If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TreeHugger)   Attention bicyclists of New York City: Just because you think a street needs its own bike lane doesn't mean you get to take it upon yourself to paint a fake bike lane. "We're doing something for the public good"   (treehugger.com) divider line 244
    More: Stupid, New York City, bike lanes, public good, Avenue of the Americas, spray paints, New York Public Library  
•       •       •

8890 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Sep 2013 at 5:38 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



244 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-25 10:44:52 PM

Insurgent: lol that is not how right-of-way works.


You're right, it's not. This is how right-of-way works:  3,000 pound motor vehicle versus 150 pounds of asshole atop 40 pounds of aluminum tubing and rubber.All the pretense in the universe won't save you if you dart out in front of one without looking, run a red light or stop sign, or weave in and out of traffic like a chicken with its goddamn head cut off.

So, don't farking do it. Don't get pissy when someone who has no grasp of Newton's laws of motion does, and ends up chunky salsa. Don't sit around here and brag about doing it, or try to argue it's your right to reject our reality and substitute your own. Liability being on the head of the driver is no excuse, because in a battle between Car and Bicycle, the driver will be the one alive and/or  not horrifically mangled to face the legal ramifications in the first place.

You know, I don't drive on train tracks even though where I live it may actually be the most expedient route from point of origin to destination. I don't race trains, and I don't tearass out in front of them at a cross. Why that is, is because in the battle between Car and Train, if I'm representing Team Car my odds aren't too good.
 
2013-09-25 10:47:24 PM

that bosnian sniper: Insurgent: lol that is not how right-of-way works.

You're right, it's not. This is how right-of-way works:  3,000 pound motor vehicle versus 150 pounds of asshole atop 40 pounds of aluminum tubing and rubber.All the pretense in the universe won't save you if you dart out in front of one without looking, run a red light or stop sign, or weave in and out of traffic like a chicken with its goddamn head cut off.

So, don't farking do it. Don't get pissy when someone who has no grasp of Newton's laws of motion does, and ends up chunky salsa. Don't sit around here and brag about doing it, or try to argue it's your right to reject our reality and substitute your own. Liability being on the head of the driver is no excuse, because in a battle between Car and Bicycle, the driver will be the one alive and/or  not horrifically mangled to face the legal ramifications in the first place.

You know, I don't drive on train tracks even though where I live it may actually be the most expedient route from point of origin to destination. I don't race trains, and I don't tearass out in front of them at a cross. Why that is, is because in the battle between Car and Train, if I'm representing Team Car my odds aren't too good.


Truth


/ I'm out, I need to know how Trevor's love affair ends
 
2013-09-25 10:47:56 PM

that bosnian sniper: Insurgent: lol that is not how right-of-way works.

You're right, it's not. This is how right-of-way works:  3,000 pound motor vehicle versus 150 pounds of asshole atop 40 pounds of aluminum tubing and rubber.All the pretense in the universe won't save you if you dart out in front of one without looking, run a red light or stop sign, or weave in and out of traffic like a chicken with its goddamn head cut off.

So, don't farking do it. Don't get pissy when someone who has no grasp of Newton's laws of motion does, and ends up chunky salsa. Don't sit around here and brag about doing it, or try to argue it's your right to reject our reality and substitute your own. Liability being on the head of the driver is no excuse, because in a battle between Car and Bicycle, the driver will be the one alive and/or  not horrifically mangled to face the legal ramifications in the first place.

You know, I don't drive on train tracks even though where I live it may actually be the most expedient route from point of origin to destination. I don't race trains, and I don't tearass out in front of them at a cross. Why that is, is because in the battle between Car and Train, if I'm representing Team Car my odds aren't too good.


you sure gleaned a lot of information from that one sentence. none of the things you've posted describe me at all. by all means, though, continue with your self-righteous outrage, dude.
 
2013-09-25 10:47:58 PM

theorellior: Calmamity: I want to like bicyclists, I really do. I appreciate their commitment to their health, I appreciate that they are using non-polluting transportation.... but... godammit, if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic, then get the fu*k off the road. And what makes you think you're so special that you get to run red lights whenever you feel like it?

"Oooh ooh, Treat me like a vehicle! Follow behind me at 6 miles an hour while I mosey down the center of the lane and back up traffic for miles! I'm a vehicle!...  until it is inconvenient to me. Then I'm a pedestrian. A pedestrian who ignores all traffic laws."

It's the law. You want cyclists to stop at stop signs and obey traffic laws and be good upstanding citizens, then you get to follow the same rules. If bikes are treated exactly the same as internal-combustion powered automobiles in the eyes of the law, then you just sit back on your ass while the bike take up the entire lane as the law entitles it to, going just as fast as the cyclist can go. So blow it out your ass.



A few years ago I saw a guy on a recumbent bike with a big anti-war sign on the back of the seat. He was on 2222 heading towards 360 from 620 in Austin, TX. There is a large down-hill section that is 60-mph. He was riding in the middle of his lane of course. And while he was presumably "legally entitled" to do so, he's also an idiot for jeopardizing his own well being and the well-being of those around him. (I passed him in the other lane before we got to the hill. So I don't know if he attempted it or not.)

I'm willing to bet that riding at 30-40-mph under the speed limit is *not* legal in some places, as it creates a hazard. I'm not going to look it up of course. But it would make sense.
 
