Fu*king Cyclists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joetron

Challenge accepted

---

I'm in, too. You'll beat me, but probably 'cause you're getting in that quality roadie mileage and I'm not.

There's a lot of good stuff in this thread to go along with the usual chest thumping. One thing that strikes me is that no two people here are talking about the same thing. Whether it is "road weenies" vs. commuters vs. dirt or what the laws are (because they vary), it's all a pretty murky area. I guess that makes sense since it is a big ass country and everyone's experience varies. As a long time NYC bike commuter (and more similar to what the rider in the OP cites), I have seen different things than you guys and I don't have a clue what the problem is at Donner Pass or downtown SLC is. Whoever said that you should ride like a 16yo is driving and drive like your 12 yo is biking makes sense though. Neither the laws nor traffic patterns have caught up to the way we live now, and this conversation is evidence. Anecdotally, a friend in LA was pulled over recently by a cop and told to bike on the sidewalk on a normal street because the cop was "old school, and that's where he felt bikes belonged". I just refuse to see bikes as part of the problem, and this stuff needs to get ironed out. We're a fat and lazy gas guzzling nation and if people could work an extra bike trip or two into their weeks we'd all be better of for it. Bikes are part of the solution unless we end up dead or injured. People in metros seem to be exhibiting this behavior, but rather than encouraging it cops seem to overpolice it because it's easier than other shit, and the bro-brah 'fuck cyclists' doesn't do anything to de-escalate the fact that your life is really on the line when you ride two wheels. The country is also a lot more crowded than it was 30 years ago, particularly in all the cool areas people on TGR live (whether Boulder, NYC, LA, Missoula, or wherever). So when I said that I am not an advocate, I guess I take it back. Whether the logic is there or not, people should cut each other some slack. And when you cycle, you're quite aware that you're one of a frail minority, so I guess it is hard not to advocate for people who live similarly.

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/i...crop-scale.jpg

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/images/b...yclists-01.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

It looks a little different sometimes, because being narrower a bike often has a way to pull into a narrow spot and coast along while the cars go by.

---

A little different... this method is letting one car pass while 15 more are backed up because the cyclist only values their safety and their time. It is really no different than the camper going "I'm not pulling over because 3 of the 12 cars behind me can pass me in the next passing zone in 10 minutes down the road."

It's very rare to a bike on a twisty mountain road stop and use the shoulder or a pullout because of a half dozen cars behind them.

Quote:

---

No one cares about people rolling through a stop sign or a red light when it's safe to do so (and no one is in a better position to decide that than a biker/pedestrian). wah wah wah wah wah wah

---

Which is why I said "I really don't care about if there is no danger" because the biker is putting their time and effort the letter of a law that has no spirit in that case... as opposed to choosing to bike on a roadway that is well ill-suited for bikes and then not following the spirit or letter law to pull off and let people pass because that is what society says is the considerate thing to do.

Here is a new thing to argue about!

I rarely see problem cyclists on the road here. I think it is because we have sweet bike paths that parallel most of the major roads. Bike paths are expensive to the taxpayer, but I support bike paths as good infrastructure! I also like them personally because I'm not terrified I'm going to end up a hood ornament.

But there are some cyclists who will ride the road instead of the bike path that runs along the same route. Why? "Because there are slow bikers and some pedestrians on the path and I don't want to be slowed down by them." Wait... isn't that the drivers complaint about cyclists on the road?

Or when they ride the bike path, they buzz the peds/slower bikers or scream at them for not moving out of their way fast enough... wait isn't that the assholishness that drivers are so frequently guilty of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

A little different... this method is letting one car pass while 15 more are backed up because the cyclist only values their safety and their time. It is really no different than the camper going "I'm not pulling over because 3 of the 12 cars behind me can pass me in the next passing zone in 10 minutes down the road."

It's very rare to a bike on a twisty mountain road stop and use the shoulder or a pullout because of a half dozen cars behind them.

---

The method I mentioned has nothing to do with how many cars pass, regardless of bike or motorhome. It sounds like you're suffering from confirmation bias: you want to remember every cyclist who inconveniences you and you have no reason to remember those that don't, if you see them at all (which is one argument for their sticking out further into traffic).

Ah, but solutions! If there were more bikes on twisty mountain roads you could see more of them stopping for you. Better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceman

People should simply be considerate, it's not that hard. Ride single file and towards the right in areas with narrow roads and poor sightlines. Cars pass when you can see what's coming. It's the assholes on both sides who cause the issues. Don't be an asshole.

