda sounds like what you are doing here, though.

We weren't there so we can't know how egregious the situation was, but from the way you wrote it, sounds like you were the one that was in the wrong initially. A VERY small wrong that did not warrant the drivers reaction.

I see the issue being one of cyclists choosing to ride on roads and in situations where they cannot either ride safely separate from traffic (specific bike lanes), or safely with traffic (keeping up with traffic, empty side streets, etc). And in those cases, they expect all drivers to make allowances for them that increase the hazard to all road users. Cyclists also get pissed when drivers accidentally don't see them- they fail to realize that they themselves are choosing an very exposed transportation method in which they are also making themselves difficult to see.

Too many people feel special. Cyclists feeling entitled to lanes of traffic, and motorists thinking that saving 30 seconds is worth risking someone else's life.

---

Cyclist choose to ride on those roads because they have a right to use them just like cars do. Drivers have to make allowances. Cyclists make allowances for cars all time as well. As a cyclist trying to use a bike for transport I have to get places. I don't get to choose whether those roads are well designed for bikes or not. I do choose routes that are bike friendly when I can, but I still have to get to work. That is why the law says cyclists have rights to the road, just like a car.

Why is a car entitled to a lane of traffic anymore than a cyclist? They're not. We're both trying to go to work. The context here is a downtown area, not a rural mountain road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Why is a car entitled to a lane of traffic anymore than a cyclist? They're not. We're both trying to go to work. The context here is a downtown area, not a rural mountain road.

---

Because roads were and still are designed specifically for automobiles. You can get to work just fine in your own car, ridding a bus, or walking on sidewalks, but you CHOOSE to utilize a vehicle that is slower and less protective than the vast majority of other vehicles on that same road, and many of those roads are not designed to be used by a bicycle. If you can do it safely and blend into traffic then there will be no problem (unless someone really has an axe to grind, in which case nothing you can do about it). But if you are traveling at a different speed than the rest of traffic or are making unpredictable movements then you are a cause of problems on that road.

More than trying to claim some stupid subsection of subjective county/state traffic law, folks should be following the general rule of don't be a dick. Don't hold up traffic unnecessarily. Don't assault or harass someone for delaying you mere seconds on your morning commute. Don't think that you are the most important person on the road. Etc.

Fucking taxi drivers.

https://buckrail.com/popular-west-ba...killed-on-390/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Because roads were and still are designed specifically for automobiles.

---

Design has nothing to do with anyone's right to use a public resource, whatever it might be. We all pay for the roads (only a tiny fraction comes from gas taxes and it's not enough to cover the maintenance required as a result of use by gas powered vehicles). If you're using a resource whose design has been bent to your particular use even though everyone else chipped in then you've benefited from that design far more than you're inconvenienced. The occasional biker has to put up with far more compromises every time he uses that public resource. Check your entitlement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Because roads were and still are designed specifically for automobiles. You can get to work just fine in your own car, ridding a bus, or walking on sidewalks, but you CHOOSE to utilize a vehicle that is slower and less protective than the vast majority of other vehicles on that same road, and many of those roads are not designed to be used by a bicycle. If you can do it safely and blend into traffic then there will be no problem (unless someone really has an axe to grind, in which case nothing you can do about it). But if you are traveling at a different speed than the rest of traffic or are making unpredictable movements then you are a cause of problems on that road.

More than trying to claim some stupid subsection of subjective county/state traffic law, folks should be following the general rule of don't be a dick. Don't hold up traffic unnecessarily. Don't assault or harass someone for delaying you mere seconds on your morning commute. Don't think that you are the most important person on the road. Etc.

---

Some stupid subsection of law. I'm glad you get to decide which laws are important and which laws aren't. I wasn't being the dick in this situation. I don't hold up traffic unnecessarily. I hold it up when I need to in order to ride safely and directly to my destination.

You realize the majority of cyclists aren't just "choosing" to bike. Driving a car is a fuckton more expensive. It would literally raise my daily cost of going to work by $20. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2004...-go-unnoticed/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

But if you are traveling at a different speed than the rest of traffic or are making unpredictable movements then you are a cause of problems on that road.

