Opinion of Cyclists?

[Hatman 🍁]

Nothing is more indicative of the right vs left split than the opinion of cyclists, I think. The brain chemistry of a conservative would make him hate a cyclist, because he cannot fathom what it would be like to be one.

Anyways, I cycle to work and back every day. Very cheap mode of transportation. I just have to beware of the drivers who hate a cyclist.

Opebo, you should like cyclists. They are the true mode of transportation of the working class!

[DC Al Fine]

Nothing is more indicative of the right vs left split than the opinion of cyclists, I think. The brain chemistry of a conservative would make him hate a cyclist, because he cannot fathom what it would be like to be one.

Anyways, I cycle to work and back every day. Very cheap mode of transportation. I just have to beware of the drivers who hate a cyclist.

Opebo, you should like cyclists. They are the true mode of transportation of the working class!

Not all of us are standard American Conservatives Hatman

Cyclists are ok, although there are a few jerks out there who don't respect the rules of the road, but all in all its a great way to keep fit and save money. I use it myself to commute sometimes.

[bedstuy]

I used to ride my bicycle from Brooklyn to the financial district 2-3 days a week.  I have my share of complaints about drivers.  For example, people will park in the bike lane or use the bike lane as an unloading zone for their business.  As you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ .  That makes it impossible to follow the rules of the road to the letter.

I've also had two drivers hit me with their car and drive away.  Thankfully I wasn't severely injured either time, but it's scary as hell and horrible behavior by drivers.  That made me give up biking regularly in NYC, because I don't want to die.  

The funny thing is that the anti-bike crowd in my neighborhood is not conservatives.  It's black chauvinist types that think bicycles represent white encroachment.  

[Dave from Michigan]

FF

I live out in the suburbs so I drive almost everywhere. I started riding my bike for exercise though but I ride on a bike path that is along the interstate freeway. Or on the shoulder of a road that is very popular for bike riding on. I started riding on a weekly bike ride in Detroit with anywhere from 150-250 people. We ride 12-15 miles around the city but at a pretty slow speed. It is a fun ride. We do go through red lights if some of the group has already gone through, but we try to leave a lane open for cars. Detroit is adding more bike lanes every year, but it is hard for 250 bike riders to stay in the bike lane. We try to stay off main roads although Detroit had 1.8 million people in 1950 and now 700K so the streets are not very busy.

[opebo]

Opebo, you should like cyclists. They are the true mode of transportation of the working class!

Only a subjected and abused working class, Hotman.  The proper mode of transportation for a working class is something like this:

[Torie]

Highly favorable. We are a nation of fats. It's time they all started peddling. And I would have far more desirable men to choose from in a nation of leans to boot. Bikes are a freedom fighting vehicle.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Highly favorable. We are a nation of fats. It's time they all started peddling. And I would have far more desirable men to choose from in a nation of leans to boot. Bikes are a freedom fighting vehicle.

And you call yourself a Republican in 2013!

[Leftbehind]

Undeniable FF, in the main.

For every reckless cyclist there are countless drivers who'd see fit to bully (and endanger) a cyclist off the road if it got them home thirty seconds quicker than they would've otherwise.

[traininthedistance]

Opebo, you should like cyclists. They are the true mode of transportation of the working class!

Only a subjected and abused working class, Hotman.  The proper mode of transportation for a working class is something like this:

That sort of exhaust-spewing rustbucket is not a proper mode of transportation for anybody, opebo. 

You do realize that those old cars had lifespans that were barely a fraction of today's vehicles?  And used three times as much gas to go half as far?  Even from the perspective of an automobile enthusiast, there would be little to recommend them today beyond the design aesthetic and fact-free nostalgia.  Leave them to the museums, where they belong.

[Supersonic]

Extremely annoying.

I can't ride a bike, so I'm probably bitter, but when they slow me down on the way to work I become incredibly irate.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Mixed.  Ones who obey all traffic laws - fine.  Ones that want me to obey the traffic laws but they don't - dangerous and stupid and they piss me off.

[afleitch]

I'm a keen cyclist. So yeah.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm a keen cyclist. So yeah.

Do you obey the traffic laws?

[Hatman 🍁]

Traffic laws were designed for cars, Grumps. While cyclicsts are legally obliged follow them, many don't make sense for cyclists and are why they are abused.

