"Share the Road"

[Tyrianth]

.

Lol that article just says using them is a right. Says nothing about driving being a right.

[belfpala]

Bikers are allowed to use those roads, blame your shitty government for not adding bike lanes.

Read up a few posts. There's a bike lane about 50 feet from my front door.

As for why the US is "so different," I don't know. Maybe because we have less population density than most European countries?

[Tennis]

Dude, it is not about arrogance, or feelings. Its about safe movement of traffic. Most if not all states require bike riders to ride as far to the right as possible if they are traveling less then the speed of traffic. That means, NOT the middle.

The roads are big enough for both cyclists and cars. Most roads have 2 lanes. The problem is bad drivers who don't respect others. Just look at this video which shows the commute of a cyclist to work. They are respectful and obey the law.

[belfpala]

The roads are big enough for both cyclists and cars. Most roads have 2 lanes. The problem is bad drivers who don't respect others. Just look at this video which shows the commute of a cyclist to work. They are respectful and obey the law.

What I'm looking at on that cover pic is a bike lane. Why the fuck isn't the biker in the bike lane?

(Toronto is, btw, a great city for cyclists.)

[Stelio Kontos]

I'm not shocked Tennisace is a cyclist; it makes perfect sense considering his pedantic posting.

[JohnBrown1917]

Read up a few posts. There's a bike lane about 50 feet from my front door.

As for why the US is "so different," I don't know. Maybe because we have less population density than most European countries?

Talking about roads in general.

[Deleted]

Lol that article just says using them is a right. Says nothing about driving being a right.

The site you linked does illustrate the right to travel upon public roads. Actual use of the vehicle is still a privilege.

It specifically states automobiles and licences.

[Tinykong]

A lot of countries do fine without bikes having all that(also nice, a bunch of extra costs for the poor), why is the US so different?

If you want to use a vehicle on public roads you need to pay taxes for it's construction and upkeep.

If you want to ride in a vehicle that has the potential to injure someone else or damage property on public roads, you need to prove you can operate the vehicle safely, and have insurance to protect other people from your potential negligence.

[announced]

most cyclists in BC here are assholes. they ride in the middle of the road and none of them ever wear reflective gear at night. most tend to wear all black and wonder why people hit them. i see no problem with cyclists biking on the sidewalk cause:
a) theres very few pedestrians on the roads in BC, the chance of hitting someone is really low
b) its a stupid law that bikes cant ride on the sidewalk because people believe they are more likely to get hit by someone backing up/ or any car making a turn

[Deleted]

The reason people are annoyed with cyclists is two fold:

1. They don't ride bikes and have zero idea what is safe and what is not and how to ride a small vehicle in traffic
2. They have incorrect understanding of traffic laws

And they pour this stupidity on other road users and cause dangerous driving and road rage. It's a beautiful thing...

First off, in some countries, you are allowed to use the road even if there are bike paths, so if this is the case, you can shut up about it and educate yourself. Next, there is a reason they sometimes veer from the right side of the lane towards the middle of the lane: They are preventing anyone from passing, because it would be unsafe to do so. NOT because they are negligent or assholes or anything like that. If you are behind a cyclist in your car, you are supposed to wait until it is safe to pass, even if it means you have to drive 10 miles per hours for a couple of minutes. You are probably not in a hurry and if you were; next time leave 5 minutes earlier to compensate for the traffic, you dummy. It is also absolute BS that riding on the road is somehow more "dangerous". It's not. I've had tons and tons of close calls on bike paths than on the road for one simple reason: visibility. On the road you can be seen. On the bike paths, not so much. You can pull up statistics on where and why accidents tend to happen and where I live, the roads are easily the safest option (next to dedicated bike paths, which are virtually nonexistent). Yet somehow car drivers think it's "dangerous". Face it, they don't care about our well being, they just hate us because they are a majority on the roads and it's always fun to hate minorities when you got friends to do that with.

Then you start complaining "they slow down traffic and create jams!". No, not really. Cyclists can filter through traffic jams and every time you see a cyclist do this, remember, he could be in a car sitting in front of yours, contributing to jams. More bicycles on the road, less jams.

It's country specific, but usually cyclists end up paying for upkeep in one form or another. The vast majority of cyclists who ride among other vehicles are also car owners, and do their taxes like everyone else, except don't spew noxious fumes (except farts) and don't really wear the road at all.