---

This. For every vehicle. It doesn't matter if it's some geriatric in a Buick, going 20 under the speed limit because they know that odds are good they're going to have a stroke at any moment, or someone who's new in town and creeping along, trying to look at house numbers, or if it's a cyclist who's just trying to make his life a bit easier by getting into the left turn lane earlier than is perhaps necessary. Either way, those people are the source of problems on the road, and it's understandable when people are irritated at them.

Personally, I'm willing to give the cyclist a bit more slack because I think it's a worthwhile activity and having less cars on the road is a good thing. But I think it's far from surprising that other people are less willing to put up with the inconvenience associated with having a dramatically slower moving vehicle on the road. And it's not like that annoyance is confined to cyclists - there's plenty of car on car road rage incidents, but cyclists are more frequently the cause of the problem, and thus are more frequently the receivers of shit talking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

Design has nothing to do with anyone's right to use a public resource, whatever it might be. We all pay for the roads (only a tiny fraction comes from gas taxes and it's not enough to cover the maintenance required as a result of use by gas powered vehicles). If you're using a resource whose design has been bent to your particular use even though everyone else chipped in then you've benefited from that design far more than you're inconvenienced. The occasional biker has to put up with far more compromises every time he uses that public resource. Check your entitlement.

---

To further this: drivers pay for less than 1/2 the cost of roadways. Source: https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/who-pays-roads . Yet they feel entitled that everyone travel at their speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Yet they feel entitled that everyone travel at their speed.

---

You mean the posted speed limit? Impeding traffic is against the law as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw

You mean the posted speed limit? Impeding traffic is against the law as well.

---

That's an upper speed limit. Which drivers violate on an everyday basis. Fucking drivers. Entitled to go 10mph above the limit with no consequences, but also entitled to harass people going 10mph below the legal limit.

Riding a bike at slower than the speed limit is not against the law. http://colobikelaw.com/coloradolaw.html

Nor is riding the far left lane of a one-way street. Nor is riding outside of a bike lane (and especially an obstructed bike lane.) At least in the jurisdiction in which I did such.

Please. Feel free to cite the law if it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

That's an upper speed limit. Which drivers violate on an everyday basis. Fucking drivers. Entitled to go 10mph above the limit with no consequences, but also entitled to harass people going 10mph below the legal limit.

Riding a bike at slower than the speed limit is not against the law. http://colobikelaw.com/coloradolaw.html

Nor is riding the far left lane of a one-way street. Nor is riding outside of a bike lane (and especially an obstructed bike lane.) At least in the jurisdiction in which I did such.

Please. Feel free to cite the law if it is.

---

I don't think anyone's saying it's against the law.

But that doesn't make it not annoying, and not an inconvenience to the majority of the people on the road.

If I'm skiing along a crowded, low angle cat track where everyone's going more or less the same speed, but then I decide to go substantially slower, I'm creating a problem. I'm not breaking any laws or violating the skier code, but I'm forcing everyone to go around me in an area where there is limited space and ability to do so. I'm creating an annoyance for everyone. That's just part of skiing, and they don't have a right to be annoyed, but that doesn't change the fact that what I'm doing is clearly an annoyance to the majority of other skiers.

In other words, I'm not wrong, but I'm kind of an asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

I don't think anyone's saying it's against the law.
.

---

The post i quoted literally said it was against the law to ride slower (i.e. impede) traffic.

In the case I presented there wasn't "everyone else". There was a single SUV, who came up behind me for one block. Not the same context as slowing down a line of traffic for a long way on a mountain road.

I'm not a dick cyclist just to be a dick. But occasionally riding a bike safely to my destination will slow down a few cars for a few moments. Meanwhile, I get slowed down by cars and the traffic control devices they make necessary every trip. I don't harass them for doing such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

The post i quoted literally said it was against the law to ride slower (i.e. impede) traffic.

