Why the hate for Cyclists?

[Hatin Since 87]

 

[Hatin Since 87]

 

[jamil]

View attachment 342577


This thread isnt even supposed to be a debate. Its literally titled as a question. So why ask a question, then debate the answer? People hate cyclists for various reasons provided. Debate why they hate them if you want, but it doesnt make the hate any less.

Because you don't have a right to hate any cyclist. You only get to hate bad drivers.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Because you don't have a right to hate any cyclist. You only get to hate bad drivers.

Ill be writing my senator

 

[jamil]

Please make it strongly worded.

 

[ditcherman]

View attachment 341453

I’m not reading the whole thing just to catch up, I really don’t think I’m missing much.
I just wanted to say THIS NEEDS TO BE OUR NEXT COIN!!!!!

 

[jamil]

I’m not reading the whole thing just to catch up, I really don’t think I’m missing much.
I just wanted to say THIS NEEDS TO BE OUR NEXT COIN!!!!!

Yeah but shouldn’t there be a place in the corner for the weird glock fanboi?

 

[jamil]

Huh. The profanity filter didn’t star out the G word.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That's a different link/source, though. (And I'm curious of the impact of the huge gas tax increase the supermajority-R IGA passed since these data were collected in 2016.)

Also: where does the rest of the funding come from? The article doesn't say. I'm assuming the vast majority is Federal grants, but it isn't stated.

When they were debating the increase Rep Lucas stated that the current taxes would pay for 100% of the cost of the roads. But they raided the piggybank and too much of the fuel taxes were going elsewhere and they couldn't drag them back because it would hurt to much.

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


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

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?

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

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?

According to Ingomike the lanes aren't wide enough to share. That was the whole point of riding in the middle to force the driver into the other lane so they wouldn't try to squeeze by. Oh and invisible glass/nails/tigers.

Also I agree that bicycles aren't motor vehicles. But I posted the IC earlier in this thread that they are required to follow the same rules as if they were.

Now do 'pedestrians using roadway' and 'slow, children at play'

To keep them 'completely safe from cars' shouldn't they be prohibited from the roadway also? That would be the consistent position after all, expecting others to take responsibility for the safety of you or your children is foolish I'm told

Pedestrians are not allowed in the roadway if there is a sidewalk. Should bikes be required to use bike lanes if they are available?

 

[Creedmoor]

I’m not reading the whole thing just to catch up, I really don’t think I’m missing much.
I just wanted to say THIS NEEDS TO BE OUR NEXT COIN!!!!!

Perhaps get Andrew to laser it on the INGO lowers?

 

[Ingomike]

According to Ingomike the lanes aren't wide enough to share. That was the whole point of riding in the middle to force the driver into the other lane so they wouldn't try to squeeze by.

So apparently you have never noticed but not all roads are the same, might make a note of that. And yes, if I’m on certain roads that are not wide enough for two cars to pass with reasonable clearance and give 3 feet to the bicycle I will ride over enough to not get squeezed.

It is called defense riding, don’t put yourself in a spot where one is likely to get squeezed and or hit.

Oh and invisible glass/nails/tigers.

Maybe a joke to selfish motorists but it is real world, for people insulated in their hermetically sealed boxes they would have no idea but if they wanted to learn the opportunity is there but most here would rather make snark on the internet for yucks…

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

Perhaps get Andrew to laser it on the INGO lowers?

Unfortunately I didn't save the PSD file. I do however keep a lossless TIF file complete with an Alpha Channel of the INGO logo for these purposes.

 

[chipbennett]

"Indeed, bicycles are not explicitly considered in road design."

That is precisely what you said, and you want people to only go by what you explicitly say and not make further inferences and your statement included no limitations or qualifications. Are you arguing that what I listed, with citations, is not an explicit consideration in road design?

So you are unequivocally wrong, explicitly can't admit it and then throw in a red herring for good measure. Retcon indeed

I concede that for the road you cited, the design of the areas outside of the traffic lanes explicitly considers bicycles.

I'll let you work out the implication of that.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

if I’m on certain roads that are not wide enough for two cars to pass with reasonable clearance and give 3 feet to the bicycle I will ride over enough to not get squeezed.

Whats the law on that?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So apparently you have never noticed but not all roads are the same, might make a note of that. And yes, if I’m on certain roads that are not wide enough for two cars to pass with reasonable clearance and give 3 feet to the bicycle I will ride over enough to not get squeezed.

It is called defense riding, don’t put yourself in a spot where one is likely to get squeezed and or hit.

