Why the hate for Cyclists?

[AndreusMaximus]

I find it hard to believe one can ride much and never have a bad experience with a motorist, for reference, your cycling days consisted of how many miles ridden per year? In mine I had over 5000 per year and over 50,000 miles when I was seriously cycling. I have ridden 10-20 miles to a century then rode the same back after.

Today’s motorists are too distracted (phones, food, drugs) and are often startled by cyclists because they are so distracted (why I quit serious road cycling). They also don’t follow the laws and right of way, but oh so love to nitpick cyclists.

No, I didn't bike much, probably a couple hundred miles a year at most. But more importantly, much of it was not on roads, or at least not on very busy roads. I was blessed to be in a situation where I could reach trails in a pretty short hop from where I was living, then later on after I moved I had a truck that I could load up bicycles in and go drive to a trail. I do feel sympathy for cyclists who don't have these luxuries, and I do agree that they should have the right to ride on the road without being harassed by jerks in automobiles.

I just don't feel as much sympathy for those who could easily make their bike riding less disruptive to traffic, but choose not to do so because they feel like they have to assert their rights or something. Nor do I feel much sympathy for those who claim they have to do X, Y, and Z for safety, but are horrified when you suggest they would be safest of all if they just ride on dedicated trails with no vehicles. Or those who mock motorists and claim they're just jealous of cyclists' incredible fitness and athletic ability, but then act like those same cyclists will wilt like delicate flowers if they are asked to lose a bit of inertia in order to obey a stop sign.

 

[Phil502]

No, I didn't bike much, probably a couple hundred miles a year at most. But more importantly, much of it was not on roads, or at least not on very busy roads. I was blessed to be in a situation where I could reach trails in a pretty short hop from where I was living, then later on after I moved I had a truck that I could load up bicycles in and go drive to a trail. I do feel sympathy for cyclists who don't have these luxuries, and I do agree that they should have the right to ride on the road without being harassed by jerks in automobiles.

I just don't feel as much sympathy for those who could easily make their bike riding less disruptive to traffic, but choose not to do so because they feel like they have to assert their rights or something. Nor do I feel much sympathy for those who claim they have to do X, Y, and Z for safety, but are horrified when you suggest they would be safest of all if they just ride on dedicated trails with no vehicles. Or those who mock motorists and claim they're just jealous of cyclists' incredible fitness and athletic ability, but then act like those same cyclists will wilt like delicate flowers if they are asked to lose a bit of inertia in order to obey a stop sign.

Exactly right.

 

[Ingomike]

No, I didn't bike much, probably a couple hundred miles a year at most. But more importantly, much of it was not on roads, or at least not on very busy roads. I was blessed to be in a situation where I could reach trails in a pretty short hop from where I was living, then later on after I moved I had a truck that I could load up bicycles in and go drive to a trail. I do feel sympathy for cyclists who don't have these luxuries, and I do agree that they should have the right to ride on the road without being harassed by jerks in automobiles.

So our experiences are very different leading to different conclusions…

I just don't feel as much sympathy for those who could easily make their bike riding less disruptive to traffic, but choose not to do so because they feel like they have to assert their rights or something.

The disconnect here is in the definitions. If one reads the posts here there is a clear get the f*** out of my way inference if it is not out right said, a stop your bike and get in the ditch as soon as the third vehicle approaches. I have heard people say there is a driveway, pull in there and get out of the way. That is not how it works in the real world. Getting over does not mean stopping and or getting off the road.

If you go back and read this thread how is reasonable conversation possible? Even you take things out of context.

Nor do I feel much sympathy for those who claim they have to do X, Y, and Z for safety, but are horrified when you suggest they would be safest of all if they just ride on dedicated trails with no vehicles.

Isn’t this just another way of saying get off muh roads? Sounds very similar to anti-gunners saying it is safer not to carry a gun. If that was posted here the op would be roasted and muh riiiights would rightfully be proclaimed.

Or those who mock motorists and claim they're just jealous of cyclists' incredible fitness and athletic ability, but then act like those same cyclists will wilt like delicate flowers if they are asked to lose a bit of inertia in order to obey a stop sign.

