Why the hate for Cyclists?

[DragonGunner]

 

[Hatin Since 87]

“Now when the anti’s are trying to take guns, even if a gun owner does something stupid we do not join them in trying to take guns, and we certainly don’t join them in bashing gun owners in general.”

This isnt true. We have all heard it from fellow gun owners. “Why does someone need an AR-15?” A lot of hunters are gun owners, but will join in people trying to ban “assault” rifles. Gun owners are not just conservatives, liberals own guns too… we find it ridiculous that someone would vote liberal and own a gun because that party is constantly a threat to our right to bear arms.

 

[BugI02]

But, I do think if cities must install bike lanes and trails, the cyclists who want them should have to pay for them.

They would never be paid for then, because the cyclists overwhelmingly don't want them

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Part of the problem is you have unrealistic standards, and you do make excuses for your own group

I see lots of posts with 'the majority of cyclists ...' and 'most cyclists ...' used in this thread without any underlying statistics or documentation. The level of claimed interaction between the random INGO motorist and bicyclists doesn't statistically match well with the population of each. To read most of this thread is to be told that large groups of cyclists are common everywhere, riding 3 and 4 abreast and making life intolerable for all motorists everywhere when that is simply inaccurate stereotyping

Then discussion proceeds to how cyclists don't follow the laws, where absolute obedience is required of cyclists while not so much from your fellow motorists. If cyclists are just running stop signs as claimed, then darwinism will solve that problem quickly enough. If they slow but just aren't coming to a complete stop before continuing, who is without sin to cast that first stone? Why are red-light cameras even necessary if the motoring public is so faithful to the rules? Why is so much police time and resources devoted to keeping some kind of a lid on asocial behavior on the road? What we can't understand is why you think that just fine (given your complete lack of condemnation of 'Chicago stops' and 'right turn on red after tapping the brakes') but have a case of the vapors when cyclists bend the rules. Are YOU just arguing for the sake of arguing? Standing on the outside, you really do remind me of all the 'virtuous' people so wholly invested in the task of getting Trump supporters to admit to some flaw that Trump is perceived to have. That same dynamic is at work in the need to have cyclists admit their brethren are not perfect and is just annoying when promulgated by a motorist who can't admit that their faction is also not perfect - and if I'm reckless and run into your car on my 20 lb bicycle I might scratch your paint, if you're reckless because you want to put me in my proper place in the 'hierarchy of the road' you can certainly kill or maim me

In a more perfect world the argument about whether we 'deserve' to be given courtesy when we use the road would not even be a thing. I really think many exhibit the bully's mentality that they can **** with people on bicycles because there is an imbalance of power and they think cyclists can't do anything about it. That kind of stupidity can get people killed in more ways than one

You basically seem to be making the argument that since most of INGO is [pro-automobile], you have therefore adopted a policy of refusing to admit that any [motorist] can ever engage in rude behavior; of defending all [motorists] of any type and making up excuses for any behavior, no matter how egregious, and refusing to acknowledge any limits on what [motorists] should be allowed to do. Up to and including saying you think [motorists] should be given a pass when they ignore traffic laws.

Excuse me? Your misrepresentation of my position is so blatant that it's getting difficult for me to believe that it's an honest mistake instead of a malicious lie. In this thread so far I have said all these things:

"When I talk about bikes stopping for stop signs, I'm honestly not too hung up on whether it's a full stop, a rolling stop, or a slow-down-and-see-if-anyone's-coming-and-if-not-go-for-it."

"I've tried to make clear a few times already that I don't harbor any particular resentment towards inconsiderate cyclists as opposed to inconsiderate motorists. Personally, I've encountered the latter a lot more often, and even when I've encountered inconsiderate cyclists, they never put my life or limb at risk. Hence, I started out this entire thread wondering why cyclists get any hate at all, I'd never really understood it, when inconsiderate motorists seem a much more present and dangerous problem, in my own experience."

"I'll agree if [a motorist] can't wait 30 seconds [to pass a cyclist], they're just being a jerk. (Edit: unless they're rushing someone to the ER or something, of course.)"