I've noticed and no that is not defensive riding. That is trying to police the roads, and is likely to **** people off so they will intentionally squeeze you. It's called riding like a *******. And will add time and distance for the passing motorist. Where they are more likely to have to come back over to avoid a head on. Doesn't sound to safe and defensive.

Maybe a joke to selfish motorists but it is real world, for people insulated in their hermetically sealed boxes they would have no idea but if they wanted to learn the opportunity is there but most here would rather make snark on the internet for yucks…

I used to put a few miles on a bike, not as many as you but 50-100 per day wasn't uncommon. I never had a problem with invisible glass/nails/tigers, or the dreaded ninja elephants hiding in the trees next to the road waiting to pounce.

 

[Ingomike]

Whats the law on that?

“Cyclists are generally required to ride ‘as near as practicable’ to the right side of the highway. Note that it does not say ‘as far to the right as possible.’ A significant body of case law has shown that a proper interpretation is "as far to the right as is safe and reasonable."

The cyclist gets to determine what is practicable followed by LEO and the judge if people have a difference of opinion.

Some states offer examples of what the above means.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

1. the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
2. the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
3. a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
4. the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
   
   1. less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
   2. too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

(b) A person operating a bicycle on a one-way roadway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of the roadway.

Where should I ride? | The Center for Cycling Education

Contrary to a common misconception, cyclists do not have to (and are not recommended to) ride as far to the right side of the road as they can.

thecce.org

I was told on INGO that “a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway” was a hallucination.

 

[jamil]

Whats the law on that?

Survival of the fittest? I suspect, regardless, survival of the fittest in this case heavily favors the driver.

 

[Ingomike]

I've noticed and no that is not defensive riding. That is trying to police the roads, and is likely to **** people off so they will intentionally squeeze you. It's called riding like a *******. And will add time and distance for the passing motorist. Where they are more likely to have to come back over to avoid a head on. Doesn't sound to safe and defensive.

I used to put a few miles on a bike, not as many as you but 50-100 per day wasn't uncommon. I never had a problem with invisible glass/nails/tigers, or the dreaded ninja elephants hiding in the trees next to the road waiting to pounce.

Apparently others disagree with you.

“There is the occasional driver who may see a cyclist riding further from the curb, or edge of the road, as being belligerent. Cyclists have a right to be on the road, and riding further from the edge is simply a matter of safety—for the cyclist, for motorists and for other road users.”

“If you were riding on the road and were trying to hide from traffic, would you ride further to the right, or further to the left? In courses for all ages, we constantly get a response of “you’d ride further to the right”. Do we want to hide from traffic? Here’s a hint: the vast majority of collisions occur when a driver simply does not see a cyclist.”

“Riding further left makes a cyclist more visible to drivers in front and behind, reducing the likelihood of a collision.”

“Cyclists have just as much right — no more and no less — to be on the roadway as do motorists. They also have a right to an expectation of being treated safely by others.”

“How close to (or far from) the side of the road we ride to be safe depends on a number of elements”

The ones policing are those telling cyclists they must ride to the far right.

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 342577


This thread isnt even supposed to be a debate. Its literally titled as a question. So why ask a question, then debate the answer? People hate cyclists for various reasons provided. Debate why they hate them if you want, but it doesnt make the hate any less.

As the title is literally begging the question, perhaps there is room to argue about the (pre-ordained) answer?

I will allow it

Vis a vis questioning why INGO questions something, you must be new here. Welcome to INGO

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Apparently others disagree with you.

“There is the occasional driver who may see a cyclist riding further from the curb, or edge of the road, as being belligerent. Cyclists have a right to be on the road, and riding further from the edge is simply a matter of safety—for the cyclist, for motorists and for other road users.”

“If you were riding on the road and were trying to hide from traffic, would you ride further to the right, or further to the left? In courses for all ages, we constantly get a response of “you’d ride further to the right”. Do we want to hide from traffic? Here’s a hint: the vast majority of collisions occur when a driver simply does not see a cyclist.”

“Riding further left makes a cyclist more visible to drivers in front and behind, reducing the likelihood of a collision.”

“Cyclists have just as much right — no more and no less — to be on the roadway as do motorists. They also have a right to an expectation of being treated safely by others.”

“How close to (or far from) the side of the road we ride to be safe depends on a number of elements”

The ones policing are those telling cyclists they must ride to the far right.

Yep, some disagree. And no, if they were getting alongside matching speed and forcing them over. That would be policing the road. Riding on the left side to prevent people from passing is no different than doing the speed limit and stopping people from passing. And depending may actually be a crime in IN see IC 9-21-8-52 (a) (1) (b) driving at an unreasonably low rate of speed and blocking the proper flow of traffic.