Slashdot Mirror
Bike Projector Makes Lane For Rider
hh4m writes "Whether it's San Francisco, New York, or any bicyclistic city in between, you're destined to witness biker after biker dancing with danger, especially at night when visibility is uncomfortably low. Alex Tee and Evan Gant's LightLane device was recently just a concept but is soon to enter reality as a much-needed visual declaration of personal biking space. With a dire shortage of dedicated lanes, LightLane provides urban cyclists with a solution that adapts to them and any route they make take. The compact projector mounts easily to the rear of a bike frame and projects a bike lane-inspired linear pattern that provides great visibility and a familiarity that helps catch a driver's attention."
Where this projector would be adapted on a car to project an autobahn lane with no speed limit while driving on the highway ;-)) ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Zeichen_330.svg/100px-Zeichen_330.svg.png
Anyway, would this type of device be legal everywhere even for bikes ?
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Lasers? We're worried enough about people shining them at airplanes on purpose. Now we'd have to worry about one straying off the road and hitting a driver in the eye who would then likely cause an accident. Good intentions, possibly rethink the implimentation.
-]Phreak Out[-
It doesn't say anywhere I can find, but does the device just "paint" a lane with you always in the center, or does it try to detect a curb and give you a steady guide so you don't drift out into traffic? I'm guessing the former, which makes me wonder how exactly this is better than a head and tail light.
Oh, was that my outside voice?
...are the laser-lines legally binding? What will the local constabulary think of people re-writing the road lanes ad hoc? And does it run line-x?
THL phish sticks
This is using green lasers and the picture shows it with red? Okay, that's silly in itself, but more importantly, whenever it hits a puddle, any other reflective surface or god forbid is used in the rain, isn't EVERYONE GOING TO GO BLIND INCLUDING THE BICYCLIST?
some retard is going to get this and think there's a bike lane no matter where he goes. when a mac truck disagree's with him, he will claim it was in the bike lane.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
As if the high intensity LEDs and Laser that can blind the approaching drivers is not enough, now you are providing many brazen bicyclists a fake lane to think they are safe? There is a reason for bike lanes in high traffic zones, to keep them safe because they never win a battle with a car. Wait for the lanes!
but around here, the roads are black bitumen, so trying to paint them with a laser won't work so well, will it?
Except when the roads are wet, then it may work _too_ well.
Anyway, we have plenty of real bike lanes here, so I don't care.
Not to mention that green lasers are banned imports. Not sure if this will be a good enough reason
on my import permit application.
I don't see anything in the article about how much one of these might cost, but I'm guessing it's not cheap. From the image it looks like anyone with an allen wrench could remove the device and pocket it. In it's defense it just looks like a light and I doubt many potential thieves would care, but it's something to consider. They could incorporate a quick-release but having to put it somewhere removes some of the appeal of the device.
I always wanted to make a bumper sticker that was similar to the share the road stickers except change the graphics a little (use your imaginations, i'll wait, done? Ok, good.) and change the line to something like "Use the sidewalk" or "Roads are for Cars" or, "Pithy bumper stickers won't keep me from honking my modified train horn as I drive by."
Possibly "Wearing spandex makes you a tool."
Add your own! Its fun!
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
It's illegal to ride on footpaths here.
I don't ride '8 feet out from the curb', indeed that would be almost in the next lane in most cities.
I do however ride a fair distance from the curb when the lane is narrow. The problem with riding close to the curb is that doing so will give impatient motorists the incorrect impression that there is safe room to pass. By riding in the middle of the road drivers with poor spatial awareness won't attempt to pass me while there is insufficient room to do so. When the road is wide enough to allow a cyclist + a car, I hug the white line.
Ultimately, I don't care if you're pissed off that you have to slow down to 35k in a 50k zone as long as you don't crash into me.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
It's wonderful to live in Copenhagen, one third of all personal transportation is on bicycle, a little less is public transportation (metro, trains and buses).
Motorists in this town actually feel that they have to fight to be allowed to stay in the city. Honestly, the city is doing what it can to ban gasoline vehicles from the inner city. Even though bicycles are slower, there's still a lot more room for these than for cars, and bicycles pollute less too.
So dear car-driver, get out off my town.
oh and to stay on topic. The real solution isn't to paint imaginary lanes, but to establish real bicycle lanes!
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
Ultimately, I don't care if you're pissed off that you have to slow down to 35k in a 50k zone as long as you don't crash into me.
and that's the attitude that causes such ire amongst drivers. Lemme requote what the important bits are.
Ultimately, I don't care
And here's why you should revise the attitude
as long as you don't crash into me.
Cars drive away from a bike collision with nasty tickets (court dates, possible criminal charges), scratches, maybe some body damage. But the cars (and their occupants) drive away. Bikes don't drive away, bikers don't walk away, or possibly walk again, ever.
Cars always win, show some respect and don't be the jerk holding up 40 cars simply because you can't be arsed to pull over to the side and let people pass.
In my city, bike lanes were recently placed in the middle of the street on several one-ways which run north-south. A large area of downtown's sidewalks are supposed to be off-limits to bikes... but I personally always use the sidewalks, which are very wide and only heavily trafficked near the bar area at night. Riding amongst the cars is very intimidating, and on at least two of these bike lane streets, drivers going straight down the street are forced to change lanes in order to avoid lanes which end in a turn, forcing them to change lanes across the bike lane twice in the course of two blocks.
I ride in the street on residential streets which have narrow/bumpy sidewalks and no ramps at intersections, but I prefer the sidewalk along any busy street. Front and back lights are required at night, although I see no more than 25% of riders actually have them.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
So, when the speed limit is 30km/h and I am traveling at 36km/h, is that not sufficient? I can burst up to about 50 km/h - the limit in most residential areas.
You should try biking to work every now and then. You sound tense.
Anyway, I agree - some cyclists are douches. So are some drivers.
I bike to work, and I have for years. It's faster for me to ride than to drive, and that includes a shower and change when I get there. (I'm an Engineer, and I wear slacks and a dress shirt.) My view is that any time a car has to pass me or slow down for me then I have failed. I'm also of the view that the lanes are just paint and they don't magically protect you against a driver who - statistically speaking - has a 20% chance of impairment. I stick to back roads and trails whenever it is physically possible. When I am on a major road, I will either go onto the sidewalk if it is possible (risking a $125 traffic ticket for doing so) or I will take the entire lane as I am permitted and required to do so by law.
From personal experience, I know that if I am close to the curb, the driver passing me (and again, I have failed) will try to stay inside the lane. If they think there's a chance that they can pass without going into the other lane, then they will. If I come out about 1 metre (3 feet), then they will pass safely. I have no illusions about how I would fare in an car-involved accident. Bikes represent 1% of all traffic, but 2% of all fatalities.
However, I simply can't ride on the sidewalk if it is populated. I generally sustain 30 km/h, and it's just not feasible for me to navigate around the pedestrians. You know those people who walk into the pedestrian crossings without looking? Where do you think they are when they aren't on the road? Yep, the sidewalk.
But these points are mostly trivial - a painted line won't protect you. Add some distance, say 100m. Throw in some trees, a nice berm, maybe a house or retail setting between you and the traffic, and now you're talking. I plan my routes so that I'm avoiding traffic. There's a trail by my house that takes me downtown. I take that to work.
If someone is riding without lights at night and/or without lights, I can't imagine that you'd face charges. One guy here killed a cyclist who was drunk, no lights, no helmet, and wearing dark clothes at night. He was only charged with "leaving the scene". (Justifiably so)
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I do however ride a fair distance from the curb when the lane is narrow. The problem with riding close to the curb is that doing so will give impatient motorists the incorrect impression tha
hear hear! I do the same thing. I woul like to add to that : if you're already close to the curb, you don't have any space left to evade - very necessary.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
You sound like a reasonable person.
Unfortunately you are absolutely in the minority when it comes to road bike riders who are generally growth hormone taking, tantrum throwing, pink lycra wearing, Tour De France wannabees. Who have a chip on their shoulder the size of their over inflated egos and ridiculous helmets.
They're the problem, they're the high visibility riders who ride three abreast up hill at 20k/h with 100 cars behind them, who run red lights and cut across intersections giving the drivers they cutoff the finger. And they deserve every bit of derision and every beating they get, not just from drivers but also from ordinary decent bike riders like you for the *enourmous* amount of ill will they generate towards people who ride pushies.
And yes I ride.
I love riding bikes and skateboarding but I stay the fuck off the goddamn road. I've rode on the sidewalk my entire life and I've never been cited, even as cops drove right by.
It's illegal for a reason, you know. Speaking as an experienced cyclist (I've biked more in a summer than many people drive), I can tell you that sidewalks are often more dangerous than the roads. Drivers entering and leaving the road are not watching for bikes (when's the last time you looked more than 5 feet down a sidewalk when crossing it at a driveway?). Pedestrians move unpredictably. Even worse, many of them are walking dogs, which have a tendency to chase bikes (which is usually a losing proposition for the dog). Riding on the sidewalk is unsafe for bikers, and it's unsafe for walkers.
I agree that many bicyclists need to improve their skills. I have a headlight and taillight, wear light-colored clothing, signal turns, and share the road with cars; many others do not. By all means, stay pissed as hell at the bikers that do stupid things - they annoy me too. But bicycles have just as much right to the road as cars do.
Yes, it's a little more work. Yes, you'll have to use your brakes and be more alert to pedestrians
As a driver, you're supposed to yield to people on bikes. Yes, it's a little more work. Yes, you'll have to use your brakes and be more alert to cyclists. However, you might avoid killing someone while trying to gain an extra 5mph until that next street light.
I live in a very rural area where there are no bike lanes and cyclists tend to ride on the road very often. The bikers who live around here tend to ride on the white line, one abreast. Motorists give them room and slow down to pass, since there's little traffic usually and the roads are wide enough for a bike and a car to ride side by side. There's no problem with this setup. Until, of course, there's a bike race and hundreds of city dwellers descend on the town. The city cyclists get out there like there's something to prove, riding 4 feet out into the lane, often 2 abreast for no reason. The people here have no desire to hit a cyclist and aren't used to this asshole road-blocking behavior. I haven't seen any bikers get hurt, but I HAVE seen more than one car wrecked or off the road while trying to pass a cyclist who keeps drifting farther and farther left while oncoming traffic keeps whipping by around blind corners. And the they try to brush it off like they had nothing to do with it. Oh, like a goddamned rolling roadblock ignoring your horn and shouts for 2 miles wouldn't cause you to make some less than ideal choices.
The road is big enough if both parties just share. The real problem here is self-righteous assholes, not cyclists or motorists.
maybe now you bike riding hippy fucks will be easier to see... I mean a few of the bikes missed my grill and all
There fixed that for you...
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Until you start paying taxes and obeying the road rules you don't have any moral right to make use of the road.
Fixed that for you. Insurance doesn't pay for roads.
Actually, roads are for cyclists as well, except as otherwise explicitly posted.
Share the road. It's not going to kill you. Not sharing the road kills cyclists. These are real lives -- this is not a game.
So ... you want them to break traffic laws, just so you don't have to worry about them?
Interesting. Why don't you just use the sidewalk yourself? It's easier to do in a car (people WILL move out of your way, and if not you're driving a ton of steel - just run them over) AND you'll get to your destination much quicker. You don't even have to worry about rush hour.
You might want to get an old banger for the trip though. You might end up with quite a few dents in the car, and it will probably need to be washed daily. But think of the time you'll save.
So long as bike riders pay for the roads to be built and maintained.
Where I live roads are exclusively paid for by car registration and fuel tax, so bike riders are indeed freeloading.
If they wish to submit themselves to the registration process, including safety checks in order to help maintain the roads then all the better and they would earn the same right to be on the road as cars.
Mod up! Get them out of car lanes. Nothing more dangerous than rounding a corner at 45 and seeing a cyclist pop up in front of you going 15. Sometimes I think they WANT to get hit.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Usually it's clear to me but this time I can't decide if I'm feeding the trolls or not.
I'm in SF, but this applies to DC and NYC as well, not sure about others.
Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Only*. Streets are for wheeled vehicles. Cars have as much and as little right to the streets as bikes do. legally, that's a fact, but I think it's right as well.
let's get this straight - first off 15 in a 45? wtf? city speed limits are 25 unless posted @ 30. I can do 20-25 on a flat, 30 with a little downhill, so let's not worry about the speeds. I *constantly* pass cars that are doing 15-20. Let's just say it sucks to be behind someone slow but it happens, deal with it.
8 feet from the curb? well, 4 of those are taken up by a parked car, another 2 or so by their opened door, so that leaves 2 feet. you're right, 7 feet from the curb is better. apologies for that extra foot someone took, they were wrong.
kamikazi nut jobs? i guarantee there are more of those in cars than on bikes. and they can do SO much more damage in a car, don't you agree? so be glad if a few have climbed on a bike, might save your life that they have, and you just worry about those in cars, or worse, SUVs. I'll take 10 kamikazi on bikes over 1 in an SUV any day.
Finally, can't beat'm? join'm. no worries about parking, work some fat off your ass, do a little tiny bit to save the environment and free the country from dependence on foreign oil (and all the benefits that entails).
K, I think I'm done, sorry for making the trolls fatter but this was just too... very.
*maybe skateboards, and of course, wheelchairs
closed minded is as closed minded does
So where do *push bikes* get this "right" from?
It's the law. Legally, a bicyclist has all the rights AND all the responsibilities of any other vehicle. That means that you must give me 3 feet of clearance when passing. It also means that I must give you 3 feet of clearance when passing (so none of that darting down the middle of two lanes of stopped traffic that some bikers and motorcycles like to do).
I have no idea where you're from, or what this "rego" you speak of is - but quite frankly, bikes cost less for society. In my locale, roads are not paid for entirely by gas taxes, registration fees, etc.; money for them also comes out of income or property taxes. So maybe you pay slightly more than I do - but you also require a more sturdy road, use the roads more, and cause more wear on them. Semi truck drivers undoubtedly pay more than you do too - and they cause more wear and require a heftier road, and probably put on a good number more miles than you. Is that some great injustice too?
