Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Commuting (https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/)
-   -   Driving Around Bicyclists is HARD (https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/689337-driving-around-bicyclists-hard.html)

nelson249 10-21-10 08:13 PM


Originally Posted by paul2432 (Post 11657935)
Re: Cyclists don't pay. So what.

Public spaces are available to everyone regardless of what taxes they pay or do not pay. Try applying the same argument to a sidewalk and it becomes clear how flawed that argument is (should walking down a city sidewalk be illegal for non-residents/homeless?!?)

Paul


Right on! I am tired of being told that I pay less in taxes and therefore have fewer rights by people who resent every dime spent to maintain common spaces.

Gear853 10-21-10 08:37 PM

I can understand he's point of view, SOME what. A narrow road like that, it's pretty dangerous for cyclist, especially when there isn't too much "wiggle" room.

They shutted off one side of the street here, it's 2 lanes one way and 2 lanes the other way - and turned in to 1 lanes on each. It was pretty scary for me, and I had cars literally on my tail's the whole time coming down. When I go back home from where I was, I just took the side walk instead, (that's how unsafe I felt on the road) until it's back to normal again.

I think the guy who wrote that, calling cyclist naives it's stupid, we are (in some way) risking our lives on our bicycle than drivers are in their steel cage. =|

velosprinter 10-21-10 09:10 PM

There is more to life than increasing its speed.
Mohandas Gandhi

There is no possible condition that would force options 1 and 2. When will people slow down and become mindful of this moment?

zeppinger 10-21-10 09:21 PM


Originally Posted by yxnstat (Post 11656867)
This sentiment seems persuasive, but it misses a lot. Motorists hurt the environment through harmful emissions and contribute to the U.S's dependence on foreign oil. Bicyclists aid the environment, reduce the U.S's dependence on foreign oil, and promote health. Of course motorists should bear more of the financial burden.


I am not sure how bicyclists "aid" the environment unless your bike leaves rainbows and sunshine in its wake.

SactoDoug 10-21-10 09:38 PM


Originally Posted by zeppinger (Post 11661033)
I am not sure how bicyclists "aid" the environment unless your bike leaves rainbows and sunshine in its wake.


I don't know about you, but when I am riding my bike and I fart, flowers sprout at the side of the road where it happens.

Shimagnolo 10-21-10 10:05 PM

So I wonder what Mr Russell would be saying if he lived in the portions of IN, OH, and PA, where Amish buggies are frequently encountered on the roads?
- Unlike 99% of cyclists, they don't have drivers licenses, and don't pay gas taxes.
- They are as large as a car.
- They move *slower* than most serious cyclists.
- The steel shoes of a horse cause *more* damage to asphalt than a car.

yxnstat 10-22-10 12:36 AM


Originally Posted by zeppinger (Post 11661033)
I am not sure how bicyclists "aid" the environment unless your bike leaves rainbows and sunshine in its wake.

Bicyclists aid the environment in the same way that wind and solar energy users/advocates do. They reduce carbon emissions and the use of non-renewable resources.

vtjim 10-22-10 05:59 AM


Originally Posted by EKW in DC (Post 11656210)
LOVE IT!

vtjim, I wish I hadn't even opened up your link. :) Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you pointed it out, don't get me wrong, but between the piece and some of the comments, my normally regular blood pressure went up a few notches; there are some real ignoramuses out there.

Yeah the world's smallest violin made me LOL too. :D Reading comments in our local birdcage liner is a sure-fire way to raise your blood pressure. It's loaded with trolls hiding behind a keyboard.

trekker pete 10-22-10 07:07 AM


Originally Posted by ROJA (Post 11657532)
Is that true? People often say so, but I would actually like a real answer to that question in California (if you have a good citation to the CVC).

