Opinion of Cyclists?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Every once in a while when an average joe is just trying to get where he needs to go, he'll encounter something. Now, the average working man has enough problems as it is when it comes to getting from point A to point B: "speed limits", cops, road work, other drivers. However, every once in a while, a couple of folks aboard two-wheeled, non-motorized vehicles will be in his freakin' lane, pretending that they're cars. You'd think that once a car came near them they'd get onto the shoulder or something. Any objectively sane person would realize the power a car would have over a bicycle. Nevertheless, these people insist on using the road like it was made for them. And what is Average Joe to do? There's traffic in the other lane and these folks won't get a move on! They're creating a direct obstable to his goals and he can't do a thing about them! Now, some liberals might want to put in bike lanes, but would that not be only bowing to the whims of a minority--terrorists, in fact?

Now you obviously know where I stand, but where are you guys?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I don't own a car, so I just walk everywhere. I walked about five miles today as part of my job hunt. Cyclists should use their legs for something other than peddling.

When I was taking my driving lessons early in the mornings last summer, I saw cyclists a lot. About 70-100 of them at a time would ride along A1A in a pack, making traffic a cluster of epic proportions. They all seemed so smug too. Mega HPs. They should learn how to walk.

[memphis]

They're very annoying on the road. I know this isn't true in big cities, but where I live it's 100% recreational. Nobody bikes to get anywhere in particular. And we have perfectly good parks and bike trails all over town. I don't get it. Especially as hot and humid as the climate is here. But there are more of them every day.

[rejectamenta]

I don't see enough around here to form an opinion. Most people who use bikes for transport are old guys with DUIs going down the pike.

In DC I noticed about 90% of them were embarrassingly skinny dweebs, however. Why you would waste time with a physical exercise that turns you into an estrogen stick I do not know.

E: For what it's worth I am very courteous to cyclists and I wouldn't mind at all seeing bike lanes placed. I'm also a big fan of their YouTube videos where they get hit by cars and harassed by fat people.

[traininthedistance]

Now, some liberals might want to put in bike lanes, but would that not be only bowing to the whims of a minority--terrorists, in fact?

The cars are, quite obviously, the real terrorists here.

(Note: I am not actually a cyclist.  But I stand in solidarity with them, for a safe, logical, and humane transportation system.)

[Ban my account ffs!]

They're using the road like it was made for them because it was made for them. You should try experiencing the world from outside of your 3000 pound metal pod for a change.

Nix is on a car crusade!  He alone will rid the world of evil cars!  

I'm not sure what the law says here... but cyclists are always happily in the shoulder or near the edge of the road in town.  Cyclists who purposely block up traffic because they have a chip on their shoulder should be ticketed for impeding traffic.  But we should also make cars yield to bikes on narrower roads where there aren't shoulders or wide enough lanes to accommodate a bike and a car.

Generally when I encounter cyclists on more rural roads, I give them a wide berth if I can because it's respectful.... and it's the law.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

They're using the road like it was made for them because it was made for them. You should try experiencing the world from outside of your 3000 pound metal pod for a change.

I was unaware that roads--wide enough for cars, with lanes sized for cars, and with speed limits that I think would pertain more to cars than to bikes--were made, nevertheless, for bicycles. That would explain the cops on bikes--to catch the bike related crime, of course. I suppose when they ordered construction on Dixie Highway which runs right through Waterford, they had the wear-and-tear caused by bike use in mind. And I'll tell you, I've been running and cycling in places without sidewalks. When I saw a car coming, I respected the fact that A) these things could crush me and B) these drivers were going out of their way to not do so. Your average ordinary athletic "cyclist" on the other hand doesn't give a damn and regardless of traffic in the other lanes that would prevent passing of a vehicle meant to go much faster than a bike, they persist in occupying close to the middle of the lane regardless of whether a shoulder is readily available or not. And said shoulder has been quite available. Everyone loves to pretend how bikes will save us from 21st century technology and how unselfish all the pedal turners are. That is far from true. They are some of the most willfully selfish people to occupy this country since the British in the 1780's.

[Reginald]

Cycling isn't exactly my preferred method of transportation, but all the (usually) irrational anger toward cyclists does serve to strengthen my hypothesis that the majority of the population is at its absolute worst when behind the wheel.

[Lief 🗽]

Certainly better than car drivers, though we all know the best form of transportation is public.

[Ban my account ffs!]

remember it is the combustion engine that affords your lavish dense lifestyle in Brooklyn... so before you go feeling all smug and self-satisfied, check your privilege.

[traininthedistance]

They're using the road like it was made for them because it was made for them. You should try experiencing the world from outside of your 3000 pound metal pod for a change.

Nix is on a car crusade!  He alone will rid the world of evil cars!  

I'm not sure what the law says here... but cyclists are always happily in the shoulder or near the edge of the road in town.  Cyclists who purposely block up traffic because they have a chip on their shoulder should be ticketed for impeding traffic.  But we should also make cars yield to bikes on narrower roads where there aren't shoulders or wide enough lanes to accommodate a bike and a car.

Generally when I encounter cyclists on more rural roads, I give them a wide berth if I can because it's respectful.... and it's the law.

The law here is, believe it or not, that cyclists have a right to ride in the middle of the road, full stop  (unless it's a high-speed freeway or something where I don't think they're allowed to ride at all).  And (this is better-known) that they should not ever ride on the sidewalks, though obviously little kids will ride on the sidewalks anyway and that's OK. Generally they will stay in the shoulder unless staying in the shoulder is unsafe for whatever reason- but, and this is hard for most non-cyclists to appreciate, the risk of getting "doored" by parked cars means that a prudent cyclist probably just should take the road whenever they don't have a bike lane.  So, what you see is that most cyclists are deliberately making their own ride less safe to defer to drivers who don't know the law; and very often don't really have empathy for non-drivers and/or think they're the only ones with any right to the road.

[Ban my account ffs!]

They're using the road like it was made for them because it was made for them. You should try experiencing the world from outside of your 3000 pound metal pod for a change.

Nix is on a car crusade!  He alone will rid the world of evil cars!  

I'm not sure what the law says here... but cyclists are always happily in the shoulder or near the edge of the road in town.  Cyclists who purposely block up traffic because they have a chip on their shoulder should be ticketed for impeding traffic.  But we should also make cars yield to bikes on narrower roads where there aren't shoulders or wide enough lanes to accommodate a bike and a car.

Generally when I encounter cyclists on more rural roads, I give them a wide berth if I can because it's respectful.... and it's the law.

To step back from my hyperbole for a moment, there is usually no excuse for not remaining on the shoulder on a state highway. However, there are a wide variety of circumstances under which cyclists have no other choice, either because the shoulder is obstructed, not ride-able, or just not readily visible to vehicle traffic from all directions. Bikes are legal on almost all roads, but the traffic engineers who design them are typically trained not to think of roads as the multi-use corridors that they really are, which is what creates situations in which bike-riding is unsafe, inconvenient, or an annoying obstruction for other kinds of traffic. In many cases, cyclists refuse to stay on the shoulder because motorists would not notice them if they did not.

Narrow rural roads and city streets are another matter entirely; in most cases, people should be driving along these roads with a lot less speed and a lot more caution (the former are the most dangerous roads in the country, and the latter are often teeming with pedestrians, cyclists, and all kinds of life-beyond-the-automobile). Refusing to respect cyclists on these roads is selfish and extremely dangerous.

The road is designed to safely transport cars at the posted speed limit.  It is a bit disingenuous to call all roads a "multi-use corridor" on a road that sees 99.9% autos or trucks.

City streets are completely different.  But even then cities put up bike lanes along corridors they want cyclists to use while they don't in higher speed, busy car corridors unless they can get the correct right of way when rebuilding to add bike lanes.

Like it or not, cycling is a 2nd class form of travel and is treated as such.  It's nice if you are in a position to be able to bike or walk wherever you need to go.  Most people, at least in this country, cannot.  That won't change in any timescale you're hoping for.

[traininthedistance]

remember it is the combustion engine that affords your lavish dense lifestyle in Brooklyn... so before you go feeling all smug and self-satisfied, check your privilege.

My lifestyle is far from lavish. 

And if you want to see smug and self-satisfied, maybe you should take a good, hard look in the mirror.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Minneapolis is notorious for annoying cyclists and they really have no excuse here for riding in the middle of the street because you can get just about anywhere in the city using the dedicated bike lanes on some streets. My street doesn't have one, but there's one heading each way on the two next to it. If you want to get from somewhere on my street to somewhere else you bike off to one of those streets and ride down in the correct direction, and then to your location. That's what I do when I bike. So there really is no excuse for the traffic blockers or ones that like to pretend the traffic lights don't exist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very few American cities offer enough bike infrastructure that it's convenient for a cyclist to get around while avoiding areas of high automobile traffic. (And believe me, almost all cyclists will do so if they can.)

Minneapolis does, and that doesn't stop annoying cyclists to go to other routes. I say this as someone who owns a bike and only uses it on the dedicated bike routes when possible.

[traininthedistance]

Minneapolis is notorious for annoying cyclists and they really have no excuse here for riding in the middle of the street because you can get just about anywhere in the city using the dedicated bike lanes on some streets. My street doesn't have one, but there's one heading each way on the two next to it. If you want to get from somewhere on my street to somewhere else you bike off to one of those streets and ride down in the correct direction, and then to your location. That's what I do when I bike. So there really is no excuse for the traffic blockers or ones that like to pretend the traffic lights don't exist.

Running red lights is the one "cyclist bad behavior" that actually has basis in fact, rather than just resentment.  I've seen it from time to time, and it's obviously not good.  I guess the cyclists who do it seem to think it's more like jaywalking and less like a car running a red... it's not as bad as a car running a red, since the potential damage is orders of magnitude lower, but it's also obviously not just like jaywalking either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Minneapolis is notorious for annoying cyclists and they really have no excuse here for riding in the middle of the street because you can get just about anywhere in the city using the dedicated bike lanes on some streets. My street doesn't have one, but there's one heading each way on the two next to it. If you want to get from somewhere on my street to somewhere else you bike off to one of those streets and ride down in the correct direction, and then to your location. That's what I do when I bike. So there really is no excuse for the traffic blockers or ones that like to pretend the traffic lights don't exist.

Running red lights is the one "cyclist bad behavior" that actually has basis in fact, rather than just resentment.  I've seen it from time to time, and it's obviously not good.  I guess the cyclists who do it seem to think it's more like jaywalking and less like a car running a red... it's not as bad as a car running a red, since the potential damage is orders of magnitude lower, but it's also obviously not just like jaywalking either.

Actually it is like jaywalking and that's the thing, jaywalking on an urban street at a time when people are actually driving around is not harmless or a trivial thing. One thing I've noticed is that at least stupid college kids or dumb suburbanites have the courtesy when jaywalking to run across the street as fast as possible if they see cars coming. Plenty of people in urban areas will continue to stroll at a leisurely pace no matter how many horns are honking or people yelling. I've even once seen a guy stop in the middle of the intersection to yell at the cars honking at him. I'm sure the one in front was resisting the urge to run him over.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very few American cities offer enough bike infrastructure that it's convenient for a cyclist to get around while avoiding areas of high automobile traffic. (And believe me, almost all cyclists will do so if they can.)

Minneapolis does, and that doesn't stop annoying cyclists to go to other routes. I say this as someone who owns a bike and only uses it on the dedicated bike routes when possible.

As Minneapolis is consistently ranked as one of the bicycle-friendly cities in the country, I'm not surprised. Better bicycle infrastructure begets more cyclists, and inevitably some of them will fail to behave safely. (Cyclists who fail to watch for pedestrians are especially dangerous to others.) In a situation where you have that many people on bikes, enforcing traffic laws that apply to them becomes far more important (e.g. consider the Netherlands).

I do wonder, though, why the people whom you're describing fail to use the bicycle routes that are available to them. Is it habit? Convenience? Cheap thrills?

It's probably the fact that the bike lanes tend to be on side roads or parallel one ways rather than the main routes. They still get you there just as fast, but OMG it's still not the main road. Never mind the fact that a one-way street is by far the most logical place to put a one-way bike route lane as well...

[Ban my account ffs!]

Minneapolis is notorious for annoying cyclists and they really have no excuse here for riding in the middle of the street because you can get just about anywhere in the city using the dedicated bike lanes on some streets. My street doesn't have one, but there's one heading each way on the two next to it. If you want to get from somewhere on my street to somewhere else you bike off to one of those streets and ride down in the correct direction, and then to your location. That's what I do when I bike. So there really is no excuse for the traffic blockers or ones that like to pretend the traffic lights don't exist.

Minneapolis is also known for solo drivers in their huge cars threatening cyclists with their cars (veering towards them, holding down the horn for 20-30 seconds while tailgating the cyclist) because they're passive aggressive as f**k.  That passive aggressiveness has permeated into the bike culture as well.

But that's just Minnesota.


Nix, by second class form of travel I mean that it is not a feasible form of transportation for most people because everything is on the car scale.  Obviously if we build cities on bike-scales then cycling would be a 1st class form of travel while driving a car would be so inefficient and slow that it would be 2nd class.

But we've got a veeeery long way to go on that.  And it will never be feasible for everyone.  And in places where car travel is and will be necessary (rural areas), driving must be economical or else you'll have a situation where you're undermining rural economies and our ability to transports goods and people over the distances needed in a modern economy.

But I have a feeling that you actually want to encourage that...

[traininthedistance]

Minneapolis is notorious for annoying cyclists and they really have no excuse here for riding in the middle of the street because you can get just about anywhere in the city using the dedicated bike lanes on some streets. My street doesn't have one, but there's one heading each way on the two next to it. If you want to get from somewhere on my street to somewhere else you bike off to one of those streets and ride down in the correct direction, and then to your location. That's what I do when I bike. So there really is no excuse for the traffic blockers or ones that like to pretend the traffic lights don't exist.

Running red lights is the one "cyclist bad behavior" that actually has basis in fact, rather than just resentment.  I've seen it from time to time, and it's obviously not good.  I guess the cyclists who do it seem to think it's more like jaywalking and less like a car running a red... it's not as bad as a car running a red, since the potential damage is orders of magnitude lower, but it's also obviously not just like jaywalking either.

Actually it is like jaywalking and that's the thing, jaywalking on an urban street at a time when people are actually driving around is not harmless or a trivial thing. One thing I've noticed is that at least stupid college kids or dumb suburbanites have the courtesy when jaywalking to run across the street as fast as possible if they see cars coming. Plenty of people in urban areas will continue to stroll at a leisurely pace no matter how many horns are honking or people yelling. I've even once seen a guy stop in the middle of the intersection to yell at the cars honking at him. I'm sure the one in front was resisting the urge to run him over.

I jaywalk all the time, not gonna lie.  My GF thinks I'm kind of reckless in my willingness to do so,  and she's probably right.  But at least I do always speed up my pace rather than stroll, even when there are no cars anywhere.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Responsible for far far fewer deaths of other people than motorists.

[Tender Branson]

I'm a biker myself, but I NEVER drive on the main street - only on the bike lanes or mountain/forest roads, of which there are a lot here.

Biking on the main street is dangerous, especially with all the traffic here due to the tourists, and constantly overtaking those biking idiots on the streets is annoying as hell (I'm a car driver myself too).

Just because they are too lazy to use the bike lanes like the others do as well, because they think they are 2 minutes faster when they take the main road ...

Besides, taking the bike lanes is not only much safer but also cooler, because the bike lanes are often near rivers or fields or lakes, where you can go down to the river and put your feet into the water for a refreshment, you have good air nearby that smells of hey (instead of the dust on the mainroad) or you can easily go to the nearby soccer fields or swimming lakes next to the bikelanes.

[dead0man]

I don't have a problem with them.  My problem is, has been and always will be asshats in the passing lane not passing.

[traininthedistance]

I think you're misreading me Snowguy, because when I think of walkable, sustainable living, I'm not thinking of midtown Manhattan or Brooklyn. I'm thinking of something like this:



(That's from a village of a few thousand people in Western New York.)

Rural economies can be highly walkable or bikeable. The classic American small town was at least as pedestrian friendly as most city neighborhoods. We've undermined that way of life since World War II, and our obsession with the automobile has a lot to do with it. I think that we'd be a lot healthier - physically, mentally, and socially - if we reversed that.

Also, I find it hilarious that Minnesota, of all places, is apparently a hotbed of passive aggressive driving.

I take it you're familiar with James Howard Kunstler?  I haven't read any of his stuff in awhile, but I remember that he was keen on small towns and cities like Troy and Poughkeepsie being ultimately more "sustainable" than the big cities.  Of course, a lot of that is rooted in a particularly dystopian view of peak oil that seems a bit less plausible than it did five years ago (thank goodness).

But, yeah, small-town living can be absolutely be walkable, bikeable, sustainable, etc.  And it helps to keep in mind that the vast majority of "rural" people today have "town"-like employment (the share of America "working the land" has been in long-term decline since 1789), or are not truly rural at all, but exurban. 

[opebo]

They're very annoying on the road.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Literally Hitler.