Think of it this way; every biker you see is one less driver that's getting in your way, and one less car parked between you and that perfect parking spot right next to the door of your destination. Most of us are smart enough to use residential streets, bike lanes, or bike paths, rather than highways and main thoroughfares. If you take all the bikers off the road and replace them with the cars, you can bet they'll be in between you and the next stoplight (which you would otherwise indubitably race towards at top speed, only to slam on the brakes, repeating at each successive block).
The problem with riding close to the curb is that doing so will give impatient motorists the incorrect impression that there is safe room to pass.
It's also the case that, on a lot of roads, the edge is in pretty poor shape... more bumps, cracks, and gravel that you don't have to deal with if you ride in the lane a bit.
Funny to hear how much ire there is for bicyclists in other parts of the country.
As a Manhattan native I can confidently say that the most annoying thing on the road is the douchebags who feel like its a good idea to bring their massive cars in from Jersey, Westchester and Long Island -- and clog up traffic.
From a NY perspective, the traffic problems have nothing to do with cyclists at all. They have more to do with a perceived right to bring a massive metal and glass behemoth into the world's most crowded places. Keep that sh*t parked outside the city and take public transportation.
I'm all for a $50 toll for commuters. Clogging up the city should be incredibly expensive for non-commercial traffic.
Cities should be primarily mass transit, taxis, pedestrians and bicycles. Douchebags feeling like they have a right to bring their suburban into the city is a much bigger problem than some dude on a bike.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
> "Bike riders don't pay for the roads, they don't pay for rego, nor do they have insurance."
Not sure what country you're from, but here in Australia roads are paid for by Federal and State taxes. Every tax payer pays for roads, not just car drivers.
Rego, here at least, pays for the cleanup of car accidents.
And I'm a cyclist who has insurance, provided for by the State Bicycling Club.
And I ask you this, would it bother you if I ride my unregistered dirt bike, horse or skateboard in the "bike lane" slowing you down? Goddamned right it would, ...
We know what assuming does, right?
If you weren't being a dick about it, no, it wouldn't bother me much. I would simply wait for a break in the real traffic lane and pass you. (If you sped up to prevent that, that would qualify as you being a dick.) Cyclists get behind slower cyclists all the time, and motorists get behind slower motorists all the time, and we seem to deal with it reasonably well.
Where I live roads are exclusively paid for by car registration and fuel tax, so bike riders are indeed freeloading.
Got proof of that? I find it very hard to believe that in any country roads (which are damn expensive to build and maintain) are paid for by rego (which is not much at all), instead of general taxes paid by everyone.
Want to hijack this trollfest and see if I can get some useful information - the thing city bikes REALLY need is regenerative breaking - compared to cars, bikes suck at acceleration, and trying to conserve precious momentum makes breaking traffic laws way too tempting - some regenerative breaking would solve both problems and more.
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Regenerative_20Brake_20Bike here are some http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-206514.htmllinks but it seems while everyone agrees 'it's tricky but can be done' no one has actually done it.
Not sure why that is, any additional info/ideas would be welcome. I think it would really transform the urban environment if it could be worked out. And I have fantasies of keeping peddling at stoplights then shooting off @ proper street speeds.
closed minded is as closed minded does
The top speed is slower, as is the average speed outside of rush hour.
But - during morning rush hour it is faster to get from Lyngby Station to Nørreport Station (in Copenhagen) by public transportation and bicycle than it is by car. For the uninitiated that's 11.5 kilometers most of which is highway from one of the larger suburbs of Copenhagen to the busiests place in Denmark as measured by the number of people passsing through it.
Top Gear has done two similar tests that I can recall. One was driving vs running the London marathon route at 10 AM on a tuesday and the runner won by about eight minutes. One of the somewhat silly things in that one in my oppinion was Clarkson stopping to buy a congestion charge thingie in the middle of the race instead of buying one before as most people who live in London would do. But it took him no more than five minutes to do, so he'd still have lost the race.
And the other was (again) during rush hour - bicycle vs boat vs public transport vs car from somewhere in London (can't remember where) to the London City Airport. In that one not only did the bicycle win the race, it was the first time public transport beat the car in any of their challenges. The bike won followed by the boat, then public transport.
Rush hour is a bitch for cars. It's fairly crowded on a bike as well, but with decent bikelanes it's easily managable.
Unfortunately you are absolutely in the minority when it comes to road bike riders...
As someone who is an occasional biker, it is unfortunate that so many bikers ride so recklessly, because it gives the sport a bad name and leads to things like all the posts around here about "get off the roads onto the sidewalk" which sounds like a much more reasonable idea then it actually is if you don't actually try to bike for transportation purposes. (Not saying you fall into that category.)
Personally, I try pretty hard to uphold what I see as my end of the deal. I'm a firm believer that bikes belong on the roads, but in exchange, bikes have to follow the rules of the road: stop at stop signs, wait a red lights, etc. (I don't view "stay against the curb" in that set, though in the absence of passing opportunities for cars, pulling over to let people pass is a good idea.) Accordingly, I usually follow said rules, and would be in favor of increased policing of moving violations committed by cyclists.
I am not going to claim that I always hold to that ideal, but when I break a rule I basically follow four guidelines: (1) is it safe for me, (2) is it safe for everyone else, and (3) will it affect the decision making of anyone else, and (4) leave a substantial safety margin. Often (3) translates to "there aren't other cars on the road". (Incidentally, I follow similar guidelines when jaywalking.) I have a variety of reasons for how I justify this to myself, which you might think are justified or not.
Regardless, I at least think I'm pretty courteous when I'm biking around, at least given the constraints of riding a me-powered vehicle. The problem isn't with bikers on the road; it's with the dumbass and selfish bikers who give us a bad name. (Which I'll admit to be a sizable proportion.)
Instead of when it was first reported in January?
http://slashdot.org/submission/928767/Virtual-Bike-Lane-proposed-by-designers?art_pos=1
Sheesh.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Cars always win...
No they don't. Sooner or later you have to stop at a traffic light, and if you behave like an asswipe and insist that "you get outta my way 'cause I'm bigger'n you", then you have some humility therapy due. Here, it's quite common for car drivers to find a boot through their side window and their faces smacked into the steering wheel. I've also seen them yanked out of their BMW 4WDs and kicked into a pulp by irate cyclists.
He might have the energy, if only he could get it up.
To quote the article (ED = Erectile Dysfunction): "A study in 2002 found that ED can also be associated with bicycling. The number of hours on a bike and/or the pressure on the penis from the saddle of an upright bicycle is directly related to erectile dysfunction."
Ah - found the videos for the big London race: Top Gear London Race - car vs bike vs boat vs public transport
Couldn't find the one from the marathon run though
Good for you, sir. That's exactly how it's done but the wobbly peeps I see on the road are nothing like you. I don't have a problem with pro riders. And very good point on the "just paint" thing. Just take a trip to Bangkok or mainland China and see the paint magically disappears. :)
Bikes don't drive away, bikers don't walk away, or possibly walk again, ever.
Cars always win, show some respect and don't be the jerk holding up 40 cars simply because you can't be arsed to pull over to the side and let people pass.
And that's exactly why the onus is *generally on the motorist to not run into pedestrians or cyclists.
Further, if asshole cyclists are that big of a problem, read up on the relevant laws and call the cops whenever a cyclist is breaking them.
*Your laws may vary
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
No? That's good considering how meandering most bike riders actually are. Besides a laser powerful enough to etch the lane in pavement or concrete would likely slice off your legs. The one benefit is that you'd not need to have an external power source as the bike could have a generator installed. Think of how much fat you could burn in no time! What's that smell?
I don't see why having fancy (but fake) laser-system-bike-lane would be any good. I have seen people driving around with a thin, flimsy reflector which sticks out 30 centimeters (about 1 ft) from the side of the bike. It won't damage cars if they get hit and also won't cause the biker to fall, because it will just fold backwards... but it does show cars to go around the biker. It's a 2 euro solution for the problem we're dealing with here. It does not require batteries. It can easily be built on any bike. It already exists.
In addition, real bike lanes are worth the money. Great experiments (Denmark, Netherlands) show that this really works. Perhaps there is no space in Manhattan, but on 99.9% of the surface of the earth, a 1 meter wide lane really isn't a big issue.
So, when the speed limit is 30km/h and I am traveling at 36km/h, is that not sufficient? I can burst up to about 50 km/h - the limit in most residential areas.
Sure, that's perfect--but where do you find roads that have a speed limit of 30km/h? You say that the limit in most residential areas is 50km/h, so 30 is even slower than the limit on residential streets, which generally have the lowest speed limit of any public roads (at least where I'm from). I generally take the back roads to work, and the speed limit on those roads are 40 mph, with a short 45 mph section. If I wanted to take major roads, the speed limit would be 55 mph, with some 45 mph sections.
FWIW, biking's fairly popular around here, and I generally pass a biker during my commute every other day or so. The road is two lanes wide in each direction, and has very light traffic, so I don't have any problems with moving to the left lane to pass.
$50? Like people need more reasons to stay out of big cities.
What on earth is the point of something with a 3 hour life that you have to recharge every day, and yet barely puts out any light? You could trivially power a massive, blinding LED array off the same power source and be 10x as visible.
Cars always win... No they don't. Sooner or later you have to stop at a traffic light, and if you behave like an asswipe and insist that "you get outta my way 'cause I'm bigger'n you", then you have some humility therapy due. Here, it's quite common for car drivers to find a boot through their side window and their faces smacked into the steering wheel. I've also seen them yanked out of their BMW 4WDs and kicked into a pulp by irate cyclists.
The problem is when you cycle on the driver might decide to give you a reverse lesson. This is definitely not recommended unless you can quickly turn down some path that is inaccessible to cars afterwards.
I do. Costs me £30/year and insures me for £1000000 in damages.
I'll move the fuck over when it's safe for you to overtake. I expect 70 cm between me and kerb, and a further 70cm between me and passing car, as dictated by the highway code. If there are hazards, crossings, or junctions coming up, then I'm not pulling in, but I'm happy to peddle at 30mph whilst doing so. IF you hit me, then I hope your cellmate prefers being the woman.
Given your attitude, I sincerely doubt you actually ride at all, ever. I could bring up various factors such as the fact that I also paid for that road with my annual road tax, or that my bike causes about 1% as much wear and tear as the fat fucks in cars who think they're the only ones entitled to use it. Then of course, there's congestsion - it's YOU that's jamming the roads up, not us. A little knowledge of how traffic jams occur might help you. I won't quote the equations because I expect you'll find them difficult, but in a 30mph limit with a single lane, if there is a bike doing 20mph half way down it, then the only effect will be a brief gap in the traffic around the cyclist. Upon reaching the next junction after overtaking the bike, you will have lost ZERO time, except maybe some fuel as you put down the accellerator and power up to tailgate the car that's in front. That's what you can't pass. In fact, look up "rolling blockade" - police cars use this very tactic to relieve pressure at junctions. If everyone piles up to a junction as fast as they can, it creates a bottleneck. If there isn't a car in front, then chances are it's safe to overtake the cyclist anyway because the road is open. What next, charging pedestrians for crossings?
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
What annoys me and other drivers is that cyclists will obey the law when it suits them. They show no hesitation on taking to the path to avoid red lights, CYCLING across pedestrian crossings, driving on the wrong side of the road or even the wrong way down one way streets (one one occasion without lights at night). The "you must give me three feet clearance" is forgotten as soon as they come up behind cars waiting at red lights, or see a 12-inch gap between lanes of moving traffic. Is it any surprise that a car driver is annoyed when a cyclist squeezes through a 12 inch gap to set off slowly in front when the lights change - then look annoyed when you overtake them again with only two feet clearance - despite the fact you are already at the centre line.
That's because you live in a densely populated area, where nobody could go more than 5 mph even if they wanted to. Spend an hour on the freeway at 20 mph because there's cyclist blocking the entire road and you'll understand where the bike haters are coming from.
Share the road.
You, too.
I bike a lot, but I tend to get fed up with the bicyclists who feel "share the road" means, "I get to do what I want and you have to watch out for me."
I don't care that it's inconvenient for you to stop because you're clipped to your bicycle. If you're riding on the road, that means you're going to have to stop from time to time. If the toe clips make that a problem, ditch them. The road is not your private training track. You must share it with others.
I appreciate that it is physically impossible for you to travel the posted speed limit. But you don't have the right to block traffic. Here in California, you are legally required to pull over if you are unable to drive the posted speed limit and there are 5 or more cars behind you. This is true whether you're driving an antique car or a broken car or a bicycle. If you must ride so that you block traffic, do so briefly. If you reach a stop light, let the traffic that you blocked go past you when it turns green.
Signalling does not give you the right of way. Again, the variation of the "I can't stop", I've seen bicyclists who will stick their arm out and merge into traffic when the lane they are riding in is blocked, expecting the cars to "let them in." Nope. You wait for traffic to clear--just like you were a car. If that means you have to stop and wait, then you have to stop and wait. You have no more rights to the road than anyone else.
If there was a slow-moving motorized vehicle -- something traveling at less than say 75% of the median speed of other traffic on the road -- many drivers would expect that vehicle to pull over to allow them to pass, rather than forcing them to drive long distances behind me at low speeds. And in many cases the driver of the slow-moving vehicle will comply on a relatively frequent basis; I have rarely been stuck behind a slow-moving motorized vehicle for more than 60-90 seconds before they pulled over to allow safe passing.
I expect the same sort of behavior from bicyclists -- if they can't keep up with the normal flow of traffic it's their duty to take the same actions we'd expect from drivers of motorized vehicles:
A) choose another route better suited for the limitations of their vehicle (either wider or slower moving or with less traffic)
B) allow other vehicles to pass as frequently as is practical, at intervals of no more than about a minute, even if that requires them to pull out of the roadway from time to time.
I'll give you that a good half of the ire that cyclists get is undeserved; most people are not great drivers, don't terribly enjoy the activity, and are annoyed by anything that even slightly upsets their expectations. But the other half of what gets cyclists honked at is either a failure to extend such basic roadway courtesy, or the hypocritical attitude that asks motorists to "share the road" while spouting things like "I don't care...that you have to slow down". You'd never tolerate someone driving at 2/3 the speed limit and justifying it by saying "I don't feel safe driving faster", so why should we tolerate it from people on bikes?
