Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 218
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    5,549
    Quote Originally Posted by muted View Post
    Is it now one block or two? Share the road buddy, nobody cares what the law says. Then again, that driver can go fuck themselves nothing you did was that bad.

    I saw a few bikers blow through a busy intersection in SF this month. They were hauling ass, I’ve never seen anything like it for blowing through anything before at that speed. Cars were waiting for them, then it looked clear so this mom and kid in a car slowly went through and another biker blew through the stop sign and almost hit her. The mom had her window down already calmly said something like, ‘Hey, you shoulda stopped!’ Biker girl yelled at her from two feet away, “We don’t stop, bitch!!”

    So many clowns biking these days, go back to driving you are making it bad for the rest of us.
    That's nuts even for the entitled bikers of sf. What intersection / direction? I can't image too many around me you could get away with that for long before ending up on a windshield

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post

    The problem is no one cares what the law says and everyone wants to cite the law when they feel wronged.
    Agreed. Kinda sounds like what you are doing here, though.

    We weren't there so we can't know how egregious the situation was, but from the way you wrote it, sounds like you were the one that was in the wrong initially. A VERY small wrong that did not warrant the drivers reaction.

    I see the issue being one of cyclists choosing to ride on roads and in situations where they cannot either ride safely separate from traffic (specific bike lanes), or safely with traffic (keeping up with traffic, empty side streets, etc). And in those cases, they expect all drivers to make allowances for them that increase the hazard to all road users. Cyclists also get pissed when drivers accidentally don't see them- they fail to realize that they themselves are choosing an very exposed transportation method in which they are also making themselves difficult to see.

    Too many people feel special. Cyclists feeling entitled to lanes of traffic, and motorists thinking that saving 30 seconds is worth risking someone else's life.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    Agreed. Kinda sounds like what you are doing here, though.

    We weren't there so we can't know how egregious the situation was, but from the way you wrote it, sounds like you were the one that was in the wrong initially. A VERY small wrong that did not warrant the drivers reaction.

    I see the issue being one of cyclists choosing to ride on roads and in situations where they cannot either ride safely separate from traffic (specific bike lanes), or safely with traffic (keeping up with traffic, empty side streets, etc). And in those cases, they expect all drivers to make allowances for them that increase the hazard to all road users. Cyclists also get pissed when drivers accidentally don't see them- they fail to realize that they themselves are choosing an very exposed transportation method in which they are also making themselves difficult to see.

    Too many people feel special. Cyclists feeling entitled to lanes of traffic, and motorists thinking that saving 30 seconds is worth risking someone else's life.
    Cyclist choose to ride on those roads because they have a right to use them just like cars do. Drivers have to make allowances. Cyclists make allowances for cars all time as well. As a cyclist trying to use a bike for transport I have to get places. I don't get to choose whether those roads are well designed for bikes or not. I do choose routes that are bike friendly when I can, but I still have to get to work. That is why the law says cyclists have rights to the road, just like a car.

    Why is a car entitled to a lane of traffic anymore than a cyclist? They're not. We're both trying to go to work. The context here is a downtown area, not a rural mountain road.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    Why is a car entitled to a lane of traffic anymore than a cyclist? They're not. We're both trying to go to work. The context here is a downtown area, not a rural mountain road.
    Because roads were and still are designed specifically for automobiles. You can get to work just fine in your own car, ridding a bus, or walking on sidewalks, but you CHOOSE to utilize a vehicle that is slower and less protective than the vast majority of other vehicles on that same road, and many of those roads are not designed to be used by a bicycle. If you can do it safely and blend into traffic then there will be no problem (unless someone really has an axe to grind, in which case nothing you can do about it). But if you are traveling at a different speed than the rest of traffic or are making unpredictable movements then you are a cause of problems on that road.

