Whats with bicyclists on roadways?

[SandyCat]

Specifically this brand of retard:

Where I live the overwhelming majority of the road ways have no bicycle lanes on the road itself, just the nearby sidewalks. But these guys are on the same road that vehicles are on and all the traffic has to switch lanes so they don't side swipe these retards.

People here say its "safer" this way and it makes me angry. Use the sidewalk thats right next to the road. If they want to literally play in traffic that's fine by me but I'm worried their darwinism is going to land me in jail if I accidentally hit one of these road pests.

 

[Poppavalyim Andropoff]

Another was on a main road in town (35mph speed limit, 2 single lanes) with a sidewalk, and a six foot paved shoulder, and he was riding right in the middle of the lane, forcing me to drive head on into the oncoming traffic side to pass.

Whenever one of these faggots makes me do this they immediately get a brake check afterwards. Always fun watching them eat shit in the rear view mirror

 

[IceCreamForCrow]

 

[Chocolate Wombat]

I notice I’ve pissed someone off with my opinion.
Indeed cyclists have every right to inconvenience drivers. Fine. I draw the line when they create dangerous situations for drivers deliberately, just so they can flex their rights.
Sound familiar?
I’m talking to you bike person, when you’re on a curvy rural road by yourself or in a group in poor visual conditions, you are putting me and everyone else in danger. Your little blinking lights don’t cut it. You give us almost no time to react. There’s plenty of places and days set aside for rural cycling, where the roads are open just for you! Otherwise stick to safer roads. Asshats.

From all the fedoras being distributed by this guy it seems like he's the one who's truly MATI.

Edit: lol someone's mad

 

[TheBallPit]

The rise of "bike lanes" (purposeful quotes) has not only emboldened cyclists to consume valuable space on roads (and they are a part of the road, no matter what anyone says or what any white line indicates), but has also shifted legal liability only drivers since cyclists are considered "pure" and "green" and therefore give cities the look of being progressive and on the right side of history. Meanwhile, the very existence of a "bike lane" (again, purposeful quotes) endangers not only the biker in terms of catastrophic physical harm, as s/he now feels confident in biking in the street, but the driver's mental and fiscal well-being should the inevitable collision inevitably occur.

And just to be inordinately fair to cyclists, all it takes is a microsecond for a driver to swerve into the bike lane, either knowingly or unknowingly. Perhaps said driver just lost focus for a moment or maybe he was trying to avoid a squirrel or pothole. Of course, the opposite is also true, as all it takes is a biker to lose control for a second or two, probably to avoid a rock or nasty-looking crack in the asphalt, before swerving into the road proper and landing underneath a vehicle.

Meanwhile, the sidewalk, which has true and meaningful separation between it and the street and can perfectly service cyclists, lies there vastly underutilized, shunned like a red-headed stepchild, all because the odd pedestrian might give a biker the stink eye.

Rational and sensible thought goes completely out the window when it comes to cyclists and their street addiction. What's worse is that the narcotic not only affects the biker, but city governments, too, as they bend over backwards and enact laws that try to legislate away basic physics. Unfortunately, bikers will continue to be treated as precious snowflakes to be protected at all costs while drivers are regarded as pests on the very thoroughfares specifically made for them. It's utter madness.

BTW, I used to bike everywhere when I was a kid, but I gave streets as wide a berth as possible. You couldn't pay me to ride in a bike lane nowadays, no matter how legal it might be.

 

[Spiny Rumples]

For you folks telling people to ride bikes on the sidewalk instead of the street, please note that this is often, but not always, legal.
In America, for example, each state has its own laws.

Is It Illegal to Ride Your Bike on the Sidewalk? – Each State’s Answer | Bike Law

We are a network of independent bicycle accident lawyers across the United States and Canada.

www.bikelaw.com

Did you guys take driver's ed?

 

[Meat Target]

The rise of "bike lanes" (purposeful quotes) has not only emboldened cyclists to consume valuable space on roads (and they are a part of the road, no matter what anyone says or what any white line indicates), but has also shifted legal liability only drivers since cyclists are considered "pure" and "green" and therefore give cities the look of being progressive and on the right side of history. Meanwhile, the very existence of a "bike lane" (again, purposeful quotes) endangers not only the biker in terms of catastrophic physical harm, as s/he now feels confident in biking in the street, but the driver's mental and fiscal well-being should the inevitable collision inevitably occur.

