And the bicycle lobby wonders

[roadman]

why most people don't take cyclists more seriously.

http://www.universalhub.com/2015/bicyclist-has-some-serious-tunnel-vision

[NE2]

Because most people are bigoted arseholes?

[Brandon]

Because most people are bigoted arseholes?

Hard to be bigoted against stupid.  The guy's on I-93.

[english si]

Because most people are bigoted arseholes?

Hard to be bigoted against stupid.  The guy's on I-93.

But the OP talks about tarring everyone who pedals with the same brush.

It's the same bigoted argument as watching this video and then decided all car drivers are idiots who shouldn't be taken seriously.

[jeffandnicole]

Because most people are bigoted arseholes?

Hard to be bigoted against stupid.  The guy's on I-93.

But the OP talks about tarring everyone who pedals with the same brush.

It's the same bigoted argument as watching this video and then decided all car drivers are idiots who shouldn't be taken seriously.

Well, that does describe the bicycling community pretty well.

[sdmichael]

why most people don't take cyclists more seriously.

http://www.universalhub.com/2015/bicyclist-has-some-serious-tunnel-vision

What does one incident have ANYTHING to do with taking bicyclists seriously? I see far more stupidity daily from motorists. Should I just not take them seriously as well? So no. The bicycle lobby does not wonder. They are taken seriously, just perhaps maybe not by you.

[Pete from Boston]

In other words, all cyclists think one way, and all motorists think one way.  I'm with NE2 on this one. 

I'll start taking pictures at random during my morning commute, and the countless stupid things drivers do should fill up a nice amusing thread about why people don't take them seriously.

[roadman]

why most people don't take cyclists more seriously.

http://www.universalhub.com/2015/bicyclist-has-some-serious-tunnel-vision

What does one incident have ANYTHING to do with taking bicyclists seriously? I see far more stupidity daily from motorists. Should I just not take them seriously as well? So no. The bicycle lobby does not wonder. They are taken seriously, just perhaps maybe not by you.

Just to clarify.  As a responsible driver, I will treat individual cyclists I encounter on the road with respect.  However, I do not have much respect for lobbyist groups who demand special infrastructure for cyclists without then agreeing that those same cyclists be legally required to use said infrastructure - i.e. bike lanes.  Nor do I have much respect for lobbyist groups who insist that the solution to curbing bad cyclist behavior (like running red lights) is to change the laws so cyclists can legally continue to engage in such bad behavior.  Good example of the latter.  In Massachusetts, if a vehicle turning right is in a collision with a cyclist, the fact that the cyclist was attempting to pass the vehicle on the right cannot be used as a defense by the driver.  However, if I try passing a right turning vehicle on the right in my car, I am presumed to be at least partially fault if I collide with that vehicle.

And if the cycling lobby is so interested in the concept of "equal rights, equal responsibilities" (as they are always proclaiming in their propaganda), then explain why suggestions to require cyclists to register their vehicles and carry a minimum amount of insurance are always met with so much opposition.  Or why, when a car/truck vs. bike incident is reported, why is the vehicle driver almost immediately vilified on the Internet and in social media, even before the circumstances of the crash are known.

Lastly, if the cycling lobby is really that interested in promoting good biking behavior, then why do they not immediately denounce such incidents like these when they happen?  For that matter, what have they been doing to discourage the attitudes of many cyclists that increasingly profess a mantra of "When cyclists break laws like running red lights, they're only putting themselves at risk of serious injury.  Therefore, why do you consider the fact we break the law is a big deal" ?

Yes, drivers can and often do stupid things and flaunt the traffic laws as well.  However, in the walking portion of my typical daily commute through Downtown Boston (which is about two miles), I have been nearly hit multiple times by "entitled" cyclists who feel they have the "right" to ignore traffic laws (like stopping for red lights) and/or often rocket down sidewalks that they legally are not supposed to be riding on.  Yet, in all that time (35+ years), I have yet to see a car using a sidewalk when a marked lane in the adjacent street is available, or a car suddenly appear from behind a stopped line of traffic waiting at a red light and dart through the intersection immediately in front of cars approaching on the green light.

So forgive me if I have an issue with a cyclist who decides, either through arrogance, stupidity, or whatever else may be going on in their mind, to not only enter an INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ramp, but also continue to keep on going after realizing "Hey, this obviously isn't the Kennedy Greenway."

[NE2]

Can I play the race card now?

[Kacie Jane]

However, I do not have much respect for lobbyist groups who demand special infrastructure for cyclists without then agreeing that those same cyclists be legally required to use said infrastructure - i.e. bike lanes.

...