    More than trying to claim some stupid subsection of subjective county/state traffic law, folks should be following the general rule of don't be a dick. Don't hold up traffic unnecessarily. Don't assault or harass someone for delaying you mere seconds on your morning commute. Don't think that you are the most important person on the road. Etc.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    24,930
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,825
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    Because roads were and still are designed specifically for automobiles.
    Design has nothing to do with anyone's right to use a public resource, whatever it might be. We all pay for the roads (only a tiny fraction comes from gas taxes and it's not enough to cover the maintenance required as a result of use by gas powered vehicles). If you're using a resource whose design has been bent to your particular use even though everyone else chipped in then you've benefited from that design far more than you're inconvenienced. The occasional biker has to put up with far more compromises every time he uses that public resource. Check your entitlement.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    Because roads were and still are designed specifically for automobiles. You can get to work just fine in your own car, ridding a bus, or walking on sidewalks, but you CHOOSE to utilize a vehicle that is slower and less protective than the vast majority of other vehicles on that same road, and many of those roads are not designed to be used by a bicycle. If you can do it safely and blend into traffic then there will be no problem (unless someone really has an axe to grind, in which case nothing you can do about it). But if you are traveling at a different speed than the rest of traffic or are making unpredictable movements then you are a cause of problems on that road.

    More than trying to claim some stupid subsection of subjective county/state traffic law, folks should be following the general rule of don't be a dick. Don't hold up traffic unnecessarily. Don't assault or harass someone for delaying you mere seconds on your morning commute. Don't think that you are the most important person on the road. Etc.
    Some stupid subsection of law. I'm glad you get to decide which laws are important and which laws aren't. I wasn't being the dick in this situation. I don't hold up traffic unnecessarily. I hold it up when I need to in order to ride safely and directly to my destination.

    You realize the majority of cyclists aren't just "choosing" to bike. Driving a car is a fuckton more expensive. It would literally raise my daily cost of going to work by $20. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2004...-go-unnoticed/

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,488
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    But if you are traveling at a different speed than the rest of traffic or are making unpredictable movements then you are a cause of problems on that road.
    This. For every vehicle. It doesn't matter if it's some geriatric in a Buick, going 20 under the speed limit because they know that odds are good they're going to have a stroke at any moment, or someone who's new in town and creeping along, trying to look at house numbers, or if it's a cyclist who's just trying to make his life a bit easier by getting into the left turn lane earlier than is perhaps necessary. Either way, those people are the source of problems on the road, and it's understandable when people are irritated at them.

    Personally, I'm willing to give the cyclist a bit more slack because I think it's a worthwhile activity and having less cars on the road is a good thing. But I think it's far from surprising that other people are less willing to put up with the inconvenience associated with having a dramatically slower moving vehicle on the road. And it's not like that annoyance is confined to cyclists - there's plenty of car on car road rage incidents, but cyclists are more frequently the cause of the problem, and thus are more frequently the receivers of shit talking.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Design has nothing to do with anyone's right to use a public resource, whatever it might be. We all pay for the roads (only a tiny fraction comes from gas taxes and it's not enough to cover the maintenance required as a result of use by gas powered vehicles). If you're using a resource whose design has been bent to your particular use even though everyone else chipped in then you've benefited from that design far more than you're inconvenienced. The occasional biker has to put up with far more compromises every time he uses that public resource. Check your entitlement.
    To further this: drivers pay for less than 1/2 the cost of roadways. Source: https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/who-pays-roads . Yet they feel entitled that everyone travel at their speed.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    cow hampshire
    Posts
    4,241
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    Yet they feel entitled that everyone travel at their speed.
    You mean the posted speed limit? Impeding traffic is against the law as well.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw View Post
    You mean the posted speed limit? Impeding traffic is against the law as well.
    That's an upper speed limit. Which drivers violate on an everyday basis. Fucking drivers. Entitled to go 10mph above the limit with no consequences, but also entitled to harass people going 10mph below the legal limit.

    Riding a bike at slower than the speed limit is not against the law. http://colobikelaw.com/coloradolaw.html

    Nor is riding the far left lane of a one-way street. Nor is riding outside of a bike lane (and especially an obstructed bike lane.) At least in the jurisdiction in which I did such.

    Please. Feel free to cite the law if it is.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,488
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    That's an upper speed limit. Which drivers violate on an everyday basis. Fucking drivers. Entitled to go 10mph above the limit with no consequences, but also entitled to harass people going 10mph below the legal limit.

    Riding a bike at slower than the speed limit is not against the law. http://colobikelaw.com/coloradolaw.html

    Nor is riding the far left lane of a one-way street. Nor is riding outside of a bike lane (and especially an obstructed bike lane.) At least in the jurisdiction in which I did such.

