homeless in ca.

I disagree. The other rider's lack of consideration for impatient motorists demonstrates the need for better cycling infrastructure. And by blocking all the cars behind him he keeps the traffic at a safe speed.

IMO any road that does not have a secure bike lane should have a speed limit of 20 mph. That's what they do in Holland. If cyclists and motorists have to share the road then the speed limit is 30 km/h.

In ****hole countries like Louisiana and Canada we have **** infrastructure and life is cheap. Cyclists need to find other remedies like this rider did.

Daniel4

Let's talk about Tiger Woods. Been involved in two life threatening self-collisions and all anybody can talk about is his comeback to the PGA.

What about his bad driving? Lucky he didn't involve other victims.

livedarklions

This has what exactly to do with cycling safety advocacy?

Daniel4

Bad drivers are the ones complaining about cyclists all the time.

And without bad drivers, road deaths and injuries of all users plummet making safer for cyclists and no need for bicycle infrastructure.

livedarklions

So, basically, your reaction to OP is whataboutism using Tiger Woods' media coverage.

Also, I think there's a false premise in there, even without bad driving, bad infrastructure can create bad intermix of traffic.

Digger Goreman

I think that is permanently etched in the Georgia state constitution, with appropriate references ofc.

macstuff

I think this topic and attitudes being discussed are the main detractors to many people enjoying riding their bike
In the OP's Post, two things stand out.
One is that in my own experience, he is absolutely correct about obsessed bike riders and their dangerously false entitlement issues. I've ridden a bike all over the U.S. and it is similar everywhere. Its because people are similar everywhere.

The second is the Photo he provided that shows a sidewalk running down the length of the road.

The entire situation can be avoided by pulling off on the sidewalk for a minute to let the long line of cars pass
Or
Just simply ride down the sidewalk making yourself the giveaway vehicle to pedestrians.
Or
Take a side street as he suggests

Point: Motorized vehicles don't always have the same choices.

The issue isn't the myriad of laws, the terrible traffic, or lack of accommodation for bikes. That has always been there and it will always be there, get used to it or suffer. The issue is that when a human spends 5k on a bike and dresses himself in another thousand in Toucan garb, they feel entitled.
This is a human foible with no upside. Money strikes again.

Personally, Im nearly 60 and still ride a bike like a 12 year old. Side walks and side streets. Avoiding vehicle traffic at all times. That doesn't make me better or less, as far as Im concerned in makes me alive and stress free. I enjoy riding my bike, not constant useless confrontation.

But... we can whine some more and see where that gets us.
If we are the first to display respect for others, the example is set and at the very least, we become the righteous side within the discussion. A side worth listening to, and a side that will get consideration.
One at at a time is a slow way to go about it, but humans are the same everywhere.
Suck it up and set the example is my offer.

Digger Goreman

Foot soldiers for the auto industry!
Where's Paulo Freire when you need him?! (RIP)

livedarklions

Look, there's a lot of room between the stupidity of charging down a yellow line and your implied duty for us to keep out of drivers' ways. No, I'm not going to ride on a sidewalk (illegal in my state), and if a driver is going to have to wait to pass me safely when I'm legally riding on a road, too bad. The roads are chock full of slow moving motor vehicles, it's part of our duty as drivers to deal with that reasonably. And if the busy street is the most convenient for my riding, I have no obligation to take an out of the way side street and won't.

I don't own a $5000 bicycle and that has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Paul Barnard

I have eased over onto a sidewalk to let traffic vent. I don't like the subject sidewalk at all, for a number of reasons. I don't have any obligation to take the sides street that I take to avoid riding on the road our subject rider was on. It's a bit less convenient to take the side streets, but the side streets are safer, and it's much better for overall traffic flow.

livedarklions

I don't vent, I ride FRAP, interpreting practicable to mean not so far right to be in driver's blind spot, and if they have to wait some number of seconds before they can pass safely, so be it. I'm not going out of my way to be a PITA, but I'm going to exercise all of my rights on a road. I do see filtering up as being a good method for avoiding blind spots, so I will ignore laws that discourage it. Whether drivers understand it or not, I've found it actually facilitates a safe pass as the drivers can see exactly where I am.

Y'know, as a driver, I'm sure I've spent more time waiting for someone to turn their car into the Dunkin Donuts drive through than I have for cyclists.

