Fu*king Cyclists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Good question.
Some people are extreeeemly offended by the use of the car horn.

But in this instance, one would hope it was just used to request that the cyclists ride single file on the shoulder.
I have some empathy for the driver since I get blocked by packs of cyclists on one of the roads to our house. I usually wait until I can get around in the oncoming lane.

Then the cyclists, either offended by the horn or by any request to share the road, flip off the driver.

But this illustrates these situations pretty well I think and there's lots of room for rabid indignation for either party.

---

this video doesn't do the filmer any favors

he honks; they pull over [so far so good, no?]
cut edit [likely missing some antics/tomfoolery]
driver is stopped in shoulder & cyclists pass in lane of travel looking back/gesticulating (maybe even yelling?) [who knows?...no audio & lo res]
rider looking back clips his buddy & they go down

had driver not been in shoulder, riders might still be riding the shoulder, no?

driver could have legitimate reason for being stopped on shoulder, but apparently riders seem pissed, so maybe not?

vid is woefully incomplete for legitimizing calling anything shown "entitled" behavior

sure is funny to see cyclists run into each other, tho, right?

Agreed that there's not nearly enough context here. But I'll note that honking is almost never nice and almost always startling. Also, cyclists are not required to ride single file and are have every right to ride in the lane--even if there is a bike lane. (At least in the places where I've checked the laws.) Drivers should pass cyclists just as they would a piece of farm machinery--safely, after changing lanes.

I was told by a sheriff deputy recently to ride single file on a road where maybe 3 cars will pass in 30 minutes. I started to correct him but he sped off. Even the popo doesn't know the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

what exactly is the "entitled rude" part?
lotta missing info to agree on "karma"

---

They're supposed to be stud road bikers, but seem a bit blasé about the phenomenon whereby oncoming losers with zero goal instinct meet at the narrowest or most hazardous point on a straight road with uncanny frequency.
This loser instinct and subconscious accelerator pedal manipulation is closely related to why defenders and other such no-scoring also-rans miss easy shots on breakaways - they feel the clock tick and focus on the goalie and because of that, they end up shooting right at the goalie instead of all that wide open net. But I digress...

Anyway, the bikers here are constricting the road in front of motor vehicles, aka acting like assholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highangle

They're supposed to be stud road bikers, but seem a bit blasé about the phenomenon whereby oncoming losers with zero goal instinct meet at the narrowest or most hazardous point on a straight road with uncanny frequency.
This loser instinct and subconscious accelerator pedal manipulation is closely related to why defenders and other such no-scoring also-rans miss easy shots on breakaways - they feel the clock tick and focus on the goalie and because of that, they end up shooting right at the goalie instead of all that wide open open net. But I digress...

Anyway, the bikers here are constricting the road in front of motor vehicles, aka acting like assholes.

---

i bet this made sense in your head somehow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by climberevan

Agreed that there's not nearly enough context here. But I'll note that honking is almost never nice and almost always startling. Also, cyclists are not required to ride single file and are have every right to ride in the lane--even if there is a bike lane. (At least in the places where I've checked the laws.) Drivers should pass cyclists just as they would a piece of farm machinery--safely, after changing lanes.

I was told by a sheriff deputy recently to ride single file on a road where maybe 3 cars will pass in 30 minutes. I started to correct him but he sped off. Even the popo doesn't know the law.

---

It would be nice if people could do what they can to accommodate each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Good question.
Some people are extreeeemly offended by the use of the car horn.

But in this instance, one would hope it was just used to request that the cyclists ride single file on the shoulder.
I have some empathy for the driver since I get blocked by packs of cyclists on one of the roads to our house. I usually wait until I can get around in the oncoming lane.

Then the cyclists, either offended by the horn or by any request to share the road, flip off the driver.

But this illustrates these situations pretty well I think and there's lots of room for rabid indignation for either party.

---

I do wonder why the motorist was pulled over on the shoulder though. Were they deliberately stirring the pot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

this video doesn't do the filmer any favors

he honks; they pull over [so far so good, no?]
cut edit [likely missing some antics/tomfoolery]
driver is stopped in shoulder & cyclists pass in lane of travel looking back/gesticulating (maybe even yelling?) [who knows?...no audio & lo res]
rider looking back clips his buddy & they go down

had driver not been in shoulder, riders might still be riding the shoulder, no?

driver could have legitimate reason for being stopped on shoulder, but apparently riders seem pissed, so maybe not?

vid is woefully incomplete for legitimizing calling anything shown "entitled" behavior

sure is funny to see cyclists run into each other, tho, right?

