Get your head on straight, you silly cyclist
MalkierKnight Send a noteboard - 01/07/2010 08:02:58 AM
Legally you may have the same right to the road as cars, but anyone with common sense can tell otherwise. Pedaling down a road meant for vehicles that can travel up to 100 miles and hour is just silly and stupid. It'd be like flying a hang glider in front of an airplane and demanding the pilot to slow down. You know why cyclists are kicked off sidewalks? Because people are walking about as fast to cyclists as cyclists are to cars. It just so happens we have to let the cyclists pedal along somewhere. Cyclists shouldn't be allowed to pedal their bikes anywhere but lanes designated for cyclists, to say you have as much right to the road as cars is like saying a hang glider has as much right to a "sky" road as an airplane.
Essentially what you're saying is "Because I am encased a ton of metal that could kill you as easily as swatting a fly, and you are unprotected and vulnerable, I don't have to obey the laws that are put in place to protect you from me". If you think that's morally acceptable, then you are seriously lacking in human decency.
Let me just start by saying, holy crap, man. He wasn't saying that at all. You're putting words in his mouth that he never said, and they're not very nice ones either. Why would you assume that, because he doesn't like bikers on the road, he thinks it's ok to flaunt the law and willfully endanger cyclists? If you really think that's how he feels, you need to seriously examine the concept of human decency yourself.
I never said he thought it was OK to wilfully endanger cyclists. But he does seem to think it's not his duty to watch out for them and avoid negligently (as opposed to deliberately) injuring us. I recast his contentions in stronger language, which may have led to a slight exaggeration, but you're now exaggerating my recasting into "murderous intent" rather than "can't be bothered taking care".
Also, look up "flaunt" in a dictionary.
Now, antagonistic paragraph out of the way, let me tell you why I agree with him. In short: roads are made for cars. You know that, I know that. We can argue the point if you're in the mood for it, but hopefully we can just agree that roads are pretty obviously designed for cars. However, it's quite true that the law also permits cyclists to utilize the roads. Too, good citizens have to obey such laws, and the vast, VAST majority of us do.
Not so. Roads are designed to be used by both at the same time. They would be better designed for that purpose if there were cycle lanes everywhere, but it's a cost/benefit thing as far as local authorities are concerned. American roads are much, much wider than ours – there is plenty of room for a car to overtake a cyclist except when there are parked cars all along the kerb and people coming the other way. In which case you just have to suck it up and wait for a gap. Ave's mountain road seems to be something of an exception (and very far removed from the urban context we were originally talking about) – it that situation I might agree, depending on the characteristics of the road, that it was dangerous to cycle there despite the tehcnical legality thereof.
Keeping that in mind, let's look at some of your arguments/statements/whatever.
OK, I could maybe have been more explicit there. As I understood them, MK's claims amounted to "Cyclists have no right to be on the road, and I have no duty to watch out for them". To which I say, "Not so – the law creates that right for them and that duty for you". Rights and duties are legal concepts and all come from the law, so to say "Despite what the law says, this right/duty does not exist" is nonsensical.
We could get into a very academic argument about natural law now, but I'd rather not as I don't think it's relevant to the rules of the road.
Oh sure, I'll just walk into work every day. Two hours in the morning and two hours back. Actually, no, I don't think I have time for that. But there are no buses where I live (or maybe like one an hour on weekdays). I'll get a car instead. Hmm, crap, I just spent my life savings on a second-hand Nissan. Oh well, there goes the deposit on my first house. And, shit, I now have to tax it (£200 a year), insure myself to drive it (£500), pay for parking everywhere I go (£a lot) and buy petrol (£fuckloads). There goes my monthly food budget. Oh, and I live in a city apartment so there's nowhere to park it except a disused supermarket car park. Whoops, there go my windscreen and tyres. Damn vandals.
I don't need to cycle in the same way that you don't need your car. You told Rebekah that it's not like food, water or shelter. Indirectly, it is, because if I can't get to work, I can't pay for food, water or shelter. You're making the same mistake as MK, thinking I'm just out enjoying myself on the roads, and don't care if I get in motorists' way because I'm having so much fun. But I'm not playing cricket in the street, I'm going to work.
