"Bicyclists think they own the road!"

[Snax]

Ever heard anybody say that one? No doubt yes. I've really only heard it once since I started commuting by bicycle nearly full time and my response was that of a fellow driver, acknowledging that there are certainly a number of idiot cyclists out there who really don't even attempt to follow the rules. Lately however, the idea that bicyclists do not own the road strikes me in a more offensive manner. Not because I've had any real run-ins with rude or mean drivers, but because of the simple inaccuracy of the implication.

We, as citizens of our respective countries do in fact own the public roads. It is not limited to those who insist on driving, but every single one of us, adults, children, drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and everybody else not in that list. The roads are in the public right of way and are part of the commons. In other words, land owned by the citizens and maintained in the public trust.

Additionally, our amount of contribution to the maintenance of public roads through taxation is therefore a relatively moot point when you consider the wear and tear costs, as well as maintenance costs associated with bicycle useage on the roadways. Yeah, I DON'T pay a gas tax, but I also don't roll a 1 to 3 ton vehicle over the road every day either. I'm fairly certain that my contribution to pothole formation pales in comparison to that. Nevermind the endless days of having to navigate the debris cast off into the bike lane and left to destroy my tires by street sweeping crews.

So, as you may have guessed, the next time somebody says something to the effect of bicyclists thinking that they own the road, I'm going to tell them we sure as hell do - even the complete idiots, so get over it.

[Hockey4mnhs]

i just wish i could ride a bike to school and work. lucky!

[repete86]

Yeah, I hate it when people complain about it. We do own the road, and legally don't have to use a bike lane either. I prefer to ride in traffic. It's much safer. People turning tend to see you when you're in front of them rather than next to them.

[zurno]

I just dislike the cyclists that ignore traffic laws

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by zurno

I just dislike the cyclists that ignore traffic laws

I agree and I think that is where the animosity comes in. On my commute the common site is for riders to blow through stops signs or stop at lights and then wait and when it's clear run the red lights. I think that the jest of the comment and to that point I agree with um.

[Erdrick]

Hmm... this is a tough call. When the biker DOES interfere with the flow of traffic, I tend to get a little mad. I mean, they don't have gas usage to worry about. Making a car slow down to go around you (if you are a biker) wastes gas, pure and simple. If the biker is far enough off to the side of the road, and driving in a straight line, then I have no problem with them. The idiots who weave around and ride their bike in the middle of the road though... THEY are a different story.

Problem could be solved if all cars were eliminated and everyone had to ride bikes. Wouldn't that be nice? I am actually serious in this statement too by the way. Re-work railways around the country (USA) and let the roads that used to get trampled on by cars, be gently trodden on by bikes.

[Snax]

I must admit to calling more than a few other bicyclists dumbasses in the last 6 months. Typically they look like the kind of people who have had their license taken from them.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I dunno about Japan, but over in the states, bikers don't interfere with traffic, they are traffic. I don't see people give the same kind of chit to slow moving vehicles like tractors or certain types of large trucks, probably because they could crush their car like a tun can. I've tried to cycle where I'm hugging the curb and follow all the r00ls, and where I'm out, occasionally running reds, and asserting myself. Lemme tell y'all, it's way better giving yourself a couple more feet from the curb and not bothering to wait around in urban situations, provided the coast is clear, so to speak. Maybe it was because of my location and attire, but I've run reds/stops in front of cops np... There is a fundamental difference between breaking the law in a vehicle that can easily hurt others, and one that can only endanger yourself, which is why we don't need a license or insurance to ride our bikes.

Originally Posted by Snax

I must admit to calling more than a few other bicyclists dumbasses in the last 6 months. Typically they look like the kind of people who have had their license taken from them.

You'd be surprised how different someone's cycling and driving styles can be.

