Fu*king Cyclists

[Benny Profane]

C

Just this morning on my 1 mile drive to the dog park...

This is a state highway:

Attachment 186931

Attachment 186932

Wait. I don't get it. What's your problem in those two pics? I don't even see a car in the top one.

[BigDaddy]

^Blind hill on a state highway treating it like bike path.

let's think about this for a minute BD
you drove your fucking obnoxiously large SUV, one mile, to then get out of said monstrosity to walk your dog
you're voting for Trump, amirite?

Not sure what this has to do with Trump, but maybe you are so politically active since you have so much free time? Not all of us can be sponsored, trophy husbands. Some of us have to work and use said obnoxious vehicle to support a family.

[jono]

^Blind hill on a state highway treating it like bike path.

Not sure what this has to do with Trump, but maybe you are so politically active since you have so much free time? Not all of us can be sponsored, trophy husbands. Some of us have to work and use said obnoxious vehicle to support a family.

I just want to thank you for taking the time out of your busy day to gather that photographic evidence. A picture is worth a thousand words and these really help put your comments in perspective. Thanks!

[summit]

^Blind hill on a state highway treating it like bike path.

Come on... seriously?

It might be a designated "state highway" but it is functionally a residential road in that picture and I'll bet the speed limit is 35. With sidewalks and houses, anyone careening over that hill at highway speeds is asking to run over a kid or smash a delivery truck, much less some bikers. And the visibility is not that blind either, sightelines do not look that compromised

[BigDaddy]

Come on... seriously?

It might be a designated "state highway" but it is functionally a residential road in that picture and I'll bet the speed limit is 35. With sidewalks and houses, anyone careening over that hill at highway speeds is asking to run over a kid or smash a delivery truck, much less some bikers. And the visibility is not that blind either, sightelines do not look that compromised

Yeah admittedly, it's exactly as you describe. But it's the first stretch of open road after a mile or so of stop and go traffic, waiting for pedestrians/tourists to cross ten times. I can't tell you how many times I've seen cars just mat it and hit 50 by the time they pass my house. Occasionally you get the jr BMW driver go up to 70.

I just wanted to illustrate my point of dealing with this sort of bike path mentality on a daily basis. Barely out of my driveway and there it is. I could film a drivers Ed movie if I felt like wasting my time. It is a problem in our town and I drive accordingly, but I still find them fucking obnoxious and annoying. That doesn't mean I don't respect them and their right to enjoy the day, either... Just please ride sensibly and stay safe.

[stfu&gbtw]

The problem is that, despite all their claims that motor vehicles are out to kill them, cyclists know that 99.999% of all people would hit a tree before they'd hit a cyclist, and they exploit that to use the roads in unreasonable ways. No cyclist who actually feared for his life would ever fail to obey simple traffic rules like riding single file or stopping at red lights and stop signs. The three assholes I passed last week who decided to take their siesta in the road as opposed to the 12' of shoulder just to their right were simply exploiting their ability obstruct the road and impede traffic out of other people's concern for their safety. Not only were they not fearing for their own safety, they were using their complete confidence in the average driver's intention to not hit them as a social weapon.

I don't personally know anyone who thinks bikes shouldn't be allowed on roads. But everyone I know gets pissed off when their concern for another person is taken advantage of.

[huckbucket]

The problem is that, despite all their claims that motor vehicles are out to kill them, cyclists know that 99.999% of all people would hit a tree before they'd hit a cyclist, and they exploit that to use the roads in unreasonable ways. No cyclist who actually feared for his life would ever fail to obey simple traffic rules like riding single file or stopping at red lights and stop signs. The three assholes I passed last week who decided to take their siesta in the road as opposed to the 12' of shoulder just to their right were simply exploiting their ability obstruct the road and impede traffic out of other people's concern for their safety. Not only were they not fearing for their own safety, they were using their complete confidence in the average driver's intention to not hit them as a social weapon.

I don't personally know anyone who thinks bikes shouldn't be allowed on roads. But everyone I know gets pissed off when their concern for another person is taken advantage of.

Safety and self-preservation aside, your tone smacks of someone who thinks drivers are more entitled to the road than cyclists. It's simply not true according to the law.

[Meadow Skipper]

New Mexico law:
http://www.nmcycling.org/advocacy/NM_Bike_Statutes.html

66-3-705. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
A. Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
B. 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.
C. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, no bicycle shall be operated on any roadway in a manner that would create a public safety hazard.

History: 1953 Comp., § 64-3-705, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 104; 1997, ch. 47, § 1.

Problems arise because a fair number of both cyclists and drivers are serious assholes.

[stfu&gbtw]

Safety and self-preservation aside, your tone smacks of someone who thinks drivers are more entitled to the road than cyclists. It's simply not true according to the law.

My true statement that drivers of motor vehicles frequently show more concern for cyclists than the cyclists themselves do indicates to you that the motor vehicle drivers don't respect the cyclists right to use the road?

And it is true that cars have greater right to the road. It doesn't matter what the law says. Roads were built to enable travel, and 99% of travellers are driving cars. We have bike paths for recreation. Riding like a prick while saying that the law justifies your claim that you have just as much right to the road as everyone else is the equivalent of waving your hand in front of someone's face saying "I'm not touching you!". The law can say whatever it wants. The roads are there for travelling, and sharing the resource means that we seek to avoid impeding each other - not that we seek to consume as much of the resource as possible as some sort of bullshit political statement. I see you're a part of the problem. Get over yourself, you spandex clad twat stain. But go ahead and keep exploiting other people's commitment to your safety because the law says you're allowed to.