2013-09-25 10:54:55 PM

Luse: Markoff_Cheney: Luse: Insurgent: Luse:

So instead of fixing a corrupt system we should encourage it by making "special" classes of citizens? I don't disagree that a bicycle is less dangerous than a car. However my car veering to avoid your drunk ass is quite lethal.
So decide,

You are either a pedestrian, on a sidewalk, following all pedestrian on a sidewalk rules.
OR
You are a vehicle, on a public road way,  following all vehicle on a roadway rules.

It really is that simple.


see my other post.  i act as a vehicle on public roads, following all roadway rules.  apparently I am in the minority especially based on behavior I have seen around denver by kids on fixies and random idiots who use the bike share thing and havent been on a bike since they were 15.  again, i dont drink and hop on a bike, but many people do.  tonight is denver cruisers night, a bar crawl ON FARKING BIKES.  got invited but didnt go because i already had a couple of drinks after i got home from work.
i didnt make me a special class, legislation made me a motorless class of vehicle when i go to and from work.  and the speer bike path doesnt go close to my place of employ so I am stuck on the roads.
in summary, there are a few of us on bikes that are doing our best to stay the fark out of the way and make shiat as easy as we can on people in cars and trucks.  I am not paying another 60 or 80 bucks to skip onto the sidewalk around the capital on my bike.
but the cop that ticketed me for doing so [on an uphill right by the capital building so i didnt want to be slowing traffic or be a hazard because me and the girl i was riding with were feeling lazy and just half assing it] was obviously having a really shiatty day.  i hope that handing out a bunch of lame tickets to people on bikes that day was her personal vendetta and that she felt much better after handing all of them out.
thats when i learned that i have to pretty much be on the street or a bike path at all times or i could get a wallet dent at any time.
 
2013-09-25 11:01:32 PM

hailin: I almost hit a cyclist the other day. I was at a stop light going to turn right. I didn't pass a cyclist on the way to the stop light, so they must have turned onto the road after I passed. They came up on my right side as I made my turn as the light turned green. They flipped me off and yelled at me. I still feel bad, but honestly never even thought about checking over my right shoulder making a right turn. I sure will from now on, but I wonder whose fault it would have been if an accident had happened.


Same here. Except it was night time, and she was travelling in the wrong direction on a 65-mph road--(620 in Austin, turning right into Rudy's), with no headlight. So when I started my turn I almost hit her head-on, not expecting to see someone coming towards me in my own lane at bike cruising speed. She yelled "jackass!" of course. And I'm sure in her head she felt really good about asserting herself when confronted by an evil driver.

I wasn't even angry, in part because I was relieved that I didn't kill her. She was *that close*.

Truth be known, I don't get angry at drivers or cyclists any more. I just lowered my expectations of both, and the disappointment and disbelief faded away very gracefully.
 
2013-09-25 11:06:14 PM
static02.mediaite.com
 
2013-09-25 11:10:39 PM

that bosnian sniper: You know, I don't drive on train tracks even though where I live it may actually be the most expedient route from point of origin to destination. I don't race trains, and I don't tearass out in front of them at a cross. Why that is, is because in the battle between Car and Train, if I'm representing Team Car my odds aren't too good.


Shiat. I do all of that on my sweet fixie. YOLO
 
2013-09-25 11:13:36 PM

Luse: Perhaps my mind that confused Austrian for German similarly confused New York for California.


The take away is that Austrian bicyclists run 14% of the stoplights they encounter. Austrians are some of the most law-abiding people on the planet. So basically, it's likely that everyone else's bikes are running red lights at even higher rates.
 
2013-09-25 11:13:57 PM

Luse: Likwit: Luse: ZeroCorpse: Likwit: doglover: How is it that millions of people can ride bikes in Tokyo, WITHOUT HELMETS mind you, next to cars on every kind of road imaginable and almost no one gets into fights or run over and yet Americans can't go one minute with a bike and car on the same road without the guy on the bike and the guy on the car splitting into factions and trying to kill the other?

You're on a bike? You're inches from farking death by choice. GROW THE fark UP AND ACT LIKE IT, ASSHOLES. Be cautious and respectful.

I get in fights with cyclists all the time. Probably because I pick them, but that's beside the point.

People ride all over the sidewalk even though you're really not supposed to. Then they have the audacity to ring their farking bell at you. It infuriates me. That crackdown on cyclists in Osaka the other day gave me the most awesomest boner.

Anyways, riding on the sidewalk and a cultural aversion to personal conflict, is why they have fewer cyclist/driver spats.

In many states bicycles are perfectly legal (and often preferred) on the sidewalk. In Michigan anything classified as a bicycle is legally allowed to ride the sidewalk as long as they grant right-of-way to pedestrians. Likewise, the bikes get right-of-way versus cars at crosswalks when the light's on their side or when it's a stop sign for the car.

Certain towns may have ordinances to forbid bikes on sidewalks in areas of high foot traffic (downtown areas, mainly) but in many states it's LEGAL, so people can stop grumping about it.

Right, so because laws are different everywhere, and nobody really knows what the fark the law is anyway, we get people losing limbs. Of course the alternative would be to come up with a simple, uniform rule, like, treat bicycles like scooters, regardless where you go. That way, everyone knows the what the law is, regardless of what town they are in.

I know, madness.

No. If something is technically legal, I should be able to do it regardless of whether ...

Your appeal to logic is pathetic. Especially considering the fact that you make it, in defense of an inherently emotional plea. This has, of course, already been pointed out in the thread.

