Why the hate for Cyclists?

[Ingomike]

Dude! It's that cyclist's right to use that road, at whatever time he wants! It's his right to impede traffic by riding 10mph. That rush hour traffic is simply being impatient and unreasonable.

And if you say otherwise: it must and can only mean that you think cyclists don't belong on any public road, anywhere, at a time, ever.

Now you get it! No purple needed.

 

[Ingomike]

Sr144 eastbound from i69 is busy all day, just before 5 is worse. 5 to 10mph stacks up quick

Not well versed in the roads is there a reasonable route to get through the area without 144? Reasonable meaning not more than a couple of miles out of the way? Most riders I know try to avoid SR‘s like the plague and will go several miles out of the way to avoid them.

But then that puts them on the road @jamil uses and we all know that is off limits too…

 

[singlesix]

So, if a bike is the only mode of transport, should they stay off certain roads? Yes, I know people that only had a bike to get to work until they saved enough to fix the car.

 

[dieselrealtor]

Not well versed in the roads is there a reasonable route to get through the area without 144? Reasonable meaning not more than a couple of miles out of the way? Most riders I know try to avoid SR‘s like the plague and will go several miles out of the way to avoid them.

But then that puts them on the road @jamil uses and we all know that is off limits too…

Whiteland Rd runs parallel'ish about a mile away & is a ghost town to about where it intersects SR144 now that I-69 has no access.

 

[two70]

Whiteland Rd runs parallel'ish about a mile away & is a ghost town to about where it intersects SR144 now that I-69 has no access.

If I were going to ride a bike in that area, I'd go much farther than required out of my way to ride on Whiteland Rd. or Smoky Row instead of SR 144. None of them are ideal but the reduction in volume of traffic along would make it worth it.

 

[chipbennett]

So, if a bike is the only mode of transport, should they stay off certain roads? Yes, I know people that only had a bike to get to work until they saved enough to fix the car.

Not necessarily, IMHO. Indiana has Slow-Moving Vehicle regulations. Maybe just observe those - e.g. moving out of the way/off the road to let at-speed traffic pass by?

On some of these roads, though, perhaps avoidance is the best option. There are some roads - especially IN state roads - that have no shoulder and are likely rather unsafe for cyclists.

 

[Creedmoor]

That kind of behavior is not being a good ambassador for the bike riding community.

But, Butt, I learned right here on INGO they are all good Ambassadors.
The most bestist bicycle in Madison Co, has flat tubular's and hangs on the wall in a garage.

 

[BugI02]

Dude! It's that cyclist's right to use that road, at whatever time he wants! It's his right to impede traffic by riding 10mph. That rush hour traffic is simply being impatient and unreasonable.

And if you say otherwise: it must and can only mean that you think cyclists don't belong on any public road, anywhere, at an time, ever.

He's riding single file close to the fog line, but now the people who claim they don't think cyclists should be banned but only be reasonable show their true colors

Your state laws already allow you to pass a vehicle doing less than half the speed limit, even on a double yellow, and it would only take a moment to do so. Oncoming traffic doesn't look very heavy, but instead you raise the Putzden Flag - 'Don't Inconvenience Me'

Probably quite a bit of overlap with the people who argue we should happily share the road with stoners because 'freedom!' (and because they're going closer to the speed limit), but 'freedom!' somehow doesn't apply to cyclists using the roads

 

[BugI02]

Not necessarily, IMHO. Indiana has Slow-Moving Vehicle regulations. Maybe just observe those - e.g. moving out of the way/off the road to let at-speed traffic pass by?

On some of these roads, though, perhaps avoidance is the best option. There are some roads - especially IN state roads - that have no shoulder and are likely rather unsafe for cyclists.

Universal Citation: IN Code § 9-21-8-5 (2022)
Sec. 5. The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to the limitations, exceptions, and special rules stated:

(1) A person who drives a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance and may not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.

(2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, a person who drives an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and may not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

(3) The operator of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or electric bicycle shall:

(A) allow at least three (3) feet of clearance between the vehicle and the bicycle; and

(B) not return the vehicle to the vehicle's original lane of travel until the vehicle is safely clear of the bicycle.

(4) The operator of a vehicle may pass a bicycle or electric bicycle traveling in the same direction in a no passing zone when it is safe to do so, if the operator of the overtaking motor vehicle complies with subdivisions (1) and (3).

Oops! You can already take reasonable steps to limit your inconvenience, but I guess it is more fun to ***** and/or pretend 'they' don't pay for the roads and 'those people' don't belong there

 

[printcraft]

 

[chipbennett]

Oops! You can already take reasonable steps to limit your inconvenience, but I guess it is more fun to ***** and/or pretend 'they' don't pay for the roads and 'those people' don't belong there

Your straw men continue to be fun.

The specific circumstance under discussion involves rush hour - i.e. when crossing the double-yellow line to pass is less likely to be possible, due to an increase in traffic. Also, I was responding to someone who asked if the only option was for cyclists not to use such a road under such conditions. My response, if you bother reading what I actually write instead of what you keep telling yourself that I say, was that no, that's not the only option. But, that response doesn't fit your narrative for what I say/believe.

 

[chipbennett]

He's riding single file close to the fog line, but now the people who claim they don't think cyclists should be banned but only be reasonable show their true colors

Your state laws already allow you to pass a vehicle doing less than half the speed limit, even on a double yellow, and it would only take a moment to do so. Oncoming traffic doesn't look very heavy, but instead you raise the Putzden Flag - 'Don't Inconvenience Me'

Probably quite a bit of overlap with the people who argue we should happily share the road with stoners because 'freedom!' (and because they're going closer to the speed limit), but 'freedom!' somehow doesn't apply to cyclists using the roads

You literally took the bait of the hyperbole and (marked) sarcasm. Well-played.