---

Which appears to be correct, at least on certain roads. https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-4...42-4-1103.html

edit: and to be clear, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. I wasn't there, and these things are pretty situational.

I'm just saying that, all legalities aside, I don't find it surprising that drivers get annoyed with bikes. What bikes are doing is, for better or worse, inherently annoying to the majority of users on the road. I'm certainly not suggesting that people stop biking on roads, but I also think some cyclists aren't as aware of what they're doing as they probably should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

Which appears to be correct, at least on certain roads. https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-4...42-4-1103.html

---

On certain roads (i.e. highways yes). I'm not saying I can ride a bike on an interstate or 55mph highway and impede traffic. As everyone has noted, context matters. Context here is a downtown with 25mph posted speed limits.

But that does not apply to urban streets. Nor is a bicycle a motor vehicle. Nor would statutory construction say that that law trumps the statues written specifically for cyclists. https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-4...42-4-1412.html

The law quoted specifically states "motor vehicles."

And you're not wrong about annoyance being different from legality. But don't underestimate the annoyance caused by hitting a cyclist with all that that entails. The nicest thing a cyclist can do for motorists is to stay safe and help prevent that. Even if doing so annoys them a little.

"Roads aren't designed for bikes, therefore bikes should not travel on roads unless they can do so entirely without inconveniencing motorists."

*City converts street parking or traffic lanes to bike lanes to facilitate bike traffic and separate cars and bikes*

"Why are we allocating resources to shitbird cyclists? This is bullshit!"


Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

"Roads aren't designed for bikes, therefore bikes should not travel on roads unless they can do so entirely without inconveniencing motorists."

*City converts street parking or traffic lanes to bike lanes to facilitate bike traffic and separate cars and bikes*

"Why are we allocating resources to shitbird cyclists? This is bullshit!"


Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

---

Exactly so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Nor is a bicycle a motor vehicle. Nor would statutory construction say that that law trumps the statues written specifically for cyclists. https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-4...42-4-1412.html

---

From your earlier link:

"A person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle has all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this article 4, except as to special regulations in this article 4, except as provided in section 42-4-1412.5, and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

That's an upper speed limit. Which drivers violate on an everyday basis. Fucking drivers. Entitled to go 10mph above the limit with no consequences, but also entitled to harass people going 10mph below the legal limit.

Riding a bike at slower than the speed limit is not against the law. http://colobikelaw.com/coloradolaw.html

Nor is riding the far left lane of a one-way street. Nor is riding outside of a bike lane (and especially an obstructed bike lane.) At least in the jurisdiction in which I did such.

Please. Feel free to cite the law if it is.

---

Every state is different. But assholes are assholes no matter what the state.

XI. A person propelling a bicycle upon a way at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time and place shall remain on the right portion of the way as far as practicable except when it is unsafe to do so or:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...65/265-144.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

From your earlier link:

"A person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle has all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this article 4, except as to special regulations in this article 4, except as provided in section 42-4-1412.5, and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. "

---

The except as provided in section 42-4-1412.5 is the one that says its okay to ride on streets at lower than the speed limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw

Every state is different. But assholes are assholes no matter what the state.

XI. A person propelling a bicycle upon a way at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time and place shall remain on the right portion of the way as far as practicable except when it is unsafe to do so or:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...65/265-144.htm

---

Yeah. Every state is different, I've never claimed otherwise.

In CO (where this took place), it is far right as judge safe by the cyclist. Except on one-ways where it can be either as far right or as far left as judge safe by the cyclist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

Design has nothing to do with anyone's right to use a public resource, whatever it might be. We all pay for the roads (only a tiny fraction comes from gas taxes and it's not enough to cover the maintenance required as a result of use by gas powered vehicles). If you're using a resource whose design has been bent to your particular use even though everyone else chipped in then you've benefited from that design far more than you're inconvenienced. The occasional biker has to put up with far more compromises every time he uses that public resource. Check your entitlement.