Are you trolling or merely stupid? Before you go on about it not making sense, please explain how it doesn't. Anyone who has ever been a kid knows it's not very difficult to both, ride a bicycle, and comply with the local traffic laws. We get to ride these as kids. No license. This is not a very difficult concept.
First decide if a bicycle is a vehicle, or pedestrian. If it is a pedestrian, it belongs on a sidewalk, obeying all pedestrian laws, crossing traffic only at crosswalks.
If it is a vehicle, it belongs in the roadway, and behave in a matter similar to all other vehicles. All vehicles, trucks, cars, motorcycles, scooters and drawn carriages play by this set of rules. If you wish to join this group, you must behave as a member of said group.
I don't like the fact that the sensor doesn't recognize my motorcycle, and the red light takes 3 times as long. It is illegal in my state to run the red, so I don't do it. Does it make sense? Some states say it does, simply not mine. Since I'm not an entitled little, special farking snowflake, I wait till it turns green.

Of course, all of this presumes that I have enough personal accountability to realize that I chose that method of transport in the first place.


Whoooosh! ←the sound of my post going over your head, despite me explicitly saying that it's sarcasm.

I was gonna write something sarcastic, but you clearly won't understand, so I'll just review as simply as possible. Try to keep up.

Me: People in Japan ride on the sidewalk, but shouldn't.
ZeroCorpse (also neglecting to read my post): But it's technically legal in some states, so shut up!
You: No one knows the laws and they vary a lot, so let's make a new, uniform rule that treats bikes like scooters.
Me (BEING SARCASTIC): No, since riding on the sidewalk is technically legal, I wanna do it, even though it's stupid as balls.
You (totally misunderstanding): Actually, your appeal to loci is pathetic!
 
2013-09-25 11:18:16 PM

ZeroCorpse: In many states bicycles are perfectly legal (and often preferred) on the sidewalk. In Michigan anything classified as a bicycle is legally allowed to ride the sidewalk as long as they grant right-of-way to pedestrians.


Varies city by city. It's not legal within Houghton city limits, for instance. And your route from town to campus goes past the police station.
 
2013-09-25 11:18:40 PM
but I wonder whose fault it would have been if an accident had happened.

If you're signaling that you are turning right and a cyclist tries to pass you on the right then they are incredibly stupid and at fault.
 
2013-09-25 11:19:48 PM

firefly212: Let me paint you a picture, My car has 400hp and weights 4,300lbs. You will die if you get in my way.

Ride safe.

So... you threaten to murder people with your car (and apparently tiny penis), but they're the real assholes in this?


He's threatening like a lighthouse threatens a ship.
 
2013-09-25 11:26:02 PM

whatshisname: Because a bike isn't a potential lethal weapon.


Oh, sorry. The answer we were looking for was "Because a bicycle is a potentially lethal weapon." But thanks for playing!

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/04/05/was-cyclist-who-killed-pedes tr ian-reckless
 
2013-09-25 11:26:48 PM

johnny_vegas: serial_crusher: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Painting DIY bike lanes is technically illegal

I tried to have a conversation with someone who was seriously proposing this on a difficult stretch of road near me. I should have asked him if he would be comfortable when a cyclist, thinking this is a safe legal bike lane, invariably gets hit by a car. At least now the bikers know to take the street at their own peril.

What scenario would lead to a cyclist on an illegal bike lane being hit by a law-abiding motorist though?  Even if you're allowed to drive your car on that part of the road, you're not allowed to rear-end the vehicles in front of you.

based on a certain ratio of width to length and degree of curvature, sight lines, etc a road will have a safe driving speed.  if a road has a bike lane, their is a speed limit reduction that would apply.  No official baike lane, could mean excessive speeds in vicinity of a bike which could cause turbulence and knock the bicyclist off the bike.


Shouldn't a dedicated bike lane allow for a higher speed in the "car lane", not the other way around?  You're more likely to hit a bike whose lane you're in than one who you're not.

The windy roads thing is silly though.  If you're going so fast that you can't see past your vehicle's safe stopping distance, you need to slow down.  There could be anything around that corner, from a slower moving vehicle to a stationary object like a rock or livestock.  This idea that it's the other party's fault when you rear end them is ridiculous.
 
2013-09-25 11:30:53 PM

This text is now purple: Oh, sorry. The answer we were looking for was "Because a bicycle is a potentially lethal weapon." But thanks for playing!


So's a lawnmower. Statistically far more lethal, in fact. I presume you have a lawnmower license and pay lawnmower tax?
 
2013-09-25 11:40:03 PM

whatshisname: This text is now purple: Oh, sorry. The answer we were looking for was "Because a bicycle is a potentially lethal weapon." But thanks for playing!

So's a lawnmower. Statistically far more lethal, in fact. I presume you have a lawnmower license and pay lawnmower tax?


i assume she/he as a gasoline lawnmower which automatically gives her/him right of way, because taxes and unfairness.
 
2013-09-26 12:08:02 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: firefly212: Kahabut: fark cyclists.  I used to have a much more congenial attitude, but as it turns out, you guys are almost 100% assholes and hypocrites, so now I don't even try and be nice about it.

Let me paint you a picture, My car has 400hp and weights 4,300lbs.  You will die if you get in my way.

Ride safe.

So... you threaten to murder people with your car (and apparently tiny penis), but they're the real assholes in this?

Accidents happen. Being aware that you are surrounded by two tons of speeding hunks of metal is a good thing.

Drivers will don't want to have an accident because of the pain in the ass it is to get repairs. Bikers should worry about being killed in one.