See, can’t just quote me straight out. I stand by the point, I believe that most animosity towards cyclists is first based on irritation for just being on the road, then once irritated there definitely is a tendency to nitpick, frustrated motorists that don’t have time for cycling or other things, the performance clothing cyclists wear, the performance equipment cyclists use, the fitness cyclists have. All those things have been mocked in this thread.

Funny thing is I don’t think anyone learned anything from this thread, they just spouted their hatred at being held up.

 

[Creedmoor]

.

If you go back and read this thread how is reasonable conversation possible? Even you take things out of context.


Funny thing is I don’t think anyone learned anything from this thread, they just spouted their hatred at being held up.

80 pages.
80 pages, and you say is reasonable conversation possible?

 

[Ingomike]

They arent doing 5 mph tho


And no spandex. Thats my main beef with cyclists.

I find this funny from you based on other threads we have participated in. You are never going to get to run the Indy 500, or likely ever run qualifying speed laps, but you and the common guy can own and race without limit the fastest bikes on the planet with the same level of parts.

Which brings me to this, a racing suit looks pretty dorky but you would wear one without question if you were invited to drive a race car. People look dorky in a lot of things that we wear fro safety or performance. Every piece of gear a cyclist wears has a safety or performance aspect to it something I thought a racer might understand.

 

[Ingomike]

80 pages.
80 pages, and you say is reasonable conversation possible?

Not with those that find assault funny.

 

[Creedmoor]

Not with those that find assault funny.

I my 65 years, normally one is being an a$$, to earn being assaulted.

 

[Ingomike]

I my 65 years, normally one is being an a$$, to earn being assaulted.

I doubt you would feel the same if you were changing a flat tire and someone rolled coal toward you. You would then call that an assault. Assault charges have been filed for rolling coal at people, but you think it funny…

 

[AndreusMaximus]

So our experiences are very different leading to different conclusions…


The disconnect here is in the definitions. If one reads the posts here there is a clear get the f*** out of my way inference if it is not out right said, a stop your bike and get in the ditch as soon as the third vehicle approaches. I have heard people say there is a driveway, pull in there and get out of the way. That is not how it works in the real world. Getting over does not mean stopping and or getting off the road.

If you go back and read this thread how is reasonable conversation possible? Even you take things out of context.


Isn’t this just another way of saying get off muh roads? Sounds very similar to anti-gunners saying it is safer not to carry a gun. If that was posted here the op would be roasted and muh riiiights would rightfully be proclaimed.


See, can’t just quote me straight out. I stand by the point, I believe that most animosity towards cyclists is first based on irritation for just being on the road, then once irritated there definitely is a tendency to nitpick, frustrated motorists that don’t have time for cycling or other things, the performance clothing cyclists wear, the performance equipment cyclists use, the fitness cyclists have. All those things have been mocked in this thread.

Funny thing is I don’t think anyone learned anything from this thread, they just spouted their hatred at being held up.

Is reasonable conversation possible?

I don't know. I have attempted it, but unfortunately a lot of these 80 pages has turned into trolling and mockery, I'll admit it. I've done my best to refrain from doing those things myself, though, and I apologize for where I've failed.

If we want to have an honest conversation going forward, perhaps it's best to start by taking a step back and seeing if I can understand what you actually are, or are not, saying. Let's use the three examples I just gave:

1)

I just don't feel as much sympathy for those who could easily make their bike riding less disruptive to traffic, but choose not to do so because they feel like they have to assert their rights or something.

What I'm trying to say is this:

Personally, I think when one is using the road for leisure, and is by doing so impeding traffic from traveling at its otherwise normal rate, that one should pull over and stop in order to allow traffic behind to pass. I don't think this should be a legal requirement, I just think it's polite, regardless of what type of vehicle one is operating. There have been times before when I've been putting along on a leisurely drive on the back roads, and noticed someone come up behind me who just wanted to get from point A to point B, so I pulled off the road and let them pass. To me, that's the polite thing to do, whether one is in a car, on a bicycle, on a horse, or whatever. Do you agree or disagree?

