Why the hate for Cyclists?

[tbhausen]

Coming late to this thread, I’m to the point where I just pretty much won’t cycle on public roads anymore. I have been watching the trail system closely. I know from the Next Level Trails project that the B&O Trail is funded all the way from out past Brownsburg into downtown. I’m looking forward to that. Then they need to finish the Eagle Creek Greenway down to the B&O so Eagle Creek Park is connected to the rest of the system.

Oddly and coincidentally, I took a walk tonight down Raceway Rd. to the B&O Trail and snapped a few photos. Looking East into Clermont, it’s nice to know that by the end of 2025 it will all be connected.

 

[jamil]

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.

But it is. Because a member of a group is as the group itself.

 

[singlesix]

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.

Speaking of which:

 

[BugI02]

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.

You spelled 'stroller nazis' wrong

 

[Ingomike]

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

They are not bike paths as you call them, they are multi-use paths, so the stroller brigade have every right to use those paths, but like the entitled motorists they too think they are special and should have the paths to themselves…

 

[jamil]

You spelled 'stroller nazis' wrong

Was just using Mike’s choice of wording.

 

[jamil]

They are not bike paths as you call them, they are multi-use paths, so the stroller brigade have every right to use those paths, but like the entitled motorists they too think they are special and should have the paths to themselves…

Speaking of multi-use. I was riding on paths in Corydon and some lady walking on the path told us bikes weren’t allowed. I told her to look at the sign at the sign that says multi-use. She wasn’t pushing a stroller though. Just an *******. Even pedestrians can be assholes.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Please quote where I denied having said this.

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

...perhaps because that's not my argument at all?

I've never argued that. I've never thought or believed that. Therein lies your problem. You admit to "synopsizing" my argument to create out of whole cloth an entirely different argument that I have never made nor intended. And I will continue to call you out for your ridiculous straw man arguments and for putting words in my mouth.

Do I need to go back to quote the many times that I've said that motorists and cyclists can and should share the road and treat each other respectfully? You have to make up arguments, because what I've actually said doesn't fit your narrative. But it's become tiresome.

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

It's literally in the IN statutes that slow moving vehicles must yield when they are blocking three or more vehicles.

Are cyclists not subject to this traffic regulation? If not, why not?

Cyclists aren't combines. (Well, except maybe for @jamil , if his cycling self-descriptions are to be believed.)

 

[chipbennett]

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?

It seems to be his thing in this thread. He does it to you. He does it to me. And he's done it to @AndreusMaximus , all just on the current page.

 

[jamil]

Please quote where I denied having said this.


...perhaps because that's not my argument at all?

I've never argued that. I've never thought or believed that. Therein lies your problem. You admit to "synopsizing" my argument to create out of whole cloth an entirely different argument that I have never made nor intended. And I will continue to call you out for your ridiculous straw man arguments and for putting words in my mouth.

Do I need to go back to quote the many times that I've said that motorists and cyclists can and should share the road and treat each other respectfully? You have to make up arguments, because what I've actually said doesn't fit your narrative. But it's become tiresome.


It's literally in the IN statutes that slow moving vehicles must yield when they are blocking three or more vehicles.
View attachment 341709
Are cyclists not subject to this traffic regulation? If not, why not?

Cyclists aren't combines. (Well, except maybe for @jamil , if his cycling self-descriptions are to be believed.)

That’s a strawmenz!!! I never said I was big as a combine.

 

[Ingomike]

“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.”

Loading…

frontiergroup.org

 

[chipbennett]

“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.”

Loading…

frontiergroup.org

This is in reference primarily to federal infrastructure, unless I'm mistaken?

 

[Ingomike]

This is in reference primarily to federal infrastructure, unless I'm mistaken?

That us not what I read.

How Are Your State’s Roads Funded?

State and local infrastructure spending covered by gas taxes, tolls, user fees, and user taxes varies widely by state. See how your state compares nationally.

taxfoundation.org

 

[chipbennett]

That us not what I read.