It's that whole "if you get in my way" part that just rubs me wrong... too often I see drivers who think they have impunity because they have cars... your car is stupid and insignificant compared to the terrain I live on, and if you expect all the respect for the fact you're operating two tons of explosion-powered machinery to come from the outside, you're gonna end up dead here really fast in the winter. Regardless of whether you're in a car or on a bicycle, you need to anticipate and respect the whole world around you. Your way doesn't matter when rocks the size of trucks come tumbling down the mountain, it doesn't matter in avalanche prone territory, and it doesn't matter on ice slicked roads in mountain passes. The arrogance of thinking that your car is a safety shell is miind-bogglingly stupid and gets people killed  up here in the mountains every year. Frankly, I imagine most of the disrespectful dicks to think exactly on the lines of Kahabut, ooh, 400hp and 4000 lbs... that's gonna be really farking scary when I'm riding my bike up a hill being mindful of my environment and you get pounded by a farking boulder...

/car needs more hp to accelerate that massive ego... grr... don't get in my way, mr. internet tough guy.
 
2013-09-26 12:58:34 AM
Meanwhile, automobile drivers keep backing up over their own children... can we really expect them to look out for non-blood kin?
 
2013-09-26 02:47:59 AM

theorellior: Calmamity: I want to like bicyclists, I really do. I appreciate their commitment to their health, I appreciate that they are using non-polluting transportation.... but... godammit, if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic, then get the fu*k off the road. And what makes you think you're so special that you get to run red lights whenever you feel like it?

"Oooh ooh, Treat me like a vehicle! Follow behind me at 6 miles an hour while I mosey down the center of the lane and back up traffic for miles! I'm a vehicle!...  until it is inconvenient to me. Then I'm a pedestrian. A pedestrian who ignores all traffic laws."

It's the law. You want cyclists to stop at stop signs and obey traffic laws and be good upstanding citizens, then you get to follow the same rules. If bikes are treated exactly the same as internal-combustion powered automobiles in the eyes of the law, then you just sit back on your ass while the bike take up the entire lane as the law entitles it to, going just as fast as the cyclist can go. So blow it out your ass.


It's illegal to obstruct traffic.  In my state, you are required to pull off the road and allow traffic around when more than 3 vehicles are behind you.

It's also a traffic violation to go less than 20% below the speed limit when no immediate obstruction/danger is present.

Stop acting like an entitled child.
 
2013-09-26 03:10:21 AM

Kahabut: theorellior: Calmamity: I want to like bicyclists, I really do. I appreciate their commitment to their health, I appreciate that they are using non-polluting transportation.... but... godammit, if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic, then get the fu*k off the road. And what makes you think you're so special that you get to run red lights whenever you feel like it?

"Oooh ooh, Treat me like a vehicle! Follow behind me at 6 miles an hour while I mosey down the center of the lane and back up traffic for miles! I'm a vehicle!...  until it is inconvenient to me. Then I'm a pedestrian. A pedestrian who ignores all traffic laws."

It's the law. You want cyclists to stop at stop signs and obey traffic laws and be good upstanding citizens, then you get to follow the same rules. If bikes are treated exactly the same as internal-combustion powered automobiles in the eyes of the law, then you just sit back on your ass while the bike take up the entire lane as the law entitles it to, going just as fast as the cyclist can go. So blow it out your ass.

It's illegal to obstruct traffic.  In my state, you are required to pull off the road and allow traffic around when more than 3 vehicles are behind you.

It's also a traffic violation to go less than 20% below the speed limit when no immediate obstruction/danger is present.

Stop acting like an entitled child.


Those laws sound ridiculous enough that I doubt you're understanding them correctly.  Care to provide some citations, or at least clue us in on what state that is, so we can avoid it?  The great state of Texas does not have those laws.
 
2013-09-26 03:37:00 AM

ShepTR: Ooh, is this the thread where car drivers complain that they get mildly inconvenienced when they are stuck behind a bicyclist for 30 seconds, and therefore wish death upon them?

If it is, sign me up! fark those guys!


Nah, this is the one where cyclists kvetch about not having rights to the road, and then forgetting that they still aren't equal in every place known to man, and that they don't get special privs here.

Here in my state, we have bike lanes in my city, and we have specific rules for bikes. You're still supposed to follow all lights and signs, and you're supposed to defer to the right and let the cars pass if you're unable to keep up with the flow of traffic.

You're also supposed to walk your damn bike through crosswalks, because those are for pedestrians, and you're a vehicle.

I smile a little bit every time another cyclist gets a ticket for running a red light. There's a T intersection here near the college, and no bikes ever stop at the stop sign when they're not making a turn. They ticket there regularly too, because you're supposed to stop.

Want equal rights? Take equal responsibility.

And if I catch you trying to lane share like a motorcycle, don't be surprised when you nearly get hit trying to bypass traffic turning when you want to go straight. That one was fun Two lanes of traffic, both turning left at a red. Bike between us. Bike wants to go straight. Bike almost gets turned into road paste when the car next to him on the right was also making the same turn we were and he was in the way.

Idiots.
 
2013-09-26 03:44:11 AM

Markoff_Cheney: Luse: Markoff_Cheney: Luse: Insurgent: Luse:

So instead of fixing a corrupt system we should encourage it by making "special" classes of citizens? I don't disagree that a bicycle is less dangerous than a car. However my car veering to avoid your drunk ass is quite lethal.
So decide,

You are either a pedestrian, on a sidewalk, following all pedestrian on a sidewalk rules.
OR
You are a vehicle, on a public road way,  following all vehicle on a roadway rules.