--Until you start paying rego, compulsary third party insurance and obeying the road rules you don't have --any moral right to make use of the road.
... just think more cycles = less cars on the road that you need to deal with.
... would you consider running them off the road? Of course not as you'd come off second best.
... the roads are there for everyone, share and treat other road users how'd you'd like to be treated yourself. Next time you almost cleanup a cyclist think about how you'd be feeling if a truck/18 wheeler/lorry did the same to you ...
I think you'll find the majority of cyclists have cars, pay rego, third park insurance just like everyone else you muppet, how do you think we do our shopping, go on road trips. The thing is we choose to ride either as a hobby or as an alternative to commuting in a car thus freeing up the road
----I don't care if you're pissed off that you have to slow down to 35k in a 50k zone as long as you don't ----crash into me.
--and that's the attitude that causes such ire amongst drivers.
&
--Cars always win, show some respect and don't be the jerk holding up 40 cars simply because you can't --be arsed to pull over to the side and let people pass.
I think if you were in their place and your life was on the line you'd probably feel the same way, generally I'll sit a couple of feet from the curb (so their is enough room to go either way in an emergency) but if it's dangerous I'll happily take more room if it's required.
Do you have the same attitude toward trucks/18 wheelers/lorries whatever you call them in your locale? they are generally slow, take up a lot of room
What I think it comes down to is that there are douches on both sides and having an attitude like that well I'd assume makes you one of them
Wow...Ok.
Rego is $600 dollars a year for an average family sedan here Australia and over $1000 for a truck.
There's 12.5 million registered cars in Australia which is roughly $7.5 billion for rego alone.
The fuel tax is an extra $12.8 billion, so that's $96 billion dollars a year car drivers fork out to pay for roads in a country of 22 million, not to mention fines, tolls and I'm not even counting commerical rego in that sum which is much higher and would probably put the number closer to $100billion.
So your response that rego "not being much at all" is a little bit ridiculous. Combined with an almost 50% fuel tax is *more* than enough to pay for our roads and maintenance.
And again, girlintraining is loud and wrong.
The law states that bikes are supposed to be on the road, not the sidewalk. Look up your driver's ed manual. Wait, you don't have that anymore? And you're calling others ignorant?
Safety instructors and cops specifically recommend riding in the middle of the car lane when there's no bike lane. Why? Because of car drivers who have no idea on how to judge distance, and would rather squeeze by a biker than overtake in normal fashion. Paradoxically, it's safer in the middle of the road than on the side.
Your rant sounds like the typical rant of any motorist who has an entitlement complex - anything that gets in my way is bad, and I want it out of my sight. Nevermind any one else's rights, or the law for that matter.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
... the cyclist in the picture doesn't actually have any lighting on his bike apart from the lane-thingy :D
Anyway, as a dutch person who has biked in the states (Knoxville, TN area) I was absolutely appaled by the risks bikers have to take on americans roads. I was trying to make my way from my parents house to knoxville, a minor 10 mile ride, and at one point found myself forced to take an interstate ... holding to the shoulder of course but it was rocky and all ... worthless and dangerous.
To paint the picture, in the Netherlands you could cycle the whole country without having to share a lane with a car once ... we have a pretty good infrastructure with bike lanes and even seperate bike paths with run parallel to the roads.
My point being, this 'solution' sucks, is overengineered and impratical. If you want to really encourage people riding bikes instead of taking the car, build the infrastructure for it.
It can be done, even in formerly very car-centric cities. Take, for example, Paris, where the last years biking has taken off hugely because of a city push for more biking, including cheap rental bikes and massive new bike lane building.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Just stop foolishly engaging in a war with cars that you just can't possibly win. It's statistics and physics. The saddest part is that you might take somebody's else's life along with your own with your piss poor attitude.
I thought that's what the 2nd Amendment is for?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Oops, that should read $20 billion a year for rego and fuel tax...
I'm from Australia and you're (as is typical of road riders) woefully uninformed.
Where do you think the federal and state taxes to pay for roads come from? Rego is *at least* $7.5 billion a year, probably double that including commercial rates.
Fuel excise and GST is over $12.8 billion a year.
So are bike riders going to start coughing up $20 billion a year??
Inventor: Hey, bicycle enthusiasts! Want to buy a neat safety device?
Cyclists: Sure! We are all about safety, look at the styrofoam on our heads and these lycra shorts! We care about safety because many of us are killed or injured in the most baffling circumstances.
Inventor: Ah, ok! This is a device that projects a cycle lane onto the road so that traffic behind you is made more aware of your presence on the road.
Cyclists: 'Be-hind'? What is 'be-hind'? Is it something to do with my shorts?
Inventor: Not shorts related. Behind you. To your rear. The traffic coming up behind you.
Cyclists: Traffic coming up behind us? What are you talking about?
Inventor: You know, when you look behind you and..
Cyclists: LOOK BEHIND? Are you crazy? Your words don't make any sense.
Inventor: Well, when you turn your head..
Cyclists: TURN the HEAD? You are nuts! The head doesn't turn! The head looks down at the front wheel spindle. You are a crazy man!
Darwin: Dude, you are wasting your time with those cyclists.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
and.... you're the jerk that causes accidents. You have a baseless sense of entitlement. The road IS for CARS. When there is a BIKE LANE, it is for BOTH CARS and BIKES.
You know, ignorance of the law is no excuse in the eyes of the law, right?
If you're upset that you don't have enough bike lanes where you are then get together and form a group. Press your local politicians to add access for bicyclists. That maybe if it was much safer for all of you, that more people would choose it. More of a green solution and get's people exercise. Heck, even go militant and start painting bike lanes yourself.
If your upset about cars on the road, then form group and try to get them banned.
Your complaint about "safe room to pass" completely, and in accordance with your poor attitude, ignores the fact that those roads were not designed to have both a car and a bike in that space. If it were, after all, there might be a bike lane. While you're "pissing off" the cars behind you that have to slow down do you realize that by doing so you are creating an environment where it is more likely for accidents to occur? I bet not.
I love when I see people like you stuck behing a tractor, combine or swather. There's no way you can bully a vehicle of that size, so the best you can do is sit in your car turning purple. That's really funny to watch.
You're fairly stupid too. Do you realize that you are directly, and petulantly, confronting people in multi-ton objects that can move faster and with more force than you, and have considerably more safety features (and the ability to withstand crashes) than you do? That's not flaming, but an honest assesment of your behavior. But, that's okay. Be right. DEAD right.
Out of interest, if I changed the game by (eg) carrying around an RPG-7 on my bike does that make it OK? You see, then I'm confronting a multi-ton object wich has no defense in the face of superior firepower. That way, I can be wrong but very much alive. By your (lack of) logic, this is the best course to take, and the car is obliged to give me right of way.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Fact of the matter is, bicyclists pay for those roads, too. The law is, and should be on our side in this matter. Sometimes, it is necessary to ride 8 feet out from the curb -- 2 feet from the curb, you find puddles of broken glass, potholes, and storm drains that are dangerous to cyclists. Also, doors of parked cars frequently swing open as inattentive drivers step out of their vehicles. A rider is also more visible to cars turning into the lane, or crossing the street. Finally, sometimes, it's unsafe to pass -- if you pass a cyclist on a narrow road, and another car comes down the opposing lane, *smash* -- you might not get hurt much, but the cyclist could die. So yes, we ride 8 feet out from the curb when safety dictates. Some just occupy an entire lane because they believe that's their right -- and it certainly is, from a legal perspective, though I disagree with the practice, since it isn't really "sharing the road".
We have just as much of a right to be on the road as you do. Sidewalks are massively unsafe, and typically clogged with pedestrian traffic -- hah -- just like you, we don't want to wait. But if a cyclist rides on the sidewalk, they're invisible to cars until they cross the street, and *bam*. Similarly, they're silent and too close to corners, and pedestrians just don't see 'em coming. Moreover, I, and many other cyclists, ride at around 20-25mph on flats, and 35+ down hills -- for my entire commute, I keep up with traffic, and I ride on major roads. I eat mopeds for breakfast, and today I even beat a BMW in on my way to work. If I hit a pedestrian, it wouldn't just be profanity, there'd be a trip to the hospital.
I don't know where you got the idea that roads were built for cars. If you live in the Twin Cities, those roads were built for horses. They're maintained by taxpayer money -- and cyclists pay the same taxes you do. Moreover, they're helping the environment, and given that *most* of the cyclists you see aren't major jackasses like the outspoken minority that you're railing against, traffic is almost certainly better because of them. Yeah -- there are jackasses, and they're an embarrassment to the entire community. Don't buy into their bullshit, and don't be a jackass yourself: share the road.
As for bright flashing lights? Yeah -- we get hit by inattentive drivers, and (shock and surprise) we need to see in the dark, so we get big lights -- but I've never seen bike lights nearly as bright as I see on motorcycles (which flash too, these days) or the damned halogens on hummers and hondas.
have rarely been stuck behind a slow-moving motorized vehicle for more than 60-90 seconds before they pulled over to allow safe passing.
Clearly, you've never lived in combine country.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What annoys me and other drivers is that cyclists will obey the law when it suits them.
You might not be aware of this since your powers of reasoning seem lacking, but cyclists are not one giant collective controlled by a hive mind. You know, the asshole who cycles the wrong way down a one way street at night with no lights (only one? lucky you) might be a different person from the one who wants you to obey the law and leave 3 feet. Even crazier, is that they might have never met in their entire existence and aren't in fact in a giant consipracy to piss you off.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I appreciate that it is physically impossible for you to travel the posted speed limit. But you don't have the right to block traffic. Here in California, you are legally required to pull over if you are unable to drive the posted speed limit and there are 5 or more cars behind you.
Here in the UK the speed limit is just that, a limit for perfect conditions. Anyone blindly driving at the speed limit is showing no regard for the conditions and should be banned.
Of course, in a nose-to-tail tailback I assume that means you have to pull over, you aren't travelling at the speed limit, and there are more than 5 cars behind you.
This is true whether you're driving an antique car or a broken car or a bicycle. If you must ride so that you block traffic, do so briefly.
This is called the primary position. Responsible cyclists take this position when they can't be safely overtaken (usually at dangerous, artificial pinch points)
If you reach a stop light, let the traffic that you blocked go past you when it turns green.
Generally in Europs it's different, but we don't worship at the alter of the car. Certainly in London, you'll find the average speed of a bike outside of rush hour is about the same as that of a car. You might find a car reaches a top speed of 5 or 10mph more, but will simply spend longer waiting at lights, or behind the car in front.
In rush hour of course, theres no choice, bikes out perform cars by an order of magnitude.
Pootling around the town I live, I'm often held up by cars on the ride from home to the station, traffic isn't particularly bad either.
I don't know where you live, but a bicyclist does not have the RIGHT to use any part of the road UNLESS there is a bike lane. I am certainly not hoping to change public policy by willfully hurting you on the road, but to say you have the right to the road is quite a stretch.
I have no idea where you live, but everywhere I've lived it's exactly the opposite except for a few specified roads (ie motorways and interstates). I suspect if you calmed down enough to read the law, you would find that you are mistaken. If not, please let me know where you live, so I can keep away.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Why don't you just use the sidewalk yourself? It's easier to do in a car (people WILL move out of your way, and if not you're driving a ton of steel - just run them over) AND you'll get to your destination much quicker.
I visited East Germany (Halle) just after the wall fell, and the drivers there very much did use the sidewalk, if the road happened to be temporarily blocked (by a car stopped to let out a passenger, for instance). They didn't slow down much either. Even if the sidewalk was a narrow one in the busiest part of the the pedestrian-filled city center.
In retrospect, I suppose it's an amusing story.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
The green line lasers used here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOU563OvpUY look like they are in the 1mW to 5mW range type devices. These are eye safe under all conditions as it isn't possible to get all that light focused onto the back of you eye even if you hold it within a few mm of your eyeball. At 1m distance, the power entering your eye will be approx 1/100 of this so there is absolutely zero chance of eye damage from this sort of thing.
Dazzle on the other hand is far more of an issue. It is quite possible that a reflected beam could distract or dazzle a driver for a few seconds. Not something you want to happen.
wot no sig
I see all these people arguing about cyclists vs cars, obnoxious vs pleasant, etc and I really don't care. All I do care about though, is that cyclists should be forced to have insurance when they are given the privilege of using the Queen's Highway free of charge. (Yes folks, those lovely roads you cycle on are paid from the taxation of motorists)
Sure, smack my mirror on the way past down the queue of traffic, maybe scratch the side of my door with the pedal clips, and I just love it when a cyclist comes barrelling out a side street and into the side of my vehicle leaving a nice big dent in the door.
Yes, the cyclist may have a few scratches from his or her own carelessness, but it's _my_ insurance premiums that are going up due to someone elses carelessness. If cyclists want to be treated equally on these roads, then they can start being charged equally and held equally responsible for damage. For what it's worth, I am both a cyclist and a car driver, and yes... I do have insurance for my cycling stuff. Liability up to £3 million if memory serves.
Now, gerroff my lawn!
a road system explicitly designed for 4-wheeled motor vehicles.
There's your problem. If you're going to complain, do it right.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Only going to make life safer if you can crank the power up to several hundred MW and blow the annoying cars up before they reach you...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
I too am from Australia, and as a cyclist I've already coughed up: besides riding a bike I have two cars and a motorbike on which I pay all relevant taxes. I do more kilometres per year on my bikes than the powered vehicles combined (tho' they do around 5000km per year all up), so not only am I subsidizing driver's fat arses thru' my tax and fuel levies, I'm causing less wear and tear on the roads, not taking up your precious car park spaces, and spending less time twiddling my thumbs burning juice whilst going nowhere.
The vast majority of cyclists I know who ride chiefly on the road (and I've known quite a few having been a cyclist for some 35 years) own and use motor vehicles, so give that rotting carcass of an argument up.
What apparently sticks in your gullet is that cyclists are LEGAL road users who unbelievably may at times exercise some road position to protect themselves, and in so doing add 10 seconds to your journey. And don't give me that 'cyclists are a law unto themselves' crap - get out there on a bike and see how many boofheads in cars routinely make up their own rules as they go along. You'll get no argument from me that there's definitely wankers in both camps, but I've never been run off the road by a wanker on a bike who thought it was a great laugh to buzz me, or had some deadshit on a bike hurl a half full beer can at me as he passed going the other way.
