Bicyclists have started doing a new thing that makes me furious

[SpatiallyAware]

That doesn't answer the question. In the same situation with a car, are you seriously claiming that you would ram the car off the road and then insist that it's not your fault?


\

If a car is going 15mph in a 45 and I am passing them in a legal passing zone... And someone comes from up the opposite direction at twice the legal limit...

Then yes, I absolutely would run them off the road to prevent a high speed head-on collision. Sorry but I'm not going to risk certain death over some dimwit mouth breather (car or bike) who is going 15 in a 45.

 

[MagickMan]

Income, property, and sales taxes all heavily subsidize road funding. User fees do not come close to paying for the roads.

Not according to my city/county yearly cost assessment. My state is one of the few that puts the expense for road work directly on the municipalities, with the exception of interstates (those are federal, but bicycles aren't allowed on those at all). I like that, it creates transparency and accountability, the road commissioner job around here is serious business and generally one of the most hotly contested races.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Oh jesus... you have no idea what you're talking about. You weren't there on that road; I was. The cyclists were on the right side of the right lane which had almost zero shoulder. Due to the nature of the road being an incline and the presence of rockface on the right side of the road obscuring vision it left me little time to react when they entered my field of view.

Again, this is a straw man argument that deflects from the actual point I was trying to make that the cyclists' presence on that road in which had almost no shoulder and was riddled with periods of reduced forward visibility made the road more dangerous for motorists and cyclists. They should not have been there. Whether I was going 45 or 30 mph doesn't change that fact.

It wasn't a straw man argument at all. If you can't avoid hitting an inanimate object (or cyclists traveling 10 - 20 mph) in the road when it comes into view, then by definition, you were driving too fast under the given conditions. No one needs to be there to make this assessment. It's self-defining.

If you come around the curve and slam into a boulder that was just resting there, then you were driving too fast. Plain and simple.

This is why arguing that the roads were iced over is not an excuse. As the operator of a motor vehicle, it's your responsibility to maintain assured clear distance given the current road conditions.

 

[BikeJunkie]

If you impede the flow of traffic on a public roadway, on a non-motorized vehicle, whether it be a; bike, skateboard, or animal (yeah, the law counts for horses too), first offense is a $250 fine. On the second offense they take your bike (or horse) and usually give you 20-40 hours of community service. 3rd time is a class 4 or 5 felony, depending on different factors, and they throw the book at you.

We had so many people being mowed down and killed that our city council finally took the gloves off. Bicyclists don't like it, and sometimes they feel like they're being unfairly targeted, but it's designed to specifically keep them off expressways and busy exchanges. There are other ways for them to go through town, they don't need to be on a busy 55-65MPH road.

You mentioned expressways and "busy exchanges" at the end of this post. Just curious 1) where is this, and 2) does this only apply to highways/freeways, or does this apply to all city roads in your area?

 

[MagickMan]

It wasn't a straw man argument at all. If you can't avoid hitting an inanimate object (or cyclists traveling 10 - 20 mph) in the road when it comes into view, then by definition, you were driving too fast under the given conditions. No one needs to be there to make this assessment. It's self-defining.

By the same token, if you're going 1/5th of the accepted and posted speed, you shouldn't be there. Which is why we passed that law.

 

[MagickMan]

You mentioned expressways and "busy exchanges" at the end of this post. Just curious 1) where is this, and 2) does this only apply to highways/freeways, or does this apply to all city roads in your area?

Knoxville TN. It applies to any situation where the bicyclist (or a rider of any non-motorized conveyance) is impeding the flow of traffic on a section of road that is posted in excess of 45 MPH. However, there is a clause that states if there is a bike path adjacent to any road, which there are quite a few around here, and the cyclist instead uses the road, they are automatically in violation and can be ticketed (and often are).

 

[BikeJunkie]

By the same token, if you're going 1/5th of the accepted and posted speed, you shouldn't be there. Which is why we passed that law.

Whether you should or should not be there is a matter of law. If that's the law in your neck of the woods, then no, cyclists absolutely shouldn't be there. In most other areas, they have as much claim to that road as you do.

But regardless, neither scenario trumps a law that, to the best of my knowledge, applies everywhere: you are to drive at a speed suitable for the given road conditions. How many stories have we heard about motorists driving X MPH in an X MPH zone, but still receiving a ticket for reckless operation?