This brings us to another point; insurance and licence. Yes, I think cyclists should have some form of proof that they are qualified to operate a vehicle on the road and do so responsibly. I am not sure what the solution to this is, because they all seem to carry another problem: Those would discourage cycling.

Face it. People are way too fat and unhealthy. People really should be encouraged to exercise and also to reduce pollution and consumption of natural resources. Any hurdles put in the way deter from this. It is surprising how small things can make someone choose a car for their commute instead of a bicycle.

One thing that I'm sure of, is the fact that infrastructure has to include bicycles properly. Whatever the netherlands are doing, they are doing it right.

I don't know. I don't post much. Oh internet, what have I done.

- - - Updated - - -

b) its a stupid law that bikes cant ride on the sidewalk because people believe they are more likely to get hit by someone backing up/ or any car making a turn

No. Bicycles can go over 20mph on flats. That's murder speed. "Ride slower". Same to you, buddy. I can only speak from experience, but yes, combined cycle paths/side walks are way more dangerous.

Cyclists not wearing reflective thingies and/or lights is of course stupid, and here they will get fined (unless they die first, of course).

[Caelia]

No. Bicycles can go over 20mph on flats. That's murder speed. "Ride slower". Same to you, buddy. I can only speak from experience, but yes, combined cycle paths/side walks are way more dangerous.

Indeed, my average cruising speed while biking is around 30Km/h which is around 19mph, with bursts up to 40 and with some downhill up towards 50Km/h which is over 30mph, hitting a pedestrian at those speeds will cause serious injuries or death on both me and the person I hit.
Here in Sweden where I live we do have bicycle lanes and roads, a lot of them have such a low standard though that they are hasardous to ride with many pot holes, gravel, motorists using them for parking etc, and many of them are combined cycle paths/side walks.

Unless I know the bike path is in good condition and not shared with pedestrians I will always chose the main road instead for my own safety, I will never be in the middle of the road and hinder traffic though and that's not something I ever see here either no matter if I'm biking or in my car, everyone always stick to the right unless they are about to make a left turn.

In some cases they even put up signs and other shit in the middle of the biking paths and some times they just abruptly end without warning.

[grimniruk]

general rule of thumb is slower people on the road need to give way to faster people to not halt traffic.

Any person who is cycling in the middle of the road and not letting cars past needs to be shot.

[Deleted]

general rule of thumb is slower people on the road need to give way to faster people to not halt traffic.

Any person who is cycling in the middle of the road and not letting cars past needs to be shot.

You mean to say that cars must past cyclists even if it would be dangerous? No sane person is intentionally blocking traffic I don't think.

[grimniruk]

You mean to say that cars must past cyclists even if it would be dangerous? No sane person is intentionally blocking traffic I don't think.

I'm saying Cyclists must give right of way. You can't drive in the middle of the road as a cyclists holding up traffic because you're slow.

Otherwise what stops me walking in cycle lanes and holding them up?

[Deleted]

I'm saying Cyclists must give right of way. You can't drive in the middle of the road as a cyclists holding up traffic because you're slow.

Otherwise what stops me walking in cycle lanes and holding them up?

Take in to consideration the speed limit and possibilities to pull over also. Sometimes you can't and if the bicycle is going near the speed limit and there are going to be traffic ahead (requires foresight of the town you're riding in), then there would be no point necessarily. Often people are in a hurry to wait in traffic lights. Why not just drive more slowly for a while and spend less time in lights?

These situations usually are lower speed limit areas with cars parked next to the road. Common sense should be applied. If the car behind has to ride 20mph on a 30mph road for several minutes, then sure, way should be given. Same goes if you were riding a tracktor, a moped, a horse or whatever slow vehicle.

I've been stuck in a car behind a big truck many times for MILES going slower than the speed limit, yet I've not felt the need to rage about it anywhere. I kinda accept it. Often these trucks do pull over and give way and that's quite handsome of them. I do also understand that THEY are also going somewhere and would not like to waste time stopped on a rest area or whatever.

[announced]

The reason people are annoyed with cyclists is two fold:

1. They don't ride bikes and have zero idea what is safe and what is not and how to ride a small vehicle in traffic
2. They have incorrect understanding of traffic laws

And they pour this stupidity on other road users and cause dangerous driving and road rage. It's a beautiful thing...


Then you start complaining "they slow down traffic and create jams!". No, not really. Cyclists can filter through traffic jams and every time you see a cyclist do this, remember, he could be in a car sitting in front of yours, contributing to jams. More bicycles on the road, less jams.

