Bicyclists have started doing a new thing that makes me furious

[WelshBloke]

Still waiting for an explanation of how a motorcyclist traveling at 60 mph can appear in front of and collide with you in the three seconds it takes to pass a 15 mph vehicle.

He doesn't need logic, he has morality on his side as his shitty driving causes him to run other road users of the road apparently. :what:

 

[SlushySolid]

Still waiting for an explanation of how a motorcyclist traveling at 60 mph can appear in front of and collide with you in the three seconds it takes to pass a 15 mph vehicle.

this.

 

[BikeJunkie]

^ that.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Rofl you guys are hilarious.

Bottom line, is that if a biker is rudely 'holding a lane', and that behaviour causes someone any sort of danger, you can guarantee they will ram you right off the road.

Legal or not, it's basic human instinct. Most people aren't even going to think about it or weigh the options, they are simply going to swerve into you if they have to avoid an accident.

Just keep that fact in mind... You're on a 4lb exercise bike with no license plate, trying to "hold a lane" from a 4000lb chunk of metal.

 

[fleshconsumed]

You guys should give up. This is the same guy that blames Lien for not being considerate enough in the "Land Rover" thread. Which would be surprising because you would expect someone arguing for having more common sense in the Land Rover thread to have more sense when overtaking people on the road, but that is only until you realize that he is arguing from the position of power, that is whoever has more power is always right. In the bikers thread it was the bikers, in this thread it's him because he's in a 4000 lb SUV and you're just a puny <200lb biker. He's either a troll, or someone you would never ever want to associate with. IMHO.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I simply don't think every situation is as black and white as some people believe. You need to think outside the box, look at ALL the factors of the situation without bias.

That's the problem in both threads... People side with whoever they associate with. They don't care to take a few steps back and look at the entire situation.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Bottom line, is that if a biker is rudely

Stop with that shit. It's not rude if it's legal. And if you'd bother to do any due diligence by researching your opposition's viewpoint even the slightest, you'd uncover a litany of valid reasons for WHY it's legal and WHY cyclists are encouraged to do this. It's already been explained to you, but you're either too stupid or too stubborn to allow it to sink in.

and that behaviour causes someone any sort of danger

It's not that behavior that causes danger. YOU are the one who's executing an illegal pass. It's YOUR behavior and shitty driving that's a problem. It's why YOU would be charged with - and found guilty of - manslaughter. It's why YOU would spend years in prison and have to explain to YOUR friends and family why YOU think you own the roads and thought an illegal pass was worth a human life.

Your idiotic and baseless justifications might work for you personally here, on this forum. In real life, spouting such narcissistic nonsense would only dig your hole exponentially deeper.

We might all be 'hilarious', but you don't need to take our word for it. This is precisely how the law is written. So while you're giving us your piss poor opinion on the matter, what we're telling you is a matter of fact. There is no debating this.

The fact that everyone is telling you the same thing ought to give you pause. Are you capable of self reflection at all?

 

[BikeJunkie]

They don't care to take a few steps back and look at the entire situation.

So says the guy who thinks a cyclist who's legally holding his lane is more rude than the idiot driver who passes illegally, dangerously, and lethally jeopardizes three separate parties in one fell swoop.

You are the only one here who can't see anyone else's viewpoint. Read the thread. A number of parties on both sides have come to consensus without incident. YOU are the problem here.

 

[SlushySolid]

I simply don't think every situation is as black and white as some people believe. You need to think outside the box, look at ALL the factors of the situation without bias.

That's the problem in both threads... People side with whoever they associate with. They don't care to take a few steps back and look at the entire situation.

*pssst* I commute to work and pass bicyclists everyday in my car, and I'm still not siding with you.

This post is super ironic.

 

[child of wonder]

Stop with that shit. It's not rude if it's legal.

You wouldn't consider it rude for a group of people to slowly walk shoulder to shoulder on a bike path not allowing you to go by despite it being legal for them to do so?

Motorists should be free to drive unimpeded by obstacles, including bikes, and bicyclists should be able to ride without fear of getting hit by cars. Bikes and cars sharing a lane is a bad idea.

 

[BikeJunkie]

he is arguing from the position of power, that is whoever has more power is always right

Astute observation. Also very telling is that he managed to troll that thread into yet another bashing of cyclists.

