Bicyclists have started doing a new thing that makes me furious

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
snip


It looks more like a lack of skill in evading than an intentional crash. If you watch the slow motion video, it appears that he loses traction on his back tire (probably due to excessive braking), reduces the angle of his turn to compensate, and then runs into the car.

And this is part of why we need mandated insurance, licensing, and tags.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
snip

Now, I live in a somewhat rural area and I seek out back country roads for my cycling needs. But people who bitch about cyclists in urban areas are fucking retarded. Do you have any idea what would happen to your commute if you got what you asked for, and they all started driving? Yeah, you might have to slow down now and then right now, but imagine increasing traffic by x%. Get a grip.

I have not read anywhere where people want bikes off the road.


What we want, is equal treatment. Tags, tax, insurance, and accountability via issuing tickets.

Personally I feel as though intentionally holding a lane and refusing to allow traffic to pass should be against the law. If you want to ride in the road, stay on the side and allow cars to pass you. Law or no law, this holding the lane business is a great way to get yourself killed.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
No way he deliberately sought contact.
He was too fast to stop in a straight line, and tried to turn with the car. Doing this under braking is extremely difficult - anyone who ever braked mid-turn on a two-wheeled vehicle will know this. The back will always step out, and if you're unlucky you may get understeer as well - which on a bike means you end up on the ground.
This is exactly what happened in that video. Back stepped out, needs to let go of the brakes to correct rear slip angle, and therefore doesn't make a clean, tight turn. Not that I believe that from the moment the driver broke the law, to the moment he crashed into, that was possible. Zero intent, and I also doubt target fixation had anything to do with it. The space he had to avoid by turning with the car was simply too tight for the turn angle and approach speed.

The other rider had absolutely zero problem slowing down. As a matter of fact, he was screaming at the other guy to stop.


Looks completely intentional to me. If we didn't have the other rider as a reference it could go either way, but the other rider had plenty of room.

This rider who caused the accident slowed down, then appears to let off the brakes and coast right into the car.
 

BikeJunkie

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2013
1,390
0
0
I have not read anywhere where people want bikes off the road.

I read this thread start to finish last night and encountered that sentiment a number of times. I'm not going to go digging for it now though, so if you're stating that you recognize cyclists' right to the road, I'm prepared to take it at face value and leave it at that :thumbsup:

What we want, is equal treatment. Tags, tax, insurance, and accountability via issuing tickets.

I don't take issue with this, but only because I know it will serve to ease motorists' minds and give them a "win" they apparently need. If taking an irrelevant argument off the table costs me a few bucks annually, so be it. Just out of curiosity, should we also discuss the licensing and taxation of pedestrians who walk along the roads when no sidewalks are available?

Motorist/cyclist education is far more important than fees, taxes, and bike lanes... the latter of which are useless and dangerous in many cases, and only invite more problems than they solve thanks to neither party really understanding how they're supposed to work.

Personally I feel as though intentionally holding a lane and refusing to allow traffic to pass should be against the law.

That may be your wish, but it's not against the law. A lot of motorist aggression comes from people like you refusing to accept that. If you think the law should be changed, then go for it. But it's still the law nonetheless. This is directly supported by cyclists' right to the road, by the way.

That said, you've implied a certain intent on the part of the cyclist. You don't seem to understand the cyclists' perspective in this situation, so let me explain what's really happening there:

First and foremost, as a cyclist, I would love nothing more than to have you in front of me rather than behind me. A cyclist who holds his lane is refusing you nothing. Let's be very, very clear about that. A cyclist is under no obligation to ride too close to the shoulder to be safe, or to invite a hazardous (and illegal) pass attempt by you. Passing the cyclist is your burden, not his, just as passing a car is solely your burden. It is not - and should not be - a cooperative effort. You may pass legally when:

1. There is no oncoming traffic
2. You can get around the cyclist with at least 3 feet of clearance (in some areas... this is a new and spreading law and is not implemented everywhere)

It is not the cyclist's responsibility to assist you with these requirements. In fact, this is why some cyclists, especially when oncoming traffic is present, will ride center-lane. They're making damn sure you you don't try to squeeze your all-important-impatient-self between them and an oncoming vehicle. Why? Because when you inevitably miscalculate and then must decide between a head-on collision with another car or chucking a cyclist 30 feet off the road, you'll assail the cyclist every time.

In other words, we're helping you make a better decision and helping you execute a legal pass.