---

When automobile drivers pay for and use 99.99% of roadway improvements, new roads, maintenance, etc, yes they will feel entitled and will resent that other users feel they do not need to follow posted speed limits, or other traffic laws (stopping at stop signs, signaling turns, lane splitting in some areas, etc).

I think many cyclists need to check their entitlement and not impede traffic. I think many motorists need to check their entitlement and realize being slightly delayed is not worth the rage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Some stupid subsection of law. I'm glad you get to decide which laws are important and which laws aren't. I wasn't being the dick in this situation. I don't hold up traffic unnecessarily. I hold it up when I need to in order to ride safely and directly to my destination.

You realize the majority of cyclists aren't just "choosing" to bike. Driving a car is a fuckton more expensive. It would literally raise my daily cost of going to work by $20. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2004...-go-unnoticed/

---

You know what i mean when i say some stupid subjective subsection of the law. Do you think that bicyclists and cars should have to stop at a deserted 4-way stop sign late at night, or do you think its fine if they slow to a crawl, double check both ways and kinda roll through? have you ever ridden your bike on the sidewalk, even for a quick second? Common sense stuff that is technically illegal, or legal, but should really just be common sense.

You are CHOOSING to bike to work to save money. You could walk, take public transport, carpool, etc. You wouldnt become homeless if you drove, walked, or took public transport to work. You are biking to work because it saves you money, time, and probably keeps you in good shape, and you like doing it. Nothing wrong with that at all. Heck, it should be commended. But you also shouldn't expect the vast majority of road users to make allowances, be inconvenienced, and be put in dangerous traffic conditions just accommodate a very tiny minority of users.

When i say put in dangerous traffic, there is no doubt cyclists are a billion times more vulnerable and exposed, but anytime another user is going a different speed than the normal flow of traffic it creates collision situations. Its kinda like the skier bombing a crowded blue groomer, except in this case its 100 metal cars bombing a blue groomer and a single cyclists making slow snowplow turns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

When automobile drivers pay for and use 99.99% of roadway improvements, new roads, maintenance, etc, yes they will feel entitled and will resent that other users feel they do not need to follow posted speed limits, or other traffic laws (stopping at stop signs, signaling turns, lane splitting in some areas, etc).

---

Sorry, but this stat is just wrong. User fees for roads (aka auto drivers) pay for 48% of the costs of roads on average in the US. https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/...oads%20vUS.pdf

Not to mention, most cyclists are also drivers and pay registration fees and the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

When automobile drivers pay for and use 99.99% of roadway improvements, new roads, maintenance, etc, yes they will feel entitled and will resent that other users feel they do not need to follow posted speed limits, or other traffic laws (stopping at stop signs, signaling turns, lane splitting in some areas, etc).

---

But that's a bullshit argument. My household owns 4 cars. We pay plenty of taxes. If I choose to ride a bike on the road, I'm still paying the same amount of taxes to support that infrastructure, but I'm using that infrastructure in a way that has a tiny fraction of the impact and maintenance cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

But you also shouldn't expect the vast majority of road users to make allowances, be inconvenienced, and be put in dangerous traffic conditions just accommodate a very tiny minority of users.

---

I certainly expect that I have a right to use a public good that I pay for in a legal way, regardless of my status of as a minority user.

Does that mean I think everyone is going to respect my use? Of course not, and I ride very defensively because of it.

Do I think I should be able to bitch about drivers being disrespectful of my legal use of a roadway in a thread called "Fucking Drivers!" in a bike subform? Absolutely.

If we continue to disregard alternative forms of transit just because they are the minority, we're gonna be stuck in car-hell forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

"Roads aren't designed for bikes, therefore bikes should not travel on roads unless they can do so entirely without inconveniencing motorists."

*City converts street parking or traffic lanes to bike lanes to facilitate bike traffic and separate cars and bikes*

"Why are we allocating resources to shitbird cyclists? This is bullshit!"


Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

---

Yup, its an issue of needing a large enough user base to justify the expenditure on infrastructure, but not being able to grow the user base large enough until the the infrastructure is in place. Luckily, in many "progressive" cities in the US, bike lanes (shared, defined, or separated) are becoming part of road design standards and CIP projects.