View attachment 341712

How Are Your State’s Roads Funded?

State and local infrastructure spending covered by gas taxes, tolls, user fees, and user taxes varies widely by state. See how your state compares nationally.

taxfoundation.org

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.

 

[BugI02]

I've never argued that. I've never thought or believed that. Therein lies your problem. You admit to "synopsizing" my argument to create out of whole cloth an entirely different argument that I have never made nor intended. And I will continue to call you out for your ridiculous straw man arguments and for putting words in my mouth.

Do I need to go back to quote the many times that I've said that motorists and cyclists can and should share the road and treat each other respectfully? You have to make up arguments, because what I've actually said doesn't fit your narrative. But it's become tiresome.

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

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?

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. 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

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 341709

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

Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-13-2-105

Sec. 105. (a) “Motor vehicle” means, except as otherwise provided in this section, a vehicle that is self-propelled.  The term does not include a farm tractor, an implement of agriculture designed to be operated primarily in a farm field or on farm premises, an electric bicycle, an electric foot scooter, or an electric personal assistive mobility device.

(b) “Motor vehicle”, for purposes of IC 9-21, means:

(1) a vehicle that is self-propelled;  or

(2) a vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails.

The term does not include an electric foot scooter.

(c) “Motor vehicle”, for purposes of IC 9-32, includes a semitrailer, trailer, an off-road vehicle, a snowmobile, a mini-truck, a manufactured home, or a recreational vehicle.  The term does not include an electric foot scooter.

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?

 

[BugI02]

“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.”

Loading…

frontiergroup.org

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'

 

[BugI02]

That us not what I read.

View attachment 341712

How Are Your State’s Roads Funded?

State and local infrastructure spending covered by gas taxes, tolls, user fees, and user taxes varies widely by state. See how your state compares nationally.

taxfoundation.org

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

 

[jamil]

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

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?

Well, you've lodged similar claims in our own contretemps, and with many others. It may be that Kut was backing and filling, because shifting the goalposts was a common thing with him. But so has you inferring things not stated nor implied. It happens often enough that people understand this to be a thing. Is it that when you find yourself with a point difficult to counter, that they've merely moved the goalposts? Or is it just convenient to claim it means something you have an actual argument for? Straw I guess can provide comfort rather than just coping with the discussion as it actually is.

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.

I think I understand this. The idea is that your motorvehicle taxes paid do go towards the roads, but on behalf of the vehicle you've licensed, and paid gasoline for. Not on behalf of the bicycle. It would be like saying, well, I paid taxes on my Truck, so I shouldn't have to pay taxes specifically for my Jeep. I mean. I can't drive them at the same time. But that's not how it works.

I'm not going to use taxes to say that cyclists shouldn't be on the roads at all. Most roads can accomodate bicycles. I think it's fine to use them on roads. I understand that in terms of legality, bicycles have as much right to be on the road as automobiles. But, I don't think they should. Not as equals. Because they're not equal.

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. 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

I think you're just feeling disrespected, as if as a cyclist you're being treated as a second-class citizen. But on the road, in reality, you're not a second-class citizen, but a bicycle is an underclassman of a car. A car is an underclassman of a semi. You have equal rights, but different responsibilities.

That brings me to this point. The ardent cyclist faction insists that cyclists should be allowed to break some traffic laws that are inconvenient for bicycles. I'm okay with saying cyclists don't have to come to a complete stop, but they have to verify rights of way, and yield appropriately, according to traffic laws. But no more trying to play both pedestrian and vechilce interchangeably when it's convenient. If you're a vehicle with equal rights to the road, stop using crosswalks. That kind of thing. And Just so you don't infer something not implied, I'm not saying you or all cyclists do that. I'm just saying how I think it ought to be.

 

[Creedmoor]

I hope that you two have Dragon Dictation Software...