Yet this guy tries to espouse "stepping back" and "seeing the whole picture"? LMFAO

He's either a troll, or someone you would never ever want to associate with. IMHO.

C - All of the above? I'd say that's a given.

 

[BikeJunkie]

You wouldn't consider it rude for a group of people to slowly walk shoulder to shoulder on a bike path not allowing you to go by despite it being legal for them to do so?

The problem with your analogy is that it's void of the context of the original scenario. In your scenario, there's no option to pass. In the other scenario, the driver is making a conscious decision to break the law and threaten the lives of three different parties.

Motorists should be free to drive unimpeded by obstacles ... Bikes and cars sharing a lane is a bad idea.

The discussion taking place right now is centered around a hypothetical scenario posited by SpatialAwareness, and whether his actions would be legal or not. Regardless of how you view cyclists on the road, the law is quite clear and addresses that scenario without leaving any question to the matter as to who is in the wrong.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Stop with that shit. It's not rude if it's legal. And if you'd bother to do any due diligence by researching your opposition's viewpoint even the slightest, you'd uncover a litany of valid reasons for WHY it's legal and WHY cyclists are encouraged to do this. It's already been explained to you, but you're either too stupid or too stubborn to allow it to sink in.

<snip>

The fact that everyone is telling you the same thing ought to give you pause. Are you capable of self reflection at all?

There are plenty of things that are legal yet rude, inappropriate, and disrespectful. You're ciclist, so no wonder you don't understand that.


Actually, what I see in this thread is a bunch of whiny ciclists trying to prove their emotional points along with a bunch of legitimately frustrated motorists. I'm able to see both sides of the situation, I suggest you try to do the same. It might help you better understand why the majority of people on the road hate you and your group.

 

[BikeJunkie]

There are plenty of things that are legal yet rude, inappropriate, and disrespectful. You're ciclist, so no wonder you don't understand that.


Actually, what I see in this thread is a bunch of whiny ciclists trying to prove their emotional points along with a bunch of legitimately frustrated motorists. I'm able to see both sides of the situation, I suggest you try to do the same. It might help you better understand why the majority of people on the road hate you and your group.

So in other words, you have nothing of substance, nothing backed by law, that you can use to defend your point or counter anything I said.

Instead, all you have is yet another weak appeal to your own emotions. Is this your idea of a "healthy debate"?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

So in other words, you have nothing of substance, nothing backed by law, that you can use to defend your point or counter anything I said.

Instead, all you have is yet another weak appeal to your own emotions. Is this your idea of a "healthy debate"?

The only thing you have on your side is that everything you consider legal is an acceptable behaviour, which is a ridiculous notion.


There are plenty of legal things which are frustrating to society. Babies screaming in a nice restaurant while parents ignore them... People standing at the front of fast food lines for 5 minutes hemming and hawing. Going through a 10 items or less checkout lane with 30 things. Parking sideways across 3 lanes in a parking lot. Cutting to the front of the line.

...And a ciclist holding the lane on a 2-lane road when there's plenty of room or even a bicycle lane on the side, with a line of 20 cars all trying to get to work to pay for the road they're riding on.

All legal actions, which cause mainstream society to hate the person doing them. I'm glad your comfortable being on that list.

 

[SlushySolid]

There are plenty of things that are legal yet rude, inappropriate, and disrespectful. You're ciclist, so no wonder you don't understand that.


Actually, what I see in this thread is a bunch of whiny ciclists trying to prove their emotional points along with a bunch of legitimately frustrated motorists. I'm able to see both sides of the situation, I suggest you try to do the same. It might help you better understand why the majority of people on the road hate you and your group.

lulz

 

[Oyeve]

I lump most cyclists and Apple enthusiasts in one lump. If I see an asshole bicyclist on the road blowing through stops and signs and if I see an asshole iphone user in the street waiting for the light but still in the street inching their way closer to traffic I will swoop in close as possible to both types and lean of my horn to wake you fucking idiots up. legal or not both are for the most part complete fucking idiots and the more justified roadkill the better. And when I am on a shared bike/walking path and I hear your little lovely human bell going "ding, Ding" I dont move. You move around me fucker. And god help you if you hit/touch me with your bike.

 

[BikeJunkie]

The only thing you have on your side is that everything you consider legal is an acceptable behaviour, which is a ridiculous notion.