The Cycling infrastructure is getting better and better. Folks need to keep it a public issue until it gets developed to an acceptable level. But, there will always be road rage and assholes. Its just extra scary/dangerous when the raging assholes are faster, made of metal, and outweight you by 2500lbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

When automobile drivers pay for and use 99.99% of roadway improvements, new roads, maintenance, etc, yes they will feel entitled and will resent...

---

Good for you, and as soon as they do pay for 99.99% I will feel the same way and even read the rest of your rather lengthy post. Until then, let's stick to the reality that drivers benefit at the expense of other taxpayers and expect that to be maximized because they're entitled to their desires.

Of course, bicyclists were instrumental in lobbying for paved roads before cars had left the rails, but if you can get us to an equitable use tax scenario I think we could let that go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw

Every state is different. But assholes are assholes no matter what the state.

XI. A person propelling a bicycle upon a way at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time and place shall remain on the right portion of the way as far as practicable except when it is unsafe to do so or:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...65/265-144.htm

---

That "except when it is unsafe to do so" part is pretty open to interpretation. Just about any street without a bike lane or very broad painted shoulder and significant amounts of street parking requires that you ride well into the lane to stay out of the door zone. At that point you can either ride *just* out of the door zone and invite drivers to make questionable passes around you, or you can claim the lane. The latter is far safer, but aggravates drivers. The former is much more dangerous, and aggravates drivers only slightly less. Most of the drivers, who are typically completely unaware of the serious danger the door zone poses, think you're an entitled prick either way. Once again, no matter what you choose you lose.

^^ Not to mention the nebulous "practicable."

For a driver, practicable probably looks pretty far right. For a cyclist trying to avoid road debris that gets pushed into the shoulder, parked cars, and other road shit with a reasonable margin of error -- "practicable" is likely to be far further into the lane.

Which is why I'm very glad to live in a state that got rid of that wording in favor of "as judge safe by the cyclist".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Sorry, but this stat is just wrong. User fees for roads (aka auto drivers) pay for 48% of the costs of roads on average in the US. https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/...oads%20vUS.pdf

Not to mention, most cyclists are also drivers and pay registration fees and the like.

---

Actually your stat is just wrong. 48% of roads are financed by gas tax, registration, and tolls. Please read you hastily found, obviously slanted reports.

Automobile drivers pay for 99.99% of roads. Do you own a car? Then you are part of that 99%. People who only utilize public transportation are automobile users (not drivers). There just aren't that many people who have forgone the use of automobiles.

And again, its the issue of a small minority of users causing disruption for the very large majority of users. That will engender a range of negative feelings from annoyance to homicidal rage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Actually your stat is just wrong. 48% of roads are financed by gas tax, registration, and tolls. Please read you hastily found, obviously slanted reports.

Automobile drivers pay for 99.99% of roads. Do you own a car? Then you are part of that 99%. People who only utilize public transportation are automobile users (not drivers). There just aren't that many people who have forgone the use of automobiles.

And again, its the issue of a small minority of users causing disruption for the very large majority of users. That will engender a range of negative feelings from annoyance to homicidal rage.

---

By this strangled logic 100% of everything is paid for by pedestrians. And how many people learn how to ride a bike? Probably more than learn how to drive. So there are more cyclists than drivers now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

For a driver, practicable probably looks pretty far right. For a cyclist trying to avoid road debris that gets pushed into the shoulder, parked cars, and other road shit with a reasonable margin of error -- "practicable" is likely to be far further into the lane.
.

---

Along my route home from work there is a 3-4ft wide bike lane, and then curb. I see a good number of cyclists weaving into and/or hugging the left side of the bike lane with their bars hanging out into the travel lane. It creates a very dangerous situation and i always wonder if they are that far out for fear of pedal strikes on the curb, or some other perceived danger? I bike the same route into work 15-20 times each summer and use that same bike lane and wonder each time why people aren't hugging the curb instead of the lane line.