Cyclists are a pain in the rear

[wolram]

I do not know about around you way but around my neck of the woods cyclists on bendy country lanes are a danger to traffic, numerous times i have been in a car and saw cyclists traveling three abreast blocking one whole lane, if one comes across them on a bend there is nothing one can do but slow down and follow them, why don't they travel in single file? if they have to use country roads.

 

[Astronuc]

I would expect that they are supposed to ride single file so as not to obstruct traffic. One may wish to consult a constable or local/shire traffic laws.

When I ride, I use cycling lanes or less trafficked routes to avoid obstructing traffic. Fortunately in local area, there are ample bike lanes in which to ride. Out in the rural areas, there are shoulders on the roads, although without traffic, I'll ride where the pavement is not so rough and strewn with debris. The vast majority of drivers are courteous and mindful of cyclists, and I reciprocate.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's my impression that cyclists feel they are morally superior to auto drivers and, therefore, should be deferred to. The cyclists feel they are both protecting the environment and taking care of their own health, while the auto driver is hurting the environment and getting fat while doing it. Pumped up by this feeling they are so much more responsible than car drivers, they do not mind blocking your way, and, in fact, probably enjoy it.

 

[wolram]

That is right Zooby, if cyclists want to hog the roads they should pay tax or some other payment.

 

[PeroK]

I've been in the Lake District with a car this past week and have no objection to those who choose to travel on two wheels slowing my progress from time to time.

It's difficult to understand the frame of mind that objects so strongly to cyclists on the road.

 

[Tosh5457]

I do not know about around you way but around my neck of the woods cyclists on bendy country lanes are a danger to traffic, numerous times i have been in a car and saw cyclists traveling three abreast blocking one whole lane, if one comes across them on a bend there is nothing one can do but slow down and follow them, why don't they travel in single file? if they have to use country roads.

I always give a strong long beep in those situations, to scare them off a bit ;)

 

[Mark44]

It's my impression that cyclists feel they are morally superior to auto drivers and, therefore, should be deferred to.

See Jeff the Cyclist, in the Pearls Before Swine comic strip -- http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2013/01/13

I've been in the Lake District with a car this past week and have no objection to those who choose to travel on two wheels slowing my progress from time to time.

I don't either, and will slow down when I come up on people riding bicycles. What I object to is when they ride two or three abreast, forcing auto drivers to veer into the oncoming lane.

I speak as someone who has ridden bicycles many thousands of miles, going back to the late '50s.

 

[DaveC426913]

Woolie, I've paraphrased you here:

"...cyclists on bendy country lanes are a danger to traffic, ... if one comes across them on a bend..."

but I put the following to you: are they any more danger than any other obstruction in the road behind a bend? What if there were a slow-moving car? A stalled car? A deer? A small child?

You are responsible for ensuring you do not collide with any of the above. You are responsible for ensuring that, upon approaching a blind curve, you do not overdrive your safe stopping distance.

That addresses the issue of danger, now I'll address the issue of inconvenience.

 

[DaveC426913]

I deal with cyclists everyday in my Megalopolis. I'm a die-hard driver but I recognize that I am a dinosaur. Cycling is the way of the future for us, so I concede to the greater good.

I believe they are riding abreast, not out of orneriness but out of assertiveness for their rights. At least here, bicycles are full-fledged vehicles that are entitled to occupy the lane, just like any car is. If they rode single file, you would pass them with little thought, as if they were pedestrians on the side of the road. That would be more dangerous to them. They are saying give us the respect as fellow vehicles - albeit, slow vehicles. When you approach is from behind, slow down. We will (probably) move out of your way.

 

[zoobyshoe]

See Jeff the Cyclist, in the Pearls Before Swine comic strip -- http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2013/01/13

Yes, that's the attitude.

I speak as someone who has ridden bicycles many thousands of miles, going back to the late '50s.

Same here. I used to practically live on my bicycle. However, my attitude was: cars are more massive and can kill me despite my right-of-way, so I will scoot out of their path at all times. I wanted to ride a bike and also live.

 

[vela]

It's difficult to understand the frame of mind that objects so strongly to cyclists on the road.

It's a matter of courtesy. Riding as if you're the only one that matters on the road, whether you're on a bike or in a car, is selfish and serves only to irritate and anger others on the road. Bicyclists should avoid riding in a way that impedes the flow of traffic.

That said, a lot of car drivers suffer from a sense of entitlement. They have to recognize that bicycle riders have as much right to use the roads as they do.

 

[wolram]

I deal with cyclists everyday in my Megalopolis. I'm a die-hard driver but I recognize that I am a dinosaur. Cycling is the way of the future for us, so I concede to the greater good.