(Side note: What do you consider a safe place for a cyclist to pull over and let someone pass? Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm going off memory, but I seem to remember it being said so far by the cyclists in the thread, that ditches, grass, woods, driveways, bike lanes, and shoulders are all either impractical, or too potentially unsafe for a cyclist to use to pull over and let motorists pass. So what does that even leave?)

2)

Nor do I feel much sympathy for those who claim they have to do X, Y, and Z for safety, but are horrified when you suggest they would be safest of all if they just ride on dedicated trails with no vehicles.

What I'm trying to say is this:

I am not saying I want bicycles banned from roads. I'm not even saying that I think it's impolite for cyclists to ever use the road. So the analogy with claiming that I'm like someone trying to say you should never carry a gun seems a little far-fetched. What I am trying to say is that cycling on the road is an inherently dangerous activity. So if a cyclist says that safety is their number one priority, and if they are so safety conscious as to not even want to ride near the edge of the road for fear of encountering debris, then it would be logical to assume that such a cyclist would prioritize keeping their recreational rides, as much as possible, on trails or paths that don't have vehicular traffic. Does that sound reasonable, or unreasonable to you?

Or those who mock motorists and claim they're just jealous of cyclists' incredible fitness and athletic ability, but then act like those same cyclists will wilt like delicate flowers if they are asked to lose a bit of inertia in order to obey a stop sign.

What I'm trying to say is this:

Most recreational cyclists do so, in part, in order to exercise. So it seems odd to complain about stopping and starting up again requiring extra energy, when the whole point of exercise is to expend energy. Am I way off base here? You have a lot more experience than me; do you think it's incorrect to say that most cyclists have exercise as one of their primary reasons for cycling? Do you agree or disagree with people who want cyclists to strictly follow all traffic laws?

 

[Creedmoor]

I doubt you would feel the same if you were changing a flat tire and someone rolled coal toward you. You would then call that an assault. Assault charges have been filed for rolling coal at people, but you think it funny…

You and your Strawmen.
Changing a tire on the side of the road just doesn't seem the same as riding 3-4 wide and laughing at those you are holding up.
Anyone I've rolled on, earned it.

 

[Ingomike]

Is reasonable conversation possible?

I don't know. I have attempted it, but unfortunately a lot of these 80 pages has turned into trolling and mockery, I'll admit it. I've done my best to refrain from doing those things myself, though, and I apologize for where I've failed.

If we want to have an honest conversation going forward, perhaps it's best to start by taking a step back and seeing if I can understand what you actually are, or are not, saying. Let's use the three examples I just gave:

1)

What I'm trying to say is this:

Personally, I think when one is using the road for leisure, and is by doing so impeding traffic from traveling at its otherwise normal rate, that one should pull over and stop in order to allow traffic behind to pass. I don't think this should be a legal requirement, I just think it's polite, regardless of what type of vehicle one is operating. There have been times before when I've been putting along on a leisurely drive on the back roads, and noticed someone come up behind me who just wanted to get from point A to point B, so I pulled off the road and let them pass. To me, that's the polite thing to do, whether one is in a car, on a bicycle, on a horse, or whatever. Do you agree or disagree?

(Side note: What do you consider a safe place for a cyclist to pull over and let someone pass? Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm going off memory, but I seem to remember it being said so far by the cyclists in the thread, that ditches, grass, woods, driveways, bike lanes, and shoulders are all either impractical, or too potentially unsafe for a cyclist to use to pull over and let motorists pass. So what does that even leave?)

2)

What I'm trying to say is this:

I am not saying I want bicycles banned from roads. I'm not even saying that I think it's impolite for cyclists to ever use the road. So the analogy with claiming that I'm like someone trying to say you should never carry a gun seems a little far-fetched. What I am trying to say is that cycling on the road is an inherently dangerous activity.

I agree that cycling is dangerous, and has become even more so in recent years, though mainly not through the action of the cyclists but rather the general motorist level of attention, thus my decision to not do much road riding anymore.

So if a cyclist says that safety is their number one priority, and if they are so safety conscious as to not even want to ride near the edge of the road for fear of encountering debris, then it would be logical to assume that such a cyclist would prioritize keeping their recreational rides, as much as possible, on trails or paths that don't have vehicular traffic. Does that sound reasonable, or unreasonable to you?