And just to be inordinately fair to cyclists, all it takes is a microsecond for a driver to swerve into the bike lane, either knowingly or unknowingly. Perhaps said driver just lost focus for a moment or maybe he was trying to avoid a squirrel or pothole. Of course, the opposite is also true, as all it takes is a biker to lose control for a second or two, probably to avoid a rock or nasty-looking crack in the asphalt, before swerving into the road proper and landing underneath a vehicle.

Meanwhile, the sidewalk, which has true and meaningful separation between it and the street and can perfectly service cyclists, lies there vastly underutilized, shunned like a red-headed stepchild, all because the odd pedestrian might give a biker the stink eye.

Rational and sensible thought goes completely out the window when it comes to cyclists and their street addiction. What's worse is that the narcotic not only affects the biker, but city governments, too, as they bend over backwards and enact laws that try to legislate away basic physics. Unfortunately, bikers will continue to be treated as precious snowflakes to be protected at all costs while drivers are regarded as pests on the very thoroughfares specifically made for them. It's utter madness.

BTW, I used to bike everywhere when I was a kid, but I gave streets as wide a berth as possible. You couldn't pay me to ride in a bike lane nowadays, no matter how legal it might be.

If they're not in my way and holding up traffic, it's a win-win, no?

 

[SandyCat]

For you folks telling people to ride bikes on the sidewalk instead of the street, please note that this is often, but not always, legal.
In America, for example, each state has its own laws.

Is It Illegal to Ride Your Bike on the Sidewalk? – Each State’s Answer | Bike Law

We are a network of independent bicycle accident lawyers across the United States and Canada.

www.bikelaw.com

Did you guys take driver's ed?

I know its illegal but the police where I live don't enforce it and I'd rather risk a ticket compared to getting hit by a truck

 

[Spiny Rumples]

I know its illegal but the police where I live don't enforce it and I'd rather risk a ticket compared to getting hit by a truck

Join a gang.

 

[TheBallPit]

If they're not in my way and holding up traffic, it's a win-win, no?

Errrr, no, it isn't. As I wrote, there is no meaningful separation between a "bike lane" and the rest of the road. One small accidental swerve by either party could result in a fatal event (and often does). A 2+ ton vehicle going 30+ MPH will win against a slowly traveling 150-200 lb biker every single time. By insisting on biking in the street in a rarely trafficked area, you are mentally conditioning yourself to its normalcy and safety. If you then tried to cycle in heavily congested area because, hey, it worked out in Podunk, USA, you'd be in for a rude awakening.

Perhaps it works out in sparsely populated areas. Perhaps it doesn't, though. Why take the chance when there's a perfectly good sidewalk that DOES have separation and is rarely used, especially in your hypothetical scenario? In my bustling suburb, there's probably a 300:1 ratio of cars to pedestrians using any given sidewalk on any given street, yet (some) cyclists still insist on playing Russian Roulette by forcing drivers to pass them using tremendously dangerous tactics.

And this doesn't even get into the truly suicidal situation where there isn't a "bike lane" to be had and the cyclist is stubbornly biking in an actual and real traffic lane.

The physics are stark and clear. The odds of a car jumping a curb, crossing the buffer area, and running a cyclist down are far, FAR less than if that same biker was pedaling on the road. This must surely be obvious.

Most bikers don't trust drivers, anyway. Hell, most motorcyclists don't trust people in vehicles. Why do they insist on using the same thoroughfare? To prove that they're badasses?

Let's put it another way - would you want your son or daughter using a "bike lane"? Or would you tell them to use the MUCH safer sidewalk? I know I would give them specific instructions to use the sidewalk at all times and to avoid areas that didn't have them like the plague, even if "bike lanes" were available.

 

[Screamer]

It's purely an ideological position that cars and cyclists can share the roads without issue. The road networks weren't built or thought with this in mind, shoving a bike lane under the side of street parking doesn't do shit.

There needs to be specialist cyclist infrastructure.

I remember once getting into a discussion with some ideological green idiot about congestion and the lack of being able to build new roads. How much longer and inconvenient public transport can often be. They were giving me all the walk, ride a bike crap. Acting like I was some evil moron until I pointed out, old people, disabled people, people with kids, people needing to transport things they can't carry or stick on a bike. They literally had never considered any of this.

In my shithole country, they like to take congested two-lane roads and replace one of the lanes with a bike lane, which makes no sense.