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
Don't shell out vital cash on projectors. Simply improve bicycle safety by keeping off the pavement and stopping at red lights and pedestrian crossings.
Did you fucker ever realize that roads were _not_ made for cars only? Where did you get that false impression from? Unless these roads are clearly marked as cars-only they are free to use for everybody. Especially inside cities.
And cut that "living on borrowed time" crap. Ever thought about that driving your car makes _you_ live on everybodyies ecosystem, climate, health and time? What do you thing turns our big cities into traffic jam nightmares? Or causes these fuckloads of smog? Or this stupid war for oil? Pedestrians? Bikes? No, don't think so.
In your own words: Move the fuck over.
Yt,
Gunnar
Actually, roads are for cyclists as well, except as otherwise explicitly posted.
Thanks for that post. Not only that, but sidewalks (previously suggested) are definitely not for cyclists. That shit drives me batshit insane as a pedestrian every time some dumbass cyclist practically bowls me over because he's going 15 mph on a sidewalk, in a vehicle that's probably three times as large as the width of a person's shoulders, in a city that doesn't have enough sidewalk space to begin with.
3 feet, in my state we must give them 1 foot of clearance on each side.
I can't deny I've felt the urge to act out some road rage against anti-social car drivers, but I've always been able to restrain myself. If booting through car windows is common in your area, please let me know where that is, so I can avoid it like the plague. You people sound a bit too aggressive for my taste.
Traffic laws are intended to prevent 2 ton vehicles from crashing into each other and/or property and causing a lot of damage. Bikes can barely do anything to anyone except for maybe an unlucky hit on a pedestrian. Even then, the pedestrian usually walks away without a trip to the hospital, but pedestrians usually go to the hospital when hit by a car.
this is the perfect tool for grunts as it will indicate the direction in which they are heading and also visibly tells surrounding people how far away they should be from this person should they throw up.
Laughable. Unlike cars, bikes cause close to no wear and tear to the road infrastructure. And your car has a quite frankly absurd amount of externalities involved which you don't pay for -- yet.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
This isn't the cyclist's problem. If nothing is more dangerous than rounding a corner at 45 and seeing a cyclist, try some of the following ideas:
1. Campaign for more bike lanes. It is not the cyclist's fault that there are no bike lanes. Believe me, almost all cyclists would LOVE there to be a safe bike lane for us. It's the city planners who haven't been on a bike since grade 5 who believe there is no value for a bike lane. It's the taxpayers (mostly motorists) who are unwilling to spend the marginal extra amount for slightly wider roads. So don't blame us.
2. Consider slowing down to a safe speed while driving around a corner.
Try riding a bicycle or motorcycle for a while and "see the other side". Maybe you already do. I LOVE driving, but I give two wheeled road users the respect they are due. I don't want to be responsible for someone's death or injury, even if they do appear to be a bit of an asshole.
www.clarke.ca
Not always.
Turn it on and next thing you know - "brring! brring! crunch!" - you're lying on your back covered with tyre tracks and with little tweeting birds flying round your head.
Almost as dangerous as painting a railway tunnel entrance on the side of a cliff...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I'd gladly pay rego and insurance for my bike. It would be a lot less that that for a car.
And car drivers can pay for the oil wars, hospitals for the obese caused by inactivity, lung disease caused by emissions and most cancers which are reduced by active lifestyles.
And the massive government subsidies funding roads in most countries, the benefits of which I don't think you can argue is equally shared by bike riders, who cause less wear and tear and require less road space.
And pay for the realestate and mainetence costs for all the car lots, car parks, traffic lights etc whose costs are currently socialised for the benefit of car drivers.
I really don't think bike riders are free loading.
This is a general reply to the blase attitude towards the very life of others that some drivers here are espousing. So If you are a reasonably considerate driver, don't take it personally.
What is more important: that you get to where you're going fractionally faster or that you have respect for the safety of other people. In my country, over 3000 people die annually due to collisions with cars and most of those people are pedestrians or cyclists. Hundreds of thousands are injured. 2008 year was a good year and 'only' 2,943 were killed (this isn't a global figure, just in the UK). That's 2,943 families now missing loved ones. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/27/transport1). That's a quarter of a million people since records began, in the UK alone (extrapolate for the world's population, that'd be closer to 25 million people killed on the worlds roads in the past 84 years).
Most drivers I encounter are polite and considerate and I'm polite and considerate right back to them - if I'm holding up a bunch of cars, I'll pull over to let them past if it's safe to do so as I want them driving up my arse about as much as they want to be held up by me.
However, most days I'll encounter some retard who thinks that driving like a lunatic is their god given right - these are the people who kill people like me and they should not be allowed on the roads.
If getting from A to B as fast as possible is, in fact, more important to you than somebody else's continued existence, let me put it to you in other terms: your journey is going to take a lot longer if you have to deal with the aftermath of killing a cyclist or pedestrian because you were driving too damn fast.
Tim.
That's just it. It's not. It's a bike. It cannot keep up with traffic and it not entitled to act as a motor vehicle. You make it sound like it is a motorcycle when it is not even close.
A bicycle is obviously not a motor vehicle, but it is a vehicle, and in many countries, it is a vehicle according to the law, although apparently the law is very different where you live.
I don't know where you live, but a bicyclist does not have the RIGHT to use any part of the road UNLESS there is a bike lane. I am certainly not hoping to change public policy by willfully hurting you on the road, but to say you have the right to the road is quite a stretch.
That depends on where he lives, of course. Clearly you know your law well enough to be certain that your law states that bicycles do not belong on the road unless there's a bike lane. You should know, however, that there are a lot of countries in the world where the law states that bicycles have every right to use the road, unless explicitly forbidden.
Where I live, for example, bicycles are not allowed on motorways (speed limits of 100 or 120 kph). Everywhere else, they are allowed unless there's a sign saying they're not, or there's a dedicated bicycle path next to the road. Now where I live, car drivers are sane enough to leave 1 meter of space on the right side of the road for cyclists, and when the road is too narrow for that, they stay behind the cyclists until it is safe to overtake. This is normal, safe, sane traffic behaviour.
But I keep hearing about countries where car drivers seem to turn into murderous psychopaths as soon as bicycles are involved. Maybe your law needs to be changed so it offers bikes more protection on the road (like it does in most other civilised countries).
In the UK, the highway code states,
163 Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so.
-- list of rules for over taking ---
You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)
It doesn't matter if the cyclist is 8 feet out - if you can't overtake them when they're taking up as much space as a car, you can't over take them at all.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
I think you've misunderstood something fundamental.
Let me reiterate the laws in California, where I live and bike.
1. Bicycles must, when they are moving under the speed limit, move over as far to the right on the road as possible if there is room to pass.
2. If the bicyclist is doing the speed limit, or something close to it, then he can take the entire lane.
3. If there is not enough room to pass, the bicyclist may take the entire lane.
4. The bicyclist may bike in any lane.
5. The bicyclist may bike in the lane even if there is a bike lane.
Nobody is talking about the case where there's enough room to bike by the side of the road or in a bike lane safely. Obviously a bicyclist will bike there in that case if only because it's safer than traffic surfing.
But, if I have to make a left turn or if there's not enough room to pass, I'm going to put myself dead center in the lane and it's my right to do that. It's the safest thing for me, certainly, and my safety is the only important thing here. If you're driving a car, it's your resonsibility to treat me as a vehicle. If you can't safely pass, you slow down and wait until you get a chance to do so.
As many other have said, you're the one driving a car. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so if you don't treat it that way, you're not going to be allowed to do it for long. As the operator of a motor vehicle, which is a dangerous machine, it's up to you to act responsibly. It's more than just your life at stake when you drive recklessly. A bicyclist has little chance of damaging anyone but himself if he's reckless.
Sounds like you fear being run up the back of in your car. :
And that is the reason why you don't like slowing for bicycles who fear being run into from behind.
So your solution is for everyone to drive faster.
This will result in ever increasing speeds. Not sensible. Why not slow down and if you can't beat bikes, join them.
Re your assertion that bikes can only ride in bike lanes, besides being ridiculously impractical, is likely incorrect
http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/statelaws.htm
I looked at what I thought would be the most backward states and they all say bikes have equal rights.
This is consistent with the US being a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Traffic
Just for the record, Edlll is an ignorant fuckwit who's oblivious to the law of the land.
In the grandparent he said,
I don't know where you live, but a bicyclist does not have the RIGHT to use any part of the road UNLESS there is a bike lane.
In the parent he said,
I live in the U.S. Where I am, unless there is a bike lane, you are not allowed to be in lanes designated for motorists.
It is clear that Edlll believes that cyclists do not have the right to use a road unless there is a bike lane.
In the UK this certainly isn't true. I'm not familiar with US traffic law so I thought I'd look it up,
New Jersey
39:4-14.1 Rights and Duties of Persons on Bicycles. Every person riding a bicycle on a roadway is granted all the rights and subject to all of the duties of the motor vehicle driver.
Montana
(2) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable except when: (a) overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction; (b) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or (c) necessary to avoid a condition that makes it unsafe to continue along the right side of the roadway, including but not limited to a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Ohio
A motorist must: â Share the road with bicycles. The bicyclist has the same right to use the public road as any other driver, except freeways.
California
21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.
So in 4/4 states we fine three explicitly grant the cyclist the full rights and responsibilities of a motorist, and the fourth state clearly grants the right to use the roadway but adds some restrictions about not impeding traffic where possible.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
By that logic I have more of a right to the road than you/ I own a car and pay rego. I also pay tax that the council uses to maintain the roads. I bike causes much less wear on the roads I'm probably subsidizing you.
It's the law. Legally, a bicyclist has all the rights AND all the responsibilities of any other vehicle.
The law is not morality. It's legal for a record company to sue somebody for $200,000 for copying a $1 song, but that does not make it right.
Using "its the law", ought to be right up there with Godwin's rule when it comes to making lame arguments.
This is my sig.
I live in Australia too.
Fuel tax has not gone directly to roads since the seventies - it goes into general revenue.
Rego + fuel tax does not fund roads.
Local, state and federal gov all subsidise the building and maintaining of roads. Federal receives fuel tax, state receives rego. All three levels of government spend more on roads that they receive from motorists.
Add to that our activities in Iraq, exclusion from the proposed CPRS (Carbon pollution reduction scheme), and the hospital costs to handle all these obese Australians, and most cancers are reduced by an active lifestyle.
We also subsidise our car industry to produce technologically backward large cars.
No. Cars are recieving massive subsidies at the expense of cyclists.
Also look around at all the extra infrastructure - traffic lights extra lanes, car parks, parking spaces, garages etc, that are required to support this system.
Bikes cause less wear and tear, require far less road to be built, and require less insurance because they can damage less.
But don't think you are incorrect because of mere facts, take comfort being surrounded by a large percentage of Aussies who share your beliefs, which is why politicians feel the need maintain this system.
Look, I am all for alternative transportation and dedicated bike lanes, but this is just stupid. Near the top of the list of stupid ideas, in fact, is the idea of cyclists (too many of whom already have a badly skewed sense of entitlement when it comes to roadways) "creating" their own lanes and expecting everyone else to respect them.
The more crap I read like this, the more I'm glad I've been to the USA and seen what it has to offer, and don't feel I need to go there again.
(America. Where you're free to murder people with cars, because without cars there'd be no excuse to murder foreigners.)
This person is not a troll and whoever modded them troll will probably mod me down too.
I agree the GP is not a troll. He should have been modded flamebait. He does have a point somewhere down the line, but by calling bikers douches and speedbumps, he makes that point in a very imflamatory way.
As someone who is an occasional biker, it is unfortunate that so many bikers ride so recklessly, because it gives the sport a bad name
Referring to cycling as a "sport" is a big clue that it's not taken seriously as a means of transportation in your country.
I cycle every day (average 15km a day), but I've not thought of cycling to work as a sport before. Pushing myself to go faster up the hill on the way home is exercise, but that's about it.
30km/h is the limit on residential streets in much of Europe, with 50km/h on the larger streets (the ones that actually go somewhere useful, rather than just joining up all the houses).
In the UK (where I live) the limits are 30mph and 40mph, but it's likely the 30mph will be changed to 20mph soon. Also, I'd say cycling to work was only fairly popular here, and I reckon I see at least 25 bikes a day...
I admit that I am a few years past my peak biking years, but I remember certain cities as being more bike friendly than others. Anchorage, AK had an extensive bike path through the parks and greenways, with major street crossings through very large (10'+) arch culverts under the roads. Seattle was also pretty good, especially around the university area. Eugene, OR as similar, although not as extensive. I never did find any good bike riding in California.
I live on the east coast now, and in general the lack of decent bike facilities is one reason I don't take to the pedals much any more. I discourage my kids from riding outside of the subdivision, because bikes on the main roads are just moving targets to many of the drivers. (10 points!) I know why cities, counties, and the state are slow to provide dedicated bicycle lanes (and paths!), but it sure would be nice if they would.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Some guy did a study many years ago showing that if a runner carries a glass water bottle in the hand facing the lane, cars are significantly more likely to give him leeway. Which just goes to show that a significant percentage of drivers don't give a rat's ass about creaming your squishy body but don't want their paint scratched by a hard object. Physically innumerate and morally bankrupt but that's the results, so project something that will cause a driver to give the bicyclist leeway, not something that gives the driver a heads up that a target is "there".
The city cyclists get out there like there's something to prove, riding 4 feet out into the lane
That's because they're used to there being a parked car lane next to the curb and they don't want to get doored.
The inventors of this projector thingy suggest, that a bike lane protects you in shared trafficspace, when there is no extra bike lane on the street.
Contrary to public belief and repeated myths there is scientific evidence, that sharing the road with the cars is definitely safer than cycling at the very right edge or even on a separate lane. This is especially because there is no absolute separation: at every crossing you "meet" the cars again and they will hardly recognize you on the bike lane.
Instead of strange devices I would invest in strong LED lights with hub generator that make you seen in darkness.
Refs: English overview
German quick risk picture
I wasn't too sure whether to mod you up (anyone advocating safe driving certainly should be heard) or reply with a disagreement..