---

I think the video nearly perfectly illustrates the discussion by virtue of lack of context and shadenfreunde expressed by both parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_pdx

I do wonder why the motorist was pulled over on the shoulder though. Were they deliberately stirring the pot?

---

Who knows, there's no evidence, only assumptions being made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

I think the video nearly perfectly illustrates the discussion by virtue of lack of context and shadenfreunde expressed by both parties.

---

i think the video nearly perfectly expresses the general driver contempt for cyclists without much evidence of actual problematic riding

art imitates life, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Who knows, there's no evidence, only assumptions being made.

---

That's a good point. I bet the cyclists edited out all the entitled stuff they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_pdx

I do wonder why the motorist was pulled over on the shoulder though.

---

exactly
the driver is stopped & still recording when presumably he should have passed this group after first scene [honk/pull over] & moved on with his day

on what seems to be a fairly low-traffic road in all scenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

That's a good point. I bet the cyclists edited out all the entitled stuff they did.

---

More Me-time away from the fat wife and 4 kids!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

i think the video nearly perfectly expresses the general driver contempt for cyclists without much evidence of actual problematic riding

art imitates life, no?

---

I thought it was nice that the cyclists moved over initially at the drivers request. Approaching a reasonable decorum.
I don't know why the driver was stopped, but the cyclists flipping off the driver indicated contempt for the driver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

That's a good point. I bet the cyclists edited out all the entitled stuff they did.

---

Subtle sarcasm there.

Like I wrote several times, I thought it was initially some reasonable interaction. A toot on the horn and accommodating behavior by the cyclists initially. Too bad they couldn't just get on with their days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

I thought it was nice that the cyclists moved over initially at the drivers request. Approaching a reasonable decorum.
I don't know why the driver was stopped, but the cyclists flipping off the driver indicated contempt for the driver.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

exactly
the driver is stopped & still recording when presumably he should have passed this group after first scene [honk/pull over] & moved on with his day

on what seems to be a fairly low-traffic road in all scenes

---

just begs questions of what didn't make the edit
filmed cyclist douchebaggery presumably would have made the cut, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

just begs questions of what didn't make the edit
filmed cyclist douchebaggery presumably would have made the cut, no?

---

Am I mistaken in thinking that the cyclists flipped off the driver?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Am I mistaken in thinking that the cyclists flipped off the driver?

---

you might be...maybe not - we have to rely on the filmer's text to know that...lo res imagery

either way, seems to be a reaction, not a provocation

why is this driver anywhere near these riders on this empty road after he presumably passed them when they pulled over?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

you might be...maybe not - we have to rely on the filmer's text to know that

either way, seems to be a reaction, not a provocation

why is this driver anywhere near these riders on this empty road after he presumably passed them when they pulled over?

---

The cyclists are definAtely gesturing and looking back. I had assumed they were reacting to the request honk.
Why the car is stopped is unknown.

Very much a miscrocosm of these dynamics as well as our reactions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

The cyclists are definAtely gesturing and looking back. I had assumed they were reacting to the request honk.
Why the car is stopped is unknown.

Very much a miscrocosm of these dynamics as well as our reactions.

---

you're ignoring the cut between scenes

the honk & the angry cyclist reaction aren't directly related in the timeline, at least not for immediacy of sequence of events
cyclists make no reactions to the passing vehicle in the first scene

but the stopped vehicle in the shoulder is directly related to the gesticulating cyclist as shown

maybe ask why the vehicle is even there in proximity with the cyclists at all on a seemingly empty road?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

you're ignoring the cut between scenes

the honk & the angry cyclist reaction aren't directly related in the timeline, at least not for immediacy of sequence of events
cyclists make no reactions to the passing vehicle in the first scene

but the stopped vehicle in the shoulder is directly related to the gesticulating cyclist as shown

maybe ask why the vehicle is even there in proximity with the cyclists at all on a seemingly empty road?

---

I may be incorrectly assuming that nothing really happened between scenes.

Should I make another assumption?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

I may be incorrectly assuming that nothing really happened between scenes.

Should I make another assumption?

---

yes, pretending "nothing really happened" seems unreasonable given the situation & actions recorded/presented

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

but the stopped vehicle in the shoulder is directly related to the gesticulating cyclist as shown

maybe ask why the vehicle is even there in proximity with the cyclists at all on a seemingly empty road?

---

Nothing as entitled as a cyclists pissed off at a stopped vehicle in plain site, and easily avoidable. Assuming a stopped vehicle in "their" lane was the reason for their outburst. Continuing the assumptions...

Maybe the car driver was taking a call and actually pulled over to do so per most state laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Nothing as entitled as a cyclists pissed off at a stopped vehicle in plain site, and easily avoidable. Assuming a stopped vehicle in "their" lane was the reason for their outburst. Continuing the assumptions...

