Fucking drivers!!!

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.

Because typically there is an inconsistent seem between the curb and the road that can cause issues. And there is junk in the far right hand bits of most curb lanes you don't want to hit. Broken glass, nails, whatever else got thrown out of cars or fell off them and pushed aside. Stuff that could give you a flat which becomes an issue when you're riding the same route everyday.

There's also a perception bias here. You probably drive that route far more often. If you road in it everyday you might see these changing conditions far more often, which may be what cyclists are responding to.

Or maybe your city has some way of actually cleaning out bike lanes. Which I have never seen despite living in some relatively "bike utopia" places by US standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

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?

---

Who utilizes more roadway for more time? Motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, Public transit riders....

If pedestrians were the only user group using the roads then yes they would be 100% of the user group. If i see 100 users on a road and 99 of them are cars, then 99% of the users are motorists for that period. If i ride my bike 4 miles to the bar and back on friday after my 46 mile RT work commute, then i have traveled 46 miles by car and 4 miles by bike. I would have been a motorist 92% of my friday.


Does that make sense?

You said 99% of people are motorists. I said 100% are pedestrians. Neither statement is relevant.

In doebedoe's case the mix was 100% cyclists until it became 50/50 bike and SUV. But he's the asshole?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Who utilizes more roadway for more time? Motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, Public transit riders....

If pedestrians were the only user group using the roads then yes they would be 100% of the user group. If i see 100 users on a road and 99 of them are cars, then 99% of the users are motorists for that period. If i ride my bike 4 miles to the bar and back on friday after my 46 mile RT work commute, then i have traveled 46 miles by car and 4 miles by bike. I would have been a motorist 92% of my friday.


Does that make sense?

---

And in that 46 miles by car you would've done literally tens of thousands of times more damage to the road than 46 miles on a bike. Damage to roads is geometric to weight.

Not all road users cost the same -- from either a build or maintenance perspective. People who use forms of transit that cost significantly more to build and maintain should pay that costs. Cars and trucks don't pay nearly the costs they inflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

You said 99% of people are motorists. I said 100% are pedestrians. Neither statement is relevant.

In doebedoe's case the mix was 100% cyclists until it became 50/50 bike and SUV. But he's the asshole?

---

You are switching scenarios and topics from who pays for roads, to who was present at the scene of Dobedoes story. But i'll play.

Common courtesy as a human being would be to let the faster user through, correct? (assuming everyone was going within normal speed ranges). From his initial story a few people, myself included, read it to mean that he pulled into the left lane 2.5 blocks before his turn, and rode in front of the car in the left lane for more than a block instead of letting the car pass. I said i thought it was a little rude, but in no way warranted the vitriol from the driver.

The road this incident happened on was 99.99% paid for by motorists- i.e. people who spend 99.99% of their traveling using roadways in an automobile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Damage to roads is geometric to weight.

---

4th power of axle load. The trucking industry does 99% of road damage and pays somewhere around 30% of maintenance costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Common courtesy as a human being would be to let the faster user through, correct? (assuming everyone was going within normal speed ranges). From his initial story a few people, myself included, read it to mean that he pulled into the left lane 2.5 blocks before his turn, and rode in front of the car in the left lane for more than a block instead of letting the car pass. I said i thought it was a little rude, but in no way warranted the vitriol from the driver.

The road this incident happened on was 99.99% paid for by motorists- i.e. people who spend 99.99% of their traveling using roadways in an automobile.

---

As I said in my first post, the driver was behind me for less than one city block. But yes, I was on the left side of the left lane (legal for me to be there as it is a one-way) for 2.5 blocks. The car could have passed me to the right.

In the area that this happened, less than 85% of people use automotives to get to work (including transit users). The remainder take trains, bike, or walk.

Since you aren't charged for entering the roadway there is no connection between payment and use, but there is a point that roads are approximately designed for the use their designers expect them to see. Which should be a mix of users, given that even though interaction might be rare, the exceptional situations can have a disproportionate impact. So, for instance, cities might convert some streets to mixed-use bike routes, possibly including the addition of speed humps and removal of centerlines.

As a motorist I dislike this, but when I'm on my bike I don't mind. Since I drive those streets more often than I bike them I am more inconvenienced than not by such things. So if I got a meaningful vote I might say don't bother. But if I take that stance I should do so understanding that my reduced inconvenience comes at a much higher price to the cyclist who has to ride on roads that were designed for my maximum convenience. Having almost an ounce of self awareness, I would tend to have a little empathy for the cyclist whose safety and convenience have been sacrificed for mine, not because the road was built without her money, but because I happen to be in the majority.

That's where the entitlement check comes in. Obviously you have to know the fact that tax dollars for roads are mostly not use-based before you get into the discussion at all. So this 99% motorist-financed is obviously a fallacy. Once you know that it takes pretty big balls to pretend that other people should pay in to the system but that the system shouldn't consider their needs at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

Once you know that it takes pretty big balls to pretend that other people should pay in to the system but that the system shouldn't consider their needs at all.

---

Why do you think the system doesn't consider their needs to the extent necessary? Or does it?

I don't think anyone is saying that road improvements and CIP projects shouldn't consider cyclists and implement cyclist friendly designs. Its the only way to wean folks off driving and towards bike commuting- if the bike routes, lanes, and roads are safe and pleasant to bike on. And in many urban areas, the only real way to lessen traffic congestion.

Again, its the small minority user group inconveniencing and expecting accommodation from the majority user group. This is, i think, the root of the anger/annoyance between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcski

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

---

17th and Rhode Island. Bikers were coming down the hill on 17th.

Really could have used an air horn today. Proceeding straight through a signalized intersection, oncoming driver in the left turn lane fails to yield and makes a left turn right in front of me. Full panic braking, manage to avoid getting greased by inches. The guy clearly never had any idea I was there. I need a commuter with discs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Really could have used an air horn today. Proceeding straight through a signalized intersection, oncoming driver in the left turn lane fails to yield and makes a left turn right in front of me. Full panic braking, manage to avoid getting greased by inches. The guy clearly never had any idea I was there. I need a commuter with discs.

---

Had similar yesterday. Traffic at stand still. Protected bike lane flowing. Driver turned left from the middle of three lanes, had no idea I was coming up the bike lane. Full two-tire skid. Luckily I've been riding a mtb a lot lately which has improved my skid-handling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Really could have used an air horn today. Proceeding straight through a signalized intersection, oncoming driver in the left turn lane fails to yield and makes a left turn right in front of me. Full panic braking, manage to avoid getting greased by inches. The guy clearly never had any idea I was there. I need a commuter with discs.

---

Shitty, hopefully he realized he almost caused an accident and the scare will stay with him for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Had similar yesterday. Traffic at stand still. Protected bike lane flowing. Driver turned left from the middle of three lanes, had no idea I was coming up the bike lane. Full two-tire skid. Luckily I've been riding a mtb a lot lately which has improved my skid-handling.

---

When you say a protected bike lane, you mean one with the plastic flimsy bollards or another barrier?

I think one of the big problems creating the cyclist-motoris conflict is when a motorist is in heavy traffic where everyone is going slow, but you still have to be aggressive in changing lanes, merging, making a turn, etc. As a motorist you are so focused on what the other cars are doing, because you need to quickly seize the window of opportunity as soon as it opens, that you fail to see the bicyclist who is going much faster than everyone else because there is no traffic in the bike lane.

Anytime you have two users going much different speeds it is a recipe for disaster, especially if one of the users is 1/8th the size of the majority users (harder to see and real easy to injure). Im not really sure how to remedy this issue because its not like motorists are intentionally trying to not see the cyclists, and rush hour traffic can be hectic.

Also, i see way to many cyclists with piss poor bike handling skills that are a danger to themselves and really shouldnt be riding on a street (unable to hold a straight line, drifting into travel lane on turns, unable to brake in a controlled manner, etc) so good on you for having the skills to deal well with the unexpected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Had similar yesterday. Traffic at stand still. Protected bike lane flowing. Driver turned left from the middle of three lanes, had no idea I was coming up the bike lane. Full two-tire skid. Luckily I've been riding a mtb a lot lately which has improved my skid-handling.