1) Perhaps the bycyclists should start footing that bill?
How about bike registration and insurance if you have >13" wheels and ride on any public bike lane. The insurance would be some $20/year anyways, it's not like there's much potential public liability.
2) while I advocate better and safer driving, if a road is 45 around a bend, I go 45 (I interpret 45 around a corner as being a bend in the road, not a literal street on to avenue corner). No slower, no faster, everyone going the same speed is the safest possible condition, whatever that speed may be.
*.sig
I'll treat you as such on the road. ie, get the fuck out of my way.
Umm, I'm not a cyclist at all, but as far as I know you're not allowed to run over pedestrians. In fact in most countries, you have to yield to them - I think the only time you would avoid a manslaughter charge is if the pedestrian was drunk or suicidal and suddenly jumped in front of your car (and was filmed by some security camera), or if they're somewhere they're not supposed to be, like standing in the middle of a highway.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
And while the driver is staring at the pretty lights he runs over the cyclist.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
"Ultimately, I don't care if you're pissed off that you have to slow down to 35k in a 50k zone as long as you don't crash into me."
You win the door prize!!!
"Make your own lane"? WTF? Why should someone on a bicycle be able to do that when someone in a car can't? Besides, if you are in a car, YOU are the one actually PAYING for the road to begin with (gasoline taxes).
Bike riders put themselves in danger because they don't obey the rules of the road, instead, pretending to be a car when it's advantageous (ie: riding in the middle of the lane) and being a pedestrian when it isn't (ie: running red lights and stop signs).
If they obey traffic laws and avoid roads where the speed limit is higher than they can ride, they will be safe.
Corporatism != Free Market
You mean roads that were designed for horse drawn carriage
Those roads were mainly mud, and the real good ones were made of cobblestones. Asphalt is 100% thanks to automobiles. Bikers like asphalt too - hey everyone likes asphalt. It's a smooth ride. But the only reason the world is covered in black goo is because of those "invading" automobiles.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Most of us are smart enough to use residential streets, bike lanes, or bike paths, rather than highways and main thoroughfares.
Until you get into situations where the closest street between home and work is a highway, and the second closest is also a highway. This can happen near shopping centers or in parts of town that follow a hierarchy more than a grid.
So, when the speed limit is 30km/h and I am traveling at 36km/h, is that not sufficient? I can burst up to about 50 km/h - the limit in most residential areas.
I've never been able to burst anywhere near 50 km/h on a significant uphill grade. Is there a strategy guide or something for surpassing what appears to be my natural speed limit of 25 km/h on level pavement?
There's a trail by my house that takes me downtown. I take that to work.
I don't have that luxury. I have a 65 km/h road between home and work and no slower parallel trail or road.
especially when I've got somewhere I need to be, like work.
This is your problem. We ALL have somewhere we need to be. However your sense of entitlement makes you believe that somehow your being at work is more important than someone else's need to use the public right of way.
As a doctor who frequently has to deal with real life and death emergencies, I'd be willing to bet that I probably "have to be somewhere" much more urgently than you. Still I don't feel entitled to endanger other users of the road, for any reason. If there's a bike, I have to be careful. If there's a stupid biker talking on his cell phone and weaving all over the lane, I still have to be careful. If there are bikers riding two abreast, chatting, and not really paying attention to what they are doing, I have to be careful. Just because someone slows you down or is in your way doesn't give you the right to kill or injure them.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
if this works, then so does my "Designated Smoking Area" hat.
You see, this is an example of the apparently unassailable moral high ground that cyclists (seem to believe they) occupy.
If there's no room to overtake, I don't overtake. As I said, I don't like killing people.
Cars overtake in smooth curves. The further out I have to move, the longer it takes me to get back in. Increased risk and fewer opportunities.
On wide-ish roads, there is often room from a car each way *and* a cyclist. Less often is there room for a car each way and multiple cyclists.
Tractors are usually driven by farmers who produce food, arguably a useful job. They have sometimes also been known to pull over to let cars past.
As I said, I accept the environmental, health and cost saving benefits of cycling, but in the current world, not everybody can use them for every journey. Let's please vote for more cycle paths, and while we're waiting, can cyclists please understand that drivers are not (all) the minions of the antichrist?
[Incidentally, I'm not picking on cyclists. The behaviour of pedestrians on the outskirts of my town is increasingly dubious, too (in the centre I feel they're more entitled to take right of way - there's no particular reason it should be clogged up with cars, after all.) When I was a kid, it was drummed in to me that I had a certain responsibility for my own safety when interacting with traffic. What the hell happened to that?]
> Asphalt is 100% thanks to automobiles.
The British started paving ("metaling") their roads in the late 19th century primarily for the benefit of bicycles.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Most tractors would have a hard time splitting in half to make overtaking easier.
In Pennsylvania, USA. The motor vehicle code stipulates that a bicycle is a vehicle, and as such has the RIGHT to the entire lane, the cyclist however, must obey ALL the rules of the road. They MUST stop at stop signs and lights, they MUST signal when turning, most motor vehicle operators don't do that. They must stay in their lane, no driving against traffic on the opposing shoulder. The only roads closed to bicycles are limited access Motor Vehicle Only highways. I've seen as many bad cyclists as I have motor vehicle operators, so there is plenty of blame to go arouond. Yes, I both drive a car AND ride a bike.
Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
Honestly, if there was any single place where it would probably be safe to have a bike lane, it would actually be the interstate. If you had bike lanes I'd think it would be ok.
This is my sig.
From a NY perspective, the traffic problems have nothing to do with cyclists at all. They have more to do with a perceived right to bring a massive metal and glass behemoth into the world's most crowded places. Keep that sh*t parked outside the city and take public transportation.
I have a better idea. Let's keep the residents out of NYC, and then there shouldn't be as much need for bikes. And we can bulldoze apartments to put in more expressways and parking garages. That solves the problem nicely, and eliminates one of the very few things I dislike about NYC - New Yorkers!
If they ride side-by-side
Just like motorcycles, its illegal for cyclists to ride side by side in the lane of traffic.
If there's no other lane, then this is possibly obstruction by the cyclists, then again, a tractor would give you the same problems and no recourse for whinging.
And just like the tractor, if cyclists ARE impeding the flow of traffic, they MUST move off the road and let traffic pass. In most places impeding the normal flow of traffic is also illegal.
There will be more dumbass cyclists who think that they have the right of way regardless of the law.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Most roads are paid for in part by general tax funds. Gasoline taxes to not fully fund roads. There you go you ignorant twat, you learn something every day.
XML causes global warming.
I can't quite grasp how you perceive describing riding strategies as believing to be on high moral ground. Huh? Trying to get across town? I get thoroughly sick of being lumped in a group. Look at *me* when I'm riding, and judge on my behavior, not your prejudgements. (I share your frustration with road-hog peletons and guerrilla riders.) .Getting a long-term plan that includes cyclists as well as automobilists -- with the bicycle facilities being planned by people who actually know what happens when you use them - makes for much less friction. See slide 9 and further at http://www.bikelib.org/completestreets/apwa_completestreets0507.pdf for an explanation of why cycle paths are often a crappy answer.
I share your frustration with road-hogging peletons, though, and wish the arm of the law would extend to them. I've heard that cyclists are about the only group whose advocates implore the arms of the law to hand out more tickets...
I was beginning to think I was the only one who didn't see a blinker / directional flasher as a "I have a basic human right to change lanes here regardless of the space between cars or your need to follow the car in front of you because of your unfamiliarity with this town." It always gets me when the lady on the cell phone with the giant SUV (for some reason, it's always those three things but never the same person) cuts over 3 lanes of traffic and MUST be in front of me to enter the highway so if I don't yield in less than half a second, she'll hold down the horn until I do.
Kinda reminds me of my friend who moved to D.C. and had to buy his first car... he told the salesman he wanted one with the blinkers on it. Nobody in D.C. used them, so he thought they were an option nobody got...
You've posted over and over that you know the law and that bikes have no right to be on the road unless there's a bike lane.
Where I live it's completely legal for bikes to be on the road. Now tell us where you live so we can verify that indeed bikes are not allowed to be on the roads, unless you're afraid of being exposed as ignorant or a liar. And hiding behind "I fear for my privacy" is just cowardly. And no, saying you "really really know the law" is not a citation.
Sigh, I hate this stupid meme. at least in the U.K., we pay vehicle excise duty which no more pays for the roads than the V.A.T. on a chocolate bar. The local council are responsible for their own roads so upkeep of those comes from their coffers. I pay 33% of my earnings as income tax and on top of that I have to pay council tax. The comparatively paltry amount that we have to pay for the privilege of owning a car would not pay for the upkeep of the nations roads and motorways. On top of this, I voluntarily pay more money to Sustrans, a charity that builds cycle paths than it costs to keep the family car on the road - we only use it maybe twice a month, yet still have to pay tax.
In short, I suspect I pay a whole lot more than you do towards the upkeep of the roads and yet I find it difficult to cycle to work without putting myself in danger, caused by the noticeable minority of dangerous drivers. They're probably muttering these same ignorant missives as they force me off the road for the umpteenth time.
And as for the registration process - ha! Cars have these checks because they are an order of magnitude more complex and dangerous than bikes! If you've got a flat or bald tire on your bike, you're going to notice it pretty quickly and then will have to push your bike home as the air escapes. Riding in such a condition is more likely to hurt yourself than anybody else. To reiterate the statistics I mentioned in a previous post - 3000 deaths caused by drivers annually in the U.K. Compare that with 1 death every two years caused by a cyclist: it's a 1:6000 ratio!
So um.. It's really just angry-making that bicyclists ride where it's safest for them. And your response is to say "i'm bigger than you, GTFO".
Go back to the part where it's safer for them to use the whole lane. That's why they do it, for safety. If people maximizing their own safety makes you angry, then you should stop driving entirely.
-josh
Japan still registers bikes - When I lived there, my g/f bought me one for my birthday and registered it. The police often stopped cyclists to check their registration details and as foreigner, I stood out and was checked regularly (I eventually learned where their routes were and could get to work more quickly by avoiding them). It was sometimes difficult to explain why my bike was registered under the name of a Japanese girl so I usually launched into the explanation before they checked the bike's code.
He's Canadian, and should have his license revoked for not knowing the rules of the road. He even posted them, misinterpreting the provision that said "if a bike lane exists, the bike shall ride in the bike lane" as "if there isn't a bike lane, bikes are prohibited." But yeah, he's clueless about the rules of the road.
Every cyclist violating the law egregiously should be criticised. I do it daily, whether walking or on my bicycle.
It would be nice if the police would join in.
That said, the following things, at least in my state of california, are legal:
- lane sharing
- traversing a pedestrian crossing at walking speed
Either can done in a way which is unsafe and unacceptable.
Passing any vehicle without safe clearance is not allowed. If you can't do that without crossing the center line, then you shouldn't be doing it at all.
-josh
bike riders are fucking douches who need to stay the fuck off the goddamn street. Most of them are baby boomer scum and their douchebag offspring who've bankrupted the country and are now living out their mid-life crises and only-child entitlements in their obnoxious bike shorts and neon spandex and their stupid-looking dickhead helmets which are a slap in the face because they're playing chicken with multi-ton armored shells while swerving into busy streets at 3mph.
why is this modded 'troll'?
Where do you live then? That isn't true anywhere in the United States.
-josh
I actually know my local laws, do you?
Actually, it's been proven you don't. Especially if you keep spouting that crap about "if there is no bike lane, then bikes aren't allowed on the road." Seriously, learn the rules of the road.
Where I live (Costa Rica) it is a tidbit better than where I used to live before (Hungary), but generally at both places the sad truth comes down to this:
1. no one cares/respects bikes ... (it sucks to tell a dad in front of his family to please not get beaten up by you in front of the whole family and to politely stand down before bad things happen when he runs at you in a fist-fight position)....
2. when you are on the sidewalk you are a damn bicycle
3. when you are on the road you are not a vehicle enough - people would actually pull out in front of you thinking that you are just a bike and will definitely stop easily.... I ended up on the windshield like that once and believe me I have total control over my brakes and the bike as I was racing for years (now doing enduro which is a more high speed activity)
4. when you are on the bike lane (which is shared/divided by a line from the walking lane) you get people walking on the bike lane and I actually got into a fight over people blocking the way and then making nasty comments when you politely remind them that the pedestrian part of the was is over the line
5. If there is no physical protection on the lane it is used to : a: overtake other cars b: park cars
Well at least in Hungary there is a bicycle lane in the capital (dunno what is up with other cities) and mostly it is a lane divided from the sidewalk, but in Costa Rica there is not even a sidewalk for pedestrians... which sucks as I love to walk to places. Never rode a bicycle here, but have several heated conversation while riding my motorbike and idiots do not respect your way at all.......
Most bikers generally agree that if something happens here, just gently kick the door/blinkers of the car if an apology does not follow - motocross boots can do some damage with one single kick ...... I personally prefer to confront people and explain to them to respect bikers because one day someone will beat the crap out of them if you push the wrong biker too much. Hitting on the roof and screaming at the driver usually provides them with enough of a shock to look out before turning the next time....
Back to the topic: maybe in 50 years when we decide to build side walks bigger than 1meter and when these people learn how to keep their own lane.... maybe then.. just maybe we can have projected lanes .... yeah right
If there's no other lane, then this is possibly obstruction by the cyclists, then again, a tractor would give you the same problems and no recourse for whinging.
I live in an agricultural area. I get behind farm equipment quite often. You know what the operators of the farm equipment do? Pull off the road at every opportunity and allow drivers to pass.
I have no problem whatsoever getting behind a combine, because I know the operator is on the road out of necessity and doing what he can to minimize the interruption to traffic.
Many cyclists are exactly the opposite. They seem to relish obstructing vehicular traffic. *shrug*
If I was *ever* on a one-lane street where 5 cars were stuck behind me, as a cyclist, I would pull over.
This never happens.
In any one lane road where it's remotely possible for you to accumulate many cars, there's safe and legal passing space by using the opposing lane, or the road is a lane-and-a-half where I don't obstruct traffic at all.
