The Inevitable Bike Argument Thread

[Kohan]

It's not about "effectively" passing, it's about safely passing you goddamned stubborn bastard.

As Cream said, who's on the high horse now? He knows the law, and you don't. You're just a dipshit because you want to be a dipshit. He should be stubborn in relation to this, because he's right.

I used to cycle regularly, and also belonged to a cycling club. I'm also very familiar with the laws, and I understand the deep disrespect for bicyclists and pedestrians that exists in this country. It's related to the topic at hand, because drunk drivers are even let off easy when they've killed someone with their car. The core of the issue is people exactly like you: those who think that their being in a car makes them incredibly important. It doesn't.

If you don't want to obey the laws of the road, you have no business driving. You don't get to cherry pick by saying you disagree with drunk driving while simultaneously slamming cyclists.

Shit, in California, the vast majority of drivers don't even understand that you're supposed to cross the dotted line in bicycling lanes when you're turning right. I merge into bicycle lanes while turning all the time, and then drivers in front of me who didn't use their turn signal and who suddenly want to turn awkwardly do so in front of me, without getting into the bike lane. Fucking annoying.

[Blubbartron]

The law doesn't determine whether or not something is a good idea, or whether or not something is considerate of the vast majority of people. Any place that doesn't have designated bike lanes (which is still a lot of places) will see increased danger to drivers and cyclists whenever cyclists are on the road. This isn't a difficult concept. I'm shocked that anyone here would defend a stupid idea with "but it's legal!" So were Jim Crow laws back in the day.

[Kohan]

The law doesn't determine whether or not something is a good idea, or whether or not something is considerate of the vast majority of people. Any place that doesn't have designated bike lanes (which is still a lot of places) will see increased danger to drivers and cyclists whenever cyclists are on the road. This isn't a difficult concept. I'm shocked that anyone here would defend a stupid idea with "but it's legal!" So were Jim Crow laws back in the day.

Are you seriously trying to equate laws that permit bicycling on roads with segregation? Really?

Are you also attempting to do so while excusing your own arrogance by saying that something isn't a good idea because it isn't convenient for you?

Fuck your convenience. No one needs to be considerate of you because you're in a rush to get somewhere, or because you otherwise want the road all to yourself. Do you know what I've done when a bicyclist was in front of me and I couldn't safely go around them? I waited until I could. My world did not end, one cyclist lived to bike another day, and everyone lived happily ever after.

You're not being anything but a dick. If not enough roads have bike lanes, we obviously need to implement more of them. If people think bicyclists should go fuck themselves because they're full of themselves, fuck them. No one owns the road, not drivers, not bicyclists, not pedestrians, but we all get to use them together. They're there for transport, and we're all entitled to getting around, no matter our means.

This sort of entitlement is bullshit, and is exactly why we're too Goddamn forgiving when it comes to fatalities on the road.

[Mertron]

just fyi jim crow laws were great

[BaneTheBrawler]

i have a dream that one day vehicles of all propulsion mechanisms will drive together in harmony

[Abandon]

jesus blub, you're a fucking moron

[GoggleHead]

This sort of entitlement is bullshit

Yes, cyclists thinking they're entitled to endangering everyone on the road is bullshit. Our infrastructure does not support bicycles in any capacity beyond the superficial. Come watch the rush hour traffic and see what happens when cyclists get on the road. It isn't pretty.

i have a dream that one day vehicles of all propulsion mechanisms will drive together in harmony

Google cars. It can't happen fast enough.

[Abandon]

i wish some of your parents believed in abortion

[Kohan]

Yes, cyclists thinking they're entitled to endangering everyone on the road is bullshit. Our infrastructure does not support bicycles in any capacity beyond the superficial. Come watch the rush hour traffic and see what happens when cyclists get on the road. It isn't pretty.

Because I've never driven a car, nor have I ever ridden a bike, in any major metropolitan area in the entirety of the United States.

Except I've totally done both, and in densely-populated and heavily-traveled places, including New York, South Florida, and South California.

Try again, please.

The laws are in place because an individual driving a hulking mass of metal is in a significantly safer situation than someone on a little frame with skinny wheels attached. It's common fucking sense which would lose in a collision. Therefore, car drivers need to be aware of the laws, and they need to respect them.

You don't want to respect the laws of the road? You don't drive.

Google cars. It can't happen fast enough.

Are you sure about that? Because I'm rather sure self-driving vehicles will properly obey all the rules of the road. You might not want that after all.

In fact, it's especially hilarious that you mention this, as I'm a huge fan of robotics and self-driving cars, meaning that I regularly follow companies like Google, Honda, and Volvo. Volvo is taking great pains to ensure their vehicles respect pedestrians, for example.