It really is that simple.

see my other post.  i act as a vehicle on public roads, following all roadway rules.  apparently I am in the minority especially based on behavior I have seen around denver by kids on fixies and random idiots who use the bike share thing and havent been on a bike since they were 15.  again, i dont drink and hop on a bike, but many people do.  tonight is denver cruisers night, a bar crawl ON FARKING BIKES.  got invited but didnt go because i already had a couple of drinks after i got home from work.
i didnt make me a special class, legislation made me a motorless class of vehicle when i go to and from work.  and the speer bike path doesnt go close to my place of employ so I am stuck on the roads.
in summary, there are a few of us on bikes that are doing our best to stay the fark out of the way and make shiat as easy as we can on people in cars and trucks.  I am not paying another 60 or 80 bucks to skip onto the sidewalk around the capital on my bike.
but the cop that ticketed me for doing so [on an uphill right by the capital building so i didnt want to be slowing traffic or be a hazard because me and the girl i was riding with were feeling lazy and just half assing it] was obviously having a really shiatty day.  i hope that handing out a bunch of lame tickets to people on bikes that day was her personal vendetta and that she felt much better after handing all of them out.
thats when i learned that i have to pretty much be on the street or a bike path at all times or i could get a wall ...


Bikes on sidewalks are illegal most places I've been.. particularly large cities like Denver.

What on Earth makes you think it's okay to do it, even if you want to avoid backing up traffic? If you're taking your bike on the sidewalk, you WALK WITH IT. The sidewalks are for pedestrians.
 
2013-09-26 05:03:49 AM
This is Manhattan, one of the densest populations per sq mile in the world. Goddamn bike lanes should be on every street - whether you think cyclists are douchebags or not. Nearly 80% of Manhattan residents don't use a car.
 
2013-09-26 07:20:10 AM
It's 2013 and you're an adult now.

Get a job and a car.
 
2013-09-26 07:49:40 AM
Seems there's a lot of hate for bikers in this thread. Some of it is no doubt deserved. Here are some salient points:

* Bikes have every right to the road as cars, horses, etc. do. In fact, they were using roads before cars existed. Bikes are not supposed to ride on sidewalks.

* The above point does not mean that bikes are allowed to violate traffic laws and control devices.

* Europeans have a better time with bicycles in cities because in general, more Europeans cycle. This means that when someone is driving, likely they also cycle, so they understand they need to look for bikes while turning right, how to pass someone on a bike, etc.

* It takes a lot of effort to get up to speed in a bike, so sometimes stopping for a red light can be a big deal--it's not an excuse, but this is why. In a car you don't really have an excuse.

* Where I live, there are dedicated bike lanes and bike traffic lights. Idiots still ride the wrong way in the bike lanes, ignore the lights, etc. And people yell at them.
 
2013-09-26 08:35:40 AM

Luse: firefly212: Kahabut: fark cyclists.  I used to have a much more congenial attitude, but as it turns out, you guys are almost 100% assholes and hypocrites, so now I don't even try and be nice about it.

Let me paint you a picture, My car has 400hp and weights 4,300lbs.  You will die if you get in my way.

Ride safe.

So... you threaten to murder people with your car (and apparently tiny penis), but they're the real assholes in this?

No, he tells the truth. First thing they teach you if you take a basic rider's safety course, assume every car on the road is trying, to actively kill you. This is absolute truth. The number one transgressor is the soccer mom. The one in the gigantic SUV or Minivan, with the stickers that cover most of the rear window, displaying the enormity of her brood. The one who's got the iPhone pressed into her ear covering up what little precious peripheral vision she had, making her blind spot, "all of it".

It's not who's right, it's who's left. You can never overstate that.


I knew a guy who would jaunt out into traffic at any pedestrian crossing 'because he had right of way', without so much as taking a second to see if the car even sees him. Cars could be zipping by at 45-50 mph, and he'd just stroll on through like Mr Magoo blundering his way through a construction site. I'd ask "Arn't you afraid of getting hit?" He'd say "Let them hit me, I need the money".

Well, Mr technically-the-best-kind-of right right, you might techincally have right of way, but lawsuit money won't help your quadriplegic ass with much besides getting one of those wheelchairs that move when you blow into a straw. I've always subscribed to the theory of Mass² X Velocity = right of way. If you're bigger than me and/or moving much faster, I'm not going to be too assertive with my 'rights'.

/The only exception to this rule is when you are driving a rusted 1987 $500 Toyota Carolla. You will never lose a fight for a parking space or merge point.
 
2013-09-26 02:03:28 PM
In cities. I don't care. Let people have bike lanes, let bikes do their thing. Whatever. I can't drive more than 10 seconds without a red light or a crosswalk anyway so they're hardly hurting me. What gets to me is that I live further out, near a more rural area. There are a lot of back-roads where you can hardly fit two cars traveling in different directions let alone a bicycle. Add to it a lot of trees (this is Oregon after all) that can limit visibility, sharp turns, blind corners, blind hills, etc etc and the speed limits tend to be either 45 or 55 mph. Coming around a corner at the regulated speed limit to be faced with 3 or 4 bicycles doing a couple miles an hour up a long hill and no way to pass seems unsafe in multiple respects to me. It really is just setting up an accident waiting to happen. Common sense tells me I wouldn't get out there on a bicycle and engage in this activity on country back-roads but apparently the bicycle elite feels it's their right to go try to get killed with irresponsible riding in dangerous situations.