Paul Barnard

In some states (Alaska is one of them) there is a requirement for vehicles to move over if there is more than 5 cars backed up behind them on certain roadways. I like the concept behind that. While I may have a "right" to tow my boat on a winding mountain road, Alaska has recognized that others have a "right" to travel at the speed limit. It's common sense. It's common sense in certain circumstances where cyclists are involved as well. I get it though, some people are very important to themselves. That's why states have to create laws like Alaska's.

Just like I do when I drive, I ride with a cooperative mindset. I don't let my "right" to be on the road stand in the way of being polite to other road users.

I am not quite understanding the filtering and blind spots comment. It's this simple with me. I won't filter if my doing so may slow the drivers I just passed. Period. Cutting in line is rude and selfish. If a cyclist does it to me while I'm driving, I certainly won't go out of my way to make a courteous pass when the time comes.

Most motorist's indignation over bicyclists is inconsistent with the amount of inconvenience they "suffer" over the cyclists. Much ado about nothing in most cases. Motorists have every right to be pissed if a cyclist cuts in line though. Just like a person would be just in being upset if someone cut in line at the grocery store.

livedarklions

Yeah, no, I am not piling long lines of cars behind me when I filter up, I'm taking a position in the intersection to prevent the right hook. They pass me readily and can see me just fine which is the ideal traffic control. As far as I'm concerned, you're just advocating that we make a show of being polite. I'm not playing at "Courtesy Theater" when I'm riding, and as far as safety goes, I'm very comfortable with being self-centered, it's called "defensive driving" for a reason.

And this isn't standing in line, the "wait your turn" stuff is just a fallacy. The way I'm doing it actually facilitates a clean pass for the whole line of cars behind me. Being in the middle of the pack doesn't.

Troul 

it doesn't matter what moving obstacle is in front of a motorist. The local typical motorists will always drive to be "FIRST!" even to a red light.

Richard Cranium

Why doesn't everyone think like me? >>> meaning Why doesn't everyone ride like me?

If this "cycling/auto interaction situation" resulted in a death or serious injury - and went to a trial - the prevailing argument might be the "reasonable act" theory.

In other words - when ever weird crap happens in the public space, be reasonable. Act reasonable, Its a good defense to being in the wrong.

Just because someone thinks or knows he/she can do something safely - doesn't make it reasonable........ but i could be wrong.

livedarklions

I looked up the Alaska statute, it only applies to motor vehicles and on two lane roads "outside of an urban area". There is nothing in that law regarding whether or not the lead vehicle is driving below or at the speed limit. This could easily be interpreted as a "right to speed" law, as someone who was driving the speed limit would have to pull over if 5 cars who wanted to exceed it had bunched up behind him.

This statute literally has nothing to do with the type of road in your OP, which is clearly within an urban area, and your "idiot" is not operating a motor vehicle. .

macstuff

Seems your answers all come from the same place. Misplaced entitlement.
You have no obligation to die early either bye-the-way.
Or, to take the abuse from the motorists, but you seem to enjoy it, sooooo....
Entitlement has EVERYTHING to do with it. That is all this post is about. You might want to look up the definition.
Is 2k enough for a bike? Now tell me you dont have a 2k bike to try and prove an inane point.
Seems you also stray and add things to other peoples posts that obviously weren't intended, being disingenuously standard.
Do you even ride your bikes or do you sit and look at them?
I lurk here every now and again and I'd say your moniker is spot on.

Your best bet might be to drive your car and set the example.

JW Fas

Ah yes, the classic "I can't form a cogent argument, so I'm going to attack the opponent personally" approach.
"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him."

You say the problem is lycra-clad cyclists riding $5000 bikes, but you completely ignore the Titleist-ball-cap-wearing BMW and Audi drivers of which there are WAY more on public roads. Moreover, you seem to lump all forms of entitlement into one negative connotation. There are, however, many entitlements granted to people by the written statute. If a cyclist is legally entitled to ride on a public road in a position deemed to maximize their safety, they're not a pr1ck for doing so.

livedarklions

Nice word salad rant against me. I'm sure I ride a lot more than you do. You brought up the $5K bike in your anti-cyclist diatribe, it was the only reason I mentioned it because it was making clear where your biases were laying. "The issue is that when a human spends 5k on a bike and dresses himself in another thousand in Toucan garb, they feel entitled.
This is a human foible with no upside. Money strikes again." Sorry, but that's just some finest grade gibberish, clearly connecting money with this for reasons that don't appear to make any sense.