I don't think you even know what you're endorsing. I do think you're retarded, though, but that's a given.

[NynJa]

I've run into a fair share of asshole cyclists (recently I had problems passing one who was biking in the middle of the fucking road and refused to budge so I could pass, this was before the snow fell), but saying they should be on the sidewalk is all kinds of more dangerous.

[Kohan]

I've run into a fair share of asshole cyclists (recently I had problems passing one who was biking in the middle of the fucking road and refused to budge so I could pass, this was before the snow fell), but saying they should be on the sidewalk is all kinds of more dangerous.

Bicycling on the sidewalk is illegal in many places in the United States, too. It's also more dangerous rather than less, as it decreases visibility for car drivers if bicyclists are coming around a mostly blind corner (whereas they would be easier to see if they were further out), and it endangers pedestrians, among other things.

Whether they're a bicyclist, pedestrian, or driver doesn't matter—everyone has to follow the laws. They're not there for no reason. They aren't the product of something outrageous, like racism (I'll forever be laughing at that Jim Crow comparison), or anything else that isn't based in quantifiable sense.

Though if you do want to bring extra points into the conversation, bicycles were around before automobiles, and the basis of the laws we're discussing were related to carriages being mandated to share the road with bicyclists. Not only were they there first, but people have had to inform asshats in bigger vehicles to not be huge cocks about it for over a hundred years, and obviously, some of them still haven't gotten the memo.

[Acevalefor]

The laws are in place because an individual driving a hulking mass of metal is in a significantly safer situation than someone on a little frame with skinny wheels attached. It's common fucking sense which would lose in a collision. Therefore, car drivers need to be aware of the laws, and they need to respect them.

You don't want to respect the laws of the road? You don't drive.

You can also not ride your bike if you do not want to respect the laws of the road. I understand what you are saying about assholes in steel cages. However, your argument supports the idea that bicyclists should be wary of vehicles regardless of the laws. It doesn't matter that it is legal for me to ride in the lane, I am going to watch out for and yield to any vehicle that presents a hazard to me. It's, as you said, common fucking sense who would win in a collision. It is just as illegal for the drunk, billigerent guy in the bar to hit me with a pool que as it is for a person in a vehicle to run me over, but that doesn't mean I am going to assume he wont hit me. I'm going to stay the fuck away from him.

[Cadsuane]

I've run into a fair share of asshole cyclists (recently I had problems passing one who was biking in the middle of the fucking road and refused to budge so I could pass, this was before the snow fell), but saying they should be on the sidewalk is all kinds of more dangerous.

Cyclists are advised to do this when safety dictates, like when it's unsafe to ride to the right for whatever reason. If that was the case then he has a perfect right to take up the lane and you should chill the fuck out in the future.

[Cream Soda]

The law doesn't determine whether or not something is a good idea, or whether or not something is considerate of the vast majority of people. Any place that doesn't have designated bike lanes (which is still a lot of places) will see increased danger to drivers and cyclists whenever cyclists are on the road. This isn't a difficult concept. I'm shocked that anyone here would defend a stupid idea with "but it's legal!" So were Jim Crow laws back in the day.

If anyone would prefer me to have to turn a 13 mile bike ride into a 15-20 mile(20 if I go out of my way to get on the bike trail) bike ride to specifically find routes with bike lanes, sidewalks, or the pinellas trail to save a couple seconds of slowing down to pass me, I'd say they're far less considerate then I am.

Any place that doesn't have designated bike lanes (which is still a lot of places) will see increased danger to drivers and cyclists whenever cyclists are on the road.

Anyone who has a problem with this risk should find another route. As for me, I spend 8-12 hours on a bicycle every week, I'll take the risk over turning that to 10-14 instead.

"but its legal" isn't defending the idea. It's me saying I'm on the road, deal with it. If you're not willing to share, sounds like a personal problem to me, versus drivers simply yelling "Get off the road" while I laugh at them.


Edit: as far as the sidewalk goes, far more dangerous and much more likely to be hit.

Most drivers will look at the road before pulling out, but never look at the sidewalk.

Not to mention, stop signs are before the sidewalk, but people will do a rolling stop to the end of the corner instead of at the stop sign; which if you're in the middle of crossing the street, an easy way to get hit. The times I do take the sidewalk (which isn't often), shit happens all the time, I just know they're not going to stop at the stop sign though so I make extra room to accommodate myself (though if they are blocking the sidewalk and I have to go around them, it will ALWAYS be from the front instead of from the back. If you're going to block my path, yea you're going to wait a couple more seconds; your ass should have stopped at the stop sign, not after it)

[Cream Soda]

You can also not ride your bike if you do not want to respect the laws of the road.

