Active Users:792 Time:23/12/2024 07:37:28 AM
Now now, there's no need to be rude. Tim Send a noteboard - 02/07/2010 12:04:16 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.

  • You say that MK is "simply wrong" because the law doesn't reflect his opinion. That's a load o' processed lunchmeat. Laws are made for all sorts of reasons by all manner of people, and are as fallible as everything else in the world. We obey them because they create order, but that does not mean they are universally right, proper, and correct.

  • 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.

  • MK says bikers shouldn't ride where bike-specific infrastructure doesn't exist. You say they often have nowhere better to ride, and act as if that's clear evidence of why they belong on the road. However, it's not. Cyclists don't have to ride at all. Obviously, this is not an attractive option, but it's not the motorist's fault. The lack of proper infrastructure is not reason enough for bicyclist's to needlessly endanger themselves, and other motorists (I'll get to that in a sec).

  • 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.

  • You say motorists endanger bikers. This is true, and unfortunate. However, bikers also endanger even the most safety conscious of motorists. While you're riding along on the side of the road, trying to give cars their space, cars are inching around you, moving into the other lane so as not to hit you. Cars in the other lane are moving off onto the shoulder / side of the road trying to avoid the displaced traffic. All of that isdangerous. Maybe traffic shouldn't pass bikers at all, and should just accept that everyone in a car should get to their destination as slow as the biker ahead? Perhaps. But long traffic jams are also dangerous, increasing the risk of rear end collisions, rash actions by unconscionable drivers, etc.

  • 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.

  • You say that bikes are a "mode of transportation," and that if everyone rode them, the world would be a better place. You also say this news hasn't reached America yet. And you're right. ;) The vast majority of America is designed for cars. This is bad.

  • 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.


    Ooh, fighting words.

    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?


    As I've already said above, I wasn't suggesting you were trying to collect dead cyclists for 100 points each. You yourself said that, despite what the law says, cyclists should get off the road to make sure they don't slow motorists down. This means you regard the law as less important than your motoring convenience. Thus I think my comment was justified. I did say that people who thought this way were the reason so many cyclists get killed. But I didn't say anyone was doing it on purpose. It's the "I own the road" attitude that does 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.


    Bikes: invented 1817.

    Cars: invented 1885.

    Roads existed before cars did. And, in fact, before bikes did. So I think it's fair to assume that roads were not invented to serve motorists. They were invented so that people could get from place to place, by whatever means they might be using – foot, horse and buggy, bicycle and eventually car.

    If roads were built specifically for cars and not for bicycles, explain, please, why bicycles are allowed on the roads. Not merely allowed, but required to go on the road. The people who order the roads built are the same people who make the rules about what gets to go on them. If they had wanted to ban bikes, they would have done so. Instead, they made rules saying motorists have to share the road with other, more vulnerable road users, and pay attention so that they don't hurt them. If you have a problem with that, you should not be driving a car on the roads those authorities built and maintain.

    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.


    It's intriguing that you list a number of dangerous and illegal things which drivers sometimes do, and then blame the cyclists for wilfully creating dangerous situations. Don't you think maybe it's drunk, sleepy and phoning drivers who ought to change their behaviour?

    In a 45mph zone, cars should not be going "at least" 45mph but at most 45mph. Speed limits are a maximum. You say that it's not a perfect world and people on roads will sometimes do things they shouldn't – fine, I get that. But why, in your scenario, is it the vulnerable, law-abiding person who's in the wrong, rather than the guy in the killing machine who's not paying attention?

    As I have said before, it's usually not difficult to pass a cyclist. Today on my bike I overtook a bus which had stopped to drop off passengers. I managed to do so while staying on my own side of the road. At the same time, a car came the other way, overtaking cars parked against the kerb on his side. We passed each other without difficulty. American roads are much wider than ours, so over there it would have been even less likely to be a problem.

