Sorry if this has already been posted...if so I couldn't find it, so I felt obligated to share this:

https://content.usatoday.com/communit...10/620000345/1

Have at it, boys and girls...



P.S. I love all the typos and grammatical errors. Makes for a compelling argument...

Sounds like a topic for A&S, not commuting

I agree it's an A & S topic.

But it kinda tickles me that motorists are reacting to cyclists' adoption of their attitudes, and trying to swing the pendulum back. WTF ever happened to 'watch out for the other guy'? Used to see the PSAs on TV as a child.

This, and many other intolerant attitudes, will remain as long as different=less.

Yeah, I thought about that. But I felt the article would be of interest to commuters, since we all deal with JAMs on a daily basis. After all, "taking the lane" is a topic that's near-and-dear to our hearts.

Besides...commuting's my home! Mods, feel free to move it if necessary.

And of course the key comment is "When late to work, it pains a driver to slow down for a bunch of bicyclists hogging the roadway."

Of course being late to work is not the cyclists problem, so why put it on them.

And hogging the roadway... cyclists are traffic too. Do motorists complain when a bus or cement truck is "hogging the roadway?"

My first impression was "What the hell?" The inflammatory rhetoric and weaselly language are juvenile. At any rate, it's not motorists' duty to enforce or curtail the "rights" of anyone...that's why we have law enforcement.

Bottom line: This passes as journalism?

Humans are very primitive, stupid even. If I'm bigger then you, I'll give you respect, but if I'm bigger then you, I can lord it over you. I'm pretty sure this is how most people think.

Being that I drive a tractor trailer for a living, people always brake if I'm taking 'their' lane to make wide turns and the like. But when commuting on the bike, I have to keep my head on a swivel, because no one is looking out for me or braking for me if I'm making a move, even when I signal.

I feel that a few requirements for getting a license should be, being able to drive a truck through any big downtown city, then hop on a bike and ride a similar route. Then they may pilot your average vehicle. I feel 50% of motorists should not be piloting anything, including shopping carts.

This will never happen, but awareness would be nice.

Who wrote that? God, even for a web site, that's terrible. This further supports my theory that if we had ACME floating anvils above our heads as we rode, ready to fall on the car that gets us...... cars wouldn't be getting us as much. You can bet a weeks pay that if a car lost the front end and crushed the engine in a collision with a bike, they sure as hell "see" them alot more.

That "article" is so full of fail that I'm not going to dignify it with a response.

Yes they do. They complain about anyone or anything that will slow them down...

I don't know if the original 'common laws' have been altered for the USA, but in the Old World, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have a 'right' to the road.

Motor vehicles however need a license to use our road.

How very true, visiting Europe last summer was indeed an eye opener in how masses of people could clog tiny little streets with all manner of vehicles and NOT drive each other crazy to the point of gunfire. If bands of scooter riders rode any North America cities the way they do in Rome, they'd be shot, or full on run off the roads by drivers.

Looking out for one another is not lost on the civilized side on the pond.

whatever, just another guy talking about bikes like they're toys

This is too funny... (from one of the comments)
I suppose he'll stand up and say it was his fault he hit me, when I cut him off with 2 feet to spare and slam on my brakes.

Just another example of the "I own the road" attitude I suppose. Doesn't really matter what they drive or ride, with this attitude, we are going nowhere fast in the name of safety.

No, no, you are supposed to use a fail image! Like so:

I like how the "first example" reconciliation reads.

"But the accident might have been prevented if the 47-year-old bicyclist had riding in the right, not in the dead center, of the lane, a major contributor to the accident."

So, if I'm reading this correctly: Riding directly in front of vehicles, where they are pointed, in the direction they are driving, potentially where their lights are, is the least likely place to get noticed?

you read correctly, I lol'd at that too, better sight lines off to the side don;t cha know

just read the other stuff this jerk writes.... I wouldn't take him too seriously.

You know, I really never saw it from that angle. That's a keeper.

While that may be true, as the article points out, we don't buy gas. Thus, we shouldn't be allowed to use the road.

While not directly applicable to where the article is from, said "reporter" should probably familiarize himself with the definitions of his state. As such, for Colorado:

It will be interesting to see how far this goes, whether bicyclists are allowed to stay in the middle of the highway. As the deaths mount, maybe it will become clear they need ride to the right.

Ah, so there's the guy's real logic: "Maybe if we kill enough of them, they'll get the phracking idea."

The USA Today staff writer should have stayed in school.

Maybe USA Today should consider some remedial english and writing classes for their staff writers.

Just to note that I am in contact with the cycling advocates in St Mary's County. The "shoulder" in question fails to meet AASHTO guidelines for a shoulder for preferred bicycle use plus 20' feet prior to the accident a mailbox juts out into the shoulder, 20' prior to that a fallen tree branch blocks the entire shoulder.

So the question is would this really be a safer place to ride???

But his asinine opinion is published on a news site, ergo his opinions are granted a veneer of legitimacy and taken seriously by some readers. That's the real problem.