Bicyclists suck!

[Tinordi]

What's the big problem with cyclists riding to the front of a red light again?

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What's the big problem with cyclists riding to the front of a red light again?

Having 50 cars having to re-pass said cyclist several times.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Having 50 cars having to re-pass said cyclist several times.

What's wrong with that?

[Beerfest]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What's wrong with that?

If they want to ride on the road, they should obey the rules of the road.
Simple as that.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What's wrong with that?

If there's enough room for a car to safely pass the cyclist without encroaching on the adjacent traffic lane, or traffic is light enough that it's possible to move into the adjacent lane while passing the cyclist, there's nothing wrong with it.

If one or both of those things aren't possible, it increases the possibility of a collision, something you'd think most cyclists would want to avoid since they're unlikely to come out of the scenario in a positive way.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Since this is a grind my gears about Cyclists thread...

Just because you're on a bike, on the road, doesn't mean that you get to turn right on a red light when their is still pedestrian traffic passing through.

When the light turns green (like in a downtown situation) you have to wait for pedestrians to walk through, not try to bolt ahead in front of them and almost knock several over.

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

When the light turns green (like in a downtown situation) you have to wait for pedestrians to walk through, not try to bolt ahead in front of them and almost knock several over.

Cars cut in front of pedestrian traffic when making a turn all the time downtown. Don't single out the cyclists on this.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Cars cut in front of pedestrian traffic when making a turn all the time downtown. Don't single out the cyclists on this.

There is a whole GMG thread dedicated to people being d-bags in cars. This thread is for the cyclists.

[Mass_nerder]

It's kind of funny to me that so many people in this thread have such an axe to grind with cyclists.
Because Calgary's lack of bike infrastructure forces cyclists to use unmarked roads, bikes should be treated like a motor vehicle; however, the reality of the situation is that bikes aren't motor vehicles.
There are some things they can do, that a motor vehicle can't, and there are plenty of things they can't do.
It seems like a lot of the "anti-cyclists" in this thread want to complain about both.
Cyclists want to keep to the far right of the lane and ride to the front at lights, where they're more visible? "That's unfair, why should they get to cut to the front of the line!". Cyclist takes up the entire lane, because he doesn't want to be crushed in traffic? "who the hell does this cyclist think he is, making me slow down!?"

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

It's kind of funny to me that so many people in this thread have such an axe to grind with cyclists.
Because Calgary's lack of bike infrastructure forces cyclists to use unmarked roads, bikes should be treated like a motor vehicle; however, the reality of the situation is that bikes aren't motor vehicles.
There are some things they can do, that a motor vehicle can't, and there are plenty of things they can't do.
It seems like a lot of the "anti-cyclists" in this thread want to complain about both.
Cyclists want to keep to the far right of the lane and ride to the front at lights, where they're more visible? "That's unfair, why should they get to cut to the front of the line!". Cyclist takes up the entire lane, because he doesn't want to be crushed in traffic? "who the hell does this cyclist think he is, making me slow down!?"

I hate to say this, but you're missing the point entirely. It has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with the Cyclist's own double-standard.

The Cyclist attitude of; 'we have to bend the rules to suit us for our own safety,' is inherently contradictory to riding to the front of the line at a red light.

Why? Because forcing cars to constantly pass an unprotected and slow moving obstacle over and over is in and of itself UNSAFE!

Cyclists in this thread are constantly complaining that cars dont give them enough room when they're being passed and as such they are coming very close to large, dangerous, relatively fast moving and unyielding hazards that could potentially seriously injure a cyclist. And then they force that same hazard to continue coming uncomfortably close to them repeatedly of their own free will.

So who is being unreasonably stubborn here?

"Man, those cars arent giving me enough room on the road, this is dangerous, I could get clipped by one and then re-arrange most of my skin with a nice dose of road-rash, I had better go to the front at the lights in order to force them all to come too close to me more often because that'll definitely be safer."

[4X4]

^ I was totally going to say that, but instead, I just rolled my eyes. Some people just don't get it.

[Tinordi]

What's evident to me in this thread is the people who are complaining the most never cycle. I don't know if that's a criticism or not. I drive and bike. I don't have any problem moving over for a cyclist who goes to the front of a red light. I honestly can't comprehend how some people are getting so upset by that.

I look at that cyclist and am glad that he's one less stinking car on the road and the "inconvenience" of having to change lanes or at best move over 4 feet rolls off my back.

I'm afraid of the tribal righteousness of either side, but moreso of the people in the 2000lbs pollution machines.

[rayne008]

OK, Here's my gear grinder with cyclists ~ not only did it cause traffic delays, but put many people in a dangerous situation.

Perhaps someone could clarify what the actual law is.