Either widen the roads that they want to ride on and add the bike lanes or peddle at 45 mph so the rest of us can go about our business too. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or that it's really a great idea.
 
2013-09-26 02:14:21 PM

tevo: In cities. I don't care. Let people have bike lanes, let bikes do their thing. Whatever. I can't drive more than 10 seconds without a red light or a crosswalk anyway so they're hardly hurting me.


I disagree heartily. In the city, bicyclists who don't follow the rules of the road are an enormous safety risk. I can't tell you how often one will come inches close to hitting a bicyclist in NYC who refuses to stop at red lights, or rides like an idiot swerving everywhere on the road except their precious bike lanes, or insists on trying to squeeze through a tiny space between two cars. I don't want to be angry at bicyclists in NYC in general, but it seems like the vast majority of them are asshats.
 
2013-09-26 02:48:08 PM

This text is now purple: waterrockets: Calmamity: I want to like bicyclists, I really do. I appreciate their commitment to their health, I appreciate that they are using non-polluting transportation.... but... godammit, if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic, then get the fu*k off the road. And what makes you think you're so special that you get to run red lights whenever you feel like it?

"Oooh ooh, Treat me like a vehicle! Follow behind me at 6 miles an hour while I mosey down the center of the lane and back up traffic for miles! I'm a vehicle!...  until it is inconvenient to me. Then I'm a pedestrian. A pedestrian who ignores all traffic laws."

Show me a 5 minute video of ANY lighted intersection with continuous traffic that does not have at least one motor vehicle failing to stop on red. There are asshole cyclists, and there are asshole drivers. Similar percentage of each.

Not even close.

I've never seen a car in Philly blow a light by more than 3 seconds (not counting cops...).

I see that three times daily on my walk to/from the train, each way. I also enjoy diving out of the way of bikes going the wrong way down one-way streets, or using the sidewalks as a local lane. fark bikers. Even the insane panhandlers are more law-abiding.


Maybe it's regional, or just urban. Or maybe they're all Here in Austin, almost zero cars stop for a right on red unless there is traffic in the way. Almost zero cars stop for stop signs unless there's traffic. They slow, but they don't stop. I do occasionally see a cyclist blow a red light, but not daily, and I see a couple hundred cyclists every day.

Same thing in Denver, although downtown Denver when I lived there, bike messengers were everywhere, and obeyed zero traffic laws.
 
2013-09-26 03:03:00 PM

BadReligion: Except creating these "bike lanes" doesn't leave enough room in the travel lane for cars. It requires the cars to either drive into oncoming traffic, or drive partially in the bike lane. There's a reason these cyclists are on their way to a vinyl record shop 2 and not an engineering firm.


How so? Do you dispute any of my points?
 
2013-09-26 03:04:30 PM

BadReligion: Except creating these "bike lanes" doesn't leave enough room in the travel lane for cars. It requires the cars to either drive into oncoming traffic, or drive partially in the bike lane. There's a reason these cyclists are on their way to a vinyl record shop 2 and not an engineering firm.


How so? Do you dispute any of my points?

BadReligion: Token Anarchist: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Token Anarchist: This is a great example of direct action in the face of an unresponsive government that's been sold out to oil and auto interests.

Except creating these "bike lanes" doesn't leave enough room in the travel lane for cars. It requires the cars to either drive into oncoming traffic, or drive partially in the bike lane. There's a reason these cyclists are on their way to a vinyl record shop 2 and not an engineering firm.

Logically, bicycles should have the right of way. They're greener, healthier, and cheaper.

Your reasons are not logical at all. Your reasons that bikes should have the right of way are purely emotional.


How are they emotional? Do you disagree with any of my points?
 
2013-09-26 03:05:08 PM
oops, weird posting happened
 
2013-09-26 03:08:05 PM

Luse: Token Anarchist: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Token Anarchist: This is a great example of direct action in the face of an unresponsive government that's been sold out to oil and auto interests.

Except creating these "bike lanes" doesn't leave enough room in the travel lane for cars. It requires the cars to either drive into oncoming traffic, or drive partially in the bike lane. There's a reason these cyclists are on their way to a vinyl record shop 2 and not an engineering firm.

Logically, bicycles should have the right of way. They're greener, healthier, and cheaper.

You can have it as soon as we transfer all of the taxes and fees that pay for the roads from motor vehicles onto your bicycle. You get what you pay for.
I on the other hand will take the extra money and extend my vacation by a week.


Roads made for bikes would be vastly cheaper and use a lot less materials and maintenance
 
2013-09-26 03:11:35 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: BadReligion: Token Anarchist: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Token Anarchist: This is a great example of direct action in the face of an unresponsive government that's been sold out to oil and auto interests.

Except creating these "bike lanes" doesn't leave enough room in the travel lane for cars. It requires the cars to either drive into oncoming traffic, or drive partially in the bike lane. There's a reason these cyclists are on their way to a vinyl record shop 2 and not an engineering firm.

Logically, bicycles should have the right of way. They're greener, healthier, and cheaper.

Your reasons are not logical at all. Your reasons that bikes should have the right of way are purely emotional.

Yeah, this. There's nothing logical about basing transportation engineering on fashionable political values. A bicycle being "greener" literally has no bearing on rights of way.


How is it fashionable? It is a reliable means of transportation for millions of people around the world. They use less materials and resources, are cheaper and more available to the average population, and are healthy for the riders. Why shouldn't they have priority?
 