OK, seriously, most roads even in this crowded country have room for two cars to go side by side in each lane (just). At most you might have to cross the centre line by about a foot, which isn't going to make you hit any oncoming traffic. If it's a bit tight because of parked cars or whatever, then take a deep breath and wait maybe thirty seconds, and lo, there will be an opportunity to get past me. I promise I will do everything to help you by moving as close to the kerb as I safely can.
And anyway, in a city it's often pointless to try and pass a cyclist, because in 50 yards you hit a red light and I'm in front of you again anyway. All you achieve by being impatient is to waste petrol speeding up and slowing down again.
Well, I'm glad we agree on something.
The solution, however, is to make America more bike-friendly, not to force bikes into the system where they don't belong. Bikers who insist on riding on roads not designed for them inconvenience everyone (except themselves) and put everyone (including themselves) at higher risk of accident and/or injury.
Not if drivers DO WHAT THEY'RE FUCKING SUPPOSED TO. The current system would work fine if nobody went around acting as though they owned the road and everyone else was a trespasser. (This goes for users of all types of vehicles, but it's more of a problem with drivers because (a) there are more of them and (b) they can kill you by accident.)
As several people have pointed out to you already, if everybody stopped cycling and then demanded cycle lanes everywhere, the response would be "What for? There aren't any cyclists". If loads of people started cycling, the council would say "Hmm, maybe we should think about putting a bike lane in there". But people won't, because they perceive cycling as unsafe. And as long as motorists go around yelling at cyclists to get off THEIR road, they'll be right.
Anyway. I'll try to wrap up here by saying that I know where you're coming from, and I understand why you're frustrated with inconsiderate drivers. Personally, I'm extremely cautious of cyclists on the road, and it's for that very reason that I wish they'd keep themselves off of it. Does the law say they can be there? Yes it does, which is why I don't yell at them or give them any grief. However, does the law make sense when it inconveniences and endangers dozens of people for the sake of one? Not to me it doesn't. Therefore I agree with MK, and I think your extremely negative response to him (particularly when he worded things fairly nicely, and specifically apologized for any offense) was a bit unjust.
Inconvenience – maybe, but not a very big one, and one that every driver simply has to accept as a part of life as a motorist. Endangers – sorry, but no. If the cyclist is whizzing around not looking where he's going and not giving way when he should, then of course that's different. And it's him that's going to get killed, not you. But if the cyclist is doing the right thing, then he is no danger to you as long as you are also doing the right thing.
In short: you don't own the road, and I don't own the road. We have to share the road. If we both obey the law and act considerately, we will all be fine.
I obviously take issue at a number of your points, and was going to let this post go because of your inflammatory and ignorant language, but I can't take it after this ignorant post.
First off, I NEVER said I felt I had the right to ignore the safety of cyclists. I'm not some drunk teenager who thinks he's playing grand theft auto like I can run over cyclists if I want to. Your reading of my post only shows how ignorant and obnoxious cyclists can be. You know why you react that way? Because you know cars can kill you really really easily. You know a great way to fix that? By not riding a fucking bike all the time where big giant metal vehicles are driving at speeds at least double to yours. No, I'm not going to run you over mr. cyclist, just saying that you'd be safer, and much less stressed and testy if you rode a bus or something. Subway maybe? Anything? You say there are no buses by your home, yet you live in a city. No buses? In a city? Only one bus an hour? I'm sure you don't get to work that quickly that you can't make an hourly bus right? Especially if it's your safety. Isn't waiting worth it?
But that's not even relevant to this discussion, since I don't think Deadsy was driving to work late at night when this happened. You brought up the urban context in response to Aemon's point, well the context of this post was not work commute so don't bring it up either.