With that said, if bikes want to be considered vehicles they need to obey the rules of the road. This includes stopping at stop signs and lights, and pulling off the road if their presence is impeding traffic to the point that it is backing up behind them. And wtf is this about a peloton being considered "one vehicle"? That is ludicrous. If I'm in a line of cars can we be considered one vehicle too? Please?

Obviously cars need to obey the laws as well.

---

^^^^^^^

I'd also encourage people to actually read about the bike laws in their areas. In Seattle, the muni code references "vehicles" which are defined as both what we commonly understand to be cars and trucks as well as bicycles. So, you read the code the same way for both. I havent revisited in a bit, but I think farm equipment has a specific carve-out (topic I see coming up a lot). There are some small carve-outs for bikes (like riding on the sidewalk), but the default legal assumption is cars and bikes are required to follow the same rules. As ice said, the practicality of it all shakes down to consideration, but that doesnt absolve personal choice. If I drove around in Smart-Car, I can't expect the rest of the populous to give a shit that my crash safety rating is dogshit. I also wouldn't be surprised if faster traffic was aggravated that my washing machine on wheels couldn't keep up. I'd get out of the way or stay off that road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoqpass

Nope, too many Americans are fat lazy fucks to begin with

---

Summit's article says that this wasn't always so. That Americans used to be more active when they went about their business out in public.

If that's the case then the argument that so few Americans ride or walk means that we shouldn't, "make major roads more pleasant for bikes and pedestrians" could to be more of a self fulfilling prophesy instead of an argument against a privileged minority of pedestrians and cyclists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

The method I mentioned has nothing to do with how many cars pass, regardless of bike or motorhome.

---

Yes it does as the law stipulates pulling over as soon as safely able which by definition lets the entire line of backed up vehicles pass, whereas the method you mention only lets cars pass as the road allows while the cyclist continues on because it is more convenient for the cyclist... just as the motor-home that won't pull over because some people can just wait until the passing zone and the rest will just have to wait longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Yes it does.

---

No it doesn't. How long? I didn't say because it varies and is still within the same technique. Motorhomes do the same when winding roads have short pull-out lanes and the number of cars that pass depends entirely on how it's done. Same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

No it doesn't. How long? I didn't say because it varies and is still within the same technique. Motorhomes do the same when winding roads have short pull-out lanes and the number of cars that pass depends entirely on how it's done. Same thing.

---

I'm unsure if you are being pedantic on purpose or by nature. If you want a more precises comparison:

If the motor-home goes past a pullout with 10 cars behind them, they are not following the law.

If the bike goes past a pullout with 10 cars behind them, they are not following the law.

They are both being jerks.

If the motor-home with 10 cars behind it drives THROUGH a pullout without stopping letting one car get by, they are not following the law.

If a bike with 10 cars behind it right pulls right when there is a place to stop, but doesn't stop, only letting one car get by, they are not following the law.

They are both being jerks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Here is a new thing to argue about!

I rarely see problem cyclists on the road here. I think it is because we have sweet bike paths that parallel most of the major roads. Bike paths are expensive to the taxpayer, but I support bike paths as good infrastructure! I also like them personally because I'm not terrified I'm going to end up a hood ornament.

But there are some cyclists who will ride the road instead of the bike path that runs along the same route. Why? "Because there are slow bikers and some pedestrians on the path and I don't want to be slowed down by them." Wait... isn't that the drivers complaint about cyclists on the road?

Or when they ride the bike path, they buzz the peds/slower bikers or scream at them for not moving out of their way fast enough... wait isn't that the assholishness that drivers are so frequently guilty of?

---

Hiker biker paths are great infrastructure, but they're often not safe if you're riding quickly. You usually have driveway and side street cuts at grade and you have cars pulling through them with inattentive drivers. If you're moving at all quickly, you're better off and safer mixing with traffic on the road in that environment. Same thing with riding on the sidewalk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Here is a new thing to argue about!

I rarely see problem cyclists on the road here. I think it is because we have sweet bike paths that parallel most of the major roads. Bike paths are expensive to the taxpayer, but I support bike paths as good infrastructure! I also like them personally because I'm not terrified I'm going to end up a hood ornament.