2013-09-26 04:05:54 PM

starsrift: This is Manhattan, one of the densest populations per sq mile in the world. Goddamn bike lanes should be on every street - whether you think cyclists are douchebags or not. Nearly 80% of Manhattan residents don't use a car.


THIS!  Whatever my feelings about the way cyclists impact traffic, they should have their own lanes wherever possible, and especially in dense cities like NYC.
 
2013-09-26 04:09:16 PM

serial_crusher: Kahabut: theorellior: Calmamity: I want to like bicyclists, I really do. I appreciate their commitment to their health, I appreciate that they are using non-polluting transportation.... but... godammit, if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic, then get the fu*k off the road. And what makes you think you're so special that you get to run red lights whenever you feel like it?

"Oooh ooh, Treat me like a vehicle! Follow behind me at 6 miles an hour while I mosey down the center of the lane and back up traffic for miles! I'm a vehicle!...  until it is inconvenient to me. Then I'm a pedestrian. A pedestrian who ignores all traffic laws."

It's the law. You want cyclists to stop at stop signs and obey traffic laws and be good upstanding citizens, then you get to follow the same rules. If bikes are treated exactly the same as internal-combustion powered automobiles in the eyes of the law, then you just sit back on your ass while the bike take up the entire lane as the law entitles it to, going just as fast as the cyclist can go. So blow it out your ass.

It's illegal to obstruct traffic.  In my state, you are required to pull off the road and allow traffic around when more than 3 vehicles are behind you.

It's also a traffic violation to go less than 20% below the speed limit when no immediate obstruction/danger is present.

Stop acting like an entitled child.

Those laws sound ridiculous enough that I doubt you're understanding them correctly.  Care to provide some citations, or at least clue us in on what state that is, so we can avoid it?  The great state of Texas does not have those laws.


ORS 811.425
and
ORS 811.130(1)
 
2013-09-26 05:20:29 PM

Kahabut: serial_crusher: Kahabut: theorellior: Calmamity: I want to like bicyclists, I really do. I appreciate their commitment to their health, I appreciate that they are using non-polluting transportation.... but... godammit, if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic, then get the fu*k off the road. And what makes you think you're so special that you get to run red lights whenever you feel like it?

"Oooh ooh, Treat me like a vehicle! Follow behind me at 6 miles an hour while I mosey down the center of the lane and back up traffic for miles! I'm a vehicle!...  until it is inconvenient to me. Then I'm a pedestrian. A pedestrian who ignores all traffic laws."

It's the law. You want cyclists to stop at stop signs and obey traffic laws and be good upstanding citizens, then you get to follow the same rules. If bikes are treated exactly the same as internal-combustion powered automobiles in the eyes of the law, then you just sit back on your ass while the bike take up the entire lane as the law entitles it to, going just as fast as the cyclist can go. So blow it out your ass.

It's illegal to obstruct traffic.  In my state, you are required to pull off the road and allow traffic around when more than 3 vehicles are behind you.

It's also a traffic violation to go less than 20% below the speed limit when no immediate obstruction/danger is present.

Stop acting like an entitled child.

Those laws sound ridiculous enough that I doubt you're understanding them correctly.  Care to provide some citations, or at least clue us in on what state that is, so we can avoid it?  The great state of Texas does not have those laws.

ORS 811.425
and
ORS 811.130(1)


Fair enough on the needing to yield thing.  811.425(1) is a good read though.  It's limited only to bidirectional two-lane roads.  Way less scary than what your earlier post implied.  If there's 2 lanes going in our direction, I don't have to yield to you, even if changing lanes and safely passing me is going to make you 15 seconds late for work.  If there's only one, yeah I have no interest in being a dick.  I'll let you pass as soon as it's safe to do so.

But, neither of those says anything about an implicit minimum speed limit.  Unless there's somewhere else that "a manner that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic" is defined so as to include it.

Even still, 811.130(1) very clearly only applies to people "operating a motor vehicle or group of motor vehicles".
801.360 defines a motor vehicle as "a vehicle that is self-propelled or designed for self-propulsion"
814.400(2)(a): "When the term 'vehicle' is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles." (a bicycle is a "vehicle", but not necessarily a "motor vehicle")
814.405: "An electric assisted bicycle shall be considered a bicycle, rather than a motor vehicle " (further establishes that "bicycle" and "motor vehicle" are two distinct types of vehicles).
 / If I come up to a single person operating a group of motor vehicles, I'm going to slow down and watch, regardless of how fast they're going.
 
2013-09-26 07:30:31 PM

serial_crusher: Fair enough on the needing to yield thing.  811.425(1) is a good read though.  It's limited only to bidirectional two-lane roads.  Way less scary than what your earlier post implied.  If there's 2 lanes going in our direction, I don't have to yield to you, even if changing lanes and safely passing me is going to make you 15 seconds late for work.  If there's only one, yeah I have no interest in being a dick.  I'll let you pass as soon as it's safe to do so.

But, neither of those says anything about an implicit minimum speed limit.  Unless there's somewhere else that "a manner that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic" is defined so as to include it.

Even still, 811.130(1) very clearly only applies to people "operating a motor vehicle or group of motor vehicles".
801.360 defines a motor vehicle as "a vehicle that is self-propelled or designed for self-propulsion"
814.400(2)(a): "When the term 'vehicle' is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles." (a bicycle is a "vehicle", but not necessarily a "motor vehicle")
814.405: "An electric assisted bicycle shall be considered a bicycle, rather than a motor vehicle " (further establishes that "bicycle" and "motor vehicle" are two distinct types of vehicles).
 / If I come up to a single person operating a group of motor vehicles, I'm going to slow down and watch, regardless of how fast they're going.