    Please. Feel free to cite the law if it is.
    I don't think anyone's saying it's against the law.

    But that doesn't make it not annoying, and not an inconvenience to the majority of the people on the road.

    If I'm skiing along a crowded, low angle cat track where everyone's going more or less the same speed, but then I decide to go substantially slower, I'm creating a problem. I'm not breaking any laws or violating the skier code, but I'm forcing everyone to go around me in an area where there is limited space and ability to do so. I'm creating an annoyance for everyone. That's just part of skiing, and they don't have a right to be annoyed, but that doesn't change the fact that what I'm doing is clearly an annoyance to the majority of other skiers.

    In other words, I'm not wrong, but I'm kind of an asshole.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    I don't think anyone's saying it's against the law.
    .
    The post i quoted literally said it was against the law to ride slower (i.e. impede) traffic.

    In the case I presented there wasn't "everyone else". There was a single SUV, who came up behind me for one block. Not the same context as slowing down a line of traffic for a long way on a mountain road.

    I'm not a dick cyclist just to be a dick. But occasionally riding a bike safely to my destination will slow down a few cars for a few moments. Meanwhile, I get slowed down by cars and the traffic control devices they make necessary every trip. I don't harass them for doing such.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,488
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    The post i quoted literally said it was against the law to ride slower (i.e. impede) traffic.
    Which appears to be correct, at least on certain roads. https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-4...42-4-1103.html

    edit: and to be clear, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. I wasn't there, and these things are pretty situational.

    I'm just saying that, all legalities aside, I don't find it surprising that drivers get annoyed with bikes. What bikes are doing is, for better or worse, inherently annoying to the majority of users on the road. I'm certainly not suggesting that people stop biking on roads, but I also think some cyclists aren't as aware of what they're doing as they probably should be.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    Which appears to be correct, at least on certain roads. https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-4...42-4-1103.html
    On certain roads (i.e. highways yes). I'm not saying I can ride a bike on an interstate or 55mph highway and impede traffic. As everyone has noted, context matters. Context here is a downtown with 25mph posted speed limits.

    But that does not apply to urban streets. Nor is a bicycle a motor vehicle. Nor would statutory construction say that that law trumps the statues written specifically for cyclists. https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-4...42-4-1412.html

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,825
    The law quoted specifically states "motor vehicles."

    And you're not wrong about annoyance being different from legality. But don't underestimate the annoyance caused by hitting a cyclist with all that that entails. The nicest thing a cyclist can do for motorists is to stay safe and help prevent that. Even if doing so annoys them a little.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    10,564
    "Roads aren't designed for bikes, therefore bikes should not travel on roads unless they can do so entirely without inconveniencing motorists."

    *City converts street parking or traffic lanes to bike lanes to facilitate bike traffic and separate cars and bikes*

    "Why are we allocating resources to shitbird cyclists? This is bullshit!"


    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    "Roads aren't designed for bikes, therefore bikes should not travel on roads unless they can do so entirely without inconveniencing motorists."

    *City converts street parking or traffic lanes to bike lanes to facilitate bike traffic and separate cars and bikes*

    "Why are we allocating resources to shitbird cyclists? This is bullshit!"


    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    Exactly so

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,488
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    Nor is a bicycle a motor vehicle. Nor would statutory construction say that that law trumps the statues written specifically for cyclists. https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-4...42-4-1412.html
    From your earlier link:

    "A person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle has all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this article 4, except as to special regulations in this article 4, except as provided in section 42-4-1412.5, and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. "

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    cow hampshire
    Posts
    4,241
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    That's an upper speed limit. Which drivers violate on an everyday basis. Fucking drivers. Entitled to go 10mph above the limit with no consequences, but also entitled to harass people going 10mph below the legal limit.

    Riding a bike at slower than the speed limit is not against the law. http://colobikelaw.com/coloradolaw.html

    Nor is riding the far left lane of a one-way street. Nor is riding outside of a bike lane (and especially an obstructed bike lane.) At least in the jurisdiction in which I did such.

    Please. Feel free to cite the law if it is.
    Every state is different. But assholes are assholes no matter what the state.

