Hate for Cyclists - Cyclist Intentionally Hit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whoa!, federal charges! Guess he didn't realize (or care) that stretch of road was under federal control....

Hope he gets the max sentence.
 
Rural highway road cycling is tricky, so I just ride the gravel shoulder and not have to rely on dozens of people to all make the right decisions when driving, just seems like a bad idea! In town its easier to take a lane as the bike and car speeds are lower and typically you don't need to take a whole lane very often where people can't pass you. Never had a problem in town with taking the lane when necessary.
 
Originally Posted By: madRiver
The biker is also nuts for riding side by side instead of single file with traffic present. I am not sure that was intentional or really bad driving(dui?). Risky cycling the smarter ones stay on edge of road.

Glad no one hurt.


Well that's nothing here we have bike lanes along side the road so they will ride three abreast and one of them will be in the roadway. The problem is they have the right of way. I used to ride a bike but seriously I can't stand rude obnoxious bikers!
 
Last edited:
Let me preface this by saying:
I have ridden all over the world. I have over 20 complete bikes, and enough frames and components to build 10 more.
In today's United States, I believe that bicycles do not belong on the road with cars. Period. I'm all for funding separate paths/trails.
If you ride on the road and think because you have the law on your side, you are not placing your life in jeopardy, you are sadly mistaken. Bicycles and cars/trucks do not belong on the same road together. Period.
 
That's a very sobering statement bigj-16. Very sad, but true. The U.S. has never accepted that roads are to be shared with other forms of transportation. Many motorists simply have the "me only" attitude (as do some foolish cyclists). It is what it is. When I was in the Spring Green area of Wisconsin some years ago, I imagined that the rural roads there were somewhat bicycle friendly. Maybe I was just biased at the time.

I still ride a bit - an old steel frame road bike rebuilt "Rivendell" style, sans the high cost. I ride uber defensive, e.g., I ride through a busy intersection then safely do a u-turn to complete a turn rather than sit in the left turn lane amidst 2 ton vehicles (if that makes sense).

Thanks for the interesting post.
 
I am a cyclist, and IMO what we are seeing is really just more an issue with our road rage problem along with driver lack of attention. The first part can be fixed by building and expanding roads. I think the only way to fix the poor driver part is with driverless cars.
 
Here is a bunch of local jerks as group but individually mostly decent I have dealt with yelling at me as I passed them because it was tight and they would not move into break down lane when two cars passed each other. I think their attitude brought on this local officer who has gotten plenty of complaints about the group and himself not great with the group either.
 
The cop doesn't like how the group is riding ... they should listen to him instead of arguing and thinking they own the roads.
 
Cyclists have no duty to "move into the breakdown lane" so that a vehicle can pass.

Whether you're trying to pass a slow-moving automobile, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, or, whatever the case may be, it's YOUR responsibility to find a safe and wide-enough place to pass safely without endangering yourself or the person you're passing. I say that with all due respect.

I've learned this in my years as a sportbike rider, when, often times, on a mountain road, I'll find myself stuck behind slow-moving cars, trucks, or Harleys. Even groups of cyclists at times. And, you know what? Usually if you wait 5 minutes, whatever's holding you up will turn off, or, you'll come upon a safe place to pass.

Calling cyclists "jerks", etc, is a manifestation of your own impatience.
 
You kind of answered your post right there.

Despite a situation regarding safeguarding one's own personal safety and the concept of "share the road" you suggest cyclists choose only to do what is legal, rather than prudent and considerate.
 
Last edited:
I think most cyclists DO choose to use common sense and to do what’s thoughtful and prudent, as do most drivers. As with most everything in life, there are a few bad actors who end up getting all the attention and giving the whole bunch a bad name.
 
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts

... you suggest cyclists choose only to do what is legal, rather than prudent and considerate.


I have been stewing on this, so I had better say my peace and be done with it. We have traffic regulation to insure the safe flow of traffic. What is legal is what is (or should be) prudent and considerate.

I can't count how many times I have a driver who has the right of way "wave me through" when I am balanced on my bike. I know they are trying to be "considerate", but please don't do this. I have no clue what you are going to do. Please take your right of way

I have also had the experience of traveling in excess of the speed limit (yes, I have a very accurate speedometer) and having an automobile operator come up behind me and honk or pass in an unsafe, illegal, and inconsiderate manner or fail to yield when I have the right of way. Please don't do those things either.

I know, it is critically important that you get where you are going in a big hurry. I could apply the same logic to say I should be allowed to cruise through town at 130 MPH, because my car can do just that.

I may be riding in the middle of the road because I am going to turn left. Or because there is debris on the shoulder of the highway. Or because the shoulder pavement is in poor condition. Or just because I want to and it is legal according to traffic regulations.

As for the law enforcement officer (AKA "town clown") in the bicyclist video above, I spent many years as a fire fighter / medic and I have been told by LEOs to do unsafe or illegal things on many occasions. If they are enforcing their prejudices instead of the law, they need to be called to task.

There have been times I have refused to do what they have said, but I have always informed them why I was refusing. I was never arrested, and yes, sometimes LEOs do just that; arrest a firefighter, medic, or nurse for refusing an illegal or dangerous order.