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq

I dunno about Japan, but over in the states, bikers don't interfere with traffic, they are traffic. I don't see people give the same kind of chit to slow moving vehicles like tractors or certain types of large trucks, probably because they could crush their car like a tun can. I've tried to cycle where I'm hugging the curb and follow all the r00ls, and where I'm out, occasionally running reds, and asserting myself. Lemme tell y'all, it's way better giving yourself a couple more feet from the curb and not bothering to wait around in urban situations, provided the coast is clear, so to speak. Maybe it was because of my location and attire, but I've run reds/stops in front of cops np... There is a fundamental difference between breaking the law in a vehicle that can easily hurt others, and one that can only endanger yourself, which is why we don't need a license or insurance to ride our bikes.

You'd be surprised how different someone's cycling and driving styles can be.

As you say hugging the curb is a safety issue you need room to manuver but how is running stop signs and lights a safety issue.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

As you say hugging the curb is not safe you need room to manuver but how is running stop signs and lights a safety issue.

Well, it depends on how ya do it I suppose. It shouldn't be a safety issue as long as you use your noggin, but some cyclists don't and will rush straight in w/o giving everything a good look or three.

[usedgeo]

Well I could not believe it until it was pointed out to me. The Idaho code specifically states that bicyclists do not need to stop at red lights and stop sighns. They obviously need to procede with caution. Your state may have similar laws. I think this is a suprise to many people. It was to me. Ignorance of these laws leads to some of the flak the bicyclists get. They really are not breaking the law but it is a peculiar law.

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq

I dunno about Japan, but over in the states, bikers don't interfere with traffic, they are traffic. I don't see people give the same kind of chit to slow moving vehicles like tractors or certain types of large trucks, probably because they could crush their car like a tun can. I've tried to cycle where I'm hugging the curb and follow all the r00ls, and where I'm out, occasionally running reds, and asserting myself. Lemme tell y'all, it's way better giving yourself a couple more feet from the curb and not bothering to wait around in urban situations, provided the coast is clear, so to speak. Maybe it was because of my location and attire, but I've run reds/stops in front of cops np... There is a fundamental difference between breaking the law in a vehicle that can easily hurt others, and one that can only endanger yourself, which is why we don't need a license or insurance to ride our bikes.

snip

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by usedgeo

Well I could not believe it until it was pointed out to me. The Idaho code specifically states that bicyclists do not need to stop at red lights and stop sighns. They obviously need to procede with caution. Your state may have similar laws. I think this is a suprise to many people. It was to me. Ignorance of these laws leads to some of the flak the bicyclists get. They really are not breaking the law but it is a peculiar law.

Just to clarify, the Idaho law is that red lights are treated as stop signs (come to a complete stop, yield, then proceed unless turning right) and stop signs are treated as yield signs (slow down, look for traffic, then proceed).

I think that Idaho is the only state that is ahead of the game. Anybody else state code work this way?

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

I think that Idaho is the only state that is ahead of the game. Anybody else state code work this way?

I know CA isn't like this. We are supposed to follow all the same rules of the road. I think that cops are more likely to pick on the "recreational" cyclist because they probably have enough money to pay for the ticket. As a utility cyclist, we're probably not targeted as long as we aren't a-holes because we can look a bit lackluster, or for all they know, we're homeless. And even if we are biking to our job, picking on someone who can't afford a car is pretty f'ed up in the eyes of most, due to the economic class divide down here.

[cfg83]

Hello -

Since bicycles can't reach the same posted speed limits as cars and motorcycles, I think they do pose a risk, but mostly to themselves. They have the right, but is it really worth asserting in terms of one's life? Since their lives are at greater risk, I'll make allowances, but it doesn't make sense to me. At least a motorcycle can function normally in traffic.

I had a friend go on a group cross-country bicycle trip from LA to DC. At least 3 people killed along the way, maybe one or two killed by trucks. What's the point?

CarloSW2

[Snax]

I agree. Recreational touring is just plain dangerous. I've done it on a very limited basis and it scared the hell out of me. Many drivers just don't get it that they are literally driving within inches of your life.

That said, when it comes to rules of the road, at times one can either choose to be denied their right, or they choose to be dead right. It's a 'gun beats knife' sort of deal. Regardless, I've often thought about how hard I would have to bunny hop to get up and over cars turning into my way from side streets. When push comes to shove, I'd rather roll, tumble, or slide over than get lodged underneath, so people better be prepared to pay for some body work if they cut me off too close.