    XI. A person propelling a bicycle upon a way at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time and place shall remain on the right portion of the way as far as practicable except when it is unsafe to do so or:

    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...65/265-144.htm

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    From your earlier link:

    "A person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle has all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this article 4, except as to special regulations in this article 4, except as provided in section 42-4-1412.5, and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. "
    The except as provided in section 42-4-1412.5 is the one that says its okay to ride on streets at lower than the speed limit.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw View Post
    Every state is different. But assholes are assholes no matter what the state.

    XI. A person propelling a bicycle upon a way at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time and place shall remain on the right portion of the way as far as practicable except when it is unsafe to do so or:

    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...65/265-144.htm
    Yeah. Every state is different, I've never claimed otherwise.

    In CO (where this took place), it is far right as judge safe by the cyclist. Except on one-ways where it can be either as far right or as far left as judge safe by the cyclist.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Design has nothing to do with anyone's right to use a public resource, whatever it might be. We all pay for the roads (only a tiny fraction comes from gas taxes and it's not enough to cover the maintenance required as a result of use by gas powered vehicles). If you're using a resource whose design has been bent to your particular use even though everyone else chipped in then you've benefited from that design far more than you're inconvenienced. The occasional biker has to put up with far more compromises every time he uses that public resource. Check your entitlement.
    When automobile drivers pay for and use 99.99% of roadway improvements, new roads, maintenance, etc, yes they will feel entitled and will resent that other users feel they do not need to follow posted speed limits, or other traffic laws (stopping at stop signs, signaling turns, lane splitting in some areas, etc).

    I think many cyclists need to check their entitlement and not impede traffic. I think many motorists need to check their entitlement and realize being slightly delayed is not worth the rage.

    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    Some stupid subsection of law. I'm glad you get to decide which laws are important and which laws aren't. I wasn't being the dick in this situation. I don't hold up traffic unnecessarily. I hold it up when I need to in order to ride safely and directly to my destination.

    You realize the majority of cyclists aren't just "choosing" to bike. Driving a car is a fuckton more expensive. It would literally raise my daily cost of going to work by $20. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2004...-go-unnoticed/
    You know what i mean when i say some stupid subjective subsection of the law. Do you think that bicyclists and cars should have to stop at a deserted 4-way stop sign late at night, or do you think its fine if they slow to a crawl, double check both ways and kinda roll through? have you ever ridden your bike on the sidewalk, even for a quick second? Common sense stuff that is technically illegal, or legal, but should really just be common sense.

    You are CHOOSING to bike to work to save money. You could walk, take public transport, carpool, etc. You wouldnt become homeless if you drove, walked, or took public transport to work. You are biking to work because it saves you money, time, and probably keeps you in good shape, and you like doing it. Nothing wrong with that at all. Heck, it should be commended. But you also shouldn't expect the vast majority of road users to make allowances, be inconvenienced, and be put in dangerous traffic conditions just accommodate a very tiny minority of users.

    When i say put in dangerous traffic, there is no doubt cyclists are a billion times more vulnerable and exposed, but anytime another user is going a different speed than the normal flow of traffic it creates collision situations. Its kinda like the skier bombing a crowded blue groomer, except in this case its 100 metal cars bombing a blue groomer and a single cyclists making slow snowplow turns.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    When automobile drivers pay for and use 99.99% of roadway improvements, new roads, maintenance, etc, yes they will feel entitled and will resent that other users feel they do not need to follow posted speed limits, or other traffic laws (stopping at stop signs, signaling turns, lane splitting in some areas, etc).
    Sorry, but this stat is just wrong. User fees for roads (aka auto drivers) pay for 48% of the costs of roads on average in the US. https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/...oads%20vUS.pdf

    Not to mention, most cyclists are also drivers and pay registration fees and the like.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,488
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    When automobile drivers pay for and use 99.99% of roadway improvements, new roads, maintenance, etc, yes they will feel entitled and will resent that other users feel they do not need to follow posted speed limits, or other traffic laws (stopping at stop signs, signaling turns, lane splitting in some areas, etc).
    But that's a bullshit argument. My household owns 4 cars. We pay plenty of taxes. If I choose to ride a bike on the road, I'm still paying the same amount of taxes to support that infrastructure, but I'm using that infrastructure in a way that has a tiny fraction of the impact and maintenance cost.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •