Originally Posted by
homechicken
... My job requires me to drive all over the metro area and while at times I get annoyed by slow cyclists, I have to remind myself they have as much right to the road as I do. I do get perturbed though, when they take the whole lane when there's no reason for them to. It makes me think they're doing it on purpose just to annoy the drivers. Whether that's their reason or not, appearances of such can give them a bad rep. My thinking is this: the cyclist is supposed to follow the same laws as, and is considered the same as a motor vehicle, but because they are by far the smallest and most vulnerable "vehicle" on the road, they should do all they can to safely stay out of the way of motor vehicles. That means staying as far right as is safely possible and giving proper hand signals when turning or stopping. It also means yielding to motor vehicles, even if they are in the wrong. Better to be inconvenienced than dead or injured.
Not true. Staying 'out of the way' is often the
least safest. I'd rather be alive AND right than either of your choices. That you believe that "to be inconvenienced than dead or injured" are our only options is disturbing.
What you should be saying - or at least accepting - is that the larger and most dangerous vehicles should be doing all they can to stay safely out of the way of all other vehicles. Which especially means yielding to other vehicles, even when you think by right of the superior threat you shouldn't have to.
When you think about it, that attitude about what the 'vulnerable' vehicles should do, instead of what you should do, is exactly why cyclists joke and fantasize about being conspicuously armed. That would make YOU equally vulnerable, and perhaps lead to an attitude adjustment.