In very, very plain words: if you're executing a legal pass, the cyclist's position in his lane does not affect you one. single. bit. PERIOD. It only affects you if you're trying to do something dangerous, illegal, stupid, and selfish.

If you want to ride in the road, stay on the side and allow cars to pass you. Law or no law, this holding the lane business is a great way to get yourself killed.

You are wrong on countless levels. See above. Riding center lane is a right, it has no bearing on law-abiding motorists, and it actually solves more problems than it creates.... for both of us.

You'll arrive at your destination all in a huff because you lost 10 seconds on your drive, but I get to live and you get to not go to prison.
 
Last edited:

BikeJunkie

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2013
1,390
0
0
Looks completely intentional to me.

Until you have experience on both sides of this, you really would do well to stop making so many uneducated assertions. You have no idea what was going on with that cyclist. Several theories have already been presented here, each of which are quite valid.

This rider who caused the accident slowed down

As per the LAW, the motorist caused the accident. You can keep trying to make things up, but your fantasies have no bearing on reality.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
In my opinion bicycles shouldn't be on any road that doesn't have a designated bike lane or a shoulder wider than 3 feet. Roads simply weren't designed to have cars and bikes sharing them and forcing cars cars traveling at 60mph+ to dodge bikes like obstacles is only asking for an accident.

Agree. I do find it ironic that the same people who would think that this is OK (bikes on the main highway) complain that people in the left lane driving a car could be causing accidents because they aren't going fast enough (even if going at or above speed limit).
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,083
11,267
136
Wow, I'd love to see how some of you guys would cope with driving around Europe in the summer and coming across a peloton in the road ahead of you. I'm thinking bricks would be shat and heads would be exploded. :)
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
I would gladly run that asshole over, take his camera and film me kicking him in the head. He's a twatdouche.

This this this.

Holy shit, what an asshole. I'm sure he loves holding up a motorist by going 20 mph in a 30+ mph zone.

Roads were not designed for bicycles, they were designed for automobiles. Bicycles should only be operated where it is safe to do so and without impeding the intended flow of traffic -- namely cars and motorcycles traveling at a high rate of speed.

The simple solution is to require a license plate for bicycles that travel outside of residential roads. The fees collected will go into a general fund for adding bike lanes to county roads, highways, and city roadways.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
This rider who caused the accident slowed down, then appears to let off the brakes and coast right into the car.

Are you having trouble keeping your bullshit straight? You repeatedly insisted that he didn't slow down.

Imagine that the driver is black, wearing a hoodie, and listening to loud rap music. Who's at fault now?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,083
11,267
136
This this this.

Holy shit, what an asshole. I'm sure he loves holding up a motorist by going 20 mph in a 30+ mph zone.

Roads were not designed for bicycles, they were designed for automobiles. Bicycles should only be operated where it is safe to do so and without impeding the intended flow of traffic -- namely cars and motorcycles traveling at a high rate of speed.

The simple solution is to require a license plate for bicycles that travel outside of residential roads. The fees collected will go into a general fund for adding bike lanes to county roads, highways, and city roadways.

Thing is bikes are perfectly safe to use its when theres arsehole car drivers that go "OMG I COULD BE GOING MARGINALLY FASTER... MUST OVERTAKE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!>>!!" that it makes it unsafe.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
Thing is bikes are perfectly safe to use its when theres arsehole car drivers that go "OMG I COULD BE GOING MARGINALLY FASTER... MUST OVERTAKE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!>>!!" that it makes it unsafe.

Rofl, please.... My office is less than 10 minutes of 2 lane roads from my home on a normal traffic day. When it's nice out, it's not uncommon for my drive to be almost 20 minutes purely due to idiot cyclists refusing to take 20 seconds off their workout routine by pulling over to let people pass.

Instead, there ends up being a line of 10-15 cars slowly coasting along, all trying to pass the idiot. So 10-15 people, 10 minutes each, that's a couple hours total added to the commute time. A couple hours of $$ work lost. A couple hours more emissions dumped into the environment. All because the selfish cyclist refuses to pull off the road or even ride on the side of the road for 20-30 seconds.


And then we get to the turdciclist who weaves to the front of red lights, adding more frustrated people who have to dangerously try to pass them and more lost time for commuters all because they can't handle staying in traffic like everyone else. Like I keep saying.... These selfish cyclists want the best of both worlds. They want to be treated like cars, but go apeshit if they're passed like a slow car. They want to be treated like cars, except for at red lights when they hobble to the front of the light. And on and on.