The litmus test for speeding at any given moment on any given road is whether or not you can avoid a road obstruction once it comes into view. If the answer to that is no, then you were going too fast.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Knoxville TN. It applies to any situation where the bicyclist (or a rider of any non-motorized conveyance) is impeding the flow of traffic on a section of road that is posted in excess of 45 MPH. However, there is a clause that states if there is a bike path adjacent to any road, which there are quite a few around here, and the cyclist instead uses the road, they are automatically in violation and can be ticketed (and often are).

Fair enough. Honestly, I can't say I object to any of that in the least :thumbsup:

 

[child of wonder]

It wasn't a straw man argument at all. If you can't avoid hitting an inanimate object (or cyclists traveling 10 - 20 mph) in the road when it comes into view, then by definition, you were driving too fast under the given conditions. No one needs to be there to make this assessment. It's self-defining.

You know, except I DID avoid the collision. Ever had to slam on your brakes to avoid something? I guess by definition you're a bad driver, too.

Did you know that things can unexpectedly enter your field of view or enter your lane no matter what speed you travel? And that a forceful application of the brakes could be required to avoid them, despite your velocity?

Venix is hammering on how fast I was traveling rather than acknowledging my point which was that road is not safe for motorists and cyclists to share. It's narrow, has no shoulder, has very few places to pass, and suffers from poor forward visibility.

One can advocate a lower rate of speed is required because of the road conditions but it should not be required, however, because a cyclists could be around the next curve. This is why bikes should only be used on roads with dedicated bike lanes or generously wide shoulders to eliminate the hazard of cars and bikes sharing the same lane.

If you come around the curve and slam into a boulder that was just resting there, then you were driving too fast. Plain and simple.

This is why arguing that the roads were iced over is not an excuse. As the operator of a motor vehicle, it's your responsibility to maintain assured clear distance given the current road conditions.

But I didn't hit anything and a boulder doesn't make a conscious decision to place itself in the path of motor vehicles while cyclists do.

 

[Venix]

If a car is going 15mph in a 45 and I am passing them in a legal passing zone... And someone comes from up the opposite direction at twice the legal limit...

Then yes, I absolutely would run them off the road to prevent a high speed head-on collision. Sorry but I'm not going to risk certain death over some dimwit mouth breather (car or bike) who is going 15 in a 45.

I didn't say anything about speed, and passing a car moving 15 MPH is considerably quicker and safer than passing one moving at 40. Would you ram the guy doing 40 off the road, or is ramming vehicles reserved for "mouth breathers" like farm equipment and bicycles?

Passing someone moving at 15 MPH takes three seconds. If a speeding motorcyclist becomes visible and narrowly avoids colliding with you during that time, you were performing an incredibly unsafe pass. There is no situation where a competent driver could be at risk of a head-on collision when passing such a slow vehicle.

 

[BikeJunkie]

This is why bikes should only be used on roads with dedicated bike lanes or generously wide shoulders to eliminate the hazard of cars and bikes sharing the same lane.

This is where we get into philosophical differences, as there are issues with "generously wide shoulders" and non-separated bike lanes that the non-cycling public is largely unaware of, the least of which is that it moves cyclists away from your primary field of vision, invites right-hooks, etc.

A more effective solution, in my opinion, would be the better education of both groups so each knows what is expected of them, and what the rights and responsibilities of the other are. I honestly believe this is the source of a lot of angst and accidents between the two groups. Take SpatialAwareness for example, who has a pretty evident vendetta against cyclists. Despite his interest in the subject, he's shown a gross lack of understanding in what the laws are, what's expected of him in various scenarios, and what rights a cyclist has on "his roads." On the other hand, we do have cyclists who think they get all the advantages of the road without having to play by any of the rules. This is the heart of the problem in my opinion.

It's like what happens when roundabouts are first introduced to a city

Now truth be told, I don't ride in many of the conditions discussed in this thread. I don't commute by bike. I don't ride in high traffic areas. I don't ride up mountainsides with precarious rock formations. I'm not willing to put myself in those situations. But I do believe in deferring to the law when it comes to the coexistence of motorists and cyclists.