Or stick bike lanes in between a lane of traffic and the turning lanes, just to increase the chances you check, looking for cars and don't see the lycra douche bag as your merge into him.

I actually believe the purpose of a lot of this isn't to increase the number of cyclists, or some green bullshit. It's purely to make driving in congested areas worse. In order to get more people off the road, not driving to places and taking public transport.

There's an ever-increasing population, with ever-increasing density and congestion. It would be very expensive, if not impossible to actually increase the number of roads to accommodate the increase of drivers. So they're going the opposite route. It's too hard or too difficult to make driving better, so they're making it worse to discourage driving.

Which is just part of the ever-deteriorating standard of living. At least if they built a really extensive subway network or something to compensate I could understand.

 

[TheBallPit]

Or stick bike lanes in between a lane of traffic and the turning lanes, just to increase the chances you check, looking for cars and don't see the lycra douche bag as your merge into him.

There's an example of this on a heavily trafficked road just a minute from my house. When I first saw it, I couldn't believe it, as it looked like a sure-fire method to get plastered. The way it's painted is the bike lane continues to go straight while cars have to TRAVERSE said bike lane in order to get into a motorist right-hand turn lane. If a biker is momentarily in a blind spot while you veer into the turn lane, which necessitates traversing the bike lane, it's an automatic collision.

While I've not seen anyone actually hit (so far), I have seen some sphincter-puckering moments. And this is right next to a park where a LOT of kids play. I just cannot imagine a parent encouraging their kid to use this bike lane unless they were homicidal monsters.

 

[ManicLad]

Nothing like this could possibly outweigh my hatred for cars and roads in general. You've gotta give it some perspective, has any cyclist ever held you in traffic for over 30 minutes? No, maybe you had to wait a minute or 2 for a chance to pass a greedy cyclist but for the serious shit it's always some other faggot in a car. Whether it be a car crash or construction or literally there being so many cars on the road that one car going slightly below the speed limit causes a chain reaction of slowness that can cause hours of stand still traffic.

Cars as a means of commuting are incredibly flawed and yet in america we have gotten rid of our public transportation and have made the roadways hostile to any foot/bike traffic, thats why the only bikes you see on the road are these sportbike cunts, nobody actually wants to travel this way. And the bike lanes being installed by some areas for the most part are lazy and not thought out and will never change the fact that these roads made in 60s were only made to service the car. This country would be so much fitter and happier if people could bike to work or the grocery store, if only you knew how bad things really are.

 

[Moths]

For you folks telling people to ride bikes on the sidewalk instead of the street, please note that this is often, but not always, legal.
In America, for example, each state has its own laws.

Is It Illegal to Ride Your Bike on the Sidewalk? – Each State’s Answer | Bike Law

We are a network of independent bicycle accident lawyers across the United States and Canada.

www.bikelaw.com

Did you guys take driver's ed?

Sounds incredibly fucking dumb, in my country cyclists can ride on the road or footpath or anywhere inbetween unless specifically signed

Why wouldnt you use one of the big advantages of bikes like how they can quickly cross rough terrain or traverse gutters and whatnot, i remember back when I rode id just use the little nature strip between the footpath and the gutter

 

[TheBallPit]

Sounds incredibly fucking dumb, in my country cyclists can ride on the road or footpath or anywhere inbetween unless specifically signed

Why wouldnt you use one of the big advantages of bikes like how they can quickly cross rough terrain or traverse gutters and whatnot, i remember back when I rode id just use the little nature strip between the footpath and the gutter

Problem is people, especially the ones in the fruity costumes, buy these outrageously expensive $3000+ spindly bikes that will disintegrate if you look at them wrong way, so they can't abide but riding them on the smoothest and glassiest surface possible (which is, ironically, often the sidewalk and not the road since, y'know, said road is getting pummeled by thousands of multi-ton vehicles every day and the sidewalk hardly gets used).

The current situation with road cyclists is the very definition of insanity and egregious entitlement, so of course they're supported by city governments.