But there are some cyclists who will ride the road instead of the bike path that runs along the same route. Why? "Because there are slow bikers and some pedestrians on the path and I don't want to be slowed down by them." Wait... isn't that the drivers complaint about cyclists on the road?

Or when they ride the bike path, they buzz the peds/slower bikers or scream at them for not moving out of their way fast enough... wait isn't that the assholishness that drivers are so frequently guilty of?

---

So rather than assume the fast roadie has moved OFF the bike path and onto the road for SAFETY reasons, you portrayed them as inconvenienced assholes. That's a solid fuckin attitude you've got there.

Edit: scooped by Shred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abraham

Despite all this bitching I have to add one thing. The US needs more cobblestone roads.

Rigid bikes + nice weather + cobblestone roads + sundresses = views that do not suck

---

I'm reminded of an entire spring day on the square in Amsterdam just wasted away drinking beers and watching exactly this. Gorgeous scenery.

My working hypothesis is that road biking is so fucking tedious that confrontations with motorists might be the only thing that makes it interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

Hiker biker paths are great infrastructure, but they're often not safe if you're riding quickly. You usually have driveway and side street cuts at grade and you have cars pulling through them with inattentive drivers. If you're moving at all quickly, you're better off and safer mixing with traffic on the road in that environment. Same thing with riding on the sidewalk.

---

Not in this case as the paths around here have very few road/drive crossings (literally one crossing per mile on average) because they follow rivers, lakes, or use underpasses/bridges to avoid roads/driveways. It is pretty sweet.

But to your overall argument:
It is unsafe to go fast on the bike paths because of the people who want to go slow.
It is unsafe to go slow on the roads because of the cars who want to go fast.

hmmmm...... :fm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

If...They are both being jerks.

---

So we agree that they're the same. How often we perceive that they're jerks is heavily influenced by personal bias so your conclusion that cyclists "basically never" aren't jerks sounds like a personal problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BmillsSkier

I'm reminded of an entire spring day on the square in Amsterdam just wasted away drinking beers and watching exactly this. Gorgeous scenery.

---

For scenery:
Amsterdam<<Hamburg<<<<<<<<<<<Copenhagen

Though Amsterdam may have more cobblestones than either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by berko

My working hypothesis is that road biking is so fucking tedious that confrontations with motorists might be the only thing that makes it interesting.

---

I think your avatar picture of Herman Blume with Max's bike is more appropriate than anything I've seen so far in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

But to your overall argument:
It is unsafe to go fast on the bike paths because of the people who want to go slow.
It is unsafe to go slow on the roads because of the cars who want to go fast.

---

But unsafe for whom? The cyclist who decides it's safer on the road takes the risk upon himself and alleviates the risk to those going slower on the path. It's hard compare risk and inconvenience but at least the guy who makes that call is willingly accepting a personal cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

So we agree that they're the same. How often we perceive that they're jerks is heavily influenced by personal bias so your conclusion that cyclists "basically never" aren't jerks sounds like a personal problem.

---

You are assuming a perception bias. I don't think I have one.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Not in this case as the paths around here have very few road/drive crossings (literally one crossing per mile on average) because they follow rivers, lakes, or use underpasses/bridges to avoid roads/driveways. It is pretty sweet.

But to your overall argument:
It is unsafe to go fast on the bike paths because of the people who want to go slow.
It is unsafe to go slow on the roads because of the cars who want to go fast.

hmmmm...... :fm:

---

I'm not telling you that it's an issue because of slow people on the hiker biker path, I'm telling you it's unsafe to ride on a sidewalk because of driveway cuts and incompetent motorists. Them's the numbers.

If you ride closer in speed to vehicular traffic, take a lane. If you ride closer to walking speed and riding on the sidewalk is legal, take the sidewalk. It's pretty straightforward.

That's what I did when I used to ride. I never had any issue on the sidewalk, just got out of people's way/jumped back onto the road as needed. Some places are stricter about bikes on the sidewalk though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ml242

I just refuse to see bikes as part of the problem...

---

Interesting perspective. Dynamic. Equivocal. Balanced. Discursive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

I'm not telling you that it's an issue because of slow people on the hiker biker path, I'm telling you it's unsafe to ride on a sidewalk because of driveway cuts and incompetent motorists. Them's the numbers.

If you ride closer in speed to vehicular traffic, take a lane. If you ride closer to walking speed and riding on the sidewalk is legal, take the sidewalk. It's pretty straightforward.

---

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

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.

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.