In Massachusetts, if a vehicle turning right is in a collision with a cyclist, the fact that the cyclist was attempting to pass the vehicle on the right cannot be used as a defense by the driver.  However, if I try passing a right turning vehicle on the right in my car, I am presumed to be at least partially fault if I collide with that vehicle.

You can't have it both ways.  In the first sentence, you want to require bicyclists to ride in their own lane (typically located to the right of vehicles) rather than allowing them to ride with vehicles.  In the second, you try to blame them for an accident when they're exactly where you've forced them to be.

[NE2]

Yes, drivers can and often do stupid things and flaunt the traffic laws as well.

I flaunt the traffic laws all the time when driving a bicycle. In particularly, I love to flaunt the one that allows me to ride on the road.

[SectorZ]

Some people seem to be hung up on a cyclist on an interstate. This interstate, yeah, a problem.

West of the Mississippi River, it's quite allowed, in certain states every inch of interstate highway is legal for cycling.

Doesn't change the stupidity of this one person.

I do know a former pro cyclist who on a dare rode almost all of I-190 in central Mass. He got on via the Leominster Connector form the north end, and attempted to get to exit 1/MA 12 considering he'd end up on 290 if he got further. He got to exit 3 before a state trooper pulled him over and made him get off there. Amazingly no ticket, maybe because it was 3 AM and he did bother to have some lighting on the bike (enough to be legal on the roads actually allowed on).

Only restricted thing I've been on is the US 6/MA 138 bridge over the Taunton River. The new one restricts bikes/peds and has a bike trail on the north side. It was winter and as usual they didn't clear it of snow despite the roads being clear for well over a week.

[1995hoo]

why most people don't take cyclists more seriously.

http://www.universalhub.com/2015/bicyclist-has-some-serious-tunnel-vision

I sent the link to my brother, who commutes 28 miles roundtrip by bike most days from Falls Church to Fair Lakes in Northern Virginia, and I thought his reply was an excellent succinct summary:

"Wow...good way to get dead."

[sdmichael]

why most people don't take cyclists more seriously.

http://www.universalhub.com/2015/bicyclist-has-some-serious-tunnel-vision

What does one incident have ANYTHING to do with taking bicyclists seriously? I see far more stupidity daily from motorists. Should I just not take them seriously as well? So no. The bicycle lobby does not wonder. They are taken seriously, just perhaps maybe not by you.

Just to clarify.  As a responsible driver, I will treat individual cyclists I encounter on the road with respect.  However, I do not have much respect for lobbyist groups who demand special infrastructure for cyclists without then agreeing that those same cyclists be legally required to use said infrastructure - i.e. bike lanes.  Nor do I have much respect for lobbyist groups who insist that the solution to curbing bad cyclist behavior (like running red lights) is to change the laws so cyclists can legally continue to engage in such bad behavior.  Good example of the latter.  In Massachusetts, if a vehicle turning right is in a collision with a cyclist, the fact that the cyclist was attempting to pass the vehicle on the right cannot be used as a defense by the driver.  However, if I try passing a right turning vehicle on the right in my car, I am presumed to be at least partially fault if I collide with that vehicle.

And if the cycling lobby is so interested in the concept of "equal rights, equal responsibilities" (as they are always proclaiming in their propaganda), then explain why suggestions to require cyclists to register their vehicles and carry a minimum amount of insurance are always met with so much opposition.  Or why, when a car/truck vs. bike incident is reported, why is the vehicle driver almost immediately vilified on the Internet and in social media, even before the circumstances of the crash are known.

Lastly, if the cycling lobby is really that interested in promoting good biking behavior, then why do they not immediately denounce such incidents like these when they happen?  For that matter, what have they been doing to discourage the attitudes of many cyclists that increasingly profess a mantra of "When cyclists break laws like running red lights, they're only putting themselves at risk of serious injury.  Therefore, why do you consider the fact we break the law is a big deal" ?

Yes, drivers can and often do stupid things and flaunt the traffic laws as well.  However, in the walking portion of my typical daily commute through Downtown Boston (which is about two miles), I have been nearly hit multiple times by "entitled" cyclists who feel they have the "right" to ignore traffic laws (like stopping for red lights) and/or often rocket down sidewalks that they legally are not supposed to be riding on.  Yet, in all that time (35+ years), I have yet to see a car using a sidewalk when a marked lane in the adjacent street is available, or a car suddenly appear from behind a stopped line of traffic waiting at a red light and dart through the intersection immediately in front of cars approaching on the green light.

So forgive me if I have an issue with a cyclist who decides, either through arrogance, stupidity, or whatever else may be going on in their mind, to not only enter an INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ramp, but also continue to keep on going after realizing "Hey, this obviously isn't the Kennedy Greenway."

So again... What does this ONE INCIDENT which has NOTHING TO DO WITH BICYCLING ADVOCACY have to do with "taking the bicycle lobby seriously"? One has nothing to do with the other.

