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.