Jim from Boston

That that is, is. That that is not is not. Is that not it? It is!

The first two replies to this thread were critical of the grammar; otherwise it's the familiar us vs them, cager vs cyclist rancor.

My excuse was posted today to another thread on Fifty-Plus:

wphamilton

Generally speaking. Ride enough and you'll agree with me.

Bike advocacy isn't "get the heck out of the way" as you'd have it. The best we can do with those lost causes is bring them to an acceptance of reality. That there will be bikes there - and perhaps other slow moving vehicles - and that their only choice is just deal with it.

wphamilton

I like that one! I took the liberty of adding the red comma, since I think it works just a bit better.

mstateglfr 

I ride plenty and have ridden for long enough. Thanks for your concern on my riding habits though.

You blame drivers for cyclists having a bad reputation with drivers. That's laughable as it completely removes cyclists from ever being responsible for their actions.

TransitBiker

If bike commuting is terrorism, by similar logic, plunging clogged toilet is treason.

- Andy

scroca

This thread has something for everyone!

scroca

When will we get our grades? (I only missed 1 word.)

wphamilton

Everything isn't all one thing or the other. We don't have to choose between it's all the drivers' fault or all due to cyclist behavior.

However, the things that you have complained about on this thread about what cyclists do are the normal, safe operation of bicycles. "Disrupting traffic" by being on the road with "an inability to keep up" with cars. I don't want to seem insulting, but those who believe as you put it, that "inability to keep up" is "the most glaring violation" of road rules are simply inexperienced. I have a hard time believing that such persons have any experience on the road at all.

AlmostTrick

If we stop riding bikes on the road the terrorists have won!

I-Like-To-Bike

Only true if you can find a URL from an article on the Internet from WhoGivesaPoopLand that sez so to re-post on BF.

ThermionicScott 

That is quite another thing. A delicious thing. Too bad I've been trying to give up sugar...

tjspiel

As a driver, what would a "slow moving vehicle" sign on a cyclist tell you that you don't already know? There is a road I regularly travel on with a 25 mph speed limit. For most of it I can maintain the posted speed limit or close to it. Should I take the sign off and put it back on as needed?

Anything that slows drivers down can been seen as a nuisance whether it's a bike or not. It could be construction, weather conditions, or just rush hour traffic. I don't think a sign would help. The key point is to recognize is that the roads are not the exclusive domain of motor vehicles. The speed limit is the upper limit and is not a guaranteed rate of travel.

I think a big problem is a perception that we as cyclists are guests on their roads. When you bike in areas where cycling is more common most of the drivers have accepted that that is not the case.

It is the same for cyclists traveling on a MUP and encountering slower traffic whether it be other cyclists or pedestrians. That is just part of the deal. You can get upset that you have to go slower than you would like but it really doesn't do any good does it?

All that being said, a little courtesy can go a long ways. If you've taken the lane on a 45 mph road and have got cars stacking up behind you, it would be a nice thing to pull over now and then to let them pass

mstateglfr 

This perception exists for 3 reasons.

1- because when you see 1 bike on the street for every 2000 cars during a drive, the bike is in the serious minority. The bike is seen as a guest then.
2- because when a perfectly good sidewalk is ignored, then the cyclist is choosing to enter into traffic rather than stay away. The bike is a guest.
3- because roads weren't designed or built for bikes, at least most roads weren't. Roads with bike lanes were obviously designed and built for bikes. Otherwise if its a 2 lane 2 way road, then it wasn't designed for 4 cars plus a bike. It just wasn't. Even if a bike can be accommodated, it wasn't designed and built to handle the bike. You know what are accommodated?- guests.




I want to make it clear that I ride on roads. Its not like I am some angry driver who decided to rant in this thread. I just never cared to discuss the issue until now as like much in life, its rare to change one's opinion when said opinion is based on perception.
I ride on roads and follow road rules when I am around cars/busy intersections. I get all sorts of ticked when a car doesn't see me or think that a bike might be coming.
At the same time, I ride cautiously knowing that the roads I am on are not mine. They were not designed for me to be there, even though I legally can be there.

DiabloScott

I kind of see it as a missed article and a gerund. "The flying of insults is nothing new".

tjspiel

1. I am a left handed person in a world designed for right handers. I'm in the minority but I am not a guest.

2. Riding on the sidewalk is illegal in many city centers including the one in which I live and work. Bikes belong on the street. There is no place else for them outside of some paths here and there.

3. I work in a building that was originally a car barn for an old street car service. Initially the street cars were pulled by horses or donkeys on streets that are still here today. The streets in this area existed and were used by cyclists, street cars, and horses well before cars became common. They've been altered over time to accommodate more cars and now they are being altered again to encourage cycling.

