Why the hate for Cyclists?

[JTKelly]

I ride the foot wide pavement they couldn't chew up with the rumble strips on a state highway A LOT. I'll give you all a tip from an experiment I did one time. I stuck a half a pool noodle sticking straight out to the left from under my seat for a couple weeks one time. You could definitely notice the vehicles staying a little further from my side of the road and probably 3 or 4 times MORE of them slowed down and waited for oncoming traffic to pass before they passed me.

Another option I'm using right now is an SMV triangle stuck on the back under my seat. I found it laying in the ditch one time. I noticed right away more vehicles slowed down and were more careful when passing me. I ALWAYS stay outside the white line and a little more because of the rumble strips.

Sometimes when I don't have any bright shirts clean to wear, I'll wear a fluorescent highway worker vest. That will slow down vehicle traffic to.

 

[Creedmoor]

I ride the foot wide pavement they couldn't chew up with the rumble strip on a state highway A LOT. I'll give you all a tip from an experiment I did one time. I stuck a half a pool noodle sticking straight out to the left from under my seat for a couple weeks one time. You could definitely notice the vehicles staying a little further from my side of the road and probably 3 or 4 times MORE of them slowed down and waited for oncoming traffic to pass before they passed me.

Another option I'm using right now is an SMV triangle stuck on the back under my seat. I found it laying in the ditch one time. I noticed right away more vehicles slowed down and were more careful when passing me. I ALWAYS stay outside the white line and a little more because of the rumble strips.

Hook up a 6 row planter and tow that behind you.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Because they already are 'limited access' highways by statute. Same reason combines and tractors not being transported by something else, pedestrians, vehicles drawn by animals and people riding animals are not

Right. But why? What are those reasons?

 

[BugI02]

Right. But why? What are those reasons?

You tell me. I don't do the Socratic Method bull****, if you have a point make it

I'm having a hard time seeing how restrictions on what types of vehicle can be on certain roads has anything to do with whether they qualify to be vehicles or not, which is the point that was being discussed

 

[hopper68]

Not sure what DOT rules are for Bicycles - but Riding Single File should be one of them
I have come upon (45mph) groups of cyclists riding 2 or 3 abreast Chatting at 15 mph on 2 lane roads barely wide enough for 2 Cars
Choosing between a head-on with a semi and Running over a few Bicycles - is a No Win for the Bicycles ...

I have a true story regarding this. When I was a teenager in WI. My brother, 3 buddies, and I were riding about 10pm downtown 5 abreast hollering back and forth at each other. We go pulled over by the police. My brother and one buddy were old enough that they got threatened with real tickets and fines. The other 2 were given tickets and had to show up in bicycle court on Saturday, which was lectures and test on bike safety and law. Since I was the one nearest to the curb, riding where I should, got nothing.

 

[Ingomike]

Roads are primarily, first, and foremost intended for vehicular traffic. Making vehicular traffic yield to cyclists is horribly inefficient.

No they are not. In fact the first paved roads were for bicycles. Bikes have just as much right of way on roads as other vehicles…

 

[hopper68]

Growing up in WI in good sized city I rode bike just about everywhere. Starting in 2nd or 3rd grade if the weather permitted I rode to school. Schools had bike racks. Stores had bike racks. McDonald's had bike racks. A lot of UW-La Crosse students rode bike to school because it was easier and cheaper to park.
Moved to Indiana and only seen a handful of people riding bike.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You tell me. I don't do the Socratic Method bull****, if you have a point make it

I'm having a hard time seeing how restrictions on what types of vehicle can be on certain roads has anything to do with whether they qualify to be vehicles or not, which is the point that was being discussed

Again, you know the point. You just want to make it about the legal definition to avoid the real point, and the topic of the overall conversation. The *reason* is because those vehicles are an obstruction on the interstate, even when it was a 55mph speed limit. You bemoan "I must confess it is disappointing to see 'registration' and 'common sense restrictions' yet trot out 'but it's the law...'.

So which is it? Anyone looking for common sense restrictions is some sort of big gov't overreach fan or we need to allow riding mowers on the interstate?

Much like the road isn't your 1st amendment protest ground, the road is not your playground or gym. The primary point of roadways is for people and goods to move from point to point in relative safety and efficiency. Your pedal toy is an active hindrance to that on main thoroughfares like US and county highways just as much as it is on interstates. Neighborhood roads, denser urban districts, probably more appropriate areas to play with your toy. 55 mph zones with no shoulder? Stupid for everyone involved, legal or not.

 

[Ingomike]

I have cycled (~20 mile country road rides, sometimes to work in a more urban setting, but no centuries or the like...) and I have driven.