And when will you crazy cyclists get it through your heads that roads are not meant for you to cycle on?? Can you cycle on them? YES you can. Congratulations. Were they made with you in mind? NO. The billions, NO, TRILLIONS of dollars spent around the world to create paved roadways was not spent with cyclists in mind. I'm sorry, sir, we had cars in mind when they were designed. Go ask the people that made them.
The point of my post was not that cyclists should get run over because they're annoying, only that they get run over because they put themselves in stupidly dangerous situations. You know how stupid it is to bike up a hill in a 45mph zone? Cars are driving by at at least 45mph and a bike is hobbling up at what? Maybe 15mph? Any decent human being will watch out for the cyclist going up a hill. They'll just be annoyed that they have to slow down, waste gas, and get to their destination a little later because Lance Wannabe can't take the bus or buy a treadmill. Now this source of annoyance isn't the source of the danger, it's only a SIGN that what Lance Wannabe is doing is DANGEROUS. Why is driver a annoyed? Because he has to put relatively considerable time and focus to looking out for Lance Wannabe (not that there's anything wrong with that, just stating the facts). The reason that he is annoyed is just why it's so dangerous. Because sooner or later, someone is going to make a mistake. Driver x will be talking on the phone, distracted by the kids in the back seat, driving drunk, fall asleep at the wheel, any number of things that can deprive them of the necessary focus to adapt to Lance Wannabe. In a perfect world, every driver could adapt and focus at all times. But humans are not perfect and neither is our world. Cyclists willfully put themselves in dangerous situations, then expect everyone else to adhere to a more perfect standard on their account. This is unfair, and plain stupid.
And one more bonehead thing you said, the argument about laws wouldn't take forever. It's not academic at all. The laws that allow cyclists to bike on the road are positive laws. There's a difference between positive and natural law. Natural is morally oriented, positive is the crap congressmen vote on. People make positive laws, people are flawed and selfish and stupid. People are responsible for segregation, apartheid, the holocaust, and a host of bad things. Certainly bike laws could be among those, right? From a strictly hypothetical standpoint, of course.
Get off your bike seat and wake up. You're endangering yourself by cycling in a busy, urban, roadway. That's a fact. Cars will do their best, but you don't own the road. Cars will make mistakes. They will kill you sometimes because either you or they inevitably makes a mistake. Getting mad at us drivers won't solve the problem. Getting on a stationary bike will.
You must unlearn what you have learned.
I got screamed at by a motorist while riding my bicycle today
28/06/2010 05:44:45 AM
- 1670 Views
Ummm
28/06/2010 06:01:19 AM
- 1291 Views
Let me guess. You live in an American suburb. *NM*
28/06/2010 06:12:24 AM
- 549 Views
Yeah, the "sport" part gives that away even more than everything else... *NM*
28/06/2010 08:06:03 AM
- 562 Views
seriously, you think people didn't use bikes as transportation anymore!! *NM*
28/06/2010 08:26:36 AM
- 645 Views
That was offensive to cyclists. People who think like you are why so many of us die. *NM*
28/06/2010 08:28:24 AM
- 626 Views
Now that I've calmed down a bit, I'm going to actually address your points.
28/06/2010 12:16:10 PM
- 1411 Views
hey now!
28/06/2010 01:18:16 PM
- 946 Views
I understand that what he said offended you
28/06/2010 04:11:57 PM
- 1173 Views
You're right, I was stereotyping and getting a little ad hominem. I'm sorry. *NM*
29/06/2010 08:33:20 AM
- 603 Views
My social capital at this site is pretty low, so I don't mind admitting that I agree with MK.
28/06/2010 04:12:42 PM
- 1043 Views
Re: My social capital at this site is pretty low, so I don't mind admitting that I agree with MK.
28/06/2010 06:27:42 PM
- 1088 Views
This point:
28/06/2010 06:37:32 PM
- 1148 Views
Not in the United States.
28/06/2010 07:25:56 PM
- 1142 Views
Highways are, of course, a different matter.
28/06/2010 07:32:50 PM
- 1098 Views
I know
28/06/2010 07:34:04 PM
- 1208 Views
Re: I know
28/06/2010 08:27:04 PM
- 1064 Views
Re: I know
28/06/2010 08:38:14 PM
- 1187 Views
It is illegal to drive on the shoulder.