 

[Moths]

Problem is people, especially the ones in the fruity costumes, buy these outrageously expensive $3000+ spindly bikes that will disintegrate if you look at them wrong way

This is why I suggest they get rugged fucking mountain bikes that you can bash around whats the point of these faggoty shitmobiles if they cant even navigate rough terrain and they could probably go just as fucking fast in my experience

And of it takes more effort than thats what developing fucking leg muscle and endurance is for

 

[TheBallPit]

This is why I suggest they get rugged fucking mountain bikes that you can bash around whats the point of these faggoty shitmobiles if they cant even navigate rough terrain and they could probably go just as fucking fast in my experience

And of it takes more effort than thats what developing fucking leg muscle and endurance is for

The ones with the flimsy boutique bikes don't want to expend that sort of energy. Plus, they consider mountain bikes to be ghetto when cycling around town, possibly even lower than dirt bikes. Their self-perceived status compels them to use the road as any other vehicle would. They demand that the world bend to their will and consider themselves untouchable, even as machines that could easily murder them desperately try to avoid a collision that's just a foot or two away.

You'll never overcome this selfishness, especially when pedestrians consider the sidewalk to be their sole playground. Walkers also share a hefty part of the blame for the current situation and are equally bad actors. This one-two punch of interests have city leaders passing laws that make zero sense and are mind-meltingly hazardous, but as long as the money flows and there aren't too many lawsuits, the tiny minority gets to tyrannize the vast majority.

 

[TheBallPit]

Nothing like this could possibly outweigh my hatred for cars and roads in general. You've gotta give it some perspective, has any cyclist ever held you in traffic for over 30 minutes? No, maybe you had to wait a minute or 2 for a chance to pass a greedy cyclist but for the serious shit it's always some other faggot in a car. Whether it be a car crash or construction or literally there being so many cars on the road that one car going slightly below the speed limit causes a chain reaction of slowness that can cause hours of stand still traffic.

The thing is that, while vehicle-on-vehicle wrecks are unfortunate and sometimes tragic, they don't remain a dangerous transportation free-for-all like biking in the road is. Vehicular accidents that prove to be deleterious to other motorists are responded to by fire, rescue, and law enforcement as quickly as possible, who cordon off the incident and provide a safe detour around while clean-up efforts commence. Yeah, it's a pain and I've personally been stuck for a hellaciously long time on a road sharing an accident (who hasn't?), but the two situations aren't really comparable.

Besides, vehicle-on-vehicle accidents are far more survivable and less injury-prone for both parties with the advent of airbags and crumple zones than a vehicle-on-cyclist one would be at speed. And motorists don't have any other choice but to drive on roads whereas bikers DO have a choice (local nonsensical laws notwithstanding), but often select the riskiest option for selfish reasons.

Motorists in the U.S. are simply stuck with their lot in life due to the lack of public transportation and how much of a sprawl our cities and outlying areas have become. I personally don't like driving where I live and would love to ditch the activity entirely, but it's virtually a requirement, otherwise I couldn't get anywhere without wasting hours on a city bus that takes 2 hours to get to someplace that would only take around 30 minutes via car. There's also the "last mile" problem that looks to be almost insurmountable for most people, despite all the rentable e-bikes and e-scooters that've been popping-up recently.

Vilifying motorists is just complaining for complaining's sake at this point in human history.

 

[ManicLad]

The thing is that, while vehicle-on-vehicle wrecks are unfortunate and sometimes tragic, they don't remain a dangerous transportation free-for-all like biking in the road is. Vehicular accidents that prove to be deleterious to other motorists are responded to by fire, rescue, and law enforcement as quickly as possible, who cordon off the incident and provide a safe detour around while clean-up efforts commence. Yeah, it's a pain and I've personally been stuck for a hellaciously long time on a road sharing an accident (who hasn't?), but the two situations aren't really comparable.

Besides, vehicle-on-vehicle accidents are far more survivable and less injury-prone for both parties with the advent of airbags and crumple zones than a vehicle-on-cyclist one would be at speed. And motorists don't have any other choice but to drive on roads whereas bikers DO have a choice (local nonsensical laws notwithstanding), but often select the riskiest option for selfish reasons.

Motorists in the U.S. are simply stuck with their lot in life due to the lack of public transportation and how much of a sprawl our cities and outlying areas have become. I personally don't like driving where I live and would love to ditch the activity entirely, but it's virtually a requirement, otherwise I couldn't get anywhere without wasting hours on a city bus that takes 2 hours to get to someplace that would only take around 30 minutes via car. There's also the "last mile" problem that looks to be almost insurmountable for most people, despite all the rentable e-bikes and e-scooters that've been popping-up recently.

Vilifying motorists is just complaining for complaining's sake at this point in human history.

I'm not vilifying motorists, I'm criticizing cars generally and a lack of public transportation infrastructure.