A "sense of entitlement" is appropriate when someone is actually entitled. Yes, I am legally entitled to ride my bike in a lawful manner on the road I want to in the manner I deem most safe for myself. I generally ride FRAP, and take the lane at times it is both legal and appropriate. I signal lane changes at all times even if I don't believe there's anyone behind me. As a driver, I am legally obligated to share the road with slower vehicles and to moderate my driving to accommodate the needs of the operators of slower vehicles. Also as a driver, I am not legally entitled to having bicyclists sacrifice their safety interests or go on routes well out of their way in order for them to get out of my way. If you want to talk about misplaced senses of entitlement, why don't you focus on the attitudes of drivers in this regard? We're not "guests" on "their" roads, I'm not going to act like I am.

And, as I said before, riding on the sidewalk is illegal in my state. I also think it's inconsiderate of pedestrian safety and convenience and, for the most part, unsafe for me at the speeds I ride. I don't know where you ride, but I find the notion that I should be popping on and off sidewalks as a matter of courtesy where I ride to be comical.

And yes, I do drive quite a bit, and I have had no problems with cyclists because I actually obey the vehicle code in dealing with them.

Paul Barnard

From my post: "...on certain roadways." I am well aware of the roads on which it applies. I am also aware of guiding logic behind the law. It's not at all unlike the keep right except to pass laws. The laws exist to facilitate the efficient movement of traffic. The laws place a burden on slower moving vehicles to take action to keep from becoming a rolling road block.

I fully understand why bicyclists can't duck off the road every time traffic backs up behind them in an urban environment. That is the very reason they shouldn't filter past vehicles that will later be delayed by the cyclist. For a rider to do that, it's discourteous, and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that reality.

Paul Barnard

That doesn't have anything to do with the subject idiot. His actions were all but guaranteed to pile up a long line of motor vehicles.

livedarklions

I haven't defended him, but when I filter, it just doesn't have the delaying effects you're describing. The Alaska law applies to where traffic flow control really isn't much of a consideration. I don't know what you thought the relevance was when you brought it up, and I suspect strongly it's more of a trucking industry backed measure to facilitate speeding as are the keep right laws.

Paul Barnard

The Alaska law was put into place to facilitate the movement of traffic at the posted speed. Alaska is stunningly beautiful. People will go into tourist mode when they are driving and stack cars up behind them while they gawk. RVers will be going 10-20 below the speed limit on tight winding mountain roads, stacking cars up behind them as they creep along. There are frequent pull-outs on these roads. They are there to allow traffic to vent. There is signage telling drivers to pull over if there are more than 5 vehicles behind them. I like that. The law is dictating action that common decency should.

I see it as relevant to this conversation because it touches on the principle that it's the right thing for slower moving traffic to allow faster moving traffic to vent. I happily move over on my bike to allow traffic to vent when I can reasonably do so. As long as I can do it without compromising my safety, why not?

The trucking industry may have been behind the slower traffic keep right laws. I am not familiar with the driving force behind that law. It seems to make good sense to me. Save for overall traffic density being very heavy, most often when I have to drop below 70 on the interstate, it turns out to be the result of a slow mover in the left lane. FWIW the majority of tractor trailer rigs are speed governed to a speed below 70 MPH. Fleets have voluntarily done this.

I take you for you word that when you filter, you don't stack traffic up behind you. This guy was going to stack traffic up behind him Unless he could ride at 35 MPH or unless he was going to pull off of the road to let traffic vent. I have my doubts that he'd do either.

livedarklions

I ride FRAP so I wouldn't filter if there is no room to the right, I would get into the lane wherever I was. I guess that's the equivalent of taking my place in line. Filtering up at an intersection and taking my position at about the lead driver's 1:00 is how I deal with the FRAP right hook danger. I put myself where I know the driver can see me, and I have enough of a head start that I'm past the intersection before the driver can do a right turn. Only then will I go to the right to allow the passing. I think where we're getting crossed up is that you equated filtering up with obstructing more drivers, and I use it to the opposite effect.

Roughstuff

I rarely filter. Why do I want to pass cars/trucks/etc only to have them pass me again?