No, what I have on my side is the LAW, which in plain terms (that only you have difficulty grasping) invalidates your entire argument and would send your ass to JAIL if you actually followed through on your little hypothetical scenario.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

No, what I have on my side is the LAW, which in plain terms (that only you have difficulty grasping) invalidates your entire argument and would send your ass to JAIL if you actually followed through on your little hypothetical scenario.

So says the rest of the people on that list.

Law or not, if you're holding a lane on a 2 lane road and refusing to allow a line of cars to pass you are an asshole. It's legal, but you're still an asshole.


And I'm still LOL'ing at you screaming about jail while ignoring how dangerous your behaviour is on the roads. Jail, fine, at least your fate is decided by a jury. I'd rather be in front of a jury than under a car tire.

 

[vbuggy]

Maybe the bike lane was blocked by double-parked cars?

I did see a guy on a 4x bike riding on top of cars parked in the bike lane. That kind of assholery I can get behind. Everything else that asshole cyclists usually do, they deserve to be run over.

 

[child of wonder]

The problem with your analogy is that it's void of the context of the original scenario. In your scenario, there's no option to pass. In the other scenario, the driver is making a conscious decision to break the law and threaten the lives of three different parties.

That's not what I'm addressing. I'm focusing on would it be rude for someone to intentionally block the flow of traffic even though their actions are legal? You said earlier it would not be rude because it's legal.

There are lots of things that are rude and legal. If being rude was illegal, we'd all be in trouble. Simply being legal doesn't make something right, either.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Law or not

ROFL!!! Yeah, you're TOTALLY capable of "seeing both sides"! Too rich :biggrin:

refusing to allow a line of cars to pass you are an asshole. It's legal, but you're still an asshole.

Incorrect. Preventing you from making an illegal pass is the exact opposite of being an asshole. In fact, you should be thanking me for protecting you, me, and the oncoming vehicle from your immeasurable stupidity

And I'm still LOL'ing at you screaming about jail

And I'm still LOL'ing at you continuing to try to justify your argument when the law, in no uncertain terms, tells you you're WRONG. I don't even need to make an argument at this point. You're wrong, you don't understand the rules of the road, and you're a dangerous unskilled driver. Case closed kiddo

 

[Brainonska511]

And when I am on a shared bike/walking path and I hear your little lovely human bell going "ding, Ding" I dont move. You move around me fucker. And god help you if you hit/touch me with your bike.

Congratulations, you're a douche too.

You should be happy they are ringing a bell. First, it's a legal requirement in NY for bikes to be equipped with a bell, so they are following the law. And second, it's better than them yelling and simultaneously gives you a heads up that a bike is going to pass you, so you don't inadvertently walk into its path in at the last minute. Sometimes, pedestrians are douches on the shared paths, walking several across and blocking through traffic - just like you little babies cry about when a bike does it on the road.

 

[BikeJunkie]

I'm focusing on would it be rude for someone to intentionally block the flow of traffic

Yes, that would be rude. But that's not what's happening here, which is why I pointed out that crucial context was missing. A cyclist is part of the flow of traffic, unless your local laws state otherwise. In the scenario SA laid out, a cyclist is entitled and encouraged to hold his lane for safety purposes. There's nothing rude whatsoever about making sure some impatient self-important twit behind him makes a LEGAL pass that's safe for EVERYONE. For the same reasons you don't veer right in a car to assist someone else in a pass, neither does a cyclist. As others pointed out, I'm only going 15 MPH anyway. Passing me is a breeze. You just have to be willing to sacrifice a couple seconds of your life to not be rude yourself.

And because the laws state that a cyclist has all the rights to the road that you do, there's nothing rude about a cyclist being there in the first place, either... unless you're willing to entertain arguments from cyclists that your presence there is rude, too.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Congratulations, you're a douche too.

You should be happy they are ringing a bell. First, it's a legal requirement in NY for bikes to be equipped with a bell, so they are following the law. And second, it's better than them yelling and simultaneously gives you a heads up that a bike is going to pass you, so you don't inadvertently walk into its path in at the last minute. Sometimes, pedestrians are douches on the shared paths, walking several across and blocking through traffic - just like you little babies cry about when a bike does it on the road.

The problem in a discussion like this is that a few people are willing to throw all logic, reason, and LEGAL OBLIGATIONS out the window in order to justify their irrational hatred.