Why the hate for Cyclists?

[printcraft]

Don't you have some putty knifes to clean the ink off of?

Mostly digital now, I do still have some for the letterpress though...

 

[Creedmoor]

Mostly digital now, I do still have some for the letterpress though...

So I suppose like slot machines, the pull handle is gone too?

#kicksrocks

 

[chipbennett]

I recall having similar contretemps with Kut, who also was a big fan of the 'I never said precisely that' school of backing and filling, and my answer is the same

Horse****.

I never said anything anywhere close to what you claim I meant. And in fact, I have, multiple times, said things that directly contradict what you claim that I meant. So, you can shove your Kut references.

If people fail to detect the subtle nuances you claim for your argumentation, perhaps try harder at saying exactly what you mean rather than claiming you are misunderstood after the fact. You do understand that the gist of what someone is arguing is sometimes seen as not limited to what they spell out in words, yes?

I've said exactly what I mean: motorists and cyclists both have a right to use the roads, and both should treat each other with respect. I've said this, repeatedly. Maybe try reading it this time.

As a starting point, please explain why you felt it necessary to argue so strenuously that cyclists don't pay for the roads, even if they register and license multiple vehicles. What was the point of such tortured semantic antics if not to attempt to question the legitimacy of a cyclist's right to be on the road at all.

You're really digging deep, here. Pulling nonsense out of a sub-discussion of a sub-discussion in a 90-plus page thread. The point was only what was stated: that roads were designed for use by motorists and were paid for by motorists. No more, no less. Anything at all that you add to this point is you adding to my words. Any conclusion that you attempt to draw from that mere statement of fact is you adding to my words.

Further, what I gather from reading of your body of postings is that 'motorists and cyclists can and should share the road and treat each other respectfully' is that your definition of respectfully likely means they should conduct themselves solely in the manner that you approve of. But you're not the boss of us. Respect =/= subservience

There you go, making up ******** again. I'm pretty much done with putting up with it.

Ride your bicycle however you choose. But stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[chipbennett]

And does it not say that the regulation applies to 'three (3) or more vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle' as well as
'pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing blocked vehicles to pass'. Where does it say that the slow moving vehicle must get entirely off the road and stop? For the moment I'll also ignore the fact that the regulation specifically refers to only 'motor vehicles' which a bicycle is not

So, you don't think bicycles have to follow all the same driving regulations as motor vehicles? That bicycles aren't considered vehicles? What, exactly, are you arguing here?

And now, not satisfied with putting words in my mouth, you're adding words to the quoted statute. It says nothing about "must get entirely off the road and stop". It says "pulling off to the right of the right lane."

Please pay attention to what is NOT mentioned, at all!

Again, what are you arguing here? Are you arguing that bicyclists don't have to follow traffic regulations? Indiana statute does not define a bicycle as a motor vehicle - but that distinction in definition does not absolve bicyclists from observing all traffic regulations. There are limited, stated exceptions, including turning right on red. But we're not talking about that. Please cite where bicyclists are exempted from the slow moving vehicle regulations.

Are you seriously arguing that you cannot pass a a slower vehicle that is 40 to 42 cm (16 to 17 inches) wide (handlebars are the widest point) and riding within 6 to 10 inches of the fog line? In 12 foot wide standard rural lanes?

I'm not arguing my interactions at all. I was responding to/commenting on another person's situation. I wasn't there, so I have no idea how feasible it might have been to pass the bicyclist on the left. That a long line of cars was backed up behind the bicyclist seems to imply that the actual motorists on the road at that time did not believe such a pass to be feasible.

Just how wide IS your car or Truck? Chevy is showing the width of a Silverado 2500 HD as just under 82 inches. Add to that the 24 inches the cyclist is using up and subtract from that 144 inch wide lane and you have
38 inches left to work with, so you should easily be able to pass the cyclist while giving him the 3 foot courtesy margin without leaving your lane. If your driving skills are deficient, you could put your left side tires over the yellow line and gain another 1 1/2 feet . Many pages ago I posted the time calculations for how long it would take to accelerate to pass a bicycle moving at 15 mph with an average vehicle. I won't do it again, it is there to look up, but it was a VERY short time necessary

Again: I've not commented about any such difficulty passing bicyclists. I recall commenting that I've been behind bicyclists, and that I waited for an opportunity to pass safely and did so. So, again: you can **** all the way off with this.