Riding on the shoulder is often more dangerous than riding on the highway for the reasons I have given above. And I don't care if the LEO "doesn't like" this group of riders. If they are doing something illegal he needs to give them a written warning or citation. If they riding in a legal manner and are passed illegally and in a manner which creates a safety hazard, as admitted by another poster, the LEO needs to give the automobile operator a written warning or a citation.
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
Cyclists have no duty to "move into the breakdown lane" so that a vehicle can pass.

Whether you're trying to pass a slow-moving automobile, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, or, whatever the case may be, it's YOUR responsibility to find a safe and wide-enough place to pass safely without endangering yourself or the person you're passing. I say that with all due respect.

I've learned this in my years as a sportbike rider, when, often times, on a mountain road, I'll find myself stuck behind slow-moving cars, trucks, or Harleys. Even groups of cyclists at times. And, you know what? Usually if you wait 5 minutes, whatever's holding you up will turn off, or, you'll come upon a safe place to pass.

Calling cyclists "jerks", etc, is a manifestation of your own impatience.


The "breakdown" lane doubles as a parking lane along the beach front road. The cyclists can easily move over or go single file and make the flow of traffic better but occasionally choose to stay in lane and sometimes doubled backing up traffic (aka jerks). I think mutual cooperation is key on sharing the road. The road in video is ocean front(RT1A) and can be quite busy on warmer days leaving little opportunity to pass a mass of cycles.
 
The road doubles as a place for cyclists along the beach. Automobile-ists can easily wait for a place where they can legally and safely pass with at least 3 feet of clearance (per N.H. traffic regulations) but occasionally choose to pass without the required minimum clearance and sometimes do so with oncoming traffic (aka jerks). Those who can't wait for cyclists going 30 MPH on this road should take the nearby Interstate instead.
 
My city built a multimillion dollar bike path parallel to the main highway route through town a few years ago. But where do most of the cyclists ride? On the white stripe on the shoulder of the highway of course. So the city paid to extend the shoulder 4 feet wider the last time they resurfaced the highway hoping that the cyclists would ride further from the stripe. About 25% ride in the margin, the rest still ride on the stripe.
Bicyclists around here are their own worst enemy, and they beg to be a grease stain on the blacktop. I hope the dead ones have the epitaph on their tombstone "too cool to use the bike path".
 
Last edited:
All of the bike haters posting on this thread are missing the point. Bicycles are vehicles which have a legal right to ride in the roadway.
In Utah it is permitted to ride two abreast. The requirement to ride as far to the right as is practicable does not mean that bicyclists need to ride on the shoulder.
Riding in the lane of traffic is the safest place for a cyclist. It is rare that a cyclist is struck from behind. Almost always, collisions happen when an automobile turns across a bicycle, which your suggestion of riding on the shoulder in an urban setting invites. Also, there is often debris on the shoulder, which is a hazard for cyclists.
Lastly, your argument, and that of all the other "bikes don't belong on the road" folks seem to be based on "they slow me down, and I am the most important thing in the world" mentality.
In my time as a fire fighter I had the pleasure of dealing with automobile operators who were just too important to wait for us. I have had an engine I was riding in responding with lights and siren to a motor vehicle crash passed ($500 ticket). I have had a crash scene driven through by a clown who informed us that only the DOT could close a highway (wrong!, $500 ticket).
I have had people go through a road closure due to downed power lines across the road. I have had people yell at me because I directed my crew to close a highway so we could run a fire hose across the highway!
I have had a driver ignore my flagger who told them that there was ice on the road around the bend, that they should go no faster than 5 MPH, and sent them through single file. At 30 MPH they lost control and slid into an engine that had a backside made out of half inch steel plate.
In addition to a couple thousand dollars damage to their pickup (none to the engine), they got a nice big ticket from the state trooper who was running traffic control on the other side of the wreck. The list could go on and on.
So have a little patience. Traffic safety (and this applies to bicyclists who don't obey stop signs too) depends on people following the rules, even the ones they don't like.
 
Originally Posted By: DangerousDan
All of the bike haters posting on this thread are missing the point. Bicycles are vehicles which have a legal right to ride in the roadway.
In Utah it is permitted to ride two abreast. The requirement to ride as far to the right as is practicable does not mean that bicyclists need to ride on the shoulder.
Riding in the lane of traffic is the safest place for a cyclist. It is rare that a cyclist is struck from behind.


I think you're the one missing the point. The point is, yes, bicyclists have the right of way, but my city went out of it's way and spent a lot of taxpayer's money to make a safer place for them to ride, but they'd rather ride where its more dangerous. Like I said, they aren't real popular here for it. Though they might be legal to ride on the white line, it won't do them a lot of good if they're dead. And it won't make them any friends if they live.
Some sections of the highway are narrow. Vehicles are required by law to give bicyclists at least three feet of clearance. In those narrow sections, overtaking a bicyclist legally means driving out of the lane. Doing so really [censored] off lots of drivers when they look over and see a multi million dollar bike path right there that's not be used.
It's not about "me first" or "being in a hurry". It's about safety. Safety for drivers and bicyclists. Driving and riding is all about being a defensive operator. It's smarter to operate defensively than it is to push the limits!

Ps. I used to be an avid bicyclist. I do not hate them, but I see both sides. I eventually switched to mountain biking because I felt it was safer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top