Thanks.

it may or may not be lawful. When it is done in situations where it causes an undue interuption of motorized traffic, it is extremely inconsiderate and it makes the rest of us look like arseholes.

i see this sort of militant VCing from time to time and it pisses me off to the point where i'm almost hoping the cagers run them down.

after reading that article, i suspect that mr truck driver dude might just be talking about such cyclists.

oboeguy 10-22-10 07:47 AM

As is usual with such articles, the best stuff is in the comments, both against and in favor of bikes:


Bicyclists are arrogant and love to play in traffic and almost never follow the laws. They enjoy sucking up the exhaust fumes of trucks and cars and strap on those special monkey suits, jump on the bike and show all of those motorists who is boss.

Yes its arrogant of them to slow traffic down and dangerous given all the 16 and 17 year olds texting and driving. They are putting thier lives in the hands of these dumb kids, ride a real bike go mountain biking!

these bicyclist have had an attitude since this law has passed that they can ride their bikes 3-4 feet into the travel portion
(^^^ Imagine how dangerous is would be if we couldn't!)


"Dangerous" is a red herring. What drivers mean by that is "inconvenient for me when I am driving."

vehicle vs bicycle...........vehicle wins
(^^^ surprised it took a bunch of posts to get to some variation of this)



It's a given that the overwhelming majority of cyclists are self-righteous, smug, enviro whackos who are at heart Luddites. As such they despise technology and hence automobiles and the "nasty" people who drive them and befoul their precious air. How dare they!! If it were up to them, we'd all be riding in wheel barrows and living in caves so as to not mess up some bear's habitat somewhere on the planet.

Under the circumstances it it any wonder that self-appointed guardians of Mother Nature's precious resources act like they own not only the roads but the entire country?

It goes on like this for pages and pages. It'd be funny if it weren't so frightening.

Edit: One more, pure gold:


I never got the attraction of a bunch of guys wearing tight spandex outfits all bunched up riding for hours looking at the guy in front of him butt. Is this some sort of French thing? Now if you are riding with a bunch of ladies in tight spandex where do I sign up?

thdave 10-22-10 07:56 AM

You can get mad at the idiot trucker/business man who wrote the article, but that's misplaced, imo.

There's no issue here, no blatant violations of the law perpetuated by the cyclist, and, as such, the Burlington newspaper never should have published this letter. It just stirs the pot in a negative way, and we should take notice on this newspaper, not the idiot cager.

ROJA 10-22-10 11:19 AM


Originally Posted by SactoDoug (Post 11657623)
Here is a good summary that cites the actual law. If you want to read the actual wording of the law, just copy the cvc into findlaw.com.

http://www.bikelink.com/law_safety.htm

In other words, you can only be abreast if you are in the act of passing the other bicycle. Otherwise you must ride as close to the right edge as practical. Riding side by side without passing is not riding as close to the right edge as practical and is in violation of the law.

SactoDoug- So it sounds like you would take the position that it is fully permissible to ride two abreast in either of the following circumstances (because there is no obligation to right as far right as practicable):

1. if you are moving with the flow of traffic; or
2. if the lane is of a substandard width.

ROJA 10-22-10 11:25 AM


Originally Posted by trekker pete (Post 11661997)
i see this sort of militant VCing from time to time and it pisses me off to the point where i'm almost hoping the cagers run them down.

Uh, fantasies about murder (even if it's someone else doing the murdering) are probably not healthy.

Are anger management classes in order?

Seattle Forrest 10-22-10 12:04 PM


Originally Posted by velosprinter (Post 11660980)
There is more to life than increasing its speed.
Mohandas Gandhi

It's a jungle out there,
everybody in a hurry,
ain't nobody getting nowhere.
--Buddy Guy

Seattle Forrest 10-22-10 12:06 PM

I love this reader comment:


It's a given that the overwhelming majority of cyclists are self-righteous, smug, enviro whackos who are at heart Luddites. As such they despise technology and hence automobiles and the "nasty" people who drive them and befoul their precious air. How dare they!! If it were up to them, we'd all be riding in wheel barrows and living in caves so as to not mess up some bear's habitat somewhere on the planet.

Under the circumstances it it any wonder that self-appointed guardians of Mother Nature's precious resources act like they own not only the roads but the entire country?
Now, I only wish I could commute on my Luddite Fiber bike, instead of my aluminum one.