Thank goodness in my area they are getting NO support. People are beyond fed up with how rude they are and won't hesitate to blast past them at the first marginal opportunity.
 

BikeJunkie

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2013
1,390
0
0
Thing is bikes are perfectly safe to use its when theres arsehole car drivers that go "OMG I COULD BE GOING MARGINALLY FASTER... MUST OVERTAKE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!>>!!" that it makes it unsafe.

This x 1000

It's the idiots who are oblivious/indifferent to the laws (and just basic human decency) that make things unsafe. If YOU morons would follow the law and put your iPhones down for the duration of your drive, there'd be nothing unsafe about driving/cycling.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
This x 1000

It's the idiots who are oblivious/indifferent to the laws (and just basic human decency) that make things unsafe. If YOU morons would follow the law and put your iPhones down for the duration of your drive, there'd be nothing unsafe about driving/cycling.

Pull over, let people pass, stop breaking any law which hinders you, stop supporting lobbyists who block tax/tag/license/insure bills and most of all stop supporting idiots like the British guy and his behaviour.

Treat the motorists who pay for the roads like you want to be treated and your group wouldn't be so despised by everyone in a vehicle.
 

TXHokie

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 1999
2,558
176
106
I ride bike and I also drive a big truck. The only law I care about is the Law of Physics. 250 lbs man and bike vs a 4000 lbs car/truck. It won't matter who's right when they have to scrape you off the road with a shovel.
 

BikeJunkie

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2013
1,390
0
0
Pull over, let people pass

Get a law passed that says it's my duty to do so, and I gladly will. Until then, YOU need to pass legally and safely, and stop taking your displeasure of the law out on cyclists.

stop breaking any law which hinders you

Says the guy who thinks a cyclist needs to pull over so your all-important ass can get to the trough quicker.

On the other hand, name one law I've advocated breaking. Straw man fail :(

Maybe you should stop dispensing ignorant, unsound advice on what you think is and what you think ought to be, and what you think is coursing through the minds of people partaking in an activity in which you have zero firsthand experience. In my experience, it's that sort of behavior which separates the children from the adults.

stop supporting lobbyists who block tax/tag/license/insure bills

Another straw man. You sure are good at those :cool: Or maybe it's just a reading comprehension problem:

I don't take issue with this

Moving on...

Treat the motorists who pay for the roads like you want to be treated

I do precisely that. I've already conceded that there are dickhead cyclists just as there are dickhead motorists, however only one of us is demanding unequal, preferential treatment. (hint: it's you, and you just did it while asking me not to... pretty rich, isn't it?)

Furthermore, I am a motorist. I pay all the taxes you do, though due to my cycling, I am sponsoring your driving far more than you're sponsoring my cycling. If you had even the remotest ability to reason the facts, you would stop making such a fallacious argument and see the truth in that. It's not an opinion, it's a mathematical fact.

When you consider the net effect cycling has in urban areas, you would be utterly insane to trade the occasional slow-pass-accelerate scenario for a dramatic increase in road wear, pollution, and traffic. You don't even have to take my word for it - google will yield you countless studies affirming what I'm telling you. But you're not interested in that. You're too blinded by your irrational hatred that you can't see 2 inches beyond 'zomgz i had to slow down for 10 seconds!!!1'

your group wouldn't be so despised by everyone in a vehicle.

We're not despised by everyone in a vehicle. There are plenty of rational, sensible motorists out there who see the benefits cyclists bring to the roads, the least of which is the disproportional abundance in tax we pay relative to the wear, pollution, and congestion we don't cause. And of the group that doesn't realize those benefits, there are still plenty others who get along on the basic principle of not living the life of a self-indulgent narcissistic prick.

But all of that doesn't matter. In the end, I couldn't give two shits if you approve. All I care about is that you're educated on the law (which you're clearly not) and that you abide by the law (which you clearly don't). Please get to work.

The fact that you spend most of the time in your car bawling doesn't concern me.
 
Last edited:

BikeJunkie

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2013
1,390
0
0
Before I continue with this SpatiallyAware guy, I need to ask: is he one of the village idiots around here? I argued with sixone for an entire page before anyone gave me a heads-up :colbert:
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Thing is bikes are perfectly safe to use its when theres arsehole car drivers that go "OMG I COULD BE GOING MARGINALLY FASTER... MUST OVERTAKE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!>>!!" that it makes it unsafe.