"Most motorists, myself included, are quite willing to admit that there is a high number of inconsiderate, unsafe motorists on the road, and to condemn unsafe behavior, like unsafe passing that you pointed out"

"I'll keep trying to make it clear: I AGREE that jerk motorists are a bigger issue on the road than jerk cyclists. In my experience, I've encountered awful, dangerous, inconsiderate, etc. drivers much more often than cyclists. There's also the simple fact that I've never encountered a cyclist who endangered my life or limb. I cannot NEARLY say the same thing about other motorists I've encountered."

"I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Rotten motorists, in my experience, far outnumber rotten cyclists, and pose a far greater danger to others on the road."

Also, the post you quoted really is addressed to @Ingomike, and not to all cyclists in general, nor to you, Bug. I'm not just trying to get cyclists to admit fault on the part of their fellow cyclists like it's some random crusade. What I'm trying to do is ask @Ingomike what his standards are for cyclists. You, Bug, have answered that question for me, as far as I'm concerned, and I believe that if you would take a step back and look at what I've actually been saying in this thread, instead of your misrepresentation of it, you would realize we're pretty close to being on the same page. You've said, IIRC, you have no problem with riding as close as practicable to the edge of the road, pulling over to let motorists pass, etc. @Ingomike, on the other hand, seems to think that even having the temerity to ask a cyclist when they consider it safe to pull over and let motor vehicles pass is such an insult to the majesty of bicycling that it doesn't deserve an answer. Or at least I can't seem to get an answer, for the life of me.

 

[BugI02]

Well, AndreasM, I'm glad to know we have that much agreement on things, and what I say next is meant to be devoid of malice

I am one of two or perhaps three people in this thread defending cyclists as opposed to 20 or 30 bent on defaming them. I do not keep careful score or pay close attention to who says what. I remember the arguments, and attribute to the group as a whole unless individuals speak up and disassociate themselves from some of the wilder arguments - and even then if the posts are accumulating quickly it may be possible to miss or misattribute a post wherein a poster does disassociate themselves from an idea if it takes a long time/multiple pages before they do it. I think it is easier for you to keep track of what I am saying just because of numbers

And then I'm faced with people denying things I know they have said, such as Chip arguing that 'only motorists pay for roads', not cyclists who also have cars, because they are only wearing their 'motorist' hats when they do so ergo only 'motorists' pay for the roads. Because I am unable to resist mocking this viewpoint, as you can see I am accused of straw-manning because I am synopsizing his argument and not using his. exact. words. and he is unable to admit that he was arguing that cyclists don't pay for the roads and thus should not be on them or should at least have rights subordinate to those of drivers. So it gets hard to keep score especially if retconning and deliberate misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what the cyclists are saying is in play

Just as an example, the lone cyclist on route 144 I believe it was, who supposedly had 200 cars backed up behind him. If the argument is that riding close to the fog line is not enough, that this cyclist should pull over and stop somewheres to let cars by, how will he ever get anywhere (remembering that you do not get to judge for him his choice of routing). If you replace the cyclist with the putative piece of slow moving farm equipment the problem is the same, the farmer could not move his equipment from field to field at all. Dug in positions with no accommodation just result in The Somme all over again

 

[jamil]

They would never be paid for then, because the cyclists overwhelmingly don't want them

Which is the entire point. If it could only be funded from the people who want it, it couldn’t be done.

 

[jamil]

defending [the *******] cyclists as opposed to 20 or 30 bent on defaming [mocking] them [the *******] cyclists.