This came up in an explanation of why a motorist might believe the cyclist should get out of their way or get over but does not. Again it is in the defining of practicable as in the law. Have you ever tried to ride the edge of a state road? They are full of debris, rocks, glass, and all manner of trash, that might not even be that noticeable to folks in their cars yelling at riders to get off the road and that does not even touch how bad the road conditions are.

What I'm trying to say is this:

Most recreational cyclists do so, in part, in order to exercise. So it seems odd to complain about stopping and starting up again requiring extra energy, when the whole point of exercise is to expend energy. Am I way off base here? You have a lot more experience than me; do you think it's incorrect to say that most cyclists have exercise as one of their primary reasons for cycling? Do you agree or disagree with people who want cyclists to strictly follow all traffic laws?

I do disagree with those that want to use the stop thing as a cudgel against cyclists, and I support laws that allow cyclists to treat stop signs as a yield. Why are roundabouts so successful? They eliminate many unnecessary stops, stops that use fuel and wear brakes and other parts. Cyclists are no different. If a cyclist fails to yield the right of way they are dead wrong, and may be literally dead. Cyclists don’t have a death wish.

Does it upset you if you see a cyclist ride through a stop sign when no one is around?

One point on where you are coming from versus mine, you bring up, “recreational rides” and I interpret that as leisure riding. I primarily did fitness rides, a 15-20 mile out and back in a fairly set time to get back to work, just like most folks whether they go practice for their shooting competitions or take the kids to soccer, we all have time limits. Loading and hauling the bikes to trails is highly impractical every time someone rides.

The other rides I did a lot of were touring rides, ride 50-60 miles away, eat lunch and ride back, there are no trails for that. And while my groups tried to route with the least use of state/busy roads to get to specific destinations it sometimes is unavoidable.

 

[Ingomike]

You and your Strawmen.
Changing a tire on the side of the road just doesn't seem the same as riding 3-4 wide and laughing at those you are holding up.
Anyone I've rolled on, earned it.

i suspect you earned it…

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I find this funny from you based on other threads we have participated in. You are never going to get to run the Indy 500, or likely ever run qualifying speed laps, but you and the common guy can own and race without limit the fastest bikes on the planet with the same level of parts.

Which brings me to this, a racing suit looks pretty dorky but you would wear one without question if you were invited to drive a race car. People look dorky in a lot of things that we wear fro safety or performance. Every piece of gear a cyclist wears has a safety or performance aspect to it something I thought a racer might understand.

I think you are taking a lot of this thread too personally. I have wore a race suit, I raced go karts as a kid and used to travel to other states to race in the nationals. After breaking my arm at a local track I quit racing, dad put my brother in his car, and we went full into my brothers late model.

It was a “half” joke. Fire suits are way cooler than spandex tho. Theres plenty of clothing available with safety features that isnt spandex.

And if its for “safety”, riding in the middle of a road and running stop signs contradicts any safety the spandex suit might accomplish. Getting hit by a car at 50 mph is going to kill you, spandex, leather, or armored suit…

 

[Creedmoor]

It was a “half” joke. Fire suits are way cooler than spandex tho. Theres plenty of clothing available with safety features that isnt spandex.

And if its for “safety”, riding in the middle of a road and running stop signs contradicts any safety the spandex suit might accomplish. Getting hit by a car at 50 mph is going to kill you, spandex, leather, or armored suit…

We all remember this.


Now picture Big Daddy in rainbow spandex.

 

[Ingomike]

I think you are taking a lot of this thread too personally. I have wore a race suit, I raced go karts as a kid and used to travel to other states to race in the nationals. After breaking my arm at a local track I quit racing, dad put my brother in his car, and we went full into my brothers late model.

It was a “half” joke. Fire suits are way cooler than spandex tho. Theres plenty of clothing available with safety features that isnt spandex.