The problem I have with you and others of similar viewpoint is that you're like leftists, you start from the belief that all of your ideas are the correct ones and 100% of the accommodation must be made by the other side. How's that working out for you?

The problem I have with you is that you keep ascribing ******** arguments and points of view to me.

 

[chipbennett]

The 'who pays' canard is one of his straw men, Mike. He has denied that he thinks pedestrians don't pay for their use of the road and thus should be licensed and insured. He isn't consistent, it is only the people he doesn't like/disapproves of that somehow aren't paying their 'fair share'

Now you're just lying. Not once have I so much as commented on the discussion about licensing or insuring bicyclists or pedestrians. Further, not once have I said anything about paying a "fair share".

Stop lying.

 

[chipbennett]

Next up I predict a 'well, motorists pay taxes as well as use fees, so bicyclists still aren't paying enough' canard - of course ignoring the disparity of what rural motorists pay while still being 'allowed' to utilize urban road structure

Another argument I've never made or even come close to having implied.

The caricature of me that you're created apparently lives rent-free in your head.

 

[Ingomike]

@chipbennett we are discussing here and in your discussion posts you clearly have made such a big deal out of cyclists not paying taxes and that the roads are not intended for bicycles. What makes it far fetched to believe that you think cyclists should pay more towards infrastructure and that cyclists are second class users of the roads, or even that you think bicycles should not be on the roads?

As I recall you were the guy all giddy about some obscure local level court case that the judge agreed with you that roads were not built for bicycles.

 

[Creedmoor]

 

[chipbennett]

@chipbennett we are discussing here and in your discussion posts you clearly have made such a big deal out of cyclists not paying taxes and that the roads are not intended for bicycles. What makes it far fetched to believe that you think cyclists should pay more towards infrastructure and that cyclists are second class users of the roads, or even that you think bicycles should not be on the roads?

What makes it far-fetched is that I have never made that argument. What makes it far-fetched is that I have regularly and consistently said that motorists and cyclists can and should share the road. These things can all be true at once: roads were paid for by motorists, roads were designed for motor vehicles, and motorists and cyclists can and should share the road.

I keep saying that, and you two keep making... not even straw man arguments; you're making up arguments out of whole cloth. It's disingenuous, it's illogical, and it's disrespectful.

As I recall you were the guy all giddy about some obscure local level court case that the judge agreed with you that roads were not built for bicycles.

You recall incorrectly. I remember that link, but I didn't post it. As expected, too much pro-cyclist ire is being directed my way, because you guys can't keep people straight in this thread, and I'm tired of putting up with it.

 

[Ingomike]

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

Is this not wanting bikes off the road? Or you make observations with no point

 

[chipbennett]

Is this not wanting bikes off the road? Or you make observations with no point

No, that is not "wanting bikes off the road." Aside from such (yet another) straw man, what problem do you have with the statement? Do you think that motor vehicles yielding to bicycles is efficient?

 

[BugI02]

I've said exactly what I mean: motorists and cyclists both have a right to use the roads, and both should treat each other with respect. I've said this, repeatedly. Maybe try reading it this time.

Then what, pray tell, was the point behind so strenuously arguing only 'motorists' pay for the roads, particularly arguing that owners of multiple cars don't pay enough to make up for their bicycles? Pedantry?

 

[BugI02]

Ride your bicycle however you choose. But stop putting words in my mouth.

I don't, your foot is always in the way

 

[BugI02]

And now, not satisfied with putting words in my mouth, you're adding words to the quoted statute. It says nothing about "must get entirely off the road and stop". It says "pulling off to the right of the right lane."

I know that, that is why I quoted it to point that out to those in this thread that think that staying as far right as possible in the lane is not enough that they are in fact wrong. I'm quoting IC

 

[BugI02]

I'm not arguing my interactions at all. I was responding to/commenting on another person's situation. I wasn't there, so I have no idea how feasible it might have been to pass the bicyclist on the left. That a long line of cars was backed up behind the bicyclist seems to imply that the actual motorists on the road at that time did not believe such a pass to be feasible.

