I think this is the biggest reason for the hate towards cyclists, and when you call them out on it, they give you the finger or countinue their d-baggery.
I had a situation with one a few weeks ago heading EB on 17 Ave SW, approaching Richmond Rd. I was heading to the old children's hospital for a CT so I was about to turn right and this cyclist was taking this time getting to the intersection. I waited a bit, giving him plenty of room and he ended up stopping with at least two car lengths in front of him and the intersection. I decided to go around him (proper signaling and all) and got up to the intersection with my signal on showing I was going to turn right. So the light turns green and he decides to zoom around me on the right before I turn. Lucky for him I see him making this moronic move and let him go by and before I even honk at him, he turns and gives me the finger. What I did to deserve the finger I don't know, but this type of attitude, the one where cyclists feel they have more of a right to the road than a car, is why I hate cyclists (and this doesn't even tell you what I have seen as a transit operator).
Every day I thank the lord that motorists aren't like that.
And I have never met a motorist that thinks he has more of a right to the road than everyone else on it - including other motorists.
Though the situation you describe is idiotic - but the problem is, many people are idiots, some of them ride bikes and some drive cars.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Barnet Flame For This Useful Post:
I hate cyclists because their majority solution to the roads being dangerous for cyclists is to make sidewalks dangerous for pedestrians. Irony much?
Plus the ratio of bad/good cyclists in the core is more like 90/10, not 10/90 - I actually get quite excited when I spot someone on a bike who breaks no laws in the five to thirty seconds I have eyeballs on them.
"Look! He's riding on the road, with a helmet, and he stopped at a red light in his lane and waited for the green! IT MUST BE FESTIVUS AND THIS IS A MIRACLE!"
Is the solution making nice bike lanes and such for them? Let me quote myself, "It's rather like solving rape by buying every rapist his own hooker."
How harsh of you. What a bad comparison.
A better analogy for building bike lanes would be making condoms available to teens. They're gonna do it anyways, and rubbers just reduce the risks for everyone of the super-fun, healthy activity that we all really love and that they're still going to enjoy whether you like it or not.
Maybe you just need a good spin on a bike to chill out and get some perspective...
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
I've put more clicks on my bike this summer than I have in years. It's faster and cheaper then transit and it keeps me fit.
My preference is to ride on the road in residential areas when ever I can. On main roads I ride on the sidewalk. I've never crashed and I haven't even had a near miss. I don't see what the big deal is.
EDIT- BTW, when I drive, especially downtown I have a lot more problems with mindless pedestrians then cyclists. And whenever I do have to pass a cyclist with a car the first thing on my mind is, Hey, why are you even on the road?
Last edited by Mister Yamoto; 08-26-2013 at 03:43 AM.
You can pull 35 kph on a bike? Damn. I gotta pick up my game...
One other reason I avoid riding on the main routes, even if they have bike lanes, is because that is where most of the manholes are AND where most of the cracks and potholes are. If the cracks/potholes are big enough, I have to swerve out of the bike lane and into traffic, which is sometimes impossible during rush hour.
On flat land I cruise in that 30-35 range, yep. My old bike (much heavier, no front sprocket) the speed was more in the 27-30 range. I have a pretty short commute (~15 minutes) so its not hard to maintain. But there's nothing like coming down 14th street.....have hit 60kph (typically only low 50s)
As for the quality of the roads, there are definitely some big worries to avoid. If the traffic is light, and especially if it's a two lane road, I use the entire lane so that there's enough space to swerve around the bad stuff.
Here's the rules for deerfoot: (5) No person shall ride a bicycle on Deerfoot Trail, being a highway in the City of Calgary, between 64th Avenue North and Marquis of Lorne Trail (commonly referred to as Highway 22X).
My dad bikes out to heritage pointe from Cranston all the time, totally legal to do that, it's just between 22x and 64th north cyclists need to take other routes. Makes sense, how else would anyone living on dunbow road area be able to cycle into the city without being on hwy 2.
64th is a really odd place for the northern limit. That feels like an old law that the city simply forgot to update as the city grew north.
I definitely treat stop signs as a yield. The main reason is that I don't want to lose all my momentum. It's different in a car.
No, it's not.
You don't want to stop at a stop sign because you'll lose your momentum. I'm sure most motorists would also prefer not to stop at stop signs because it results in additional wear on their brakes and is bad for fuel economy. Neither is a legitimate reason to ignore the rules of the road.
Last edited by MarchHare; 08-26-2013 at 09:37 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
I have no idea why motorists would want cyclists to come to a full stop at 4 ways unless the two (car and bike) arrive at the intersection at the same time. In that scenario both have to stop to ensure clarity about who's first, but if the cyclist is clearly there ahead of me, I'd prefer they keep their momentum up rather than delay my car's passage through the intersection by a few seconds while they regain momentum.
