Why the hate for Cyclists?

[Creedmoor]

Exactly how anti-gunners reply.

You and your straw mans.
I dont recall you posting in any of the firearm threads.

 

[chipbennett]

No they are not. They are built for all recognized modes of transportation in the laws for roads…

You seem to be conflating engineering design with legal allowance. Bicycles have legal allowance to use public roads, but the design of the roads considers motor vehicles, not bicycles.

Feel free to cite some design specification for public roads that explicitly accommodates bicycles.

 

[Ingomike]

You and your straw mans.
I dont recall you posting in any of the firearm threads.

You apparently don’t even know what a strawman is. I couldn’t care less where you saw a post from me.

 

[actaeon277]

Exactly how anti-gunners reply.

Was it as well thought out, as your quoted response?

 

[chipbennett]

You and your straw mans.
I dont recall you posting in any of the firearm threads.

I bet I could draw far more parallels to some of those two's straw man arguments and other logical fallacy employed by anti-gunners. ("Storage laws are unconstitutional? How many dead children will it take for you to change your mind?" - Sounds awfully similar to "You think that roads were designed for cars? That must mean that you think bicycles should be banned from roads!")

 

[Ingomike]

You seem to be conflating engineering design with legal allowance. Bicycles have legal allowance to use public roads, but the design of the roads considers motor vehicles, not bicycles.

Feel free to cite some design specification for public roads that explicitly accommodates bicycles.

Nope, you are making the assertion that, please confirm, that the design of roads, including dimensions, materials used, surfaces etc. are done with no regard for other legal users beyond motor vehicles. I find that preposterous so please prove your assertion, an assertion you seem to be pushing for similar reasons to your tax claims that you still did not explain why you care so deeply…

 

[Ingomike]

Was it as well thought out, as your quoted response?

You didn’t quote me…

 

[jamil]

You didn’t quote me…

 

[jamil]

I will admit I’m having a time figuring out what the conversation is at the moment.

 

[jamil]

I didn’t quote that you quoted me not quoting you. I think that’s where we are now.

 

[indyblue]

No they are not. They are built for all recognized modes of transportation in the laws for roads…

Not all roads.

 

[Ingomike]

I will admit I’m having a time figuring out what the conversation is at the moment.

I’ll update you then a couple of posters have been saying bikes have equal rights to the roads that any other vehicle in the law does and riders should follow the laws and be courteous.

Others believe roads are the province of motor vehicles and bikes are second class users even though they cannot show in the laws how that is so. and believe cyclists should get out of their way or relegate themselves to roads no one uses.

Some believe bikes are not considered at all in road design.

There are those that passionately express frustration that bikes don’t pay enough road/fuel type taxes, but doesn’t say what they should pay or why they care.

Then there are those that espouse assault and no one challenges the assertions and some think it is funny, at least to dream of hurting riders.

 

[Ingomike]

View attachment 342494
Not all roads.

Those are called interstate highways and have their own rules. They often have signs that say no farm equipment and other general road users are not allowed.

 

[chipbennett]

Nope, you are making the assertion that, please confirm, that the design of roads, including dimensions, materials used, surfaces etc. are done with no regard for other legal users beyond motor vehicles. I find that preposterous so please prove your assertion, an assertion you seem to be pushing for similar reasons to your tax claims that you still did not explain why you care so deeply…

Which part of the design or construction of roads explicitly considers bicycles? The lane widths? Surface materials? Signage? Sign distances? Anything?

The closest I can find is that shoulders are defined as an area that can accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, etc.

 

[chipbennett]

I’ll update you then a couple of posters have been saying bikes have equal rights to the roads that any other vehicle in the law does and riders should follow the laws and be courteous.

Others believe roads are the province of motor vehicles and bikes are second class users even though they cannot show in the laws how that is so. and believe cyclists should get out of their way or relegate themselves to roads no one uses.

Some believe bikes are not considered at all in road design.

There are those that passionately express frustration that bikes don’t pay enough road/fuel type taxes, but doesn’t say what they should pay or why they care.

Then there are those that espouse assault and no one challenges the assertions and some think it is funny, at least to dream of hurting riders.

Indeed, bicycles are not explicitly considered in road design.

What that has to do with the rest of your summary, I have no idea. It's rather irrelevant to opinions about how bicyclists should act and be treated on roads.

 

[chipbennett]

View attachment 342494
Not all roads.

Again: there is a difference between engineering design and legal allowance. Bicycles are prohibited from freeways because of the speeds, not because of any inherently different road design.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I’ll update you then a couple of posters have been saying bikes have equal rights to the roads that any other vehicle in the law does and riders should follow the laws and be courteous.

Others believe roads are the province of motor vehicles and bikes are second class users even though they cannot show in the laws how that is so. and believe cyclists should get out of their way or relegate themselves to roads no one uses.

Some believe bikes are not considered at all in road design.

There are those that passionately express frustration that bikes don’t pay enough road/fuel type taxes, but doesn’t say what they should pay or why they care.

Then there are those that espouse assault and no one challenges the assertions and some think it is funny, at least to dream of hurting riders.

Nah…”sharing the road“ with bicycles is just an obviously and inherently unsafe practice.

The only way to keep bicyclists completely safe from cars is to keep them completely separate from cars.

Expecting others to take responsibility for one’s own safety is foolish...it isn’t safe for an adult to ride a bicycle anywhere it wouldn’t be safe for a child to ride one.

In other words: playing with your toys in traffic is stupid and should be discouraged for people of any age…not just children.

 

[littletommy]

Oh my god! I agree with leftygunner!!

 

[BugI02]

Staying to the right of the road is fine. I have no problem with that. Which I’ve said many times in this thread. It’s easy to pass a single bike which is to the right, even on my road. It’s the clubs which ride 2,3 abreast. I’ve also said what would help solve the problem. Clubs should break up their rides into smaller groups. Ride single file. It’s dangerous to ride a twisty hilly road with a couple dozen riders in the middle of the road.

Agreed, and I have never advocated any different. A shame such reasonableness couldn't have reared its ugly head by page 2 or 3

 

[BugI02]

Is there any road that cars use that is not usable for bicycles? Not that I am aware of. Why are you so cocksure that no consideration is given to road surface and design as to it being functional for bicycles?

Interstates are used by cars and specifically prohibit bicycles, among other slow moving vehicle types. Usually no pedestrians, either