Maybe the car driver was taking a call and actually pulled over to do so per most state laws?

---

because there's nothing a roady hates more than moving out of the shoulder to occupy the road?

or the classic two phones assumption: one to take the innocent call & the other to film entitled cyclists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Nothing as entitled as a cyclists pissed off at a stopped vehicle in plain site, and easily avoidable. Assuming a stopped vehicle in "their" lane was the reason for their outburst. Continuing the assumptions...

Maybe the car driver was taking a call and actually pulled over to do so per most state laws?

---

That explains it. Editing out the boring parts where nothing happened was certainly very considerate. Nothing I hate more than watching someone turn a screw or answer a phone while I twiddle my thumbs and wait for the excitement to start back up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

because there's nothing a roady hates more than moving out of the shoulder to occupy the road?

or the classic two phones assumption: one to take the innocent call & the other to film entitled cyclists?

---

Roadies only like to take-the-lane when its their choice, and they can exert ownership of the lane over a following motorized vehicle. Being forced to take the lane is extremely inconvenient, just plain outrageous, and will not stand! Isnt that common knowledge?

Aren't most of these shitty human interactions on the roadway captured by dash cams, not phones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

yes, pretending "nothing really happened" seems unreasonable given the situation & actions recorded/presented

---

In the absence of evidence, normally I try to make no assumptions.
btw, I'm not "pretending" if I call it out as an assumption to make no assumption.

Another piece of data is the oncoming car just as the car came up to the peloton while the cyclists were riding side by side.

And this is playing out perfectly.

Any person without an anger issue would have ever so slightly modified their speed and trajectory and went about their day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

In the absence of evidence, normally I try to make no assumptions.
btw, I'm not "pretending" if I call it out as an assumption to make no assumption.

Another piece of data is the oncoming car just as the car came up to the peloton while the cyclists were riding side by side.

---

there is evidence of other actions in the video, from editing to actual content
you are welcome to consider those actions and not "make assumptions"

pretending to make no assumptions isn't the high horse you think it is
esp when you making assumptions is evident: maybe watch the vid a few times more - 3 cyclists weaving because two are looking back isn't "riding side by side"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

And this is playing out perfectly.

---

i'm sorry a cyclist slowed you down that time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

there is evidence of other actions in the video, from editing to actual content
you are welcome to consider those actions and not "make assumptions"

---

Can you be more explicit regarding this "evidence" in the event? I must be missing something.

Quote:

---

pretending to make no assumptions isn't the high horse you think it is

---

Hey now, all I've said is that there's no evidence in the video for the interval left out. How high is that horse again?

Quote:

---

esp when you making assumptions is evident: maybe watch the vid a few times more - 3 cyclists weaving because two are looking back isn't "riding side by side"

---

I thought the weaving and gesticulating occurred after the cut. I was referring to them riding side by side at the start of the video when the driver honks and there's an oncoming car.

Quote:

---

i'm sorry a cyclist slowed you down that time

---

What about the motorists that hit me? Can I make assumptions then?

This is the best illustration of the dynamic yet.

I'll let this drop now.

My read based on video evidence and 40 yrs of road cycling:
Motorist honked at cyclists - because that’s what you do for all vehicles moving slower than you, right?

Cyclists promptly moved over - didn’t see/hear words or gestures as car passed but that may have occurred by either side.

Motorist shortly after passing moves to edge of road, blocking cyclists from riding where he wanted them A few moments before. Maybe because words were exchanged on the first pass…

Cyclists say “WTF asshole” and flip off motorist as they pass him back.
Motorist yells something at cyclists who look back, cross wheels and crash

Also - motorist by posting the video, just outed himself on a distracted driving violation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Can you be more explicit regarding this "evidence" in the event? I must be missing something.

Hey now, all I've said is that there's no evidence in the video for the interval left out. How high is that horse again?

I thought the weaving and gesticulating occurred after the cut. I was referring to them riding side by side at the start of the video when the driver honks and there's an oncoming car.

What about the motorists that hit me? Can I make assumptions then?

This is the best illustration of the dynamic yet.

I'll let this drop now.

---

one rider in road; two others single file on shoulder
solid yellow is on this direction of travel
honk
Attachment 424002

road guy starts dropping back to get on shoulder
car passes in opposite direction
Attachment 424003

rider is on shoulder behind two others
Attachment 424004

filming vehicle starts passing
empty road ahead
no gesticulating or even turning heads to address honker

3secs have accumulated

what are the entitlements here?
what karma needs to be doled out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

what are the entitlements here?
what karma needs to be doled out?

---

It's the year 2022. All YouTube has been converted to a purely good-faith Rorschach test and karma must be doled out upon the entitled roadies of the TRGs. His Eminence, Shrodinger's Douchebag will be along shortly to award the medals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Hey now, all I've said is that there's no evidence in the video for the interval left out. How high is that horse again?

---

to jog your memory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Then the cyclists, either offended by the horn or by any request to share the road, flip off the driver.

---

[bold italic for reference only]
objection, assumptions not in evidence, your honor

I think many people in here are forgetting the thread title. And that a similar, but antithetical thread also exists.

I said I'd drop it, so allow me recourse.

The only evidence in the video for the gesticulating and possible flipping off is the honk. You can call that an assumption, but it's evidence.

I'll grant that the 3 sec interval was either omitted or edited out, but the absence of evidence leads to no conclusion except by unsupported assumptions skewed to bias.

The reason I posted the video is because it's so unclear what really went on.

The driver could have slowed initially and the smugness of the driver is inappropriate as are the cyclists' gesticulations, each rooted in some form of entitlement.

And I was pretty sure that the argument the video would elicit was exactly how it's transpired.

Cheap shots aside regarding my experience both in the saddle and behind the wheel, I'd hope that the video would have pointed out that we should allow ourselves a little inconvenience and understanding at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by climberevan

Agreed that there's not nearly enough context here. But I'll note that honking is almost never nice and almost always startling. Also, cyclists are not required to ride single file and are have every right to ride in the lane--even if there is a bike lane. (At least in the places where I've checked the laws.) Drivers should pass cyclists just as they would a piece of farm machinery--safely, after changing lanes.

I was told by a sheriff deputy recently to ride single file on a road where maybe 3 cars will pass in 30 minutes. I started to correct him but he sped off. Even the popo doesn't know the law.

---

From the California Vehicle Code
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for
a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
edge of that roadway as practicable.

I would interpret "as close as possible to the right edge of the roadway" to mean single file, although I would give bikes a pass if both are in the bike lane.
It's probably a good thing the cop sped off before you could "correct" them. You'd probably have gotten a ticket instead of a warning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

I'll grant that the 3 sec interval was either omitted or edited out, but the absence of evidence leads to no conclusion except by unsupported assumptions skewed to bias.

---

I hate to keep picking at this terrible scab, but the belief that only 3 seconds took place between edits and that there ever even was a honk in the first place are like flashing bright red lights for unsupported assumptions skewed to bias.

But I'm a cyclist and laughed out loud when they crashed. So I'm not sure where that leaves me. Either way, thanks for sharing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

From the California Vehicle Code
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for
a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
edge of that roadway as practicable.

I would interpret "as close as possible to the right edge of the roadway" to mean single file, although I would give bikes a pass if both are in the bike lane.
It's probably a good thing the cop sped off before you could "correct" them. You'd probably have gotten a ticket instead of a warning.

---

Note that the law you quoted
a. Says "as close as practicable", not "possible"
b. Specifically calls out lanes "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane" as a situation in which the bicyclist has no obligation to ride far right

It gets more honks, but riding further out in the lane tends to get more people to realize there's not enough room to (safely) squeeze by within the lane, even if you're riding hard to the right edge. There are a fair number of places near me where, if I'm pedaling, I'll ride basically in the right wheel track because otherwise I end up with mirrors going by less than a foot from my arm that, by law, should be waiting until they have room to use the other lane and go around with at least three feet of separation.

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathleenturneroverdrive

I hate to keep picking at this terrible scab, but the belief that only 3 seconds took place between edits is like a flashing red light for unsupported assumptions skewed to bias.

---

agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anotherVTskibum

Note that the law you quoted
a. Says "as close as practicable", not "possible"
b. Specifically calls out lanes "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane" as a situation in which the bicyclist has no obligation to ride far right

It gets more honks, but riding further out in the lane tends to get more people to realize there's not enough room to (safely) squeeze by within the lane, even if you're riding hard to the right edge. There are a fair number of places near me where, if I'm pedaling, I'll ride basically in the right wheel track because otherwise I end up with mirrors going by less than a foot from my arm that, by law, should be waiting until they have room to use the other lane and go around with at least three feet of separation.

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

---

Thanks for catching my mistake. I can't see that it makes any practical difference in the meaning though.
I certainly agree that if there's not enough room for a car and a bike to occupy their side of the road side by side the bike should fully occupy the lane. I do that a lot lately, due to all the construction narrowing the road around here. And around here people don't seem to get upset about it, probably because 90% are bike riders in their other lives.
But that's not what climbereven was talking about.