[huckbucket]

I see you're a part of the problem. Get over yourself, you spandex clad twat stain. But go ahead and keep exploiting other people's commitment to your safety because the law says you're allowed to.

Does your boyfriend know you suck his cock with that mouth?

[ex-powderbroker]

We have made extreme concessions to automobiles for 100 years. I think this argument reflects the fact that people are considering their options and the use of resources more carefully at this point. Also, the idea that riding two abreast makes cyclists less safe is not true. A reason cited in Europe about cycling safety is precisely the rider density. This doesn't mean riders should be jerks, but it is clear that two riders register more clearly as objects to a moving vehicle than a single cyclist.

[::: :::]

It doesn't matter what the law says.

Aren't you the concerned citizen...

[stfu&gbtw]

Does your boyfriend know you suck his cock with that mouth?

I always knew a dude who goes out dressed in spandex must fantasize about gay sex, but this is the first time it's been confirmed.

[SkiBall]

I just admire how bikers can just go into roundabouts so carefree. I generally have to stop a lot of times, but it's because I am going a bit slower. Don't lose that pump for anyone my friend.

[Benny Profane]

Blind hill? Seriously? You people are fucked up.

[::: :::]

My true statement that drivers of motor vehicles frequently show more concern for cyclists than the cyclists themselves do indicates to you that the motor vehicle drivers don't respect the cyclists right to use the road?

I think it's specious to say that drivers have more concern for the lives of cyclists than the cyclists do themselves. And, of course, no one wants to hit a cyclist.

Frequently, collisions happen because drivers are not expecting (or are just not looking for) cyclists.

In most parts of the country, cyclists are not a significant portion of traffic, and drivers just aren't practiced at looking for them. It is not because they don't care.

We have a high ridership here, and our local drivers are better practiced at looking for riders, but we still have collisions. And it's not necessarily because cyclists are scofflaws (tho I won't deny that occurs too).

Everyone on here knows how much sympathy the law has for rear ending another vehicle. Basically, the following vehicle is always at fault with few exceptions. This is because the driver is responsible for being aware of the conditions around his vehicle at all times.

"Start seeing motorcycles" was a campaign a while ago.

Same goes for cyclists.




I think plenty of posters have addressed the assholes issues already.

[BigDaddy]

I will say, on a positive note, I don't mind the many female riders in spandex that I often see on the road here. Proof there's a silver lining in every cloud.

And I think PhilippeR started a thread to that effect a while ago...

[TomCrac]

I just admire how bikers can just go into roundabouts so carefree. I generally have to stop a lot of times, but it's because I am going a bit slower. Don't lose that pump for anyone my friend.

You stop a lot of times in roundabouts? Because you are going a bit slower?

Brain hurts.

[TomCrac]

The problem is that, despite all their claims that motor vehicles are out to kill them, cyclists know that 99.999% of all people would hit a tree before they'd hit a cyclist...

Sauce please.

[TomCrac]

My true statement that drivers of motor vehicles frequently show more concern for cyclists than the cyclists themselves do...

....It doesn't matter what the law says.

True statement? Face palm. Doesn't matter what the law says? Double face palm.

Not trying to pick on you stfu, but, invariably, when there is a disagreement and it devolves in to who might be gay for one reason or another it involves you?

ps... Calling someone gay as a derogatory term is kind of out dated.

And before you get all defensive and huffy let me just say this, Go sit on a bag of dicks and I know you are, but what am I.

[TomCrac]

Problems arise because a fair number of both cyclists and drivers are serious assholes.

Thread (should be) over.

[stfu&gbtw]

True statement? Face palm. Doesn't matter what the law says? Double face palm.

Not trying to pick on you stfu, but, invariably, when there is a disagreement and it devolves in to who might be gay for one reason or another it involves you?

ps... Calling someone gay as a derogatory term is kind of out dated.

And before you get all defensive and huffy let me just say this, Go sit on a bag of dicks and I know you are, but what am I.

So referring to a comment about dudes sucking dicks as being "gay" is a pejorative now? What-eva girlfriend.

[TomCrac]

Keep digging, you're not to the bottom yet

[summit]

We have made extreme concessions to automobiles for 100 years.

That statement reeks of entitlement... unfounded entitlement.

Bikes were NEVER the primary user of roadways. They were always the 3rd tier minority behind horse/pedestrian and then motor/pedestrian.

Automobiles predate bicycles by a century if you go by prototypes, but if we go by machines we would recognize today, the pedal-bicycle was invented in 1860s and the gasoline powered automobile came along about 20 years later.

two riders register more clearly as objects to a moving vehicle than a single cyclist.

So if traffic obstruction is for visibility/safety purposes, it sounds like we need a public safety law mandating reflective fluorescent clothing... might interfere with everyone who wants to look like they are spancered-like-Lance... I mean Landis... I mean... who is the current roadie hero who has yet to get caught doping?

Also, we should mandate daytime running lights for bikes (just like new cars and motorcycles have for years).

And let's crack down on drinking and biking!

And let's crack down on bikers who don't wear helmets!

Don't like those ideas? Then stop pretending this is about safety.

[Arno]

Just this morning on my 1 mile drive to the dog park...

This is a state highway:

Attachment 186931

Attachment 186932

Driving one mile?
Were you moving while you snapped those photos?