I believe they are riding abreast, not out of orneriness but out of assertiveness for their rights. At least here, bicycles are full-fledged vehicles that are entitled to occupy the lane, just like any car is. If they rode single file, you would pass them with little thought, as if they were pedestrians on the side of the road. That would be more dangerous to them. They are saying give us the respect as fellow vehicles - albeit, slow vehicles. When you approach is from behind, slow down. We will (probably) move out of your way.

I would not mind if cyclists paid to use the roads, but they do not, many times i have noted a gaggle of cyclists slowing down traffic and causing a long tail back, to me it is clear they should ride single file then the traffic can pass unhindered.

 

[DaveC426913]

\
It's a matter of courtesy. Riding as if you're the only one that matters on the road, whether you're on a bike or in a car, is selfish and serves only to irritate and anger others on the road. Bicyclists should avoid riding in a way that impedes the flow of traffic.

That said, a lot of car drivers suffer from a sense of entitlement. They have to recognize that bicycle riders have as much right to use the roads as they do.

The problem is, when cyclists are inconsiderate, drivers are inconvenienced. Whereas when drivers are inconsiderate, cyclists die.

Forgive the hyperbole, but one could look at cyclists operating as if an oppressed group. Once an oppressed group reaches a certain saturation, they can (and must) enforce their rights that the majority aren't yet ready to cede.

Perhaps they need to take page out of another recently-oppressed group's book:

We're here, and we're in-gear!

 

[Mark44]

The problem is, when cyclists are inconsiderate, drivers are inconvenienced. Whereas when drivers are inconsiderate, cyclists die.

The problem is, when cyclists are inconsiderate, drivers are inconvenienced, possibly causing them to pass unsafely, with the potential for cyclists and motorists dying.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem is, when cyclists are inconsiderate, drivers are inconvenienced, possibly causing them to pass unsafely, with the potential for cyclists and motorists dying.

That does not transfer onus to the cyclist. The onus is still on the driver to not kill anyone, even if it means being inconvenienced.

Your argument is tantamount to that oft abused defense "they were asking for it".

 

[zoobyshoe]

I would not mind if cyclists paid to use the roads, but they do not, many times i have noted a gaggle of cyclists slowing down traffic and causing a long tail back, to me it is clear they should ride single file then the traffic can pass unhindered.

I don't think it's a matter of them paying at all. Cars aren't appreciated when they slow traffic, so neither are cyclists. People's expectations are that traffic should proceed at around the speed limit, weather and road conditions permitting.

Bike lanes are an afterthought that was fitted to pre-existing roads not designed for them. Cyclists should bear that in mind.

 

[vela]

That said, a lot of car drivers suffer from a sense of entitlement.

Bike lanes are an afterthought that was fitted to pre-existing roads not designed for them. Cyclists should bear that in mind.

See?

 

[WWGD]

I always give a strong long beep in those situations, to scare them off a bit ;)

I once was thinking of recording the sound of a car making a very sudden break, with screeching noises, followed by the sound of a crash. I thought I would play it to passing pedestrians at random (definitely not to other drivers/cyclists), see what happenned. Never followed through. Maybe I'll do it now and use it as my new ringtone, instead of the " You are _not_ the father" ringtone (M.Povich show) I now use.

 

[Mark44]

That does not transfer onus to the cyclist. The onus is still on the driver to not kill anyone, even if it means being inconvenienced.

I agree that the motorist bears direct responsibility, but had the cyclist been more courteous, the accident wouldn't have happened at all. For that reason, I hold the cyclist at least partly responsible. In the scenario that wolram talked about, with a long line of cars behind a group or riders riding abreast, that's a situation positively ripe for an accident.

Your argument is tantamount to that oft abused defense "they were asking for it".

If you crawl into the den of a hibernating bear, and poke it with a stick, you are asking for it.
I think vela has it right -

Bicyclists should avoid riding in a way that impedes the flow of traffic.

 

[DaveC426913]

Never followed through.

Good thing. I can think of several charges that could be laid, including mischief and assault.

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree that the motorist bears direct responsibility, but had the cyclist been more courteous, the accident wouldn't have happened at all. For that reason, I hold the cyclist at least partly responsible.

No, They are obeying the law within their rights.

<< Off-topic reference deleted by Moderator >>

If you crawl into the den of a hibernating bear, and poke it with a stick, you are asking for it.

Except they aren't. They are in a space they have as much right to as a driver. Your analogy is egregiously flawed.

I think vela has it right -

Vela is right, but about drivers having a sense of entitlement. They think they're the bear and it's their bear cave. They're wrong.

 

[WWGD]

Ultimately the law ( at least in theory) protects the weakest : Car> Cyclist> Pedestrian , and this seems fair. This should always be taken into account, even if/when either of them is, or seems to be, acting in an annoying or disruptive way. The more damage you can cause, the bigger the burden on you to be careful. For that reason I always though those mini-van-sized SUVs should pay heavier fines than lighter, smaller cars, to discourage them from being reckless.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ultimately the law ( at least in theory) protects the weakest : Car> Cyclist> Pedestrian ,

No, it protects the innocent.