It's country specific, but usually cyclists end up paying for upkeep in one form or another. The vast majority of cyclists who ride among other vehicles are also car owners, and do their taxes like everyone else, except don't spew noxious fumes (except farts) and don't really wear the road at all.

This brings us to another point; insurance and licence. Yes, I think cyclists should have some form of proof that they are qualified to operate a vehicle on the road and do so responsibly. I am not sure what the solution to this is, because they all seem to carry another problem: Those would discourage cycling.

Face it. People are way too fat and unhealthy. People really should be encouraged to exercise and also to reduce pollution and consumption of natural resources. Any hurdles put in the way deter from this. It is surprising how small things can make someone choose a car for their commute instead of a bicycle.

One thing that I'm sure of, is the fact that infrastructure has to include bicycles properly. Whatever the netherlands are doing, they are doing it right.

I don't know. I don't post much. Oh internet, what have I done.

- - - Updated - - -



No. Bicycles can go over 20mph on flats. That's murder speed. "Ride slower". Same to you, buddy. I can only speak from experience, but yes, combined cycle paths/side walks are way more dangerous.

Cyclists not wearing reflective thingies and/or lights is of course stupid, and here they will get fined (unless they die first, of course).

speed limit is 50km here in abbotsford in most city streets, however everyone tends to drive a minimum of 60+ and a max of around 75 km/h. this isnt in a rural area either, its the main drag usually and cops never give people tickets for going 60+
cyclists going a max of 40km/h impedes traffic, and even moreso at night when u cant see shit because they never wear reflective clothing because its 'uncool'

[Noradin]

speed limit is 50km here in abbotsford in most city streets, however everyone tends to drive a minimum of 60+ and a max of around 75 km/h. this isnt in a rural area either, its the main drag usually and cops never give people tickets for going 60+
cyclists going a max of 40km/h impedes traffic, and even moreso at night when u cant see shit because they never wear reflective clothing because its 'uncool'

So you are complaining because cyclists aren't breaking the speed limit?

[Independent voter]

I ride a bike when I can. I've had drivers get mad when I took too long to cross the road at a 4 way stop, people don't have patience.

[Deleted]

speed limit is 50km here in abbotsford in most city streets, however everyone tends to drive a minimum of 60+ and a max of around 75 km/h. this isnt in a rural area either, its the main drag usually and cops never give people tickets for going 60+
cyclists going a max of 40km/h impedes traffic, and even moreso at night when u cant see shit because they never wear reflective clothing because its 'uncool'

If there isn't room to pass, cyclist should stay in the middle of the lane until it is safe to pass or safe to pull over to let cars pass. No-one likes ninja-cyclists and I hope they get fined accordingly. Driving slowly for a few hundred meters max isn't anything to get frustrated about, as it isn't the case with tractors, horses and so on.

[Spectral]

What I'm looking at on that cover pic is a bike lane. Why the fuck isn't the biker in the bike lane?

(Toronto is, btw, a great city for cyclists.)

Presumably because there's a truck it in.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to use a vehicle on public roads you need to pay taxes for it's construction and upkeep.

If you want to ride in a vehicle that has the potential to injure someone else or damage property on public roads, you need to prove you can operate the vehicle safely, and have insurance to protect other people from your potential negligence.

This is pretty silly. A sense of proportionality is worth considering. The amount of damage done to roads by bikes is trivial and the number of pedestrians hurt by cyclists is very small. These aren't real problems that need fixing, they're just some weird grievance against cyclists. If you were going to tax and insure them with costs that are proportional to damage and risks, it would be like $20/person and more government paperwork than it could plausibly be worth.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Bicycles can go over 20mph on flats. That's murder speed. "Ride slower". Same to you, buddy. I can only speak from experience, but yes, combined cycle paths/side walks are way more dangerous.

The only accident I've had on a bike was when I foolishly cut across a small bit of sidewalk that connects two roads when I didn't want to ride down a one way road or go another street down. I got hit lightly by a car whose driver was looking to his left, didn't look back to the right, and didn't stop at the sidewalk. Oops - lesson learned about why you really, really shouldn't ever ride on a sidewalk even slowly and for a short distance.

On the bright side, the driver was extremely nice and really upset about it. After about five minutes of recovery, he was more shaken up than I was and I had to repeatedly reassure him that I was OK and that he didn't do anything more wrong than I did.