FIFY

 

[BugI02]

If Uncle Sugar hadn't seen the autobahns and wanted some of that for himself you wouldn't have interstates, either

License fees don't pay anywhere near entirely for the roads, the ticket fees Chip pays to fly don't pay for airports etc etc. People that puff themselves up because 'my money pays for [X]' are just fooling themselves to self-justify their bah humbugging

 

[BugI02]

I just thought of something else, Andreas. If you were to carefully sift through all my posts in this thread, you would see I have never advocated for not riding single file with the exception of being two up when at the head of a turn lane, and that is only necessary to keep the car people at bay until you complete the turn or else they would cut you off in the corner

But if you paid a similarly careful attention to the arguments people address to me you would see that they act as if I support all of the bad behavior exhibited by some cyclists. I don't think anybody is keeping score particularly carefully. I also think people on here greatly exaggerate the numbers and frequency of bad interactions with cyclists in order to make their screeds seem more reasonable in their own minds

 

[Creedmoor]

I want one of those.

Me to...

 

[jamil]

If Uncle Sugar hadn't seen the autobahns and wanted some of that for himself you wouldn't have interstates, either

License fees don't pay anywhere near entirely for the roads, the ticket fees Chip pays to fly don't pay for airports etc etc. People that puff themselves up because 'my money pays for [X]' are just fooling themselves to self-justify their bah humbugging

I think transportation is an important part of a free and thriving society. I'm not libertarian enough to say government can't build roads and bridges and infrastructure. That's fine. Bike lanes and bike paths? Nah. There's not sufficient usage. You said yourself that if cyclists had to pay for them they wouldn't get done because they don't want them. So who does? If nobody wants it, isn't that a waste of taxpayer money?

I think the whole issue can be resolved by a little more humility on both sides. And that takes an ability to admit that there's a lack of humility on the side you're on. So if you're incapable of seeing the wrong on your side, nothing will change. Motorists shouldn't be assholes to cyclists. Cyclists shouldn't be assholes to motorists. Or, do you think cyclists aren't any part of the problem? Is it all on motorists? If you think so, are you an ******* when behind the wheel? If not, isn't it possible that many other motorists aren't assholes either?

 

[singlesix]

Could do it like children. If you don't stop riding your bike like an *******, I'm not gonna be your friend no more.

I live in Indy, with all the road rage shootings on 465 no way I'm going ride up to a stranger and tell him his wrong, or an a$$hat, or whatever people think I should say. :-)

 

[BugI02]

I think the whole issue can be resolved by a little more humility on both sides. And that takes an ability to admit that there's a lack of humility on the side you're on. So if you're incapable of seeing the wrong on your side, nothing will change. Motorists shouldn't be assholes to cyclists. Cyclists shouldn't be assholes to motorists. Or, do you think cyclists aren't any part of the problem? Is it all on motorists? If you think so, are you an ******* when behind the wheel? If not, isn't it possible that many other motorists aren't assholes either?

I like the way you go from 'it takes a little more humility on both sides' directly to 'your side should go first'. That humility thing didn't last very long

I can only speak for myself, from personal experience, and you are free to be skeptical, but I have been assaulted out of the blue for the crime of merely existing and there are drivers that I would cheerfully beat senseless with a frame pump

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Well, AndreasM, I'm glad to know we have that much agreement on things, and what I say next is meant to be devoid of malice

I am one of two or perhaps three people in this thread defending cyclists as opposed to 20 or 30 bent on defaming them. I do not keep careful score or pay close attention to who says what. I remember the arguments, and attribute to the group as a whole unless individuals speak up and disassociate themselves from some of the wilder arguments - and even then if the posts are accumulating quickly it may be possible to miss or misattribute a post wherein a poster does disassociate themselves from an idea if it takes a long time/multiple pages before they do it. I think it is easier for you to keep track of what I am saying just because of numbers

And then I'm faced with people denying things I know they have said, such as Chip arguing that 'only motorists pay for roads', not cyclists who also have cars, because they are only wearing their 'motorist' hats when they do so ergo only 'motorists' pay for the roads. Because I am unable to resist mocking this viewpoint, as you can see I am accused of straw-manning because I am synopsizing his argument and not using his. exact. words. and he is unable to admit that he was arguing that cyclists don't pay for the roads and thus should not be on them or should at least have rights subordinate to those of drivers. So it gets hard to keep score especially if retconning and deliberate misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what the cyclists are saying is in play