29/06/2010 09:43:40 AM
- 1178 Views
i'm pretty sure bicycles are banned from almost all highways, regardless of access
29/06/2010 02:34:00 PM
- 966 Views
Maybe I should have said "modern roads."
28/06/2010 08:20:55 PM
- 1152 Views
Perhaps.
28/06/2010 08:36:15 PM
- 1200 Views
I think we just disagree on the necessity is all.
28/06/2010 09:00:44 PM
- 978 Views
Yes, because that cyclist is SUCH a hazard to you in your car.
29/06/2010 01:03:05 AM
- 1129 Views
The central issue is people.
29/06/2010 09:52:22 AM
- 1109 Views
you keep talking about cyclists on highways as if it applied to all roads.
29/06/2010 02:37:31 PM
- 1165 Views
There are TWO equally important points there:
30/06/2010 01:15:17 AM
- 1167 Views
then why are you arguing with me? I said that the central issue is people being stupid. *NM*
01/07/2010 05:59:23 AM
- 570 Views
Two words: Public Transportation
30/06/2010 03:32:05 AM
- 1133 Views
...doesn't exist or is completely dysfunctional in a lot of places. *NM*
30/06/2010 03:57:26 AM
- 589 Views
Re: Two words: Public Transportation
30/06/2010 08:43:51 AM
- 1314 Views
Re: Two words: Public Transportation
01/07/2010 08:05:37 AM
- 1140 Views
You can't be serious. If you do think that's always (not just sometimes) a viable option, then...
30/06/2010 09:20:03 AM
- 1087 Views
My city doesn't have ANY. not even shuttle buses. *NM*
01/07/2010 06:00:22 AM
- 630 Views
Re: My city doesn't have ANY. not even shuttle buses.
01/07/2010 08:08:02 AM
- 1110 Views
Outside of a highly urbanized area, I surmise. The entirety of the US is not like the East Coast. *NM*
02/07/2010 02:11:01 AM
- 626 Views
Despite your subject line, I'm glad to see that we agree with each other more than MK and I do.
29/06/2010 10:13:29 AM
- 1201 Views
Get your head on straight, you silly cyclist
01/07/2010 08:02:58 AM
- 994 Views
He never said there were no buses in our city. He said that, as a student, he can't afford them. *NM*
01/07/2010 08:42:47 AM
- 583 Views
I'd say most urban areas have few roads with speed limits above 50 km/h (30mph)
01/07/2010 10:35:20 AM
- 1042 Views
Now now, there's no need to be rude.
02/07/2010 12:04:16 AM
- 1207 Views
Re: Now now, there's no need to be rude.
04/07/2010 05:53:01 PM
- 995 Views
That's always upsetting. You just have to remember that some people are simply arseholes, and...
28/06/2010 11:41:22 AM
- 1034 Views
Re: I got screamed at by a motorist while riding my bicycle today
28/06/2010 03:25:22 PM
- 949 Views
Are they supposed to use sidewalks anywhere? *NM*
28/06/2010 04:58:50 PM
- 532 Views
In Sweden we often have combined bike and walking paths a few meters to the side of the road
28/06/2010 06:22:40 PM
- 993 Views
Not sure, but
28/06/2010 06:53:14 PM
- 996 Views
Thankfully I live in a very bike-friendly city, though this sort of thing has still happened to me. *NM*
28/06/2010 07:56:59 PM
- 600 Views
I'm so glad I actually READ what you said before responding.
29/06/2010 09:16:25 AM
- 1127 Views
?? I thought it was matter of COURSE that bikes weren't allowed on the highway
29/06/2010 09:27:06 AM
- 1078 Views
Should be, but it's not.
29/06/2010 09:59:35 AM
- 1073 Views
Question for you.
29/06/2010 10:22:13 AM
- 920 Views
the law says they have to to ride in single file as close to curb as is practical
29/06/2010 03:31:55 PM
- 983 Views