[veloman]

I've biked 43,000 miles and never been hit by a car. I'm smart, quick to react, defensive, confident and not afraid to get extremely close to cars (sometimes make contact if neccessary). I believe this comfort level and skill is a result of my years racing in the higher level categories in road cycling. You learn a lot about bike handling when you are bumping handlebars with other riders at 40mph.

Anyways, I don't think road cycling is dangerous. I often make it more dangerous to myself by having some fun opening it up on downhills, but that's it.

When I hear about riders getting hit, it's usually the slower, older guys who either can't react well or aren't good bike handlers. I'm 22, been riding for 8 years....

[Dust]

I think the same thing can be said here for bikes and scooters in Japan. As a driver/rider, if you can’t reach the speed limit, you are a danger to yourself, and to everyone else on the road. Almost every other day there is a scooter or bike ridden by an old man or woman in the middle of the road, going 5 kmph, causing backups on residential roads. There are also the same old people, on scooters, going 15 under the speed limit, causing the same problems, on major roads. There are sidewalks on residential streets for a reason, and if the scooter will push 40, and the speed limit is 60, then you better be prepared to get killed because you are putting yourself and others in danger.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Patience is a virtue.

[dm1333]

For those of you who "hate" cyclists who run stop lights or stop signs, do you feel the same way towards drivers who do the same thing? I haven't run across a state yet that does not give cyclists the same rights as any other vehicle on the road. Many states publish guides to riding safely including tips like riding a third of the way into the lane, how to signal for turns, etc. I usually carry a few of these pamphlets to hand to people who insist that cyclists don't belong on the road.

[SD26]

Originally Posted by Snax

Not because I've had any real run-ins with rude or mean drivers, but because of the simple inaccuracy of the implication.

We, as citizens of our respective countries do in fact own the public roads. It is not limited to those who insist on driving, but every single one of us, adults, children, drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and everybody else not in that list. The roads are in the public right of way and are part of the commons. In other words, land owned by the citizens and maintained in the public trust.

Additionally, our amount of contribution to the maintenance of public roads through taxation is therefore a relatively moot point when you consider the wear and tear costs, as well as maintenance costs associated with bicycle useage on the roadways. Yeah, I DON'T pay a gas tax, but I also don't roll a 1 to 3 ton vehicle over the road every day either. I'm fairly certain that my contribution to pothole formation pales in comparison to that. Nevermind the endless days of having to navigate the debris cast off into the bike lane and left to destroy my tires by street sweeping crews.

Well, I'm not sure about "a public trust", but road taxes, collected on taxes for gasoline, diesel, registrations, and all actually contribute directly to roads.

Motorcycles have a substantial different physical print and load on the road, but their taxes, based on registration costs from my experience, are not reflected in as substantial difference in their registration costs.

I would argue given the programs of registrations that have become the tradition of some socialized programs in government, bicyclists should contribute to "the public" trust.


And it doesn't help when one comes over a hill on a two lane road with no shoulder where it's a 55MPH zone with two bicyclists riding side by side. I'd kick my kids for that in addition to the running through stop signs.

Additionally, where's their proof of insurance?

[2TonJellyBean]

Dave, that's a very unhealthy attitude you have.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by SD26

I would argue given the programs of registrations that have become the tradition of some socialized programs in government, bicyclists should contribute to "the public" trust.

In areas with lots of development there are bike registration programs.

Originally Posted by SD26

Additionally, where's their proof of insurance?

Insurance generally isn't needed for a vehicle with the least kinetic energy on the road, by a wide margin. If that ends up happening I wouldn't be surprised if we were a hop, skip, and jump away from insurance requirements for pedestrians.

[Mighty Mira]

Originally Posted by SD26

I would argue given the programs of registrations that have become the tradition of some socialized programs in government, bicyclists should contribute to "the public" trust.

Assuming you aren't trolling (big assumption)...

Potholes on roads are primarily caused by heavy vehicles, the heavier the vehicle, the more impact. The weight of a human or bicycle + human or even motorcycle + human causes negligible wear and tear on the roads besides natural decay.