If you can find a counterexample, I'm interested. The best I can come up with is Rt 1 on the approach to Devil's Slide, but I bike that on the very last inch of the road and at off times.
-josh
Again, for the 100th time, you misread the bicycledriving.org law. It says if the bike lanes exist, bikes have to ride in them. IT DOES NOT SAY IF THEY DON'T EXIST THAT THEY CAN'T BE ON THE ROAD. Get that through your thick head. You are wrong. Bike *are* allowed on the road throughout the states even if there isn't a bike lane.
I think you might need to change your sig. I think the part about "taste good with ketchup" is missing. At least that is how I remember seeing it.
Interesting how people have different perspectives... I'd say what you're describing makes me want to AVOID Copenhagen!
I pay a big part of my annual salary for the privilege of owning and operating my motor vehicle, and I actually like it. By contrast, I don't even own a bicycle and don't really want to. (At least half the time I take a trip someplace, I have enough items I need to take with me, a bike would be impractical.)
With all the fuel taxes I've paid that go towards road maintenance, I expect to be able to use those roads without some self-righteous city government officials deciding they "like bikes better since they're so environmentally-friendly" or what-not, and trying to ban my car from being driven there!
Just because someone puts up a "stay back 300 feet, not responsible for shit I drop on the road" does not mean that the sign is binding. Same with this light lane thing.
From a NY perspective, the traffic problems have nothing to do with cyclists at all. They have more to do with a perceived right to bring a massive metal and glass behemoth into the world's most crowded places. Keep that sh*t parked outside the city and take public transportation.
Yeah. It's almost like they think they're allowed to drive on the paved, motor-vehicle-centric streets that they paid for. I'll let you in on a secret: people with your unjustified sense of entitlement are the reason most motorists shrug when they hear about a biker getting run over.
Yes, I ride my bike to work sometimes. No, I'm unlikely to get run over by leaping in front of a vehicle even if I technically had the right to.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Oh, there are plenty of asses, however, in my experience, only cyclists combine being asses with pretending they have the moral high ground.
I know good cyclists, just as I know good drivers, but this is an asshat toy, it's creating a bike lane just for you, because you're a cyclist and you deserve one. It won't make you safer because it's not a lane, it doesn't create space for you and it doesn't magically move the cars around you.
If you're doing the right thing and the driver is doing the right thing you won't need it, and if you're not or they're not then it won't help. If people want bike lanes they should be proper bike lanes. I like real bike lanes, they keep cyclists in a lane designed for traffic of their own speed, so they can do their thing, and I can do mine(whether I'm walking or driving).
Actually, the legality of that depends on your state.
In California, it's legal for motorcycles to split lanes (pass between two motor vehicles who are side-by-side in adjoining lanes) as long as they are not doing more than 25mph faster than the other vehicles, and not faster than the speed limit.
I've seen that done right, where they're doing about 30mph, and the other traffic is doing about 5mph.
I've seen that done wrong, where they're doing about 120mph, and the other traffic is going about 65mph.
In the first case, I always moved over a little to give extra room. In the second case, I usually didn't know they were coming, nor which side they would be overtaking me on.
Neither is very smart. Riding side by side should be ok as long as they're not creating a hazard for themselves. In any case, regardless if the law says it's legal, the rider must consider if their action is creating a hazard for them.
I had a bicycle hit my car once. He was an insurance fraudster. I was stopped, waiting to turn out of a parking lot. He stopped to my right, where I could barely see him. I did observe that he didn't move for about a minute. A break in traffic finally came, I looked at him, I looked at the hole, and when I started to move, he road in front of me. I barely bumped him. The police gave HIM the ticket, since he was riding against the flow of traffic, AND acted intentionally to put himself in harms way. The same would happen if a pedestrian jumped in front of a slow moving car, except he had a bicycle too. I only managed to move about a foot before impact.
The insurance adjuster said that he had a record of doing this. He threatens to sue, and provides a huge bill for "damages". He actually said that replacing the kickstand on his bicycle cost $200, and wanted me to pay too. I spoke to the adjuster about it. He said they usually settle for about $300 to make them go away. Either that, or it goes to court, and then the judge laughs, and throws it out. It's not worth the insurance companies time with it, since they'll never get reimbursed their legal expenses. It's an easy way to make $300 a pop, if you can avoid getting killed in the process.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
You said it yourself NYC is the most crowded place (in the US at least). NYC is unique, there is a functioning large scale subway system, the entire island of Manhattan is only 2 miles wide, NYC is uniquely suited to pedestrian and bike traffic.
Unfortunately for the rest of the country bicycles more often than not have a combined negative effect. Most urban area's around the country have little residential traffic and most of the commuters are coming from widely dispersed areas. Widely disbursed commuters means that mass transit is essentially impossible. The Bay Area has one of the best mass transit systems (especially when you consider that most of the commuters are commuting to san francisco from places across the bay). But if you have work at 9am you would still need to be catching the bus at 7:45am to guarantee you get to work by 9am, and that's if you're in the city i can barely imagine relying on mass transit to commute from a place farther away.
Bikes and cars should not be sharing the same roads. It's dangerous for all parties involved. I know that a lot of the bicycle riders want to believe that everybody could ride a bike everywhere, but it's just not true; i would contend that the vast majority of people could not physically bike to work unless that was time they were paid too bike.
Does it come with the subsequent "body on the pavement outline-drawer" module too? Because it IS going to be needed.
Insisting something is true doesn't make it so.
If I 'insist' that the space I'm riding in is a bike space that I'm entitled to, all it gives me is a ludicrous false sense of security.
-Styopa
From the article: "new bike-lane inhibition is promoted by arguments on a legislative level, such as one in San Francisco that accuses the cityâ(TM)s large bicycle population of creating more pollution than automobiles because they supposedly impede the flow of traffic." Oh, right; and they would impede traffic MORE if they had dedicated bike lanes?! Visit Amsterdam sometimes, and see how it's done.
Let's put the genes back in Genesis.
Sounds good ... Only ... How will you move while I'm standing on your "reflector" ?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Cars always win in the sense that the cyclist will be more hurt. But they definitely do not win in the legal sense. Say I'm in a car and I hit a cyclist. No matter what the reasons for the collision, the first reaction will normally be to blame the driver. This is why, even though it is technically NOT the right driving thing to do, I always give at least a horizontal bike space when I driver past a cyclist, even if it requires moving into the other lane. The sides of the road aren't always pretty, and cars can cause strange winds when they ride by. Couple that with the fact that some cyclists seem to have a strange aversion to helmets and they're not licensed so I have no idea how good they are on that bike. I figure there needs to be enough room that they can fall sideways into traffic and I won't roll over their head. Because even though not being the one that had my head rolled over I guess would be technically "winning", I'm still going to have to defend myself against a vehicular homicide charge or something other such thing, no matter who was at fault.
To be honest, I'm really not sure why we consider bikes to be full-blown vehicles and why we don't allow bikes to ride on sidewalks in less used areas. The one I always hear is that bikes are a hazard to pedestrians, but a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian will cause far less likelihood of death than a collision between a cyclist and a car. If there's a big, wide, empty car-less sidewalk, why not let the bike use it?
For that matter, why aren't cyclists required to be licensed to ride on roads? At least then, as a car driver, I'd know that they know how not to drive into traffic, have at least a passing familiarity with road laws (signaling, wearing a helmet and crazy things like that) and that breaking the law would result in some kind of report on the license. Where I live now, you can get points against your drivers license for breaking the law on the bike, but not if you don't have one.
...no two people are not on fire.
Last time I checked people were getting sued $200000 for taking a $1 song, and then uploading it to 200000 of their mates.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Seriously, put up or shut up. If there really is a law in your city prohibiting cyclists from using a road, I need to know. I ride a bicycle, and everywhere that I know of, it is legal to ride said bike on the road (with the exception of controlled-access freeways).
Please tell me the name of your city, so I can avoid it like the plague.
You don't even need to name your city. Post the text of the by-law that states that bicycles are prohibited from using roads.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Privacy? I don't think so. Bicycling on public streets (with some conditions) is legal in all 50 states.
In my state, a cyclist must right as close to the curb as is practical, but may take the lane "on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side." The law also allows for choosing a lane position that avoids other hazards.
You're not paranoid -Âjust misinformed. Can you cite one state (you've claimed to live in the U.S.) that doesn't permit cyclists on roadways?
I got hit by a bike riding the wrong way down the street at a high speed. Did almost 2K dammage to my car.
I guess we all get bees in our bonnets over this stuff. To be fair, AFAICT it's not normally commuting cyclists that wind me up - they tend to be pretty alert. Most town cyclists seem to pay attention, even if they bend the road rules and weave in and out more than I'd prefer (I would like a dash-mounted video camera with a 60 second buffer though - I'd hate to have to defend myself in the event of an accident without it, it's amazing how quickly witnesses disappear when something like happens.)
It's the convoy-forming recreational weekenders around here that bug me - I'm sure it's great to take the whole family out for a ride and enjoy the fresh air and the scenery, but the queue of drivers behind you probably have places to get.
As for lane hogging - if you need it for safety, go for it. Believe it or not, I actually prefer this - as a driver who isn't going to overtake you until I'm damn sure it's safe, I prefer it if the cars behind me can see that you've given me no choice.
Funny, I know plenty of folks with firearms in their cars and trucks as well.
The whole point of "Sharing the road" is lost on motorist and cyclist alike, it seems. I bike from time to time, and drive a car most of the time. I get the fuck out of the way when I'm on a bike, and I give plenty of space and pass when safe when I am in my car.
This isn't difficult, folks, have some courtesy both ways.
Cyclists tend to have some kind of complex more often than not, though. I'd have more respect for the group as a whole if I actually witnessed more of them following the rules of the road, and respecting the masses of metal that can kill them in an instant.
This "Cars vs Bikes" argument is old and played out. I'm a cyclist who drives occasionally and I'm a driver who bikes for fun. I can understand the frustration on both sides of the issue. I don't tend to give much though to the law, but in this case having rules to follow keeps both parties safe, happy and on-time. For the most part, both the drivers and cyclists I have encountered have followed those rules, and so I don't know why these internet discussions get so heated. When I'm in a car my mild inconvenience is worth your safety as a cyclist, and if I'm on my bike, respecting traffic signals and right-of-way doesn't significantly decrease my own travel time. No one should be in such a hurry that they put their safety and the safety of others at risk. Admittedly, though I regularly participate in Seattle's Critical Mass, which damages my moral standing in the argument.
More on topic, this idea isn't really that great. It all depends on how it is implemented and marketed. Something like this might give a self-righteous rider more encouragement. It does seem like it could be useful, merely as a visibility tool, but the pattern that is projected probably has as big an effect on the inflation of the riders sense of importance as it does on the driver's visibility of the rider, and so I'm not sure the 'bike lane' metaphor is the best choice.
Shriver
And a thousand thousand slimy things
Lived on; and so did I.
I live in Charlotte, NC where there are a good amount of suberbia bike lanes and wide roads, but I still see problems with the system. The way the US does bike lanes doesn't work as well as having a dedicated mini-road like I saw in Europe. I visited Helsinki last summer and the bike lanes are amazing. Every road I saw had a separate asphalt road approximately 5-6 feet wide for pedestrians and bikes...including downtown. I felt comfortable riding my cousin's bike there to get places. In the US, there's this expectation that if you're riding a bike, you're riding a bike in rediculous looking spandex biking gear as a company billboard and doing it as a sport on a fast bike. You are shunned for doing it just to get somewhere close in your normal clothes on a normal bike...as a matter of fact, its downright dangerous to ride like that on the roads. It is not seen as a means of travel, it is seen as a recreation, which is where some of the driver agitation comes from. This also reinforces the isolated suberbia situation that appears in so many neighborhoods: You're locked into a small world until you get a car. This only breeds further discontent for bikes and praise for cars. I realize the cost of these separate lanes, but I think they are incredible and was one of the most impressive things I noticed about Finland (that and the mass transit). To be fair, sprawling southern cities in the US do not make bikes practical. However, they COULD be practical for short distance travel to the nearby strip mall if something like this was in place.
Next time you're in Kent, UK I will :-)
Some nice ideas in that presentation, though it's difficult to interpret some of it in terms in UK road designs. Looking at the road markings seems to imply that cyclists on sidepaths have priority when crossing side roads? Eek. Bringing them closer to the road is definitely a win.
Shared space / home zone-type ideas are appropriate in some residential areas too - it's unnerving as a driver to start with, but negotiating (eye-contact, etc.) with other road users in these sort of spaces is fairer, and strangely, apparently, safer (I guess it takes away the "Nuremberg defence" for drivers who just follow the road markings without paying attention.)
I can empathize with someone getting sued for that much; yeah, they broke the law, and they should probably have to pay a penalty for that. Should they have to lose their house? I think that's a bit excessive.
What is the cost of a law-abiding cyclist to you? Are you an extra 5 seconds late to work in the morning because you had to slow down briefly to pass safely? Gee, I sure can empathize with that. Yessirree, I couldn't care less. Oh, wait - that's not empathy. That's apathy. Sorry, I get those confused.
Perhaps you should encourage your local municipality to add more bike lanes to roads, and add more bike paths separate from roads. We'd all be happier for it.
For small numbers of cars, or in towns or other low speed limit areas, certainly not. I do think, though, that there's an argument to be made that on derestricted, major country roads a convoy of cyclists is as much of an obstruction as a tractor or similar vehicle, and I think the highway code over here suggests, even if it doesn't mandate, that the civilized thing to do if you're a tractor with a huge queue behind you is to find a safe place to pull over.
The real answer of course is more decent cross-country dedicated cycle routes.
Some motorists do have what I see as too great a sense of entitlement, particularly in towns where there are lots of non-motorized road users, and usually reasonable alternatives to cars. Out of town though, I think we're entitled to a reasonably efficient flow of traffic -- particularly as in the UK, there is often little room for road widening, bypass-building, etc., etc.