Saying Vehicle on Vehicle crashes are safer because your in a hunk of steel is sort of missing the point I'm trying to make. Should people not be allowed to walk because they are simply too exposed? Perhaps everyone should start wearing helmets and genetically engineer themselves to be that car crash man from a couple years ago, It'd be selfish not too.

Trust me I'm aware of all the pitfalls of trying to bike or use public transportation here in america, I just wrote about this, our cites are designed for cars only, which has unintentionally created a hostile environment for anyone who want's to bike/walk, etc. It's anti-human and and I don't like the "that's just how it is deal wit it" sentiment that most people seem to parrot when this is brought up. We need to plan our citys better, bring back mixed zoning, bike paths, bring back the fucking trains, etc. Yeah it can't be fixed overnight but that's not how anything works. As for "the last mile" problem you can ride the train or use a car if you must be not sweaty for your job or whatever. I'm not say to delete all cars just make them optional.

I work for the DOT specifically patching roads and if there weren't so many cars my job might not exist but I don't care. The money could be going to actually making the city better.

 

[TheBallPit]

Saying Vehicle on Vehicle crashes are safer because your in a hunk of steel is sort of missing the point I'm trying to make. Should people not be allowed to walk because they are simply too exposed? Perhaps everyone should start wearing helmets and genetically engineer themselves to be that car crash man from a couple years ago, It'd be selfish not too.

People already are STRONGLY encouraged to wear helmets and other protective gear while engaging in an exposed and potentially risky activity like biking. And laws have been in place for years forcing motorists to wear seatbelts under pain of being written an expensive civil ticket or, in extreme cases, being denied insurance payouts. Motorcyclists are also subject to these sanctions wrt headgear. And car companies are required to provide a basic level of protection to mitigate injuries in vehicular accidents.

The point of the bike versus motorist argument is that the two should NOT be in such close proximity to one another since it places everyone in pointless jeopardy when sidewalks are widely available. I just do not understand why this continues to be hotly debated, nor will I probably ever truly understand why a city government would prohibit cyclists from using said sidewalks (other than the irrational and monied reasons I previously cited).

As for altering infrastructures to better serve public movement, I'd wager for most cities that ship has long sailed. California will never have something like England's vast railway system and Florida will never see something like the BART. Yes, proposals abound and some small projects might even see a ray of sunshine, but you can't just reconfigure a metropolitan area because you can whip-up a futuristic and more ideal use of space in a simulated model. I've seen those computer-generated pics and they look wonderful and I ache to live in them, but you can't make the mass use of cars optional unless the majority are able to telecommute or do something similar (which will never happen). We are hundreds of years away and perhaps more from a Star Trek type of idealized tomorrow. As someone employed by the DOT, you should know this intimately.

You can, though, tell entitled cyclists with elitist attitudes to get the hell out of the street...TODAY.

 

[ManicLad]

People already are STRONGLY encouraged to wear helmets and other protective gear while engaging in an exposed and potentially risky activity like biking. And laws have been in place for years forcing motorists to wear seatbelts under pain of being written an expensive civil ticket or, in extreme cases, being denied insurance payouts. Motorcyclists are also subject to these sanctions wrt headgear. And car companies are required to provide a basic level of protection to mitigate injuries in vehicular accidents.

I was talking about walkers, I was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of having to accommodate the dangers of a car by being in your own car but I probably should have wrote a better analogy.

The point of the bike versus motorist argument is that the two should NOT be in such close proximity to one another since it places everyone in pointless jeopardy when sidewalks are widely available. I just do not understand why this continues to be hotly debated, nor will I probably ever truly understand why a city government would prohibit cyclists from using said sidewalks (other than the irrational and monied reasons I previously cited).

Because sidewalks are for walking, also in many places they don't even exist so I don't even see this as something worth talking about really, cyclists have to use the roads whether you like it or not.

We are hundreds of years away and perhaps more from a Star Trek type of idealized tomorrow. As someone employed by the DOT, you should know this intimately.

I am not talking about star trek, you have no idea what I am talking about. Here on the east coast we already have walkable/bikeable towns it's called any town that was built before ww2. I am not pushing futurist ideals I am pushing the exact opposite. Yes I am aware that building new infrastructure takes 100s of years but where I live we already built railways 100 years ago and we just aren't fucking using them because Jews. Yeah you might be right about cali and florida but idgaf about those places.