I'm also willing to bet that the vast majority of bicyclists already have driver licenses and carry insurance. No group is working to change the laws to legalize running red lights. Changing the laws to allow going on a red when the light doesn't change, perhaps. I would think that would benefit more than just bicyclists. Running lights blatantly, no.

Also, riding along freeways is quite common throughout the US, usually in more rural areas but those laws vary by state. I've ridden along I-5 in California and Washington, as well as portions of other non-Interstate freeways in California.

But sure. Go ahead and continue your rant about bicycle lobby groups when you see some random person on a bicycle riding where they aren't supposed to who isn't advocating its legality or safety.

[bandit957]

Complaining about bicyclists now?

Why did drivers of luxury cars get free parking in Covington during the All-Star Game, while drivers of regular cars did not?

[hm insulators]

The other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.

[Pete from Boston]

The other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.

And the bicycle lobby still has the nerve to be all pro-bicycling!

[tidecat]

I like to think of bicycles the same way as trains: the safest crossings of train and auto traffic are the ones where they don't cross at all.

[froggie]

The other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.

To be fair, for every cyclist that runs a red, there are a number of vehicle drivers who do the same thing.  Which do you think is more dangerous?

[Rothman]

The other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.

To be fair, for every cyclist that runs a red, there are a number of vehicle drivers who do the same thing.  Which do you think is more dangerous?

Bicycles.  Cyclists are out in the open and therefore less protected than those traveling inside a vehicle.

[jeffandnicole]

The other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.

To be fair, for every cyclist that runs a red, there are a number of vehicle drivers who do the same thing.  Which do you think is more dangerous?

Personally, my biggest beef isn't so much that bicyclists are going thru the red lights.  What irritates me the most is that many of these bicyclists are adamant about wanting their share of the road, and that they have just as much right to the road as a vehicle.  Then they ignore the rules of the road. 

Percentage wise, the number of bicyclists going thru red lights is way higher than the number of cars going thru red lights.

[SectorZ]

The other day, I stopped at a light that just turned red and a bicyclist on a sidewalk who was running his dog on a leash ran right through the red light in front of cars with the green. Didn't slow down or anything.

To be fair, for every cyclist that runs a red, there are a number of vehicle drivers who do the same thing.  Which do you think is more dangerous?

Bicycles.  Cyclists are out in the open and therefore less protected than those traveling inside a vehicle.

I think he meant dangerous as in dangerous to their potential victims, not the idiot causing themselves harm.

[Pete from Boston]

It's funny, when I'm driving, I think of cyclists as a potential death I'm going to have to live with on my conscience for the rest of my life. As a cyclist, I think of motorists as slow and lumbering and trapped in traffic simply by virtue of their vehicles size–rarely a threat.  As a pedestrian, I wish they both would slow the fuck down and look where they're going.

[hotdogPi]

Running a red light less than 1 second after it stops being yellow does not count as running a red light for purposes of this thread.

Bicyclists think they can go straight through a red light even through opposing traffic. That's what's dangerous, not missing the yellow by 1/10 of a second.

[Rothman]

It's funny, when I'm driving, I think of cyclists as a potential death I'm going to have to live with on my conscience for the rest of my life. As a cyclist, I think of motorists as slow and lumbering and trapped in traffic simply by virtue of their vehicles size–rarely a threat.  As a pedestrian, I wish they both would slow the fuck down and look where they're going.

I used to bicycle everywhere -- up to 36 miles/day a few times a week.  I always kept to the side of the road and definitely kept aware of vehicles as they came up behind me.

Even back then, the entitlement some cyclists feel to impede traffic rubs me the wrong way.  When you see two lone cyclists riding side-by-side, taking up the lane, to me that's not "sharing the road."  Yes, cyclists can preach about how technically the laws in certain states allow them to do that, but in reality, it's just them getting in the way out of some exaggerated sense of entitlement.

I was driving behind a guy once who thought he was cycling fast enough downhill to not impede traffic when he was.  He was right in the middle of the lane.  Personally, I think once he got going that he wasn't skilled enough to control his bike at the speed he was going (despite is spiffy gear and clothing) and didn't have enough control to move over.  Very frustrating all around to be stuck behind him.

I have no problem with cyclists that share the road.  Heck, I even understand if the shoulder is filled with broken glass and whatever else that a cyclist may have to ride left of the white line (if there is one).  But, cycling down the middle of the road?  Nah.  Sharing the road goes both ways.  I'll swing out as much as I can to give you room, but you've got to do your part in this as well.

When it comes to me being a pedestrian, I have no sympathy at all for cyclists that collide with walkers that claim that they gave adequate warning and blame the walker.