And I would say there's a good case for changing the laws for cyclists to that effect.
I have no idea why motorists would want cyclists to come to a full stop at 4 ways unless the two (car and bike) arrive at the intersection at the same time. In that scenario both have to stop to ensure clarity about who's first, but if the cyclist is clearly there ahead of me, I'd prefer they keep their momentum up rather than delay my car's passage through the intersection by a few seconds while they regain momentum.
And I would say there's a good case for changing the laws for cyclists to that effect.
That will never happen, it would cause too much of a grey area and many people would get hurt.
Cyclists should be stopping at the stop sign no matter what. Waiting for a cyclist to clear an intersection after coming to a complete stop is still faster than waiting for a pedestrian. It's simple, if you are in too much of a hurry to wait for a cyclist after they stop then maybe you should have left earlier. As a cyclist if you are too lazy to stop at a stop sign, then maybe a less manual mode of transportation is for you.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
How harsh of you. What a bad comparison.
A better analogy for building bike lanes would be making condoms available to teens.
That's a worse analogy because if we run short of condoms due to handing them out to teenagers, we just make more, which is not quite so easy when you are talking about roads. Bike lanes being retro-fitted onto streets that, in general, are not widened to account for their presence, are using up finite resources for the benefit of a few malcontent scoff-laws. It's especially galling when these lanes sit unused while the cyclists pedal madly down the adjoining sidewalk.
I'd rather spend the money on a few auxiliary officers detailed only for enforcing traffic laws on cyclists (and skateboarders!) in the most draconian and inflexible manner. Once these rapscallions have adjusted their habits and attitudes, then we can talk about doing something to reward them.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Did you just describe a situation where you went to pass a bike and it was unsafe to do so so somehow this was the bikes fault?
You know the solution to that would have been to wait behind the cyclist until it was safe to pass right?
Your reply to him seems to just shows your ignorance. You don't know why this guy was out on this particular road at this time. Why were you on that road? Perhaps he had the exact same reason. It doesn't really matter though. From your story it sounds like he was cycling as safe as can be and you were an impatient jackass driving unsafely.
Just like if you are to rear end a car chances are it was your fault for following too close, the same applies for unsafely passing a cyclist. In most places 3 feet is the bare minimum space required to pass (and this is only safe at an extremely slow moving pace). You don't know why any of these cyclists swerve out. And you say into your lane, what lane were they in before? You came up behind them, it sounds like you are both in the same lane at all times. Perhaps they swerved to avoid a pothole, car door, roadkill, any other obstacle. If you are going to overtake a vehicle, move fully to the other lane and pass safely.
Oh please, spare me. I'm well aware of the rules of the road. That doesn't mean for a second that give a cyclist the right to completely abandon common sense.
Your riding your bike down a busy highway in the curb, right side of the rumble strip and you decide you want to pass the guy in front of you, so you swing over the rumble strips, into the lane, WITHOUT looking behind you first and that doesn't strike you as especially stupid? I saw him, hence moving over, did he see me? Is it not his responsibility as well to keep himself safe?
And in my first example, dood was clearly out for a bike ride, nothing more. I was on my way home. You honestly don't think there are better places to take your kids for a ride during rush hour? Really? Again, lets apply some commons sense. There are a ton of other resedential roads he could have easily gotten to that were significantly less congested.
That's a worse analogy because if we run short of condoms due to handing them out to teenagers, we just make more, which is not quite so easy when you are talking about roads. Bike lanes being retro-fitted onto streets that, in general, are not widened to account for their presence, are using up finite resources for the benefit of a few malcontent scoff-laws. It's especially galling when these lanes sit unused while the cyclists pedal madly down the adjoining sidewalk.
I'd rather spend the money on a few auxiliary officers detailed only for enforcing traffic laws on cyclists (and skateboarders!) in the most draconian and inflexible manner. Once these rapscallions have adjusted their habits and attitudes, then we can talk about doing something to reward them.
Separated bike lanes are far less about who's on the road now than who would ride if they felt it were safe to do so. There's a lot of latent demand for cycling among the so called "interested but reluctant", which makes up the bulk of the population. For instance, when cities have built bike lanes, you tend to see a lot more women ride - they're sort of an indicator species of a safe and comfortable cycling environment.
Those on the road now are the so called "fearless" (spandex men), which is a relatively small proportion of the population. Those are the scofflaws (not all, but many) you are talking about.
I definitely treat stop signs as a yield. The main reason is that I don't want to lose all my momentum. It's different in a car.
I do the same for stop signs when I'm in my car. Coming to a complete stop if no other vehicles are at the intersection is silly. Only people too scared or uptight follow the rules of the road to that extreme.