I would like to see stop signs to be treated as yield signs for cyclists and red lights as stop signs (legally speaking). It sucks being in the rain and having to wait at a red light on a bicycle. It's easy if you're in a car, you don't get wet, but in a bike.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Traffic laws were designed for cars, Grumps. While cyclicsts are legally obliged follow them, many don't make sense for cyclists and are why they are abused.

I would like to see stop signs to be treated as yield signs for cyclists and red lights as stop signs (legally speaking). It sucks being in the rain and having to wait at a red light on a bicycle. It's easy if you're in a car, you don't get wet, but in a bike.

The problems happen when bicyclists "yield" at stop signs.

[Beet]

I've got nothing against cyclists, but there are times when I've run into trouble because of them.

One, is when I'm going on a narrow two lane winding country road and there are cyclists ahead of me who don't yield. I'm forced to slow down to a snail's pace and tailgate behind them, or risk going on the other lane and getting into a head-on collision.

Two: this one time on a two lane highway, I was in the left lane and there was a truck or SUV stopped on the right lane. Usually I don't pay attention to whether a vehicle is stopped on another lane, because, perhaps they're broken down, perhaps they're about to make a turn, who knows? Well, it turns out this bugger was stopped because there were cyclists trying to cross from the right to the left side. Naturally I couldn't see any of that because I drive a sedan and I can't see over a big SUV. So I'm nearly there going at 60 mph until I finally realize what's going on. I slam on my brakes and the car screeches to a halt. It's only at this point that I see the cyclists cross the road. At this point I'm infuriated because I think I'm going by best, being a sober and responsible driver, yet I was unaccustomed to this and if I had slammed into one of those dudes on his bike going 60 mph I would have been blamed, or locked up in jail. My life would be been ruined.

[memphis]

Highly favorable. We are a nation of fats. It's time they all started peddling. And I would have far more desirable men to choose from in a nation of leans to boot. Bikes are a freedom fighting vehicle.

No concern for the danger? Though he may be trim, I doubt a bike rider who has been in a collision with an auto would tickle your fancy. We would all point out that a car going 10 mph on a on a road built for 40 is a nuisance and a safety hazard. Why is it so hard to accept that the same is true for a bicycle? Even more so because the bicyclist has no protection when accidents inevitably occur.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sort of exhaust-spewing rustbucket is not a proper mode of transportation for anybody, opebo. 

You do realize that those old cars had lifespans that were barely a fraction of today's vehicles?  And used three times as much gas to go half as far?

Absolutely ridiculous twaddle you're peddling there, TiD - those cars were far more durable than modern cars.  They were made of cast iron, heavily built, and very easily fixable for incredibly little money.  True, your modern computerized/plastic/aluminum car requires less maintenance and adjustment than the old analog ones, but when it does break (and they do quite often), it will almost certainly be catastrophically expensive.  Also the fuel economy is no better for the same size/use of vehicle - modern cars are just tiny, uncomfortable, delicately built, and dangerous - that's why they get better fuel economy.

Highly favorable. We are a nation of fats. It's time they all started peddling. And I would have far more desirable men to choose from...

Your neglecting the central fact about bike-riding - it makes the rider impotent.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Mixed.  Ones who obey all traffic laws - fine.  Ones that want me to obey the traffic laws but they don't - dangerous and stupid and they piss me off.

     Cyclists obeying traffic laws? That's about as likely as a flying pig. They easily constitute the most brazen criminal element I've ever seen.

[Torie]

Highly favorable. We are a nation of fats. It's time they all started peddling. And I would have far more desirable men to choose from in a nation of leans to boot. Bikes are a freedom fighting vehicle.

No concern for the danger? Though he may be trim, I doubt a bike rider who has been in a collision with an auto would tickle your fancy. We would all point out that a car going 10 mph on a on a road built for 40 is a nuisance and a safety hazard. Why is it so hard to accept that the same is true for a bicycle? Even more so because the bicyclist has no protection when accidents inevitably occur.

Life has its little risks. If you don't want to take any risk, don't get out of bed. Sure, for particularly dangerous roads, cycling is a bad idea, and arguably on such roads cycling should be prohibited. On the other hand, other roads should be made cyclist friendly so there are alternative routes from point A to B.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sort of exhaust-spewing rustbucket is not a proper mode of transportation for anybody, opebo. 