Please explain how having non-automobiles traveling far below the flow of traffic, below the posted speed limit, and, in some cases, even below the legal minimum speed limit intermixed at random throughout county roads and highways?

2 years ago while vacationing in Denver, my family and I took a trip into the mountains. As I'm driving along in my rental car going ~45 mph around a corner, suddenly I saw 2 guys on bicycles right in front of me traveling between 5 and 10 mph. A car was also approaching in the opposite lane so I had no choice but to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting the bicyclists or the car. Then, thanks to the windings roads which offered no chance to safely pass, I had to follow behind them for 15 minutes going under 10 mph.

How was anyone's safety enhanced in this scenario?

Like I've said, roads were constructed with automobiles in mind, NOT bicycles just as sidewalks were constructed for pedestrians and not cars.

As someone who's begun taking up bike riding for exercise, the solution to me seems simple. If a bike is to be ridden on anything but a residential road, it must require a license plate and fee be paid. These fees are placed into a fund for the sole purpose of adding bike lanes to existing roads. In fact, a website could even be constructed for bicycle riders to vote on where new bike lanes should be placed.

Yes, bike riders pay motor vehicle and gas taxes just like everyone else, but the extra fee is to cover the additional expenses of expanding existing roadways designed only for automobile traffic to ensure safe travel for bicyclists and motorists.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
When you purchase a vehicle you pay specific tax which goes into the general fund.

Then, most pay yearly tax which also goes to the fund which helps pay for the road.

This happens with any road legal vehicle. Cars, trucks, motorcycles. Everyone pays it for each individual vehicle, no matter how many you own.

On top of that, you also pay fuel tax, which goes into the fund.


So why is it that bicyclists, who want additional special divided lanes and special treatment, think they shouldn't have to pay into it? It's not how any other system in our society works.

You all keep crowing about equality, fair use, laws which protect you... Yet the vast majority of you refuse to follow the rules in place or pay (both legal and societal, IE moving over for passing vehicles) for any of these special treatments. You selfish hinder everyone..., then you can't seem to figure out why motorists can stand you and your poorly behaved brethren.

And as far as who pays for the roads.... I don't care how the pie is divided, make no mistake... Motorists pay for the roads. Without vehicle taxes there would be no road, no shoulders, no bike lanes at all. Yet look at how you ciclists treat people?


This is why you've made almost no progress in the last 5 years. No new laws except for the 3ft law and only in certain areas. Only select few cities are putting in bike lanes, and only when forced by lobbyists which merely fuels the fire and creates more resentment.


You want fair treatment? Start acting that way instead of constantly crying like selfish children.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
2 years ago while vacationing in Denver, my family and I took a trip into the mountains. As I'm driving along in my rental car going ~45 mph around a corner, suddenly I saw 2 guys on bicycles right in front of me traveling between 5 and 10 mph. A car was also approaching in the opposite lane so I had no choice but to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting the bicyclists or the car. Then, thanks to the windings roads which offered no chance to safely pass, I had to follow behind them for 15 minutes going under 10 mph.

So you were driving too fast for the conditions and narrowly avoided an at-fault collision. Had the cyclists instead been a stationary target like a deer, a stalled vehicle, or a motorcyclist who had fallen in the road, you would have hit them.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
So you were driving too fast for the conditions and narrowly avoided an at-fault collision. Had the cyclists instead been a stationary target like a deer, a stalled vehicle, or a motorcyclist who had fallen in the road, you would have hit them.

The speed limit was 45 mph. Nice try.

Thanks for admitting a bicyclist is as dangerous as a deer, stalled vehicle, or a prone motorcycle in the road, however.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,083
11,267
136
Before I continue with this SpatiallyAware guy, I need to ask: is he one of the village idiots around here? I argued with sixone for an entire page before anyone gave me a heads-up :colbert:

If you need to ask...






Firstly it's not the cyclists bleating about how unfair things are. That would be you.

Secondly your main complaint seems to be that you might have to slow down for a few minutes before you overtake a cyclist. I'm not sure why you think making them pay road tax would make any difference. If you're a shitty driver no about of money from them will change that.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
You are aware that the maximum speed limit is the maximum speed that you're supposed to drive if conditions allow rather than the speed that you should drive regardless of road conditions?

Indeed. And for the conditions it was completely safe. Since I was paying attention I was able to avoid a collision no different than if a deer, stalled vehicle, or prone motorcyclist was in the road.

Straw man.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
It's stupid to ride a motor cycle and that goes the speed of traffic: just that much more unintelligent to ride a bike.