---

Opposite situation here, I was the only vehicle in my side of the intersection. Thankfully, I always go on high alert in that situation and was covering the brakes before he even started his turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Shitty, hopefully he realized he almost caused an accident and the scare will stay with him for a while.

---

No, I watched his eyes the whole time, he never saw me, completely oblivious. At best, if he happened to check his mirrors after he finished the turn he might have wondered why there was a biker swearing and aggressively throwing the finger in his direction, but he probably didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Shitty, hopefully he realized he almost caused an accident and the scare will stay with him for a while.



When you say a protected bike lane, you mean one with the plastic flimsy bollards or another barrier?

I think one of the big problems creating the cyclist-motoris conflict is when a motorist is in heavy traffic where everyone is going slow, but you still have to be aggressive in changing lanes, merging, making a turn, etc. As a motorist you are so focused on what the other cars are doing, because you need to quickly seize the window of opportunity as soon as it opens, that you fail to see the bicyclist who is going much faster than everyone else because there is no traffic in the bike lane.

Anytime you have two users going much different speeds it is a recipe for disaster, especially if one of the users is 1/8th the size of the majority users (harder to see and real easy to injure). Im not really sure how to remedy this issue because its not like motorists are intentionally trying to not see the cyclists, and rush hour traffic can be hectic.

Also, i see way to many cyclists with piss poor bike handling skills that are a danger to themselves and really shouldnt be riding on a street (unable to hold a straight line, drifting into travel lane on turns, unable to brake in a controlled manner, etc) so good on you for having the skills to deal well with the unexpected.

---

Yes, a protected bike lane -- extra space, and some traffic barriers.

Yes, different speeds can cause problems. But your post seems to want to say that car is not at fault here or that it is excusable. Turning left from the center of three lanes is completely illegal behavior in this context and is why he couldn't see me on a bike. At 6'2" riding a 65cm framed bike in an upright position, I'm a plenty big object to see. He paid no attention to other legal users of the road.

Drivers complain when bikes are going too slow in "their lane". Drivers complain when the bike lane is moving "too fast" for the flow of traffic. Drivers don't get to have it both ways on roads that belong to all legal users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

Yes, a protected bike lane -- extra space, and some traffic barriers.

Yes, different speeds can cause problems. But your post seems to want to say that car is not at fault here or that it is excusable. Turning left from the center of three lanes is completely illegal behavior in this context and is why he couldn't see me on a bike. At 6'2" riding a 65cm framed bike in an upright position, I'm a plenty big object to see. He paid no attention to other legal users of the road.

Drivers complain when bikes are going too slow in "their lane". Drivers complain when the bike lane is moving "too fast" for the flow of traffic. Drivers don't get to have it both ways on roads that belong to all legal users.

---

Yes, the driver pulled an illegal move and that was the cause of the problem here 100%.

to your other point, cyclists are MUCH smaller than cars and when motorists are focused on what cars are doing (because that is the majority user of the road) their brain is just picking out car sized objects to look for. And yes, when vehicles are sharing a road and going much different speeds there will be problems. Its not motorists having it both ways, its a simple fact of traffic engineering that accidents happen at merge points and when there is a significant speed differential. I think protected bike lanes are a good solution, but those are not feasible on the majority of roads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Really could have used an air horn today. Proceeding straight through a signalized intersection, oncoming driver in the left turn lane fails to yield and makes a left turn right in front of me. Full panic braking, manage to avoid getting greased by inches. The guy clearly never had any idea I was there. I need a commuter with discs.

---

Exact same shit today. Same intersection, driver again completely oblivious to the fact that he nearly killed me. Fuck.

Be careful out there, man. That's how my uncle was killed, and he was on a bright yellow motorcycle with an oscillating headlight.

That's a bit unnerving it happened twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bagtagley

Be careful out there, man.

---

I am, which is why I'm fine and typing right now. Like the last time I basically assumed this was going to happen and was covering the brakes before the prick even started his turn. Today actually wasn't quite as close as the last one.