Just as an example, the lone cyclist on route 144 I believe it was, who supposedly had 200 cars backed up behind him. If the argument is that riding close to the fog line is not enough, that this cyclist should pull over and stop somewheres to let cars by, how will he ever get anywhere (remembering that you do not get to judge for him his choice of routing). If you replace the cyclist with the putative piece of slow moving farm equipment the problem is the same, the farmer could not move his equipment from field to field at all. Dug in positions with no accommodation just result in The Somme all over again

Why can you not judge him for his choice of routing? Is that your way of admitting his route choice was poor during that particular time of day?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I have yet to see anyone defending cyclists admit they are at fault for anything that has been showed or stated.

I do however consistently hear “but motorists”. This is the cyclists thread. Defending the actions of one group by pointing fingers at another group just proves why there is a negative view of cyclists.

They truly are road vegans. This thread was started because a picture was posted in the funny pics thread and it offended someone (dont remember who) so much it warranted its own thread.

 

[jamil]

I like the way you go from 'it takes a little more humility on both sides' directly to 'your side should go first'. That humility thing didn't last very long

I didn't say or imply that. You inferred it. When I say "both sides", it means what it means, and still means it. But, you're the one who keeps saying that you shouldn't have to acknowledge the faults on your side. And I haven't even said that you're an ******* cyclist. If you're a courteous cyclist, you have nothing to admit about yourself. But, at least admit that cyclists can be assholes. Who here has claimed motorists can't be assholes?

I can only speak for myself, from personal experience, and you are free to be skeptical, but I have been assaulted out of the blue for the crime of merely existing and there are drivers that I would cheerfully beat senseless with a frame pump

I know that happens. I don't doubt it. I say something, and then you unsay it in your mind as if I haven't said it. There are ******* motorists. There are ******* cyclists. This thread is about the ******* cyclists. "Cyclist" isn't any more a monolith than "motorist".

To quote Margaret Thatcher, "There's no such thing as a society. There are individuals, and there are families." That is to say, "the group" is a social construct, and individuals and families are what's real. How that relates to this conversation is that you don't own the accusations made in this thread against cyclists. They're not your sins to defend. They're not accusations made against you. You just identify with that group and apply it to yourself personally. Just like Trump's downsides or even upsides aren't yours to defend or claim. That's individualism 101.

 

[Ingomike]

They would never be paid for then, because the cyclists overwhelmingly don't want them

And when cyclists use them the stroller brigade gets all bent out of shape, yells slow down, and petitions government for exclusion of bikes or speed limits on them.

 

[jamil]

And when cyclists use them the stroller brigade gets all bent out of shape, yells slow down, and petitions government for exclusion of bikes or speed limits on them.

Hey stroller brigaders drive on roads too, so the taxes they pay entitle them to use the bike lanes too.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I am one of two or perhaps three people in this thread defending cyclists as opposed to 20 or 30 bent on defaming them. I do not keep careful score or pay close attention to who says what. I remember the arguments, and attribute to the group as a whole unless individuals speak up and disassociate themselves from some of the wilder arguments - and even then if the posts are accumulating quickly it may be possible to miss or misattribute a post wherein a poster does disassociate themselves from an idea if it takes a long time/multiple pages before they do it. I think it is easier for you to keep track of what I am saying just because of numbers

You're right, I should have been more conscious of that fact. I'm sorry for getting touchy.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I just thought of something else, Andreas. If you were to carefully sift through all my posts in this thread, you would see I have never advocated for not riding single file with the exception of being two up when at the head of a turn lane, and that is only necessary to keep the car people at bay until you complete the turn or else they would cut you off in the corner

But if you paid a similarly careful attention to the arguments people address to me you would see that they act as if I support all of the bad behavior exhibited by some cyclists. I don't think anybody is keeping score particularly carefully. I also think people on here greatly exaggerate the numbers and frequency of bad interactions with cyclists in order to make their screeds seem more reasonable in their own minds

Indeed, I have noticed that fact. The questions/objections in my last few posts (prior to quoting your responses) were not meant to be directed at you at all.