Fu*king Cyclists

[Sirshredalot]

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.

[ex-powderbroker]

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.

[summit]

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.

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.

[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?

[jono]

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?

[Art Shirk]

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.

[MultiVerse]

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.

[summit]

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.

[jono]

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.

[summit]

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.

[Sirshredalot]

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.

[huckbucket]

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

[BmillsSkier]

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.

[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.

[summit]

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......

[jono]

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.

[abraham]

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

[BmillsSkier]

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.

[jono]

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.

[summit]

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.

[Sirshredalot]

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......

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.

[abraham]

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

[Buster Highmen]

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

Interesting perspective. Dynamic. Equivocal. Balanced. Discursive.

[summit]

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.

[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.