Provided you're not doing stupid shit like running red lights, what laws aren't cyclists respecting? Driver convenience is not a law of the road burdened on cyclists

I understand what you are saying about assholes in steel cages. However, your argument supports the idea that bicyclists should be wary of vehicles regardless of the laws.

Oh, I'm aware of all the asshats on my daily travels. A lot of drivers are fine; others, shouldn't have a license.

It doesn't matter that it is legal for me to ride in the lane, I am going to watch out for and yield to any vehicle that presents a hazard to me.

If I think someone straight up doesn't see me, then I will go out of my way to yield.

If we've made eye contact or I'm 100% certain you know of my presence, if you want to hit me, go ahead. I'm not yielding when I have the right of way. We'll deal with the consequences afterwards.

It's, as you said, common fucking sense who would win in a collision.

Last car that hit me actually destroyed my bike, but I think they probably paid more money fixing the huge ass dent I put in their car than I did replacing the bike. I won that battle in the end of the day.

It is just as illegal for the drunk, billigerent guy in the bar to hit me with a pool que as it is for a person in a vehicle to run me over, but that doesn't mean I am going to assume he wont hit me. I'm going to stay the fuck away from him.

Avoiding the drunk guy doesn't take you 20-30 minutes out of your way (each way of a round trip that you commute 4 days a week).
I bike over 150 miles a week. I'm not increasing that to 170+ AND taking slower routes with more lights. For what? To save you a couple seconds to less than a minute tops in passing me? Fuck that

[Acevalefor]

You completely missed the point CS. I am not saying you need to drive an extra 30 minutes out of your way. I am saying you should be wary of drivers just like you said. It matters not how right you are when you are eating your vegetables through a straw.

I also said nothing about who was breaking what laws. Just pointing out that the argument goes both ways. Except bicyclists don't have to prove they know the law and that they can safely ride on the roads before they take their self-righteous attitudes out there and compound the road/driving problem. The bicyclists that cause problems are just as much a minority as the drivers that cause problems and they are both at fault for those problems.

[Blubbartron]

Are you seriously trying to equate laws that permit bicycling on roads with segregation? Really?

Are you also attempting to do so while excusing your own arrogance by saying that something isn't a good idea because it isn't convenient for you?

Fuck your convenience. No one needs to be considerate of you because you're in a rush to get somewhere, or because you otherwise want the road all to yourself. Do you know what I've done when a bicyclist was in front of me and I couldn't safely go around them? I waited until I could. My world did not end, one cyclist lived to bike another day, and everyone lived happily ever after.

You're not being anything but a dick. If not enough roads have bike lanes, we obviously need to implement more of them. If people think bicyclists should go fuck themselves because they're full of themselves, fuck them. No one owns the road, not drivers, not bicyclists, not pedestrians, but we all get to use them together. They're there for transport, and we're all entitled to getting around, no matter our means.

This sort of entitlement is bullshit, and is exactly why we're too Goddamn forgiving when it comes to fatalities on the road.

Nice strawman attempt. I wasn't equating the laws, I was pointing out the logical fallacy of argument from authority, or tautological arguing (you should follow the law, because it's the law). You and CS made shitty arguments. Own it.

Also, to be perfectly clear, I support enhancing our civil engineering to include *safe* ways for cyclists to get around. However, until those enhancements are done, or until cyclists make up a substantial percentage of road traffic, the cyclists are the nuisance that should feel bad - not the other way around. I will make the comparison again - cyclists are like the grannies going 20 in a 40, and they should be cited for impeding traffic, just as grandma would be. If there are bike lanes, and the cyclists are using them, good for them, I have no qualms with them. But that's the overwhelming minority in America at the moment.

[Dimmauk]

since we're off-topic anyway

LOL

I always try to slow down when I drive by Cyclists. It does make me laugh when I see rich people biking cause they have their little outfits and bike helmets vs when you see a poor person biking cause they are wearing jeans and using a motorcycle helmet as a bike helmet.

[NynJa]

Cyclists are advised to do this when safety dictates, like when it's unsafe to ride to the right for whatever reason. If that was the case then he has a perfect right to take up the lane and you should chill the fuck out in the future.

So any time there are parked cars on the right side, its an open invitation to bike in the middle of the road, since you know, any asshole can just blindly open their car door and decapitate the cyclist...so lets bike in the middle of the road and hold up traffic instead.

makes sense?


I should NOT be on the road riding my brakes.

[tyven]

All I see are a bunch of people that would lose their fucking minds if they lived in an actual city. and not some fgt suburb