    In the event that you can't pass immediately – well, I'm sorry, but you just have to wait, probably for less than half a minute. That's the law, which you undertake to obey every time you get behind the wheel on a public road. I will always do my best to give cars room to pass, because I don't like having them lurking behind me any more than they like not being able to pass. "Lance Wannabe", as you point out, can't get the bus, because there aren't any where he lives. This is not uncommon. Treadmills are not a particularly useful method of transport; and if it's just exercise he wants, then they're very expensive.

    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.


    Are you seriously going to argue that cycling on a road infringes natural law? Because that's the only place you can go if what you said there is to have any point.

    Some laws are morally neutral, but nonetheless very important. Many rules of the road fall into this category. For example, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether we drive on the left or on the right. What does matter very much is that everyone obeys the same rule.

    Whether cyclists go on the road or the pavement is also such a rule. Either drivers have to beware of cyclists, or cyclists have to beware of pedestrians. Either way, inattention results in injury. Most governments have decided that it's preferable to give pedestrians a safe haven at the expense of cyclists, while some have decided the other way. The important thing is that people accept that them saving two minutes on their journey time is not more important than obeying the law and driving/cycling with due care and attention.

    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.


    I have said any number of times in this thread that neither of us owns the road. We have to share it. Sharing means you don't get to completely deprive the other person of using the shared thing, which is what you want to do. You will not find a place where I have said cars should get off the road. That is because, contrary to your insinuation, I do not believe that cyclists own the road.

    You talk about solving the problem. Research has shown that the more cyclists there are about, the safer they all are – a "safety in numbers" effect. The reason is that if there are only a few cyclists in the whole town, no-one ever expects to see them, and therefore drivers don't check their mirrors for cyclists when turning, etc. It's known as "SMIDSY syndrome" – "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". If, on the other hand, cyclists are everywhere, drivers can't fail to be aware of them.

    Your comment about the stationary bike is just bewildering. The point of a bicycle is to go places. Why is this concept so difficult?

    And besides, why do you care if I'm endangering myself? My bike isn't going to smash your car to pieces.
    Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.

    —Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.