 

[fleshconsumed]

If a car is going 15mph in a 45 and I am passing them in a legal passing zone... And someone comes from up the opposite direction at twice the legal limit...

Then yes, I absolutely would run them off the road to prevent a high speed head-on collision. Sorry but I'm not going to risk certain death over some dimwit mouth breather (car or bike) who is going 15 in a 45.

You would still be legally in the wrong though. This is what everyone is trying to tell you. The laws are clear: if you want to pass someone on the left by crossing into the oncoming lane, no matter how slowly the person you're trying to pass is moving, you must make sure that you can get back into the proper lane safely without endangering neither the oncoming traffic, nor the person you're overtaking. It is also unlawful to overtake a vehicle if your view of the road is obstructed and you do not know if you can safely pass or not. The law errs on the side of caution, as should you. This is why you see "no passing" signs around the hills and blind corners - they're a reminder that you cannot pass. If you're forced to merge back into your lane too soon and ram into another car or bicyclists, it means you either misjudged the passing distance/time, or you decided to make an unsafe pass without making sure that the oncoming lane is clear ahead of you. Either way you would be guilty of breaking the law. If you have to ram into the vehicle you're trying to pass you're in the wrong, you broke the law. At minimum you would be guilty of unsafe passing, and at the worst you would be guilty of manslaughter.

 

[child of wonder]

This is where we get into philosophical differences, as there are issues with "generously wide shoulders" and non-separated bike lanes that the non-cycling public is largely unaware of, the least of which is that it moves cyclists away from your primary field of vision, invites right-hooks, etc.

A more effective solution, in my opinion, would be the better education of both groups so each knows what is expected of them, and what the rights and responsibilities of the other are. I honestly believe this is the source of a lot of angst and accidents between the two groups. Take SpatialAwareness for example, who has a pretty evident vendetta against cyclists. Despite his interest in the subject, he's shown a gross lack of understanding in what the laws are, what's expected of him in various scenarios, and what rights a cyclist has on "his roads." On the other hand, we do have cyclists who think they get all the advantages of the road without having to play by any of the rules. This is the heart of the problem in my opinion.

It's like what happens when roundabouts are first introduced to a city

Now truth be told, I don't ride in many of the conditions discussed in this thread. I don't commute by bike. I don't ride in high traffic areas. I don't ride up mountainsides with precarious rock formations. I'm not willing to put myself in those situations. But I do believe in deferring to the law when it comes to the coexistence of motorists and cyclists.

I think you, I, and most reasonable people understand that the way things are right now doesn't work and isn't safe. My town is surrounded by county roads that have only about 12" of paved shoulder beyond the white line and when I approach a cyclist in these spots I cringe because this simply isn't an ideal scenario for the cyclist or motorist.

Restricting non-registered bicycles to residential roads or commercial roads with bike lanes within city limits and requiring a plate for those traveling on county roads and highways is perfectly reasonable. The funds can be used to add bike lanes to these roads, improve driver and cyclist education, and would go a long way towards keeping both parties safe.

But the "fat, lazy motorists" and "I'm too much man" comments from the cycling community and the "asshole cyclists" comments from the driving community doesn't help. The ways things are is broken, it needs fixing, and a fix shouldn't be that difficult.

 

[BikeJunkie]

<snip>

100% agreed :thumbsup:

 

[SpatiallyAware]

<snip>


But the "fat, lazy motorists" and "I'm too much man" comments from the cycling community and the "asshole cyclists" comments from the driving community doesn't help. The ways things are is broken, it needs fixing, and a fix shouldn't be that difficult.

I very much agree, I actually think this is the majority of the issue.

The cicling community constantly crows about change, but they're not willing to make any concessions at all to get what they want.

They actually seem to think that interrupting traffic is a "good" thing, that motorists should appreciate them being on the road enough to where they should not pay any taxes for what they want... It's surreal.

 

[SlushySolid]

At that moment a motorcyclists comes around the corner ahead doing about 60.

So you'd overtake on a blind bend?

And you think that you're in the right?
You ARE a shitty driver.

Read my post again. Carefully, please.

comes around the corner

lulz

 

[SpatiallyAware]

You missed the all-important "wait until we get to a passing zone".

