Cyclists are unambiguously wrong if they cycle on the pavement. Just as cars drivers are unquestionably wrong when they are in a cycle lane. This is cycle riders doing to pedestrians exactly that they don’t want drivers to do, and this is dangerous for people who are in a more vulnerable position than they are. I have zero sympathy for riders on the pavement, I’ve had too many collisions or near misses, including with small children.
My complaint is about cyclists entering a lane with a car which is super dangerous. Just as it would be for a car to enter a lane held by a cyclist.
It sounds as if you think, if there is no dedicated bike lane, that bicyclists shouldn't exist.
In many places, legally, vehicles have no more right to the road than bicycles. The "road" is a shared lane for bicyclists and vehicles.
That it is dangerous is the responsibility of all to mitigate, but the multi-ton steel box has the obligation to yield.
https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/90000/velka/sh...
Just like you couldn’t have two cars side by side in a lane, you can’t have a bike and a car in the same lane.
We have mixed traffic with bikes and cars on the same road, but they’re supposed to be sequential, not side by side.
Here’s an example of what I mean.
I’m on a single lane suburban road with a line of 20 cars all going 10mph. A bike rides alongside me going 20 mph in the same lane, passing me and other cars. The bike is 1-2 feet away from the side of my car.
Do you think it’s appropriate that a bike passes a car in its own lane? Do you think the law should be changed to allow this?
The fact that people driving 2 ton steel killing machines complain about cyclists being “assholes” when it’s overwhelmingly their killing machines that, you know, kill cyclists, pedestrians, and other people in killing machines, is a remarkable display of entitlement.
This is entirely situational. There are cases where it is OK and there are cases when it isn't.
There was an Uber blocking traffic on my street today and I went past them. It would be ridiculous to have to just sit behind the car until their passenger showed up, and I'm sure as hell nit gonna ride my bike into oncoming traffic
>Do you think the law should be changed to allow this?
It doesn't need to be changed. The law in my state already allows this under many circumstances
More frequently than cars? There are over 5 million car crashes in the US every year. 30,000+ people killed.
I've lived in a place with dedicated bike infrastructure. It was amazing. We should be pushing for that.
And why are cyclists so antagonistic? Not a good look if one wants their group to be taken seriously.
And if you don't want to take a diverse group of people seriously because of some slight you have with a minority of them, you're not really interested in taking them seriously in the first place, and are just looking for excuses. Classic tactic used to neglect lots of groups one's not in. "If the millions of BLM supporters want to be taken seriously, they shouldn't have a few people among them rioting!" is another example.
Before roads were for cars they were for horse+buggies, or chariots, or other transport. Cyclists are not first-class citizens on roads and they never will be. And frankly I don't want to get stuck behind one on a road with a dramatically higher speed limit than what you can pedal at. That shit is just rude.
The amount of entitlement that seems to come from the cycling community makes it really hard for others to empathize with your situation. You can make a bad faith argument comparing yourselves to BLMers if you want, but I can see right through it.
Appreciate your sitaution as a minority among minorities and plan your moves appropriately. But thinking that cyclists should get higher priority over multi-ton cars and such you are mistaken.
> People fearing for their lives are allowed to be agitated.
Don't forget that by cycling you are choosing to bring a knife to a gunfight.
In big cities that's never a problem. Cars are stuck behind other cars.
> You can make a bad faith argument comparing
I didn't compare myself to that, only an example. If anything that's a straw man and bad faith on you..
> Don't forget that by cycling you are choosing to bring a knife to a gunfight.
It's not a fight. But you and other drivers looking at it like that is very telling, heh.
I can never understand how anyone can make this argument without seeing how it applies even harder to why bicycles shouldn't be on the road with cars going 45+ MPH (~70+ km/h).
Bicycles are closer to pedestrians than cars outside of the slowest city roads.
Also I live in New Orleans where having a few feet of very broken, ragged sidewalk due to a tree's roots bursting up through them as the pavement slowly sinks is a very common sight. Trust me you do not wanna bicycle on that shit.
In one sentence you managed to point directly to the dichotomy cyclists face. Car drivers: “get out of the road it’s for cars!”, pedestrians: “get off the sidewalk it’s for pedestrians!”
In many places there just isn’t safe areas for cyclists that doesn’t end up putting them in conflict with other users of streets.
One thing that’s hard on a bicycle is to keep your cool after a collision or near miss. You end up with so much adrenaline pumping that anger often comes.
Like others on this thread have mentioned though, getting angry at people in cars is not helpful, best case they feel bad, worst case they become angry and now have a multi-ton weapon on their side.