In cases where pedestrians leap out from behind parked cars and are struck by a car that could not stop in time, the pedestrian is considered at-fault, and the (innocent) driver is generally not charged.

I am friends with a woman who was struck and injured while standing on the median of a four lane road. She was at-fault and was duly charged with jay-walking.

 

[WWGD]

No, it protects the innocent.
<Snip>
.

You're right, I should have added _all things being equal_..

 

[Mark44]

Some laws in my state (Washington) that pertain to bicyclists
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770

RCW 46.61.770

Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(1) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making turning movements, or while overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway or highway other than a limited-access highway, which roadway or highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway may use the shoulder of the roadway or any specially designated bicycle lane if such exists.

(2) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

In my state, if they're riding three abreast, they're breaking the law. If they're riding two abreast with a long line of traffic behind them, they are being both foolish and arrogant. If an accident occurred because of this, it would be a very cold-hearted person who didn't hold himself at least partly to blame.

 

[wolram]

We are loosing the plot here, all i am objecting to is cyclists riding three abreast, all they have to do is ride single file then all be okay

 

[WWGD]

@wolram: If we were having a spoken conversation, your topic may be perceived as being :" byciclists are a pain in their ear".

 

[Daz]

Try driving in Cambridge (UK). The cyclists there are a pain in your wallet too. I reckon Cambridge must have more bikes per square mile than any other place on Earth and the vast majority are ridden by people with absolutely no concept of road safety. I’m convinced they think traffic lights only apply to cars and not bikes.

Some years back, I was stationary in my car at a red traffic light in Cambridge (Histon Road): Sunday morning, sun in my eyes, sun roof open, not another vehicle in sight. Suddenly I heard an immense BOOM and the car shook. Shocked, I looked around frantically but still there was no other vehicle in sight — nothing — no other cars on the road.

I was about to get out and have a look around when a pair of feet popped in through the sub roof: sneakers, white socks, bare legs. The feet were rapidly followed by the rest of a young lad who slipped down into the passenger seat and glanced sheepishly across at me.

I got out. He got out, and we walked to the back of my car where his bicycle was lying on the ground. Let’s just say it was well and truly in an eigenstate of the “totally mangled” operator.

I established that the young lad was an Italian exchange student on a language course. At least I’m guessing it was a language course because he couldn’t speak a word of English. No ID documents, no insurance details. He sulked off uninjured leaving me to sort out the mess! To this day, I still can't figure out how he managed to cycle full tilt into a stationary vehicle.

 

[zoobyshoe]

See?

With good reason: the government didn't institute the paving of roads for bicycles. The whole thing, all that money and work, has always been primarily directed to the convenience of cars.

 

[PeroK]

I would suggest that if bicycles were banned from the roads then, apart from death and injury to cyclists, road accident figures would not reduce significantly, if at all.

And that those placing an emphasis on cyclists as a significant contributory factor to road accidents are deluding themselves as to the real cause of deaths and serious injuries on the roads.

 

[vela]

No, They are obeying the law within their rights.

They are in a space they have as much right to as a driver. Your analogy is egregiously flawed.

In California, the situation described in wolram's OP would likely put the bicycle riders at least partially at fault for an accident. Bike riders are supposed to ride as far to the right as practicable so as to avoid impeding the flow of traffic. Also, if bicycle riders are slowing traffic, they are required to pull to the side to allow traffic to pass, just like any other slow vehicle is required to.

 

[vela]

With good reason: the government didn't institute the paving of roads for bicycles. The whole thing, all that money and work, has always been primarily directed to the convenience of cars.

So what? The road is still a shared resource, with cyclists, motorcycle riders, etc. having just as much right to use them as car drivers. I suspect your attitude that everyone else is a guest in the car driver's realm is the main problem when it comes to accidents involving bikes.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Vela is right, but about drivers having a sense of entitlement. They think they're the bear and it's their bear cave. They're wrong.

It is certainly the law that you can't bump cyclists off the road, and every driver has to abide by that, but it is unnecessary to rationalize that to yourself by calling car drivers "entitled" for not wanting traffic grossly slowed down, and to recast cyclists as "oppressed people standing up for their rights." They have the law on their side, yes, but they abuse that to be pains in the a--.

 

[DaveC426913]

In California, the situation described in wolram's OP would likely put the bicycle riders at least partially at fault for an accident. Bike riders are supposed to ride as far to the right as practicable so as to avoid impeding the flow of traffic. Also, if bicycle riders are slowing traffic, they are required to pull to the side to allow traffic to pass, just like another other slow vehicle is required to.

Well, if the law in a given area states how they're supposed to ride, and they're not riding that way, that is a completely different kettle of fish from 'they should just be courteous and stay out of my way because I'm over-driving my stopping distance'.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I suspect your attitude that everyone else is a guest in the car driver's realm ..

Exactly.