 

[dieselrealtor]

This is not going to be popular with some & not trying to poke or be advesarial, just stating my personal opinion and that we will have to agree to disagree.

I do not agree with laws that entitle bicycles to be on the road without being plated & insured. All of my vehicles have to be legal to be on the road, I don't believe it should be any different for any vehicle on the road that is being used for transportation or pleasure.

I do not agree with laws that off road vehicles are required to be titled & registered, even if they never leave private property.

I do not agree that illegal aliens should be entitled to our resources.

With that said, I understand that many who ride bikes are courteous & responsible.

 

[Ingomike]

I do not agree with laws that entitle bicycles to be on the road without being plated & insured.

Most are insured. Only uninsured if one does not have homeowners or renters insurance. What the heck would plating do? Ridiculous.

Loading…

www.progressive.com

 

[dieselrealtor]

Most are insured. Only uninsured if one does not have homeowners or renters insurance. What the heck would plating do? Ridiculous.

Loading…

www.progressive.com

It should reduce the financial burdon on everyone else paying for the roads.

 

[Ingomike]

It should reduce the financial burdon on everyone else paying for the roads.

Actually most attempts to license bikes lost money and were scrapped.

Bicycle License Laws Are Probably a Bad Idea

Short answer: Because it’s pointless and expensive. But that hasn’t stopped a few intrepid cities from trying.

www.bloomberg.com

A Very Dumb History of the Bicycle License

Fueled by fearmongering and phony rhetoric, plans to force cyclists to obtain licenses are not new—but they are ridiculous

www.outsideonline.com

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Actually most attempts to license bikes lost money and were scrapped.

Bicycle License Laws Are Probably a Bad Idea

Short answer: Because it’s pointless and expensive. But that hasn’t stopped a few intrepid cities from trying.

www.bloomberg.com

A Very Dumb History of the Bicycle License

Fueled by fearmongering and phony rhetoric, plans to force cyclists to obtain licenses are not new—but they are ridiculous

www.outsideonline.com

Wow.

I'm not a fan of requiring licenses, plates, or insurance for bicycles, but those have got to be two of the most confusing and poorly-written articles I've ever force myself to suffer through.

First of all, neither of them make the slightest distinction between requiring a license to operate a bicycle, vs requiring a bicycle to be plated and insured, which are two very different things. Maybe every single bill/law referenced in the articles required both of these two things, but I never could make it out.

That second article was so obscured by the constant over-the-top rhetoric and name-calling that I couldn't make out much of a logical thread in it. But towards the end it sounds like part of his argument against bicycle licenses is that so many young children ride their bikes to school on public roadways, half of whom would completely flunk a test on basic traffic laws and safety requirements, so requiring them to take such a test in order to operate their vehicles on public roads is such a horrible idea because it would stop them from biking to school. Really? Bicycle licensing would stop children who have no clue about traffic laws and safety from riding on public roads alongside motor vehicles that could kill them in an instant with a single lapse in attention? I have to wonder whose case he's actually trying to make here.

 

[Ingomike]

I do not agree with laws that entitle bicycles to be on the road without being plated & insured.

Wow.

I'm not a fan of requiring licenses, plates, or insurance for bicycles, but those have got to be two of the most confusing and poorly-written articles I've ever force myself to suffer through.

First of all, neither of them make the slightest distinction between requiring a license to operate a bicycle, vs requiring a bicycle to be plated and insured, which are two very different things. Maybe every single bill/law referenced in the articles required both of these two things, but I never could make it out.

Most here as I recall usually reference a license on the bike but in the licensing schemes they have tried it several different ways, doesn’t seem like any of them were the same.

That second article was so obscured by the constant over-the-top rhetoric and name-calling that I couldn't make out much of a logical thread in it.

What are you seeing that is “name-calling”?

But towards the end it sounds like part of his argument against bicycle licenses is that so many young children ride their bikes to school on public roadways, half of whom would completely flunk a test on basic traffic laws and safety requirements, so requiring them to take such a test in order to operate their vehicles on public roads is such a horrible idea because it would stop them from biking to school. Really? Bicycle licensing would stop children who have no clue about traffic laws and safety from riding on public roads alongside motor vehicles that could kill them in an instant with a single lapse in attention? I have to wonder whose case he's actually trying to make here.

Are the “cyclists must stop at every stop sign it’s the law” people going to get their children licensed and their kids bikes licensed and not allow them on the street without the legal licenses? That’s the law! Where does it stop.

In the happy hour thread I posted that I was ok with government restricting the sale of alcohol based on time and get blasted as being a communist restricting freedom and in this thread a bunch of people are wanting to create tax and licensing schemes that restrict the freedom of movement by the most efficient means of self power. Sounds a lot like anti-gunners and their license and restrictions schemes on guns.

 

[Creedmoor]

Most are insured. Only uninsured if one does not have homeowners or renters insurance. What the heck would plating do? Ridiculous.

Loading…

www.progressive.com

They would then pay road tax with a vehicle they are riding on the roads.

 

[Ingomike]

They would then pay road tax with a vehicle they are riding on the roads.

It is a myth that roads are fully paid for by fuel and user taxes and that the general fund covers none of road infrastructure costs.

“Many Americans believe that drivers pay the full cost of the roads they use through gas taxes and other user fees. That has never been true, and it is less true now than at any other point in modern times.”

“Today, general taxes paid by all taxpayers cover nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways as the gas tax and other fees paid by drivers. The purchasing power of gasoline taxes has declined as a result of inflation, improved vehicle fuel economy, and the recent stagnation in driving. As a result, so-called “user fees” cover a shrinking share of transportation costs.”

“The time has come for policy-makers to recognize something that has been true for years, but is especially true today: we all pay for America’s roads.”

https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/