In my life, I cannot recall a cyclist doing something jerk-wad-ish on the road. I can only recall a few incidents of motorcyclists being reckless. Yet, EVERY WEEK I have at least once incident with some dumbass in a car doing something thoughtless, reckless, or stupid. This week I had a woman cruising the wrong way through the parking garage who ran me off the ramp, an idiot who pulled into a parking space and immediately decided to dive back into traffic without looking, and a neighbor who backed up his truck into the road without looking for cars. I've never understood how drivers can be so annoyed by the few minutes of their lives inconvenienced by having to navigate around bikes. Do you not understand that your 2 ton vehicle will KILL people if you aren't careful? There is NO competition and even if a cyclist was being careless, you're going to end up with maybe a dent while he'll end up in traction for a year.
Instead of all the bitching about the "slow bikes" in front of you, how about you put down your damned cell phone and pay attention to the road?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Where I live (Costa Rica) it is a tidbit better than where I used to live before (Hungary)
You must have an AWESOME accent.
Comment of the year
Again, if a road isn't designed for traffic other than motor vehicles, it's posted. Look for the signs on on-ramps. Otherwise, it's for cars, bikes, horses, pedestrians, or whoever else wants to safely use it.
Roads were around long before cars.
this is the law here in CA.
look sig is kool
The law in Washington State is that you must pull over if you're obstructing 5 vehicles or more. Of course driving laws vary by state.
Comment of the year
Must be a west coast thing. In ever state i've been in (eastern only), motorcyles can't split lanes, ride side by side, or even actually share a parking space (that last one I personally feel is overboard, but I do believe it's the law in PA at least).
Sorry to hear you hit a fraudster.. thats the problem when creating laws like "tailgaters are always at fault." It takes any reasonableness out of the picture. Glad he got ticketed though.
Sure. But even if you're at fault if you know the magic words*, you can normally get off with a slap on the wrist. It'll cost some fines and maybe some license points, but no jail time and probably not even license suspension.
Personally, when I'm on a bike, I'd much rather have the cars pass me than sit behind me doing my speed. The speed limit's 45, I'm climbing a hill, there's plenty of room, PASS me already, don't sit behind me like a vulture waiting for his prey to stop moving.
*"I didn't see him"
Don't forget the fact that the car commuters are far more likely to become obese and thereby a burden on healthcare systems, at the expense of everyone else. Oh, and there's pollution. And braindead urban planning that makes it impossible to get anywhere without a car. And drunk driving. And gruesome car accidents...
you bike through devil's slide? you're insane! sure it's pretty and all but the grades and the tight corners...
I don't understand peeps who bike on highway 1 between sf and stinson beach either, but up mt. tam, at least that's kind of a multi-use road.
not that i'm saying you have no right to those roads, i'm just saying you're insane :)
(btw my greatest fear when I was a motorcyclist were bicyclists on those roads, I'm so glad nothing bad ever happened, scared the shit out of me that as I came into a corner at... some great rate of speed there's be a bike right past the apex a little too far into the road)
closed minded is as closed minded does
Sorry son, my Judo and BJJ beats your Tai Chi or Korean art (guffaw). Most cyclists I've seen are emaciated, and would likely get curb stomped if they'd try to make it physical.
1. I'm not your son - my dad is in his eighties... and
2. You forget that there are plenty of cyclists out there who don't shave their legs and who are built like brick shithouses. Plus the fact that a cleated shoe is serious medicine that can do an awful lot of damage. Guffaw all you want, but you'll look pretty damn stupid if you have to stick your toothbrush up your ass to clean your teeth.
As far as I know, only California allows splitting lanes. When I got out there, several people did it to me, and I thought they were completely nuts. I'd seen the occasional bike do it in other cities, and they were clearly nuts.
I had been told it was because the CHP was riding air-cooled Harley Davison's back in the day. They couldn't sit in the traffic without overheating, so the state passed a resolution allowing the police to split lanes. There was outrage from other air-cooled motorcycle owners who had the same overheating problems, so they modified the resolution to allow any motorcycle to do it. I don't know how legitimate the story is, but that's how I heard it.
Then again, as I was told by many people out there, the life expectancy of a motorcycle rider in Los Angeles county is 6 months. They'll either be badly injured or killed. Hell, I didn't feel safe in my car out there most of the time. It's not the speed they drive at, but how bad they do it. I saw lots and lots (and lots) of traffic jams. I had more near misses in traffic at 40mph or less in a few years, than I had cumulative in the rest of my life.
When I moved back to the East coast, I felt like I had forgotten how to drive fast. I hopped on I-75 to go somewhere, and the slow traffic was doing 85mph. Ahhh, I love the East coast. It took me a few weeks to remember to accelerate to 90mph on the on-ramps so I'd be sure to be up to the traffic speed.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
"ignore lanes clearly marked for them (why they DON'T right in the dedicated lanes that DO exist is beyond me)"
This is because (at least where I live) the effen lane is full of all sort of debris from wrecked cars. Not only do we have to avoid gravel brought on the road by cars, but we also have glass, spark plugs, nuts bolts, head lights, broken everythings, bumpers etc..
While the suspension in my car may feel almost every pebble (it's my stiffy) Bikes have little to no suspension, and those that have "good" suspension cost a lot of dough. I've got a Hardtail w/ front suspension and lockouts for road riding. I have to stay to the very Left of the bike lane in order to avoid flats. I'm burning through a tire in 1000mi instead of 3k and I'm riding on on Kevlar. This makes the tires on my bike more expensive per mile than the tires on my car! In fact it's almost 4x more expensive / mile.
I live in a fairly bike friendly place, Olympia, WA. though not as friendly as say, Denver, CO. we have some trails and lots of bike lanes, but they are not maintained, and so they do no good to us.
The only thing I can think of would be like telling an average person (non-suv) that they have to commuteon a logging road w/ broken glass bottles mixed in with the gravel. They'd take one look at you and say you're crazy, but us cyclists (and I'm a car enthusiast as well) have to do that every day we ride. God forbid if we fall in that mix of dirt, grease and skin shredders.
When I drive, I treat cyclists and motorcycles as if they were semi-trucks. (minus the drafting part)
Thanks for your input, and I hope this enlightens you a touch to the hardships we face as cyclists.
P.S. I just got the derailer hanger for my bike! I get to ride to work again!
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Why are you trying to pass on a blind curve? Would you try and pass a slow farm vehicle on a blind curve? So why do you try and pass a bike?
Just wait. Most decent cyclists will move to the side when they think it's safe (e.g. when they see the road ahead is straight and clear) to let you pass.
Wow, can it be that there are no decent cyclists in Portland? I've seen a bike let people pass maybe twice in my 3 years in this city. I greatly appreciated it both times.
Why does he/she get to slow us all down to the bikes speed?
Oh dear! Do you slow down for old women crossing the road? That probably delays you more than a bicycle.
Well, yes, but my reaction "OMG WTF is this old woman doing walking in the middle of a winding mountain road?!". Now why should my reaction to a bik going 5mphe when I'm coming around a blind curve be any different?
I definitely don't want to hurt you, and I am offended that you think you can put me at risk any time you please.
You are the one with the dangerous vehicle, so you carry the responsibility. It's *you* that puts everyone around you at risk whenever you drive somewhere. You should do everything you can to keep that risk to a minimum, which includes giving vulnerable road users space when you pass them, or being patient when you can't.
Yes, but you see thats' why we drive our dangerous vehicles only on the places specifically allotted for them to drive on. Don't be a dick: stick to the bike path.
I was stopped at a traffic light one time, to make a left turn (on bike)... This was on a normally 2-lane road (one each direction), with a third lane at the intersection for a right-turn lane.
A guy in a trailer truck was making a right turn onto the road - after making the turn, he stopped his truck and took a minute to yell out the window about how bikes shouldn't be on the road, and how he could have hit me (I was well within my lane, and he didn't hit any of the cars in front of or behind me), how I should be on the sidewalk, etc...
It's frustrating, the level of misinformation that's out there about where bikes should be. Fortunately, on my route to/from work it's mostly residential roads without too much traffic - I can generally get from place to place without inconveniencing others too much and without drivers hassling me...
I believe the law here (Massachusetts) is that there are some places where bikes are expected to use sidewalks - I think it was industrial areas or something.
Bow-ties are cool.
It also means that I must give you 3 feet of clearance when passing (so none of that darting down the middle of two lanes of stopped traffic that some bikers and motorcycles like to do).
Yeah, seriously. I like to bike to work - but I hate when people take "I have a small vehicle" to mean "I have free rein to weasel my way through traffic anywhere I'll fit." It's disrespectful and it's reckless.
Bow-ties are cool.
What annoys me and other drivers is that cyclists will obey the law when it suits them.
You might not be aware of this since your powers of reasoning seem lacking, but cyclists are not one giant collective controlled by a hive mind.
Quite true... But it's also true that the folks doing this shit are making the rest of us look bad by association. Whether or not drivers manage to distinguish between responsible cyclists and irresponsible ones, the irresponsible ones are still a problem for cyclists in general.
Bow-ties are cool.
It isn't illegal for motorcycles to ride side-by-side in all states. In some it is allowed, at least in certain circumstances.
here effectively recognize bicycles as legitimate users of the road in their laws, either by defining them as vehicles, or by giving riders the the responsibilities and privileges of other vehicle operators (citation: http://bikelaws.org/ ).
A few states have special restrictions, such as using a bike path if possible. Four states require bicycles to use the shoulder of the road, but not when that would be hazardous.
There have been periodic laws to ban bicycles from the road, or to mandate really stupid things like riding against traffic, but they have universally been rejected at the state level. A few additional requirements may apply in your jurisdiction to bicycles (e.g. helmets, and audible signals). A very small number of localities have restrictive bike ordinances. But the default and overwhelmingly most common case is that bicycles have legal rights to use roads other than limited access highways.
So we are to outlaw pedestrians? Get rid of crosswalks?
I know about cyclists getting hit. A good friend of mine was killed while riding by a hit and run driver. He didn't have to die, but the driver didn't call an ambulance. He left him in a ditch to die. So should we outlaw cars based on this? No. It was an irresponsible driver that killed him.
It is quite possible for cars and bikes to share the road at an acceptable level of risk. It's not so hard. We just have to enforce the law. The most fundamental law is responsible operation of your type vehicle. For cars this means to drive at reasonable speeds with awareness of what is or may be ahead of you. It's not any different than what you have to do to avoid hitting stranded motorists. For bicycles it means riding in the normal direction, using hand signals, and not swerving or weaving into traffic unpredictably.
Naturally they are angry at you (if you live here in the US). You're trying to stop them from doing something they have a perfect right to do. If I told you you couldn't walk down the sidewalk or sit on a park bench, you wouldn't like it either. So in a sense, it is like the things you are talking about. The difference is a matter of degree, not kind.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I do not know if it is actually AWESOME, but a strong one for sure ...... kind of like a German / Eastern European one.... strange, even after 8 years of speaking English almost exclusively at home and at work, with some Spanish now on the side......
Actually people tell me that I am influencing my wife's accent in English which is really scary as she is a native Spanish/English speaker.
People have "GIVE BIKES THE RIGHT" bumper stickers everywhere around here. You couldn't ask for a better public attitude toward bikes. But I would never take up a lane, even here.
I try to figure out bike routes that stay on residential streets. So I end up finding a lot of streets that turn out to be such convenient shortcuts for cars as well that they need to install traffic calming crap everywhere. People just tear through at 50 mph both ways down these little streets on their way from one major road to another- according to those big speedometers along the side of the road. On one street the traffic calming includes a bottleneck with only one tight lane admitting one car at a time (going either way). I was biking through this thing one morning when some guy showed up behind me and was amazed OMG he had to slow down to follow a bike that was blocking his lane. He started tailgating really closely and honking. Then after we escaped the bottleneck, I went into the bike lane. So did he- I had a stalker! He was cruising down the door zone right with me. And he kept up the honking and tailgating until we passed the speed bumps and then he FLOORED it to pass really close- the way people do when they're trying to make a point. There are just too many of these idiots to take advantage of California law.
You aren't really a man until you've slammed into a car at 20 mph anyway. I was coming down a hill once- occupying the middle of a lane in fact. But I was behind an old dude. The light turned yellow just as he reached the intersection, he slammed on his brakes, and I crashed into him. It was basically just a fender bender, only with no fender, just a bike, which makes it a totally different sort of experience. In that split second- with my bike twirling up and to the side, my tires spinning into the air, and my torso rolling up the trunk of an Oldsmobile- I became a man.
I had no broken bones or injuries; my bike just got an ugly scratch on the frame. (I'm not sure about the old dude and his car- he calmly took off as soon as the light turned green.) But there's just no two ways about it. Smashing into a car on a bike just looks totally not cool to anyone who is around to see. I had to slink away to avoid being recognized.
Parent poster here. Actually, I agree with you. I don't ride in the middle of the road for extended periods of time. There's probably the next set of lights within 90 seconds anyway, where I'll catch right back up to traffic that squeezed past me.
The law here makes it a crime to travel less than 20kph below the speed limit on a highway. This doesn't apply to residential roads, but perhaps it's useful as a guide. That means if you're travelling less than 30k you shouldn't be obstructing traffic flow. Or conversely, motorists should be ready to slow down to 30kph if necessary. If you'd prefer to use a geometric relationship, use 40kph instead. That's probably slightly faster than cruising speed on level ground, but not significantly so.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
i wish we could get motorcycle lanes in california... do you guys know how many times i've almost been killed in the last few years?
that is correct, no one cares. But for those who do too many...
It's not even about space, it comes down to ass hats and fookers who just don't care about others. There's plenty of space, just not with an ass hat.
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
And just like the tractor, if cyclists ARE impeding the flow of traffic, they MUST move off the road and let traffic pass. In most places impeding the normal flow of traffic is also illegal.
What kind of "most places" is that? The USA? Because it doesn't apply in most of the world.
look sig is kool
Regardless of the legality of whether a motorist is responsible for dooring a cyclist, the cyclist is who gets hurt or killed, so it is the cyclists personal responsibility to stay OUT OF THE DOOR ZONE. (people just forget to check their mirror all the time, it will never change, no matter what the law says. and don't forget the taxicab passengers! i've had two doorings from them in my career. one of them was when a cab stopped abruptly mid block right ahead of me. i saw this coming as soon as the cab was stopping so i hit the brakes too but still slammed hard into the door as it swung open... and the lady in the cab cursed me out for interrupting her ability to exit the cab! i was so shocked i didn't know what to say. "bitch" comes to mind.)
look sig is kool
Acting within you granted legal rights in not taking an "unassailable moral high ground". This is the first obvious problem, which is that people do not respect the legal status of bikers as traffic. If anything, you're assuming a moral high ground, by not treating fellow transports as equals. You have an impact on those around you as well, including bikers. We don't have a second class status on the road, and you don't get ambulatory priority just because you're in a car. You also have to keep in mind that the vulnerable party here, safety wise, are the bikers. This is why we often ride in ways that slow down traffic and increase our visibility. If you have a problem with bikers acting in ways to ensure their safety, than you really have a problem with the law, which grants equal access to the roads for bikes. As long as we are acting within our legal rights, we're not the ones at fault.