You have a point, I miss-communicated the details of the law I was thinking of.  I have a pragmatic view, so I just interpreted that into words.  That's not accurate and I should probably try and avoid that in these discussions.

I don't have an issue with cyclists on a road with 2 lanes in my travel direction, unless the cyclist is blatantly breaking from his own lane.  I have a problem with cyclists on roads with no shoulder, no bike lane and bad sight lines.  In previous threads on the subject I've taken the time to explain that because of the laws of physics, it's not a good idea to ride these sorts of roads, and it's a terrible idea to do so in packs.  I won't bother elaborating further here, because the response last time made it perfectly clear that no one cares that it's dangerous and stupid, because "cyclists have a right to the road too".  Sure you do, and you have the right to end up dead under my bumper because it isn't physically possible to go from 50mph to cyclists speed of 1-5mph in the distance between that corner and your bike.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for the plight of cyclists if they bothered to actually conform to the laws they claim entitle them to the road.  Oregon law specifically applies ALL road law to cyclists (except where noted, and that's rare).  If you want me to play by the rules, you have to play by the rules.  Otherwise, we fall back on the more simple physical laws, and in that case, my cars beats your bike, EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I have, when required, crawled along behind a cyclist until such time as I could safely pass.  I have done this enough times to say that if the laws were being followed by both parties this would be far less of an issue than it currently is.

Just yesterday a cyclist nearly hit my car because he ran a stop sign and ignored by turn indicator.  He then had the typically entitled attitude that I had violated him in some fashion.  I simply replied that STOP means stop, if you want to have a legal right of way, you have to stop at the sign, even when it's "hard work" for you.

If you guys (cyclists) want to change things, you need to start with your own group.  Because as long as us drivers have to put up with your friends inability to follow the law, we aren't inclined to cut a lot of slack to the rest of you (that are probably perfectly reasonable folks).

And while we are at it, fark drivers that can't manage to follow the rules either.  I have no small hatred for them either, more in fact, than for cyclists, as someone in a car being reckless is far more likely to cause me serious damage.
 
2013-09-26 09:58:25 PM

doglover: Americans can't


ZeroPly: Americans can't


Don't you just love it when sanctimonious douchebags lump everyone on two and a half continents into one group?
 
2013-09-26 11:38:56 PM

Kahabut: it isn't physically possible to go from 50mph to cyclists speed of 1-5mph in the distance between that corner and your bike.


The problem there is that the guy going 50 is going too fast, not that the guy going 15 is going too slow.

That's why your state has ORS 811.100: (1)A person commits the offense of violating the basic speed rule if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to all of the following:
(a) The traffic
....
(e) Visibility.


i.e. if that curve limits your visibility, you need to slow down so you don't rear end traffic that might have the audacity to go slower than you on the other side of it.
Even if the sign says the speed limit is 50mph, whether that is a reasonable and prudent speed depends on your particular vehicle's weight and stopping power.
 
2013-09-27 12:37:04 AM

serial_crusher: Kahabut: it isn't physically possible to go from 50mph to cyclists speed of 1-5mph in the distance between that corner and your bike.

The problem there is that the guy going 50 is going too fast, not that the guy going 15 is going too slow.

That's why your state has ORS 811.100: (1)A person commits the offense of violating the basic speed rule if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to all of the following:
(a) The traffic
....
(e) Visibility.

i.e. if that curve limits your visibility, you need to slow down so you don't rear end traffic that might have the audacity to go slower than you on the other side of it.
Even if the sign says the speed limit is 50mph, whether that is a reasonable and prudent speed depends on your particular vehicle's weight and stopping power.


Yeah, I've had this conversation before.

Me: You create a dangerous gap in speed by cycling on this mostly uphill road with limited sight lines
Cyclists: You should slow down then
Me: I do, that's why I don't have to scrape you off my bumper but that doesn't stop at least one cyclist per year dying on this road to this exact cause
Cyclists: everyone should slow down, because ____________(insert poorly understood or simply improbable to be followed law which isn't enforced the way you pretend it is).
Me: But you're still dead, do you really think that's a good deal?
Cyclists: WHARBARGLE you are trying to kill us!!!!!
Cyclists: What about other cars, you could hit one of them if you don't slow down, murderer!!!!
Me: A disabled vehicle is required to put out flares, a slow moving vehicle is still moving faster than the fastest cyclists on a long hill.  So no, that isn't a reasonable point at all.

Look, I'll make it simple.  I drive within the law, you cycle within the law, and we aren't going to have a lot of problems.  I still hate you when I find you on a mountain pass doing 1mph and taking the middle of the lane, but  I won't be running you over, because unlike the majority, I can actually farking drive my car.  On that token though, when you do get your ass run over, don't expect much in the way of sympathy.
 
2013-09-27 12:44:22 AM
Totally off-topic, but I'm having a really great cup of coffee right now.

The secretary must have switched beans.
 
2013-09-27 04:29:34 AM

This text is now purple: ZeroCorpse: In many states bicycles are perfectly legal (and often preferred) on the sidewalk. In Michigan anything classified as a bicycle is legally allowed to ride the sidewalk as long as they grant right-of-way to pedestrians.

Varies city by city. It's not legal within Houghton city limits, for instance. And your route from town to campus goes past the police station.


Illegal in Chicago if you are over 12 years of age.
 
Displayed 44 of 244 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report