The difference in your bad examples is that it's unavoidable.

you’re missing the point. The individual user can set their own settings depending on their own needs. Your premise that you need to bold your posts, only helps a visually impaired reader read your posts; they would still would struggle to read the others



And the good reasons to change back is that you are basically yelling at the rest of us, being self indulgent, and eroding the value of selective bolding.

it is simple on line etiquette to use bolding sparingly to empathize points. The vast majority of social media users got this a couple of decades ago.

if you peruse these forums, virtually every other poster using bold is selectively highlighting a portion of another users post to draw attention to the portion of the post they are addressing.

19 years on this forum, I do not recall another person bolding their own posts, particularly in the entirety.

Agsin, please stop yelling at us.

They were great examples, the best. Selfish people with petty grievances skewered by their own logic.

What is "it"? Motor vehicle traffic? Because if that's "it" then clearly you're wrong. Traffic is very avoidable. New York City providing the most recent example. Tie motor vehicle travel to a clear and direct fee for such and watch the "unavoidable" disappear. We know that many motor vehicle trips are functionally the same as a bicycle ride, leisure with no functional purpose. Multiple times a week I see people drive into rush hour traffic clogging the roads for others, to drive up a mountain, gawk at the view for a few minutes and then drive right back down and get back into traffic to go home. Such a selfish waste of resources and other people's time. People will clog up the roads to go buy a $3 hamburger even though they're 30 pounds overweight, or waste gas to drive around smoking cigarettes, or just listening to music. Completely avoidable activities, entirely devoid of purpose. Wasting the irreplaceable and occupying a public space that could be used for higher purposes - in this case, a group bicycle ride.

No, they are still bad examples.

???

Let the excuses begin.

40 person capacity restaurant in Georgia. Steady incoming traffic. Gourmand was stuck behind them for several minutes.

https://www.onlinemadison.com/upload...7-IMG-2025.jpg

What is your question? Or I suppose more correctly - what are your three questions?

These people could have ordered on the app or through a delivery service. All I see is a bunch of stupid, selfish idiots who have no regard or respect for other hungry patrons. There should be a law against that.

You aren't making sense.

Maybe, you were struck by something?

Do you have a question or not? You are aware that "???" would indicate you have multiple questions?

https://i.imgur.com/S9Z2fse.png

:rolleyes: It's an indication you aren't making sense. The comment about congestion pricing was nonsensical.

Given the setting: rural. And the (high) likelihood of this being a Saturday or Sunday morning (afternoon?). Being held up for "several minutes" to pass a group like shown above should not cost anyone their job! You are doing it wrong if you left home with so little time cushion that you couldn't deal with a 'several minute' slowdown. It could have been a tractor or combine on that road and the delay would have been longer and the motorist, while pissed, wouldn't really have much more to say. I mean, spit happens.

What's really sad is that the contrarian viewpoint is the one taking the lead on a (ostensibly) cyclist oriented forum. The majority of Americans totally lack a social awareness. A cycling club is seen as a bunch of weirdo bikers by motorists and a majority of cyclists alike. I've heard, and you might have as well, that being lonely is as bad for your longevity as a pack a day smoking habit. But a majority of Americans are in fact, lonely and have no social outlets whatsoever, and no intention of doing anything about it. Most look with scorn upon 'groups' of people having fun together. It keeps being observed that there are "no bicycles in the bike lane". Yes there are. Ironically some of the very posters upset that these cyclists aren't using the bike lane, don't use bike lanes yourselves for any number of reasons.

I've been a part of groups just like that on the West Side of Portland near the Wine Country. I don't recall any cars that encountered one of our club rides being inconvenienced by more than a couple of minutes. I don't doubt that it seemed like "several" to the driver the o.p. cites. I'm saddened but not entirely shocked that groups like that have been rammed by (always) pick-up trucks. What I don't expect is that this will be discussed in the negative by someone with a BF userid. It's unseemly. Please stop.

No it wasn't. Congestion pricing has clearly shown that traffic is avoidable.

If every motor vehicle trip cost an additional $10 or $20 traffic would fall significantly. People drive for all sorts of stupid reasons, which they wouldn't if it cost more. This was also clearly seen when gas was $4+ a gallon in the early 2000s.

"Unavoidable" - clearly not. Poor choice of word on your part and obviously poor understanding of the dynamics of motor vehicle traffic.

Its called share the road. Move over.

This cycling group seems to be displaying a "total lack a social awareness". They don't have to ride this way.

EXACTLY. PERIOD.

https://i.redd.it/wyc54mewiarb1.jpg

This is silly. There are still traffic holdups in NYC.

Equally effective in the case here would be to ban cyclists from that road. This is the conclusion you are leading to.

Alright heading out to the game, @njkayaker take some time and try to come up with more compelling arguments. I'll check back in and see if it's worthwhile to pick this up tomorrow morning.

https://www.calbike.org/go_for_a_rid...s/#toggle-id-1

(There are a number of cyclists in the bike lane. So, "hazardous conditions" doesn't seem to apply.)

==================

So what? This isn't relevant to the case here or even to your numerous bad examples. Congestion pricing doesn't eliminate the traffic issues you showed. It certainly doesn't eliminate it in NYC.

You are so myopic that you don't see that it's the cyclists here that are not "sharing".

This thread was a trap. And you fell into it many times. :lol:

The issue has nothing to do with congestion. Advocates constantly lobby for bike lanes or better segregated bike lanes. So auto traffic is expected to give up space for bike lanes (doesn't appear to be the case here but the general principle applies). The most often complaint I see is "They put in these bike lanes but no one uses them".

Here we see an example of that. If you advocate for bike lanes, you better be prepared to use them or expect some negative feedback from other road users.

OP: The government goes to the effort of providing a very nice, wide bike lane, even looks recently swept, no rumble strips, smooth as silk, no slower bikers obstructing path, and it doesn't get used, especially under a double-yellow-line. Justifiably fuels perceptions of arrogant, selfish, entitled, doesn't play well with others.

The issue has everything to do with congestion. "The Driver" had to wait "several minutes" for other road users - which apparently is a horror beyond comprehension. We are all wondering if "The Driver" experiences such great mental anguish when encountering other people using different public resources. My guess is no, because if they did they would rightly be seen as a...well you fill in the blank.

Every city council meeting I've ever been to re:bicycle infrastructure someone tries this line of BS. Every time I stand up and ask how often that person is on the road - usually it's 1-2-3 times a day for less than ten minutes total. No time at all, certainly not enough time to decide that "no one uses them". At one point the city installed pneumatic tube counters in the bike lanes and was able to determine the actual count was a significant amount relative to motor vehicle traffic.

Some people always retain their childish traits, never learning to share. The place this most often surfaces is on the road, unfortunately where it has the potential for the most dangerous and destructive outcomes.

It's actually simple. Car users outnumber bike riders. If bike riders don't use the lanes provided, car owners will not vote to spend money building them and could vote to get bikes banned from traffic all together. The minority will lose the "right" to travel on their roads, like how there are minimum speed limits on interstates now. The only place bikes will be allowed are in a limited number of local areas where bike riders are a large enough majority to outvote car owners or have sympathetic enough groups to share their roads. Those places are few and far between.

Roads are regulated by politicians who are voted into office by people. Don't continually make the voters mad and expect you'll win the battle. It will be much easier to ban bikes from roads than the other way around.

It's a silly dream to think cars would be banned before bicycles.

Regarding the OP and the first image, more headway toward a resolution could be made by lobbying to change the traffic laws (in California in this instance) to allow motorists to pass cyclists on a double yellow. There is realistically no excuse for the cyclists in that image who are breaking the law.