In another 100 years many of the same streets will likely be here but my guess is that cars and drivers as we know them will be a rarity.

mstateglfr 

1- Lefty here too!
2- Having it be illegal to ride on the sidewalk definitely changes things. When that is the case, of course road riding is the only option left. Thing is- riding on sidewalks is legal, or I guess not explicitly illegal, in most of the country(referring to space not population). I cant imagine biking as much as I do with my kids if sidewalks weren't available. Kids under 10 on roads that are 35mph? No chance- that isn't even close to a good decision.
I see you are in Minneapolis- you are lucky, that place is incredible for bike commuting and bike friendliness. Speaking of being in the minority- Minneapolis is in the minority in how it views bike commuting and cycling- as in they are excellent in their support.
3- Yes, the bike lanes are excellent up in your area. wide and abundant.

kickstart

In the reality of the here and now, both concepts are correct.
Roads are a public asset for everybody's conditional use, and like other forms of transportation the nature of a bicycle places some limitations on a cyclist.

fietsbob

I'd leave the "this Bike is a Pipe Bomb" sticker off your Bike

J.C. Koto

Really? I'm surprised anyone knoticed.

wphamilton

@mstateglfr I apologize as I was rather harsh. Even sidewalk riders and gutter-huggers are trying to be safe and courteous.

But I feel strongly about this guest on the road concept. Believe me, I felt exactly the same way for maybe even a year. I wanted to disrupt normal traffic flow as little as humanly possible, striving to either stay up with or else out of the way. Don't do that - it will get you hurt! In the first place, it's impossible to keep up with 25-30 mph cars except for short stretches, and even when we do they - the few impatient ones- still behave exactly the same way. With the difference that you're flat out and on the edge, with no room for error. The same goes for keeping right. We should stay as far over as feasible, but not within inches of danger, not so far that there are no options or room for error, and not just far enough for them to squeeze by. Again, that will get you hurt!

Secondly, it doesn't really make any difference if you're going 12 or 20, not to the drivers. Just maybe, if our feet are spinning quickly they'll think we're putting out some effort but I am convinced that most drivers, looking out through their window, have no idea how fast we're going nor much idea of what effort it takes to go a few miles per hour faster. So it's really pointless to try to go faster for their sake.

And I see all of that, or at least I remember it all in my case, as arising directly from the perspective that I am a guest on their road. The idea that we're guests or trespassing also engenders the fortunately rare aggressive driving - the close passes, tailgating, and worse. Feeling that we shouldn't really be there, we're inconveniencing them, if they lose a little bit of self control then we pay the price. It's not an attitude that we want to encourage, or endorse. Realize also that it's not true, not in any sense, and don't take those chances because you want to be a courteous guest. We are not really guests there, and it's not really their road.

tmac100

Why not compare Humvees with bicycles now? That is what ISIS is using now. After all why wait - who knows about anyone still reading this "thread" in 5 years.

Right now ISIS/ISIL/ Dar??? are driving Humvees stolen/captured by them from the USA-supplied Iraqi forces.

By the way, what parameters should be used for this "comparison"

Keeping a straight face after reading your comment ....

alan s 

I like the idea of being a guest on the road. As a guest, my host needs to treat me kindly and politely, accommodate my needs, and make my visit as comfortable and enjoyable as possible. When I go to a hotel, as a guest, I'm treated that way. As a guest in other's homes, I am welcomed warmly, served a meal and entertained. So, I'm all for being considered a guest by the cars, truck and peds on their road.

Oh yeah, I'm left handed too.

jralbert

As in every conversation about cyclists on roadways, there are two standards to consider: the legal, and the practical. The legal standard is not open to debate, except in the process of being tried in the courts, or being modified by the legislative branch of your government; and although the standard varies from one jurisdiction to the next, cyclists' adherence to whatever legal standard applies in their jurisdiction should be unwavering. We may wish for changes to the legal standard, but we will lose all credibility in lobbying for that change if we start from a position of ignoring laws we dislike.

The comment that stoked this week's re-hashing of the 'cyclists v. everybody' debate relates not to the legal standard, but to the practical standard by which cyclists and motorists interact. Inflammatory though the comment was (and certainly intentionally so), it only succeeds in making a stir because it resonates at a basic level with enough of the reading population to get ink spent on it. Cyclists may be on the right side of this debate, but if we take a position of entitlement and superiority, we'll never win over people who disagree with us, and we'll alienate the huge middle majority of people who have no definite opinion either way in the debate. We're not going to 'win' the argument with people who are directly opposed to our position; what we need is to win the support of those who support neither side yet. Once the majority opinion shifts, outliers on the wrong side of that opinion will be left behind - but it's by no means a settled question which way that majority opinion will land on the question of cycling as an equal participant in roadway transportation.

The fact that this debate is occurring at all is the sign of a cultural shift in progress: cyclists are no longer marginalized without a second thought, but have now gained enough cultural and political currency that such marginalization requires covering fire in the media and in government. Momentum already favours cycling re-emerging as a full-stripe contender in the context of multi-modal transportation. All we have to do now is ride our bikes - safely, legally, and without deliberately stirring the ire of the middle majority who don't have any particular opinion on cycling - until we pass from controversial to commonplace.

kickstart

When you single out "sidewalk riders and gutter-huggers" you are being just as negatively judgmental as the ubiquitous aggressive motorist. Every position has its time and place for being the best choice......if one is willing to take ego and ideology out of the equation.
I for one will not limit my options just because 1 in 100000 drivers may take advantage, especially considering the fact that the more assertive one is, the more it lowers the threshold of tolerance an aggressive driver will have.

I strive to be neither a doormat nor a jerk.

kickstart

That's the way its supposed to work for everyone in all user groups, after all, we all "own the road", and all get to have a say in how others behave as guests.