They also contribute to energy independence and a lowering of pollution, a worthy goal for any country.

Even if their food (converted eventually in moving miniscule amounts of air out of the way, and heating up tires) came from tractors and trucks using the road, that is already factored into the cost of their food. Theoretically, a cyclist could be using their own backyard to grow crops to eat, effectively being pollution free.

If anything, an individual should be able to register vehicles like motorbikes and scooters for free if they have already registered a car or truck. That would make it an economical decision to buy and use very cheap and low pollution transport on sunny days, which for most of the world is most of the time.

[SD26]

Well, potholes do happen. Roads are developed and designed for light duty to heavy duty vehicles. A crack in the pavement for a car is not an issue for a car, but it can be for a bicycle.

The litigious nature of current society can have unintended consequences. The ride across Iowa that has occured for years is threatened by counties that now don't want it there because of the risk of a law suit. One can go use google to find it, but a bicyclist hit a crack, on that would be no problem for a car, and was injured.

Yeah, that sucks, but it IS a road for light cars through heavy trucks. Does one's homeowners insurance cover that?

Anyway, that's the fact of life. No county can afford to make their roads glass surfaces to account for the lack of travel for the chassis of a bike, etc.

Show me where larger vehicle don't pay more for their registrations? Show me how larger vehicles by their inherent nature of being bigger, heavier don't contribute more in taxes because the nature of per gallon/liter road taxes aren't directly proportionate to their use?

But, then again, try to get a bunch of people to move 300 tons of stone for a project on bicycles. We'll see how long it takes to progress, how much it costs, and how little anyone would be able to make from it as workers.

What is an alternative to work? Roads are developed for commerce. Race tracks are for pleasure. Road taxes pay for commerce, which people need for work, supplies, etc.

And, honestly, calling me out as a troll is pretty darn petty. I have a different point of view, and I have been clear and reasonable about it, unless you disagree. I will generalize base on my own experiences that attitudes like that, attacking individuals based on their beliefs being "different" or "wrong", are common from some in society.

[kickflipjr]

I think biking is safest in slow moving city traffic. It is much safer to take the whole lane in that situation.

In higher speed traffic it is a lot more dangerous and cars may not be able see or expect to see bike on the road.

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by SD26

Well, potholes do happen.

Not from bicycles, at least not in any significant form.

Originally Posted by SD26

Roads are developed and designed for light duty to heavy duty vehicles.

A bicycle IS a light duty vehicle.

Originally Posted by SD26

A crack in the pavement for a car is not an issue for a car, but it can be for a bicycle.

A narrow gap is not an issue for a bike, but it can be for a car. Eggs are $2.40 a dozen.

Originally Posted by SD26

The litigious nature of current society can have unintended consequences.

That argument can be applied to any position under the sun.

Originally Posted by SD26

The ride across Iowa that has occured for years is threatened by counties that now don't want it there because of the risk of a law suit. One can go use google to find it, but a bicyclist hit a crack, on that would be no problem for a car, and was injured.

It is threatened by people, and their perspectives. Let us not over generalize and make the problem sound so nebulous that it becomes intangible.

Originally Posted by SD26

Yeah, that sucks, but it IS a road for light cars through heavy trucks.

INVALID ASSERTION DETECTED

Originally Posted by SD26

Does one's homeowners insurance cover that?

Does one measure the extent of liberty in such terms?!?

Originally Posted by SD26

Anyway, that's the fact of life.

INVALID ASSERTION DETECTED

Originally Posted by SD26

No county can afford to make their roads glass surfaces to account for the lack of travel for the chassis of a bike, etc.

INVALID ASSERTION DETECTED

Originally Posted by SD26

Show me where larger vehicle don't pay more for their registrations? Show me how larger vehicles by their inherent nature of being bigger, heavier don't contribute more in taxes because the nature of per gallon/liter road taxes aren't directly proportionate to their use?

INVALID LACK OF NEGATIVE PROOF ARGUMENT DETECTED

Originally Posted by SD26

But, then again, try to get a bunch of people to move 300 tons of stone for a project on bicycles. We'll see how long it takes to progress, how much it costs, and how little anyone would be able to make from it as workers.