It's not fun being in traffic using either conveyence when they meet.

I would say the thing that makes me question anyone's judgement is driving up/down a road like Hazel Dell Pkwy between 4:30 - 6 pm, which has 4-6' wide bike paths on both sides of the road, and having some guy in a "king of the mountain" jersey riding 3' off the curb giving me the stink eye when I hit the gas to pass him.

I realize it is not as cool to ride on bike paths compared to screaming down the Champs-Élysées in Paris, but fer Pete's sake, what is the gain other than "I'm allowed to do it".

Are cyclists the "open carriers" of transportation?!?!?

Big love to all my driving and cycling brothers out there!

Apparently you have never ridden the side trails. At rush hour it is all but impossible to cross the traffic going through a roundabout. For a serious riders the street is the efficient place to ride…

 

[Ingomike]

the roads were built for motor vehicles

Cars have no more legal standing than bicycles. Most cyclists also pay road taxes for their cars, very few just ride a bike. In fact they probably pay more than most.

The funny thing is, if a driver were operating a vehicle the way cyclists often do, you'd probably have little tolerance for it.

The funny thing is you seem to think those operating a vehicle are not driving that way.

 

[foszoe]

Cycling is fine as long as deathrace 2000 rules are in effect

 

[Ingomike]

Why would this scenario not fall under Indiana's Slow Moving Vehicle traffic regulations? And note that riding 3 abreast is a violation of IN driving regulations.

If three or more cars are behind the cyclists are to give way as soon a practicable. This means as soon the cyclists find a safe point to let you by. They have no obligation to get out of your way.

It does but it is different than SMV which is its own law.

 

[Ingomike]

Again, you know the point. You just want to make it about the legal definition to avoid the real point, and the topic of the overall conversation. The *reason* is because those vehicles are an obstruction on the interstate, even when it was a 55mph speed limit. You bemoan "I must confess it is disappointing to see 'registration' and 'common sense restrictions' yet trot out 'but it's the law...'.

So which is it? Anyone looking for common sense restrictions is some sort of big gov't overreach fan or we need to allow riding mowers on the interstate?

Much like the road isn't your 1st amendment protest ground, the road is not your playground or gym. The primary point of roadways is for people and goods to move from point to point in relative safety and efficiency. Your pedal toy is an active hindrance to that on main thoroughfares like US and county highways just as much as it is on interstates. Neighborhood roads, denser urban districts, probably more appropriate areas to play with your toy. 55 mph zones with no shoulder? Stupid for everyone involved, legal or not.

Glad you don’t make the laws for bicycles…

 

[two70]

Cars have no more legal standing than bicycles. Most cyclists also pay road taxes for their cars, very few just ride a bike. In fact they probably pay more than most.

The funny thing is you seem to think those operating a vehicle are not driving that way.

Actually cars have less legal standing than bicycles since drivers are often legally responsible when a cyclist does something stupid. That still doesn't change the fact that roads were built for cars and funded by their owners.

Oh, I'm quite aware how poorly many people drive vehicles and bikes but I'm unwilling to excuse one while blaming everything on the other.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Most cyclists also pay road taxes for their cars, very few just ride a bike. In fact they probably pay more than most.

I'm curious how you arrive at this conclusion. Are there taxes on bicycles that I'm not aware of? Or are you saying that people who ride bikes also drive more than the average person, therefore paying more taxes and registrations on fuel, vehicles, etc?

 

[chipbennett]

Uhh, they ARE 'vehicular traffic' in the eyes of the law

https://www.progressive.com/lifelanes/on-the-road/bicycle-traffic-laws/

Traffic laws in the U.S. say that bicycles are considered vehicles with the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles in most cases. Unless specified otherwise, bicyclists usually have a right to be on the road and an obligation to follow the same common traffic laws regarding stopping, yielding, right of way, and left lane rules

Thanks for proving my point, considering that the question was forcing motor vehicles to yield to bicycles in contravention to posted traffic regulations.

 

[chipbennett]

No they are not. In fact the first paved roads were for bicycles. Bikes have just as much right of way on roads as other vehicles…

1860 called. It wants its roads back.

The roads in 2023 were built for motorized vehicular traffic, and paid for by taxes paid by operators of motorized vehicles.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Always remember so you never forget many, maybe even most of the green-zealot-bicycle-fanatics want all cars to go away. Much of what they advocate for is to drive you off the road and onto public transportation or onto a bike.

 

[Creedmoor]

No they are not. In fact the first paved roads were for bicycles.…

Hogwash, roads were being paved in 4000 BC

 

[Ingomike]

Hogwash, roads were being paved in 4000 BC

Now we are international history I see.