You do realize that those old cars had lifespans that were barely a fraction of today's vehicles?  And used three times as much gas to go half as far?

Absolutely ridiculous twaddle you're peddling there, TiD - those cars were far more durable than modern cars.  They were made of cast iron, heavily built, and very easily fixable for incredibly little money.  True, your modern computerized/plastic/aluminum car requires less maintenance and adjustment than the old analog ones, but when it does break (and they do quite often), it will almost certainly be catastrophically expensive.  Also the fuel economy is no better for the same size/use of vehicle - modern cars are just tiny, uncomfortable, delicately built, and dangerous - that's why they get better fuel economy.

Highly favorable. We are a nation of fats. It's time they all started peddling. And I would have far more desirable men to choose from...

Your neglecting the central fact about bike-riding - it makes the rider impotent.

Really?  Who knew? 

[sentinel]

Cyclists are the worst. I rather have Michele Bachmann as President than keep cyclists on the road.

[memphis]

Highly favorable. We are a nation of fats. It's time they all started peddling. And I would have far more desirable men to choose from in a nation of leans to boot. Bikes are a freedom fighting vehicle.

No concern for the danger? Though he may be trim, I doubt a bike rider who has been in a collision with an auto would tickle your fancy. We would all point out that a car going 10 mph on a on a road built for 40 is a nuisance and a safety hazard. Why is it so hard to accept that the same is true for a bicycle? Even more so because the bicyclist has no protection when accidents inevitably occur.

Life has its little risks. If you don't want to take any risk, don't get out of bed. Sure, for particularly dangerous roads, cycling is a bad idea, and arguably on such roads cycling should be prohibited. On the other hand, other roads should be made cyclist friendly so there are alternative routes from point A to B.

Why have any road laws at all then? Speed limits, who needs em? Seat belts, pshaw. Turn signals, that's hysterical. If you don't want to take any risk, don't get out of bed.

[Torie]

Highly favorable. We are a nation of fats. It's time they all started peddling. And I would have far more desirable men to choose from in a nation of leans to boot. Bikes are a freedom fighting vehicle.

No concern for the danger? Though he may be trim, I doubt a bike rider who has been in a collision with an auto would tickle your fancy. We would all point out that a car going 10 mph on a on a road built for 40 is a nuisance and a safety hazard. Why is it so hard to accept that the same is true for a bicycle? Even more so because the bicyclist has no protection when accidents inevitably occur.

Life has its little risks. If you don't want to take any risk, don't get out of bed. Sure, for particularly dangerous roads, cycling is a bad idea, and arguably on such roads cycling should be prohibited. On the other hand, other roads should be made cyclist friendly so there are alternative routes from point A to B.

Why have any road laws at all then? Speed limits, who needs em? Seat belts, pshaw. Turn signals, that's hysterical. If you don't want to take any risk, don't get out of bed.

Balancing tests are perhaps something that you might work on, Memphis. Sure, it's more work. That is why we need more Muon2's in politics. Thanks.

[memphis]

Highly favorable. We are a nation of fats. It's time they all started peddling. And I would have far more desirable men to choose from in a nation of leans to boot. Bikes are a freedom fighting vehicle.

No concern for the danger? Though he may be trim, I doubt a bike rider who has been in a collision with an auto would tickle your fancy. We would all point out that a car going 10 mph on a on a road built for 40 is a nuisance and a safety hazard. Why is it so hard to accept that the same is true for a bicycle? Even more so because the bicyclist has no protection when accidents inevitably occur.

Life has its little risks. If you don't want to take any risk, don't get out of bed. Sure, for particularly dangerous roads, cycling is a bad idea, and arguably on such roads cycling should be prohibited. On the other hand, other roads should be made cyclist friendly so there are alternative routes from point A to B.

Why have any road laws at all then? Speed limits, who needs em? Seat belts, pshaw. Turn signals, that's hysterical. If you don't want to take any risk, don't get out of bed.

Balancing tests are perhaps something that you might work on, Memphis. Sure, it's more work. That is why we need more Muon2's in politics. Thanks.

Do you believe a cyclist is in a better position in a collision than a motorist without a seatbelt? Everything you've stated seems to indicate that you do.