Bicycles on the road

Ah, crossed wires.

I, too, read of this. This area of central park is much different than riding in normal traffic.
Since I (we) don't know the specifics of the incident, it is impossible to comment with any precision.
I surmise your point is that cyclists can be the problem; while true, this is an extreme example.

Whenever I'm in my car I notice all the faults of, dangerous situations and inconveniences caused by bicycle riders and think they're a bunch of dickheads.

Whenever I'm on my bicycle I notice all the faults of, dangerous situations and inconveniences caused by motorists and think they're a bunch of dickheads.

We could all get along, if they would just not be such dickheads.

I hate them.

You mean macabre?

If so, I disagree.

It takes a split second of not concentrating on what you're doing to kill someone with your car.

As I spend time on the roads, that thought's really not too far from the back of my mind. ...but I'm not going to let fear have its way and I'm going to get dressed and do it again, and again, and...

M

Thats what I said. I dont think it is healthy to be focused on death. Especially as a cyclist you cant ride in a way that will prevent it really.

The missing r was a typo

Yes and no.

You can mitigate things to a certain extent, but it really just boils down to 'is this person going to run me over or not?'

Typically, the answer's 'not.'

...but as we've seen in this thread, on the news, etc. there's always the chance 'today's the day the golden BB is going to get me.' It won't be my fault that someone runs me down from behind.

So, realizing that cyclists are literally trusting other road users with their lives, why eff with em/me? It may be all 'fun and games' till someone's laying on the road with blood coming out of their ears.

M

:huh but if they are they are, what is the point of dwelling on it with cyclists.

I just posted a link with no comment, you probably shouldn't surmise anything.

..

..

Dolomoto,

My comment, "... If you choose to ride a vulnerable machine in a place where traffic is moving 40 mph, or more, faster than you, you are taking a certain amount of risk."

It is just a comment, there is no "attitude" expressed, it isn't even an arguable point. If you are in traffic moving 40 mph faster than you are, regardless of your mode of transportation, you are taking a risk.

I think I went on to say that it wouldn't necessarily make an accident the cyclist's fault, but the risk is real just the same.

Strange, after this comment, "...yet they approve of cyclists passing stopped traffic between the traffic lane and the parked cars, even when no bike lane is present."

You suggest that cyclist "assume a higher risk in this instance". Do you really believe that there is a higher risk to the cyclist with stationary traffic than with moving traffic??? You go on to suggest that because "many" cyclist stop to the left of the traffic is an indication that it is safer. I won't argue that point, but I will say that because many cyclist take a certain action will not always prove that it is safer. Many cyclists make the same stupid mistakes over and over. Just this past evening, after dark, I had a cyclist ride up on my right at a 4 way stop. I was waiting for the driver on my right who had arrived first to move through the intersection. The cyclist, with no light and no reflective clothing, did not stop, but proceeded through the intersection. I was making a right hand turn. With any other vehicle I would have the right of way. Had I turned into the non stopping cyclist with no lights, it would have been my fault. I really don't care how you twist it, that's not fair to a motorist.

If you had watched the video you would have known that the narrator said the reason for giving the cyclist 3 feet was for maneuverability. Then you would have known this comment, "...The reason cyclists ask for, and are given 3 feet, is not because we can't drive, it is apparently because cyclist can't hold a line.." was made tongue in cheek,

(sigh) I am not mistaken, I later stated that this law was made to give privilege to cyclists and assign blame. Which you seem to agree with.

I do think it is interesting that your first comment about "fixed and stationary objects not moving into the cyclists path", would hold true for cyclists that can hold a line and let a cage go by.

..

I did watch the video.

As for they cyclist sliding by you on the right side as you were stopped. The cyclist assumed the risk (however wrong he/she was for doing that). Yet you chose not to hit them.

I'm not sure what you meant by that last line.

The cyclists you see riding around running light, stop signs, doing other dumb shit, etc. Those riders are the same drivers that get cursed at for driving their vehicle like a douchebag.

Not in Boston where the video was made.

I'm not real sure about KY where I live, but, I think if I have seen the cyclist, he/she has the right of way and sometimes even if I haven't seen him/her. Example, I could chose to not use the brakes and hit an offending auto and probably be OK, but you can't ignore a bike once you have seen it. Most cycling "safety" laws grant privilege to cyclists that doesn't exist for motorists.

If cyclists held a line, without weaving, they would be as easy to pass as a stationary object. Again, referring back to the narrator in the video. Not that the narrator said that, but again the implication that I need to give extra space to the cyclist for "maneuvering".

In my personal opinion if a cyclist can ride the thin line between parked cars and traffic, that same cyclist should be able to ride a thin line down the lane when traffic is moving faster than him/her.

My route to work is on a somewhat scenic state highway that gets a fair amount of cycling tourists. Invariable when you see one loaded down with full panniers front and rear they can ride a fog line with apparent ease, recreational cyclists, not so much.

Your crystal ball is better than mine.

..

Again, understanding your argument is academic vs practical-

holding a line is one thing. Adjusting that line for road debris, animals,pedestrians,traffic,etc is another.

My sense is that your opinion on this matter would change radically after pedaling even a scant few hundred miles on rural roads...maybe half that on urban pavement.

Wow. All this energy expended arguing human nature could be spent enjoying a nice long ride! Its amazing how anger and lifes issues are put on the back burner ...

Perhaps, though most of us are just wanting to go out for a ride and enjoy it. We tend not to enjoy things when people are being assholes to us, such as passing closely, tailgating, or the more extreme of running us off the roadway. I would think those to be something worth discussing. People showing indifference to other peoples lives only leads to problems.

I think this short video illustrates your point exactly:

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9JJ-JHrT2E8" allowfullscreen="" height="425" width="660" frameborder="0"></iframe>

^ Brilliant.

You're not going to change anyones mind, IMO. This thread is one long,useless argument. Dealing with assholes is just a part of riding on the road.

..

I really hadn't thought much about why I quit street riding but now that you mention a few hundred miles might change my opinion, you may be right.

A few years ago I bought an extra set of wheels for one of my bikes to make it easy to change tires for different riding surfaces. That set of wheels eventually were outfitted with street slicks that were simply a joy to ride, .... until the traffic and debris put me in a place where they were not a joy. They have been hanging in the storage building for a while because as nice as they were to ride, they are not "practical" for the real world street.

We all have to consider animals, pedestrians, traffic, etc. so, no extra points for a cyclist. If a cyclist constantly faces surface conditions that are not suited to his equipment he should change equipment, or surfaces, and not depend on others, who don't have a clue, to be aware of and allow for his selfish decision.

So, how many hundred miles do you think one has to ride to develop the attitude that they are special enough to deserve the special consideration of the unsuspecting motorist? It's rhetorical, or academic, you don't have to answer.

I would be out riding but I worked a 14 hour day yesterday, and I'm beat.
..

The "unsuspecting motorist" is a Myth. Cyclists, Motorcyclists, Pedestrians...are not Invisible. This is not some Fantasy world. We are all People doing different things (sometimes, stupid things). As a cyclist, I have swerved many times to avoid a clueless pedestrian. I'm sure that, as motorcyclists, we all have our "war stories" about the dumbshit cager who nearly ruined our day.

It is incumbent on all road users to do things to avoid mishaps. You do not need to ride a bicycle along urban streets to understand the specific hazards faced by urban cyclists...but drivers should recognize the varying degrees of performance,operator skill and all the other extraneous shit that causes conflict among all road users (cyclists, peds, cagers, drunks, etc).

Road courtesy should be extended to all. It doesn't cost a damn thing to be "held up", Life will go on.