This is at bow trail / 9th ave and 11 st sw. and I believe in the
last year they made 11st a 'bike route' with lanes on the curb side.
(indicated by the blue path. I know there is one on the west side, not sure about the east side of 11th st.)

11st has the green light, car #1 is waiting to turn right onto 9th ave, but
waiting for pedestrians to clear crosswalk. Obviously pedestrains ignore
don't walk signs (another thread!), light turns amber, and car #1 slowly attempts to turn.
Meanwhile 2 cyclist (#2 on teleprompter) are bombing down east side of 11 st (may/maynot be bike lane),
nearly get tagged by car #1 turning right (on amber)

Now IMO, car #1 had no reasonable chance to see the 2 bikers coming at a high rate of speed with intentions of proceeding straight.
Obviously, other than the cyclist running the amber light, what is the law there?

As an aside, I was car #3, waiting to turn left onto 9th, having to wait for the oncoming vehicle amber light runners, tardy pedestrians, and guessing if the crazy bikers are going to get tagged by car #1, then blow though the intersection, leaving me, the left hand tunring guy right in the middle of a red on 9th ave.

This happens every day.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What's evident to me in this thread is the people who are complaining the most never cycle. I don't know if that's a criticism or not. I drive and bike. I don't have any problem moving over for a cyclist who goes to the front of a red light. I honestly can't comprehend how some people are getting so upset by that.

I look at that cyclist and am glad that he's one less stinking car on the road and the "inconvenience" of having to change lanes or at best move over 4 feet rolls off my back.

I'm afraid of the tribal righteousness of either side, but moreso of the people in the 2000lbs pollution machines.

Exactly!
It kind of bugs me that the people who are arguing the hardest against cycling are the ones who likely never have and never will cycle downtown.

This is like someone who has played both hockey and football arguing over which is a tougher sport to play against someone who has only ever played football. Who's opinion are you going to put more weight on, the guy who is arging knowing both sides of the equation, or someone who only has experience on the side that they are arging for?

Not only that, but the people who are arguing against cycling are angry that cyclists don't follow the letter of the law, something that many of them are adamant that they are justified doing while driving.

[MarchHare]

[Edit] This is in response to rayne008's post above:

Funny you should mention that area. I walk along that stretch of 11th St. everyday on my way to work, and I was reminded of this thread this morning.

On my walk today, I saw two cyclists using the paths, and it made me wish that Calgary had more bike lanes like this one throughout the city. Literally 30 seconds after I had this pro-cyclist idea, a moron on his bike bombed through the crosswalk by the Co-op (corner of 11th St. and 11th Ave. SW), dangerously slalomed around pedestrians, then hopped the curb and rode on the sidewalk heading east-bound on 11th Ave. Any sympathetic thoughts I had towards cyclists instantly disappeared because of that d-bag.

And to answer your question, yes, there are dedicated bike lanes on both sides of 11th St.

[Byrns]

I work downtown at 5th and 5th SW and this week I've seen 3+ cyclists riding the sidewalk every day. And on two seperate days I've seen cyclists running full red lights on 5th Ave. (not even yellows or a red about to change to green)

In this time I've seen 0 cars/motorcycles run a red or drive on the sidewalk.

Just because I choose to take transit to work rather than ride a bike doesn't invalid my opinion or argument.

[MarchHare]

Exactly!
It kind of bugs me that the people who are arguing the hardest against cycling are the ones who likely never have and never will cycle downtown.

My wife frequently bikes to work (including a stretch through downtown). Does that make her worthy of your approval to complain about cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road? She gets annoyed at cyclists who make up their own rules ("for safety") just as much as I do because they give responsible, law-abiding riders like her a bad reputation.

[The Yen Man]

I guess my gripe with some cyclists is that they're so unpredictable. You don't know if they're going to run a red, blow through a stop sign, ride on pedestrian crosswalks to bypass traffic, etc. I would hope a cop can still give them a ticket if they run a red.

[Shazam]

Cyclists should be insured, licensed, and perhaps castrated. Not necessarily in that order.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Exactly!
It kind of bugs me that the people who are arguing the hardest against cycling are the ones who likely never have and never will cycle downtown.

This is like someone who has played both hockey and football arguing over which is a tougher sport to play against someone who has only ever played football. Who's opinion are you going to put more weight on, the guy who is arging knowing both sides of the equation, or someone who only has experience on the side that they are arging for?

That is a horrible analogy. You don't have to have experience with something to know when you see someone doing something moronic.

How can only someone who has biked downtown be qualified to think that bicyclists on the sidewalk are morons? Do you somehow gain wisdom by shaving your legs, wearing ugly coloured spandex and putting clown shoes on your feet?

But since you feel that way, I never want to see you criticizing an NHL player ever again since you never played in the NHL and thus are not qualified to provide an informed opinion.