SactoDoug 10-22-10 12:37 PM


Originally Posted by ROJA (Post 11663178)
SactoDoug- So it sounds like you would take the position that it is fully permissible to ride two abreast in either of the following circumstances (because there is no obligation to right as far right as practicable):

1. if you are moving with the flow of traffic; or
2. if the lane is of a substandard width.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. In both instances it is against the law to ride side by side with another rider on the road. I clearly stated, "In other words, you can only be abreast if you are in the act of passing the other bicycle." That is the only time it is legal to be side by side with another bicycle and it can only happen for as long as it take to pass the other bicycle.

Keep in mind that illegality does not mean enforcement. A LEO would still have to take the time to pull the cyclists over and write them a ticket.

hubcap 10-22-10 02:01 PM


Originally Posted by SactoDoug (Post 11657338)
Personally, I do not ride on any road that does not have a shoulder. I want a margin of safety so that cars can get past me. Even in the bicycle lane, there are a lot of motorists that come down the road with their tires on the white line and zip past me doing 60 mph in a 40 mph zone with just 1 foot of clearance at my handle bars. I can't image what those same numb skulls would do if there was no shoulder and they had to go around a cyclist.

I would never get very far if I limited my riding to this criteria. I suspect that many posters here would never get out of their driveway, or at most their neighborhood. Riding on the road with automobiles is simply necessary in most places in this country if you want to viably commute by bike.

achoo 10-22-10 02:56 PM

Hmm, let's see:


We drivers can choose three ways to navigate in these scary dilemmas: 1. Cross the yellow line and force over or hit the oncoming vehicle; 2. Run over or shove the cyclist off into the guard rails or over the bank; or 3. Slow to near a stop and then slowly shift our heavy loaded trucks back up to speed after avoiding them, which by the way takes time, extra fuel and holds up other traffic. Obviously I take the third and will continue to do so, but it will someday have to stop.
Given that #1 or #2 involve violating the law in a manner that places others' lives in danger, one could argue that's a THREAT.

Anyone who lives near Underhill VT got the stones to file a police complaint against Bill Russell for making that threat, and the Burlington Free Press for publicizing it?

ROJA 10-22-10 03:15 PM


Originally Posted by SactoDoug (Post 11663557)
I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

You said that CVC21202's "right right" rule prevented double riding, so it seems logical that if CVC21202's rule doesn't apply, e.g., in the situations I've described, then double riding would be permitted. In other words, if CVC21202's rule doesn't apply, I am entitled to take the whole lane. If I am taking the whole lane, cars need to change lanes to pass me, so why can't two cyclists share the same lane? I haven't seem any argument for that conclusion (and CVC21202 doesn't support you as you've noted), but if there is another section of the CVC that prohibits this, please do let me know!

SactoDoug 10-22-10 03:54 PM


Originally Posted by ROJA (Post 11664224)
You said that CVC21202's "right right" rule prevented double riding, so it seems logical that if CVC21202's rule doesn't apply, e.g., in the situations I've described, then double riding would be permitted. In other words, if CVC21202's rule doesn't apply, I am entitled to take the whole lane. If I am taking the whole lane, cars need to change lanes to pass me, so why can't two cyclists share the same lane? I haven't seem any argument for that conclusion (and CVC21202 doesn't support you as you've noted), but if there is another section of the CVC that prohibits this, please do let me know!





1. if you are moving with the flow of traffic; or
2. if the lane is of a substandard width.
#1 is only permissible if you are going as fast as the flow of traffic. I think that is what you meant but it reads like you are saying going in the same direction. So if you are in a 25 mph zone and can ride 25 mph, then it is legal to take up the whole lane and ride side by side. On my road bike I can cruise pretty close to 25 mph at 22-24 mph, but I still stay to the right on the road because most drivers do about 30 mph in a 25 zone.

#2 is also legal. While it is legal, I don't know if I would advise it. Drivers are not aware of the law and will get very peeved about it since they expect cyclists to be at the far right of the lane at all times.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.