Again, question of perspective, the great wall and the pyramids didn't even have bicycles Why the rush to get it done?

Originally Posted by SD26

What is an alternative to work?

Wow, talk about not thinking out of the box, Wow!

Originally Posted by SD26

Roads are developed for commerce. Race tracks are for pleasure. Road taxes pay for commerce, which people need for work, supplies, etc.

You are locked into all sorts of preconceptions.

Originally Posted by SD26

And, honestly, calling me out as a troll is pretty darn petty. I have a different point of view, and I have been clear and reasonable about it, unless you disagree.

Hey, trolls happen.

Originally Posted by SD26

I will generalize base on my own experiences that attitudes like that, attacking individuals based on their beliefs being "different" or "wrong", are common from some in society.

The problem is when you blame bicycles for getting hit by cars or falling into unmaintained cracks, you perpetuate an outdated and boorish mentality that is the basis for the very title of this thread. You might as well suppose that shooting victims who don't wear bullet proof vests should pay more money into healthcare. Getting from one place to another by the muscles that God gave you is an absolute right.

[Mighty Mira]

Originally Posted by SD26

Well, potholes do happen.

They don't just "happen". It's the weight of traffic that does it. And I'd put money on it that one very heavily loaded wheel would do more damage than 1000 or even 1000,000 lightly loaded wheels.

Anyway, that's the fact of life. No county can afford to make their roads glass surfaces to account for the lack of travel for the chassis of a bike, etc.

I don't recall making an argument that a road for human powered transport must be anywhere near a "glass surface". Maybe you did in your strawman argument. One county banned a race (but not bicycles as transport). Big whoop.

Show me where larger vehicle don't pay more for their registrations?

They do, it's just not proportional compared to the upkeep on roads that their use mandates.

Show me how larger vehicles by their inherent nature of being bigger, heavier don't contribute more in taxes because the nature of per gallon/liter road taxes aren't directly proportionate to their use?

Show me how that is proportional when compared to the wear and tear imposed by a bicycle.

But, then again, try to get a bunch of people to move 300 tons of stone for a project on bicycles.

Again, nice strawman. There is a need for heavy moving, and as fuel price rises, forms of transport with better Crr figures become viable again. In a lot of the world, people still use beasts of burden for hauling. This was the case even in WWII, though the propaganda footage on both sides always pictured trucks.

What is an alternative to work? Roads are developed for commerce. Race tracks are for pleasure. Road taxes pay for commerce, which people need for work, supplies, etc.

??? Ok... so you want to defray the costs of carting stuff to everyone, so that the actual costs of carting are underestimated and people make a decision that costs more in finite resources. Nice.

And, honestly, calling me out as a troll is pretty darn petty.

I notice that you didn't say I was wrong, just that I was petty. Telling.

[Snax]

Want to walk on the sidewalk? One better get a permit for that, as I'm sure some large vehicle driver paid his unfair share for your privilege!

Seriously Dave, that's seems like a ridiculous suggestion, particularly if governments want to reduce the number of miles driven and encourage alternate transportation.

Around here, we have something called tax assessments on homes. Anybody who lives within a structure anywhere in the county pays their share of that, whether through being taxed directly or built into their rent. Other communities use similar or other tax structures for the same purpose.

We ALL pay for the roads. Some just pay more than others, and usually with good reason.

[2TonJellyBean]

Believe it or not roads actually pre-date the automobile.

[Jim T.]

Bicycles on the road are fine, we all need to share. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, peds, and bicycles. But when you block traffic, ride two abreast, and other such nonsense you are asking for trouble. Here in Florida most cyclists seem to think riding two abreast is normal. Thats when I push the button on the 145db airhorn in my right fender skirt. Works a treat.

As for a motorized vehicle,
If you are doing 50mph in a 65 posted two lane holding up a line of vehicles, you are not traffic, you are a slowpoke.
If you are afraid to use the gas pedal while trying to merge with 70mph traffic on a freeway onramp while only doing 45mph, you are not traffic, you are a danger to yourself and those behind you.
The quest for maximum FE should not impede the rights of others.

Jim T.