As long as the roads are to be used by everyone with equal right of access, including bikers, you're going to have to gain some patience.
Bike riders don't pay for the roads
Wow, you're saying cyclists are exempt from paying taxes? Awesome, I'm going to become a cyclist.
As the operator of a motor vehicle, which is a dangerous machine, it's up to you to act responsibly. It's more than just your life at stake when you drive recklessly. A bicyclist has little chance of damaging anyone but himself if he's reckless.
This is exactly the attitude that gives bicyclists a bad name. A reckless bicyclist can easily cause a fatal accident if a car loses control while trying to avoid wiping the bicyclist in question out. It is the responsibility of both parties to drive or ride safely.
Absolutely drivers have a responsibility to drive safely, but bicyclists who wish to use the road must assume the same responsibilities, those who do not are simply dangerous obstacles. Most of the behaviors the GP was complaining about are not legal for *any* occupant of the road. You must stop at every stop sign and red light. You cannot merge into traffic without waiting for a safe opportunity.
The primary reason for anti-biker hate is due to the simple fact that bicycles are much smaller than cars: this causes our primitive ape-brain's status/power-hierarchy analysis system to kick in. It's not based on rationality or logic, it's simply the fact that humans are just apes, and millions of years of evolution has hammered into our brains the primary importance of relative physical size in establishing and meting out dominance hierarchies. "Me big car, you little bicycle, oog oog".
It's simple, really, and once you realise it, it explains so much of the heated "debate" around what really ought to be a non-issue.
It's a small price to pay for some peace of mind.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I don't know what tractors do in your parts, but in these parts they pull over onto the median/curb to allow for traffic to pass (if indeed there's enough physical room). They'll also take back roads if at all possible so as to avoid impeding trafficked areas (which only makes sense, as that is what the roads were designed for - motor vehicles not over 8' in width).
Oh yeah, and an overwide truck (pulling, say, a house) a a tractor will be pulled over and ticketed if it has the pathetic amount of lighting/signaling/signage that these cycle trains tend to have. (I'm surprised more cops don't pull the cycle trains over, to be honest - 3+ moving/lighting/signaling violations is probably a full shift quota.)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
If I am walking or riding a bike, I always yield to a motor vehicle. I have completely pulled over a number of times while riding a bike due to road conditions not allowing for the vehicle to safely pass me. Why?
Because motor vehicle operation costs money by the mile and minute. They are paying for gas, and that gas is burned and turned into what we tend to consider pollutants. While they might not all be as anal-retentive about not wasting gas or polluting the environment, it seems like a pretty rational courtesy. If I'm walking or riding a bike, chances are I'm not valuing my time in that specific situation as I am exercising and/or recreating - or I'm doing those things while commuting, in which case I've factored in a marked additional amount of time to account for my lower speed and motor vehicle traffic. It seems to me to be the rational (and civil) thing to do.
I think a large part of cyclist elitism might stem from a mentality which is still in "treadmill" mode. They're doing it for exercise, and they've got to hit x miles in y minutes or they're out of shape (or whatever). Or maybe they're in the (flawed) mindset that stops/slowdowns = inefficiency, a holdover from driving in a car. Too many of these cyclists use the laws as an excuse for their immature behavior to boot.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Well, why don't cyclists pedal faster then? If it's a 35 mph road, go 35 mph, and no one will bother you. Many of us don't think of motorcycles as a burden, as we think of bikes. Then again, your sentence, "So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm in favor of making it illegal for them to drive ANYWHERE except on the freeways." can be seen as pro-cyclists and anti-cyclists that I think you might be trying to be sarcastic, especially with the caps. I have no clue what you're trying to do here. Have a nice long weekend!
What if someone driving in front of a cyclist slows down to 5 mph and the cyclist has no way of passing. Is the cyclist going to just follow at 5 mph and excuse the driver? Will the cyclist not feel even a little tiny bit of frustration?
I think you're including the cost of having your vehicle inspected, and compulsory 3rd party insurance in your calculations. Neither of these go to government coffers.
Actual rates can be found here (for NSW, other states may vary): http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/otherinformation/registrationfees.html
As long as the roads are to be used by everyone with equal right of access, including bikers, you're going to have to gain some patience.
I'll remember that next time I'm in town and see the cyclists weaving dangerously through the slow moving (but not stationary) traffic, jumping red lights, and going the wrong way up one-way streets.
Mind you, my most recent horrifying experience was a roller-blader, in the cycle lane, going *against* the flow of the traffic, with headphones in .. *and* texting. I saw her again a few hours later this time on the pavement (sidewalk), so obviously natural selection didn't take its course that time.
Ed you ARE an ignorant fuckwit spreading dis-information. You are either deliberately trolling or truly ignorant of the law. It is expressly legal to ride a bicycle on all public roads in the USA, with the exception of some freeways and highways and bridges. This is fact. It is also legal to walk and ride horses as well. Are you honestly suggesting that people should be denied the right to freely move about their country if they don't have a car? They couldn't go to school, work, the hospital, etc...
But please don't let the facts or truth sway your fantasy reality.
That seems like a fairly reasonable point.
However, most cyclists, in my limited, experience are also drivers and so do have some idea of the view point of the motorist. However, sadly, it doesn't follow the other way around. I've met many fellow motorists who have no idea what it's like on the roads to be either a cyclist or a motorcyclist.
Now I realise that most people who make jokes about running cyclists over and hosing their cars down are just being flippant (They wouldn't want to dent their cars! :P ) but it feels completely different when I'm passing through a constricted piece of road and a less experienced driver tries to squeeze through for the sake of 20 seconds rather than wait for me to pass through first.
Something like this lane painting gadget would be useful not because cyclists own the roads (we don't) but because it would give a guide to less experienced drivers of how much room they need to safely perform an overtaking manoeuvre.
By the way, not sure about the US but in the UK the motorist specifically doesn't own the road either. The tax disc we buy is Vehicle Excise Duty not road tax. This was changed sometime ago (1940s I think) so that motorists couldn't make that claim. Nominally, our roads are paid for out a different pot of tax (what we call council tax). I only mention this as in this thread I've often seen replies from fellow motorists that seem to think they have a priority on the roads.
I think a large part of cyclist elitism might stem from a mentality which is still in "treadmill" mode.
Aha. That crystallizes an idea I was groping towards but couldn't verbalize. Yes. It explains why country cyclists bother me more than town cyclists, too, I think. There's a bloody great hill just outside of where I work - I have no idea how anybody manages to cycle up it at all, but I do know that nobody does it very fast. It's a very twisty road, very few places where it's safe to overtake, and to be fair there aren't that many places a cyclist could safely pull over either -- but nobody uses the ones that *do* exist. Also, IIRC, there's a footpath that runs parallel (albeit a fair distance away) to that road, which could be turned into a cycle route if some money was thrown at it.
It's easy enough to have one's judgement swamped by testosterone while driving, I guess it's even easier when cycling.
That's because you live in a densely populated area, where nobody could go more than 5 mph even if they wanted to.
With less cars, there's plenty of room for everybody else to go faster than that. When city centers clog up, it's cars that get banned, because they take up most of the space. Put all those people on bikes, and there's no problem.
Except in China of course, where they ban bikes. The bikers can't afford cars, so banning them leaves the streets free for the elite.
Spend an hour on the freeway at 20 mph because there's cyclist blocking the entire road and you'll understand where the bike haters are coming from.
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! :P
An hour!
At 20mph?
For one cyclist?!
Oh, come on, you must be able to safely overtake 1 cyclist in less time than that. I don't believe you've ever been held up for a whole hour by one cyclist, what a load of old bollox!
I highly doubt anyone who can hold 20mph+ average for an hour is not to give you safe pace to pace in one whole hour. For starters, they'd have been run off the road years ago.
Just YOU wait till this happens to you 'cause it aign't happened yet!
Seems a little harsh and sweeping. I've always enjoyed my visits to the US. I find American people particularly friendly even though I currently have no plans to move there. I really don't think there's an excuse for generalisations and racism.
The problem of bad drivers is the same as the problem of bad cyclists giving me a bad name.
This "them and us" is of no help to anyone.
An asshole on a bike in a hurry annoys an asshole on the pavement who then gets in his car. Now said asshole, because he's angry, is driving without his normal due care and attention scares the crap out of the first asshole on the bike.
The upshot of which is that both assholes are now in cars and taking it out on my bike, not because they're drivers (so am I when I'm not cycling) but because they're both assholes, regardless of mode of transport. But in cars they're deadly even if you're also in a car!
We who follow the law need to stick together regardless of how we get about 'cause the assholes are forming a union!
Oh, there are plenty of asses, however, in my experience, only cyclists combine being asses with pretending they have the moral high ground.
I don't know there's plenty of other drivers I've seen who think they have sole right to the road regardless of whether I'm driving or cycling. That high ground works both ways but in a car they're far more likely to kill through stupidity. On a bike they're more likely to only be a danger to themselves.
This thing is mainly to give the inexperienced a helpful guide rather than confer or claim any extra rights for the cyclist. You could put something similar on parked cars as a guide for drivers too. It's nothing to take offence at as an experienced driver or cyclist would leave the correct amount of space anyway.
you're right. when that happens, its usually because of a group of cyclists. I fail to see how that's an important difference though.
I only read the first of your rants, and can only concoct the following reply:
[[citation needed]]
Kid-proof tablet..
Going down devil's slide is fine. You go 40mph without trying and can go up to 45-50 if you put some effort into it. Drivers don't like to go faster than that themselves.
Climbing to the top north to south is a bit sketchy, but the distance that's truly problematic is short and can be timed (both avoiding rush hour and avoiding overtaking traffic).
Climbing south to north is not viable.
----
I've never really been worried about being hit by a motorcycle, unless in dense city traffic. On a road like route 1, motorcycles frequently are limited to normal traffic speeds, and when they aren't they're *loud*.
When you hear (fast) oncoming motorcycles, you can either pull over entirely, or go to the middle where you're more easily seen, and then drop to the shoulder the instant you know you're in view.
Now, if they start making electric motorcycles, I'll be in trouble.
-josh
Pedestrians move unpredictably.
You slow down and say "coming up behind you" or "excuse me" or anything that'll let them know somebody is coming up behind them.
Oh no you don't, because if you do that, they look around and veer right into your path.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
"But bicycles have just as much right to the road "
Why?
Because that's the law. IOW it just happens to be what the majority of people have commonly agreed on historically. Traffic law defines the "common system" that, if followed by everyone, allows the road traffic system to function without degenerating into chaos. If you don't like that law, by all means petition to change it to allow horses and dirt bikes and whatever other drivel you feel like concocting up, but until you manage to change the law, you have to follow it, just like everyone else. You don't have to like it, but you do have to realize that people die if you don't follow our laws or we'll put you in jail.
I'm know of the laws in the UK - all cyclists have the same rights as motor vehicles except on motorways. I'm aware of the laws in the EU, and I'm pretty certain bikes are allowed everywhere except motorways. I'm not aware of all the laws in the USA, so I looked them up. After going through the first four states I could find the laws for, pretty much all four had the same laws as the UK. I failed to find a single state that banned bikes. I'll note that you specifically stated that you live in the US and US law states the bikes aren't allowed on the road. I did some research and demonstrated that your statement was not generally true. Now I'm going to be exceptionally generous and accept that it's possible that I'm incorrect, and those of us in the civilised world are prepared to retract and apologise for our failings. If you can provide me with the appropriate citations of the laws of at least eight states in which cycling is prohibited I'll apologise unreservedly for my ignorance and concede that in general cyclists don't have the right to use the road in the US. If you can provide one citation of one state/city I'll modify my statement of you to either a parochial moron who's blissfully unaware of anything outside his immediate experience, or a disingenuous troll who's deliberately over generalising. If you can't do either, then I think my statement of ignorant fuckwit stands happily on it's own merit.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
and this time with the line breaks, d'oh
I'm know of the laws in the UK - all cyclists have the same rights as motor vehicles except on motorways. I'm aware of the laws in the EU, and I'm pretty certain bikes are allowed everywhere except motorways.
I'm not aware of all the laws in the USA, so I looked them up. After going through the first four states I could find the laws for, pretty much all four had the same laws as the UK. I failed to find a single state that banned bikes.
I'll note that you specifically stated that you live in the US and US law states the bikes aren't allowed on the road. I did some research and demonstrated that your statement was not generally true.
Now I'm going to be exceptionally generous and accept that it's possible that I'm incorrect, and those of us in the civilised world are prepared to retract and apologise for our failings.
If you can provide me with the appropriate citations of the laws of at least eight states in which cycling is prohibited I'll apologise unreservedly for my ignorance and concede that in general cyclists don't have the right to use the road in the US.
If you can provide one citation of one state/city I'll modify my statement of you to either a parochial moron who's blissfully unaware of anything outside his immediate experience, or a disingenuous troll who's deliberately over generalising.
If you can't do either, then I think my statement of ignorant fuckwit stands happily on it's own merit.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
If he is Canadian he's very misguided. The particular quote was, "I live in the U.S. Where I am, unless there is a bike lane, you are not allowed to be in lanes designated for motorists." My experience of Canadians is they really don't like be mistaken for Yanks :-)
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
1) It IS illegal where I live. 2) Regardless of legality, it places people in very real danger since bicycles and cars were NOT designed to share these roads.
This is a very silly line of argument in being neither correct nor generally applicable.
It is legal to cycle on roads where I (and every poster other than you) live.
The roads were designed for roman legions, pedestrians and horses. Bicycles came later. Cars came even later.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)