 

[SlushySolid]

You missed the all-important "wait until we get to a passing zone".

Most blind corners don't have a passing zone.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Most blind corners don't have a passing zone.

There are plenty of passing zones all across this country where someone going well past the speed limit in the opposite direction would not allow enough room for a safe pass.

Passing zones assume everyone is going the speed limit.

And, if I'm put in a situation by a bicyclist where it's either getting hit by someone head on causing a massive collision or push a bicyclist off the road who is going 20 under the limit...

Well.. Sorry bicyclist but that's how it goes when you're riding in the middle of the road. The legal fault is on the speeder, the 'moral fault' I would say is 50/50 speeder and bicyclist who is forcing someone to pass completely on the other side of the road rather than huge the edge and allow a safe pass.

 

[BikeJunkie]

I can't even see his posts and he's STILL providing me with entertainment! I love it

 

[Oyeve]

Knoxville TN. It applies to any situation where the bicyclist (or a rider of any non-motorized conveyance) is impeding the flow of traffic on a section of road that is posted in excess of 45 MPH. However, there is a clause that states if there is a bike path adjacent to any road, which there are quite a few around here, and the cyclist instead uses the road, they are automatically in violation and can be ticketed (and often are).

Can they be squished? Lmk so I can plan a road kill trip to Knoxville .

 

[ibex333]

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.

This!


Living in NYC I wholeheartedly agree. And like the OP said, when these bastards hit a red light or traffic they either go back into bike lane or do something much worse... charge pedestrians crossing the street! In their mind, because they are not driving a car, it's OK to run the red light and threaten to run people over if they don't give way!

Instead of laws that would get bicycles out of roads, there should be a law giving total immunity to drivers who run over bicyclists. Make a law like that, and see how fast bicycles move to the sidewalk. WHERE THEY BELONG!

I don't understand why people in United States feel that bicycles don't belong on the sidewalk. In Ukraine, that's exactly where they were, unless they had balls to ride on the road with cars and potentially get killed with the driver "not necessarily getting punished".

Maybe people are concerned that bicyclists would run them over on the sidewalk? That's a bullshit concern. If a bicyclist would run over a person or cause injury, that bicyclist should be sued to all hell or imprisoned. That would make them very careful. Either way, on the sidewalk, its not that hard to give way when a bicycle is approaching. Besides there are very few bicycles on the road as opposed to cars, so I don't see how they would be a problem riding on the sidewalk.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

<snip>

I don't understand why people in United States feel that bicycles don't belong on the sidewalk. In Ukraine, that's exactly where they were, unless they had balls to ride on the road with cars and potentially get killed with the driver "not necessarily getting punished".

<snip>

It's primarily due to the lobbying groups we have here in the US.

The minority of bikers spoke with their wallets, setting up campaigns to turn laws to favor them. That works well for about 10 years, until society at large is fed up.

And that's where we are now.. Fed up.

Google your state representative. Email them and say that you support more restrictions on bicycles. Be brief, but firm. Ask for their stance on the situation.

 

[alkemyst]

It's primarily due to the lobbying groups we have here in the US.

The minority of bikers spoke with their wallets, setting up campaigns to turn laws to favor them. That works well for about 10 years, until society at large is fed up.

And that's where we are now.. Fed up.

Google your state representative. Email them and say that you support more restrictions on bicycles. Be brief, but firm. Ask for their stance on the situation.

In no country are bicycles accepted on a sidewalk when covering 20-30mph.

Also in the US most places will not penalize a bike just slowly moving along.

That said, in many foreign countries; 'the biggest [insert noun here] wins'. There isn't a lot of concern for people getting knocked down and the like.

 

[Venix]

There are plenty of passing zones all across this country where someone going well past the speed limit in the opposite direction would not allow enough room for a safe pass.

Passing zones assume everyone is going the speed limit.

And, if I'm put in a situation by a bicyclist where it's either getting hit by someone head on causing a massive collision or push a bicyclist off the road who is going 20 under the limit...

Well.. Sorry bicyclist but that's how it goes when you're riding in the middle of the road. The legal fault is on the speeder, the 'moral fault' I would say is 50/50 speeder and bicyclist who is forcing someone to pass completely on the other side of the road rather than huge the edge and allow a safe pass.

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.