    —La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
    Reply to message
    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 1290 Views
    Let me guess. You live in an American suburb. *NM* - 28/06/2010 06:12:24 AM 549 Views
    Sorry, but no. - 28/06/2010 06:17:20 AM 1091 Views
    I think you missed the part... - 28/06/2010 06:22:35 AM 1037 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 945 Views
    See apology below. *NM* - 29/06/2010 08:34:17 AM 568 Views
    it's okay dude i was just giving you a hard time *NM* - 29/06/2010 09:24:56 AM 556 Views
    I understand that what he said offended you - 28/06/2010 04:11:57 PM 1173 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
    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 1207 Views
    Re: I know - 28/06/2010 08:27:04 PM 1063 Views
    Re: I know - 28/06/2010 08:38:14 PM 1187 Views
    That makes me mad. - 28/06/2010 08:46:58 PM 1171 Views
    Don't be mad - 28/06/2010 08:52:47 PM 1009 Views
    Re: I know - 28/06/2010 09:15:22 PM 1152 Views
    To your last question: Arlington County, VA - 30/06/2010 03:29:55 AM 983 Views
    It is illegal to drive on the shoulder. - 29/06/2010 09:43:40 AM 1177 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 1199 Views
    I think we just disagree on the necessity is all. - 28/06/2010 09:00:44 PM 977 Views
    Matters of degree, I suppose. - 28/06/2010 09:07:40 PM 989 Views
    Yes, because that cyclist is SUCH a hazard to you in your car. - 29/06/2010 01:03:05 AM 1128 Views
    The central issue is people. - 29/06/2010 09:52:22 AM 1108 Views
    you keep talking about cyclists on highways as if it applied to all roads. - 29/06/2010 02:37:31 PM 1164 Views
    There are TWO equally important points there: - 30/06/2010 01:15:17 AM 1167 Views
    Re: I think we just disagree on the necessity is all. - 02/07/2010 09:19:13 PM 1119 Views
    Two words: Public Transportation - 30/06/2010 03:32:05 AM 1133 Views
    three words: share the road - 30/06/2010 04:08:28 AM 1157 Views
    Re: three words: share the road - 01/07/2010 08:03:54 AM 1213 Views
    Re: Two words: Public Transportation - 30/06/2010 08:43:51 AM 1313 Views
    Re: Two words: Public Transportation - 01/07/2010 08:05:37 AM 1139 Views
    Re: Two words: Public Transportation - 01/07/2010 08:40:10 AM 1083 Views
    How the hell is a 7,000 person town Urban? - 01/07/2010 08:52:45 AM 1154 Views
    Re: How the hell is a 7,000 person town Urban? - 04/07/2010 12:30:43 AM 1091 Views
    Re: How the hell is a 7,000 person town Urban? - 05/07/2010 09:03:03 AM 1166 Views
    I'd say you have it exactly the wrong way round. - 01/07/2010 09:41:27 AM 1224 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 1086 Views
    Really? - 01/07/2010 08:07:29 AM 894 Views
    Have you heard of Britain? - 01/07/2010 08:38:11 AM 1128 Views
    My city doesn't have ANY. not even shuttle buses. *NM* - 01/07/2010 06:00:22 AM 630 Views
    My city doesn't have anything eather. *NM* - 04/07/2010 12:32:52 AM 719 Views
    You do realize that... - 28/06/2010 08:38:39 PM 1121 Views
    Bikers can be equally as rude, I agree. - 29/06/2010 03:00:18 AM 1137 Views
    heh - 29/06/2010 04:45:46 AM 1096 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 1200 Views
    Get your head on straight, you silly cyclist - 01/07/2010 08:02:58 AM 993 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 994 Views
    What part of "there are no alternatives" don't you understand? - 04/07/2010 09:10:23 PM 1066 Views
    What part of my post did you not read...? - 05/07/2010 09:01:32 AM 1238 Views
    I agree entirely. - 28/06/2010 05:27:36 PM 1246 Views
    Really???? - 28/06/2010 04:59:12 PM 1120 Views
    that's always really annoying - 28/06/2010 06:27:07 AM 1273 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 531 Views
    I doubt it. *NM* - 28/06/2010 05:32:17 PM 478 Views
    my daughter rides her bike on the sidewalk all the time - 28/06/2010 06:07:01 PM 1096 Views
    Not sure, but - 28/06/2010 06:53:14 PM 996 Views
    That all depends on what kind of road, I guess. - 28/06/2010 07:09:52 PM 1130 Views
    we actually have a lot of cyclists on one of our 50mph roads - 29/06/2010 01:08:31 AM 1014 Views
    I would - 28/06/2010 07:25:22 PM 1010 Views
    You've alluded to that a few times now. - 28/06/2010 07:42:05 PM 990 Views
    a lot of the time they do in smaller cities - 29/06/2010 01:05:38 AM 912 Views
    Of course. Most bikers not in the mid-size to larger cities do. - 29/06/2010 03:06:03 AM 971 Views
    Re: Are they supposed to use sidewalks anywhere? - 02/07/2010 09:57:46 PM 1002 Views
    That sucks - 28/06/2010 04:34:35 PM 945 Views
    You have every right to be on the road. The guy was an ass. - 28/06/2010 07:30:23 PM 1066 Views
    I'm so glad I actually READ what you said before responding. - 29/06/2010 09:16:25 AM 1126 Views
    ?? I thought it was matter of COURSE that bikes weren't allowed on the highway - 29/06/2010 09:27:06 AM 1077 Views
    Should be, but it's not. - 29/06/2010 09:59:35 AM 1072 Views
    Question for you. - 29/06/2010 10:22:13 AM 919 Views
    and i haven't said that anywhere. - 29/06/2010 02:39:06 PM 953 Views
    That is what you get for living in Austin *NM* - 29/06/2010 02:38:20 PM 598 Views
    about the driving on the shoulder thing - 29/06/2010 02:49:29 PM 1160 Views

    Reply to Message