And if its for “safety”, riding in the middle of a road and running stop signs contradicts any safety the spandex suit might accomplish. Getting hit by a car at 50 mph is going to kill you, spandex, leather, or armored suit…

You are leaving out performance. Cycling aerodynamics are crucial to speed. The high performance tight clothing is as aerodynamic as possible while allowing maximum evaporation of sweat and the back pockets allow easy reach of nutrition and or water, while bright colors provide visibility.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You are leaving out performance. Cycling aerodynamics are crucial to speed. The high performance tight clothing is as aerodynamic as possible while allowing maximum evaporation of sweat and the back pockets allow easy reach of nutrition and or water, while bright colors provide visibility.

Touchè.

Regardless. If one wants true safety, reducing risks should be first. Reducing risks would be not riding a vehicle at 5 mph with no impact protection on a roadway with motorized vehicles traveling 50 mph. And if you decide to take that risk, you should at least have the common sense to follow the traffic laws such as stop signs. Signs are put in place for safety.

And the “group rides” of 50 bikes taking up an entire roadway and riding 2, 3, and 4 abreast is not only illegal and dangerous, but disrespectful. Especially when someone passes and they hoot and holler like the person in the vehicle is in the wrong.

Cyclists do not help their image and reputation. Respect is earned, not given.

 

[foszoe]

The only good cyclists are mountain bikers.

No need to brag about how many miles they rode per year, not taking up space on the road unless the bikes are on top of their Subaru, no going on about how aerodynamic their outfits are.

Those are the Orthodox cyclists, all the rest are heretical

 

[Ingomike]

Touchè.

Regardless. If one wants true safety, reducing risks should be first. Reducing risks would be not riding a vehicle at 5 mph with no impact protection on a roadway with motorized vehicles traveling 50 mph. And if you decide to take that risk, you should at least have the common sense to follow the traffic laws such as stop signs. Signs are put in place for safety.

This is a strawman, they are easy to knock down. Very few times do I see 5 mph riders in a highway, they usually make the decision you suggest. Generally road riders that can ride around 20 mph on the flat or better ride bigger roads. Obviously wind and or hills can influence speeds.

And the “group rides” of 50 bikes taking up an entire roadway and riding 2, 3, and 4 abreast is not only illegal and dangerous, but disrespectful. Especially when someone passes and they hoot and holler like the person in the vehicle is in the wrong.

Two abreast is legal, a group ride is also, and another rider is legal to pass the two abreast riders that would look like three abreast. That said would you rather pass a hundred riders double file or single file? The length of the group is twice as long and very few road lanes are wide enough for a vehicle with proper spacing and a bicycle. To me it would be harder to pass the singe file because it is long.

Cyclists do not help their image and reputation. Respect is earned, not given.

Have motorists earned respect?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The only good cyclists are mountain bikers.

No need to brag about how many miles they rode per year, not taking up space on the road unless the bikes are on top of their Subaru, no going on about how aerodynamic their outfits are.

Those are the Orthodox cyclists, all the rest are heretical

Everyone knows the true cyclists are the stationary cyclists.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

This is a strawman, they are easy to knock down. Very few times do I see 5 mph riders in a highway, they usually make the decision you suggest. Generally road riders that can ride around 20 mph on the flat or better ride bigger roads. Obviously wind and or hills can influence speeds.


Two abreast is legal, a group ride is also, and another rider is legal to pass the two abreast riders that would look like three abreast. That said would you rather pass a hundred riders double file or single file? The length of the group is twice as long and very few road lanes are wide enough for a vehicle with proper spacing and a bicycle. To me it would be harder to pass the singe file because it is long.


Have motorists earned respect?

How is it a strawman? You cant just use that every time someone says something that makes a point you dont like. And regardless of 5 mph vs 20 mph, its still well below the speed limit. Cars get pulled over for driving that much below the speed limit because it is a safety hazard.


As for the “it is legal to ride in groups and riders to pass when 2 abreast thus making it 3 abreast”. Strawman () You know that isnt what is happening. You know they are cruising 3 and 4 abreast. I would like riders to not be in packs of 50 or more, as its unsafe for both them and motor vehicles.

And every time someone says something about cyclists, your response is “but motorist”. Yes, most motorist have earned respect by taking a driving test, passing that test, registering their vehicle, and paying for insurance. Have cyclists done that? How about discussing the topic of cyclists without using what aboutisms, and justifying the actions of cyclists by comparing them to motor vehicles. These things may share real estate, but they are not the same.