Yet you continue to ignore that, as I pointed out, he took a picture from inside his car and posted it. In that picture you can see for yourself that there is plenty of room to get by, the nearest oncoming traffic is at least 100 feet away. You don't want to pay attention to actual statistics, either. The standard lane for a two lane road in Indiana is 12 feet. I used the actual dimensions of a very wide vehicle (Silverado 2500 HD) probably about as wide as is likely to be the case a high percentage of the time. I looked up average bicycle handlebar widths and used a practical distance from the fog line and there is more than 3 feet of space available to get by without even crossing the double yellow. But it is even legal for you to do that if you can make the pass safely

So if the current retcon is you don't have a dog in this fight, why are you in the front row yelling at people who do

 

[chipbennett]

Then what, pray tell, was the point behind so strenuously arguing only 'motorists' pay for the roads, particularly arguing that owners of multiple cars don't pay enough to make up for their bicycles? Pedantry?

IIRC, it was in the context of a sub-discussion in which @Ingomike (again, IIRC) made the claim that roads were first built because of bicycle clubs raising money for them, or something along those lines. It was, IIRC, all within the context of the claim that roads were designed for use by cyclists, which remains untrue. Roads were designed for use by motor vehicles.

(And note, before you attempt to append anything to that statement of fact: it is nothing more than a statement of fact. I state no conclusions to be drawn from that statement, and make no further argument around it - except the same one that I've always made, which is that motorists and cyclists can and should find a way to share the road.)

 

[jamil]

Now you're just lying. Not once have I so much as commented on the discussion about licensing or insuring bicyclists or pedestrians. Further, not once have I said anything about paying a "fair share".

Stop lying.

I’m not convinced he’s lying. A problem with binary thinking is there are only two positions that all statements can belong to. All the statements you’ve made belong in the “them” category, so when you make an argument against the “us” category, you automatically subscribe to every “them” argument.

Chip:
“roads were designed for use by motorists and were paid for by motorists”

Bug:
“So you’re saying [insert argument you’ve never made but perhaps a “them” has made it]”

 

[chipbennett]

I know that, that is why I quoted it to point that out to those in this thread that think that staying as far right as possible in the lane is not enough that they are in fact wrong. I'm quoting IC

And I'll note that I'm in general not such a person. If a cyclist is holding up a long line of cars, then, yes, I do think the cyclist should find a safe place to yield and let the cars pass. Why? Because that's respectful sharing of the road. But in general, no: it isn't required. Staying as far to the right as possible is generally sufficient in my experience.

 

[jamil]

@chipbennett we are discussing here and in your discussion posts you clearly have made such a big deal out of cyclists not paying taxes and that the roads are not intended for bicycles. What makes it far fetched to believe that you think cyclists should pay more towards infrastructure and that cyclists are second class users of the roads, or even that you think bicycles should not be on the roads?

As I recall you were the guy all giddy about some obscure local level court case that the judge agreed with you that roads were not built for bicycles.

I’ll just say it outright. Almost all roads were not designed with bicycles in mind. It does not matter that you pay taxes that end up partially funding construction/maintenance on the road you drive your car on. The law allows cyclists to ride on those roads. In a practical sense, I’m fine with that. But, cyclists are the second class on that road primarily intended for automobiles. I don’t think the law should view them as equals, because they’re not.

I don’t advocate that cyclists should pay taxes or get licensed or pay insurance. But, I’d think of you as more than second class if you did. Okay. So ho ahead and tell me all the things I didn’t say but you’re sure I meant.

 

[chipbennett]

Yet you continue to ignore that, as I pointed out, he took a picture from inside his car and posted it. In that picture you can see for yourself that there is plenty of room to get by, the nearest oncoming traffic is at least 100 feet away.

You're talking about this picture, right? There's clearly not enough room to pass safely, based on the distance of the oncoming traffic. And the road is approaching a hill, which further limits visibility.

The red car is effecting a pass, but not a safe one. The oncoming traffic is too close. That pass would require a bit of reckless driving, speeding into oncoming traffic.

You don't want to pay attention to actual statistics, either. The standard lane for a two lane road in Indiana is 12 feet. I used the actual dimensions of a very wide vehicle (Silverado 2500 HD) probably about as wide as is likely to be the case a high percentage of the time. I looked up average bicycle handlebar widths and used a practical distance from the fog line and there is more than 3 feet of space available to get by without even crossing the double yellow. But it is even legal for you to do that if you can make the pass safely

I didn't address any of that because it is irrelevant to anything I've actually said or discussed.

So if the current retcon is you don't have a dog in this fight, why are you in the front row yelling at people who do

Retcon? When did I ever claim to have a dog in the hunt? I'm engaging in a discussion, in a discussion thread, on a discussion forum. At one time, it was an interesting discussion.