6 ms·

Cyclists here drive me nutty. Granted most places don't have bike lanes but IMO you shouldn't be on a road where the speed limit is 45 and you're blocking a li

by thesis 11y ago

Cyclists here drive me nutty. Granted most places don't have bike lanes but IMO you shouldn't be on a road where the speed limit is 45 and you're blocking a line of cars. The other day everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy going 15mph on his bicycle, and once we did, at the next stop sign he just cruised to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked slowed down even more cars. I know my rant is a little off topic, but my point is that if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards. Bicycles yielding at stop signs isn't right.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- gridspy 11y ago
  People who emerge onto the footpath are often not prepared to avoid a cyclist cruising along at >4x the speed of a normal pedestrian.
jacobolus 11y ago
If you’re talking about San Francisco, which road exactly is it that has a 45 mph speed limit, and cyclists? Most city streets have a speed limit of 25 mph, though drivers often go dramatically faster. (On my semi-arterial residential street, the speed limit is officially 25 mph, but between midnight an 6 AM, especially on the weekend, Uber cars and taxis tend to go 50–60+.)
- zten 11y ago
  They're definitely not thinking of city driving. Suburbs, maybe. They might be thinking of roads like Highway 1 in Pacifica and north of Stinson Beach. Stretches will have a 50mph speed limit, a narrow shoulder, and a grade that will drop many cyclists to 15mph or lower.
lutorm 11y ago
if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards The law treats bicyclists and motor vehicles differently in many ways already. For example: * Bicyclists are required to ride "as far to the right as practicable". No such requirement exists for automobiles. * Bicyclists are prohibited from certain roads, like freeways, unlike automobiles. Of course, in these cases it is the motor vehicles that are allowed to do things bicyclists aren't allowed to. I suppose for consistency you are arguing that these these rules shouldn't exist either?
- Shivetya 11y ago
  there still needs to be laws keeping them off roads over 35 or such; I ride a bike. Unless there is a dedicate bike lane being on a road with speeds like that is just asking for trouble even if it is long and straight. also, tag them like cars. no reason they should not have tag fees if they want to use the road
  - witten 11y ago
    Bicycle registration has been tried, and it doesn't work from a practical or fiscal perspective: http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/seattle-voices/bicycle-registration http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/s...
  - lutorm 11y ago
    You never ride on highways? How do you get anywhere?
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    Where is there a road in San Francisco with a speed limit over 35MPH, but without a separate bike lane? I'm sure there is one but I can't think of it. It's definitely an edge case which should not affect how one thinks about the Idaho Stop.
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    Also, roads are primarily funded by general revenues such as sales and payroll taxes. The idea that your registration fees buy you access to the road is completely absurd. Registration fees in California cover a tiny fraction of road costs, and even registration fees together with fuel taxes are not even a majority of the money spent on roads.
witten 11y ago
How late did you arrive at your destination? How much earlier would you have arrived had the bicyclist been driving a car instead?
TulliusCicero 11y ago
Cyclists shouldn't have to share the road, because they should have separate infrastructure. Bikes and cars in the same space is nearly as dumb as cars and pedestrians in the same space.
parennoob 11y ago
> Granted most places don't have bike lanes but IMO you shouldn't be on a road where the speed limit is 45 and you're blocking a line of cars. Then appeal for that to be made the law. Otherwise what are you doing deciding who should and shouldn't be on the road? Usually 45 mph roads are 2-lane, there is a perfectly serviceable extra lane for all the car drivers in a hurry. > The other day everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy going 15mph on his bicycle, and once we did, at the next stop sign he just cruised to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked slowed down even more cars. You were probably driving too close to him (with your rant, I wouldn't be surprised) and pushed him into that space. > If you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards. Bicycles yielding at stop signs isn't right. I agree, on a road that is open to both motorists and cyclists, no one should be forced to ride in the narrow space between the rightmost lane and the curb. Cyclists should be given the use of a specific lane, just like all other vehicles.
Eric_WVGG 11y ago
Not only is your rant off-topic, so is your conclusion. You just rattled off a whole list of irritants that have nothing to do with bicycles yielding at stops.
pbsurf 11y ago
at the next stop sign he just cruised to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked slowed down even more cars If the cyclist passed you and even more cars already at the stop sign, that implies that if, instead of passing him, you simply followed him as you would have any other vehicle, you would have ended up in the same place in the queue of motor vehicles at the stop sign. Thus you saved zero time by passing the cyclist. In city traffic, the average speed of a cyclist can easily be greater than the average speed of motor vehicle, yet many motorists, perhaps not understanding the difference between maximum speed and average speed, insist on rushing past cyclists at the first opportunity, safe or not, just to stop and wait at the next intersection.
- eridius 11y ago
  I'm not the OP, but it sounds like the cyclist came up the edge of the lane, between the car and the curb, to get in front again. A car can't follow a bike into a 2-foot-wide gap.
  - anon4 11y ago
    No, no it can't. But as far as I'm aware, the bike is allowed to ride in the 2-foot-wide gap. And still, the bike isn't stopping you from going forward. In the case when there really isn't enough space to pass the bike - the road is just too thin, the guy on the bike is a dumb asshole and shouldn't ride on that road.
  - jschwartzi 11y ago
    The point is that it did no good to pass the cyclist if they arrived at the intersection after you and then had enough time before the light changed to gingerly pedal to be in front of you. Even if your top speeds were wildly different, the fact that you both still ended up in the same place at the same time but further down the road, implies that there was no need to pass. To belabor the point, you would be said to have the same mean velocity, but different peak velocities.
    - eridius 11y ago
brobinson 11y ago
>everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy Reminds me of the beginning of this video in California: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u64SFHVYyyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u64SFHVYyyg
- anon4 11y ago
  Yeah nah, I bike a lot and that guy is a dumb asshole. Why wasn't the guy in the white car honking at him?

by thesis 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

gridspy 11y ago
People who emerge onto the footpath are often not prepared to avoid a cyclist cruising along at >4x the speed of a normal pedestrian.

jacobolus 11y ago

If you’re talking about San Francisco, which road exactly is it that has a 45 mph speed limit, and cyclists? Most city streets have a speed limit of 25 mph, though drivers often go dramatically faster. (On my semi-arterial residential street, the speed limit is officially 25 mph, but between midnight an 6 AM, especially on the weekend, Uber cars and taxis tend to go 50–60+.)

zten 11y ago
They're definitely not thinking of city driving. Suburbs, maybe. They might be thinking of roads like Highway 1 in Pacifica and north of Stinson Beach. Stretches will have a 50mph speed limit, a narrow shoulder, and a grade that will drop many cyclists to 15mph or lower.

lutorm 11y ago

if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards The law treats bicyclists and motor vehicles differently in many ways already. For example: * Bicyclists are required to ride "as far to the right as practicable". No such requirement exists for automobiles. * Bicyclists are prohibited from certain roads, like freeways, unlike automobiles. Of course, in these cases it is the motor vehicles that are allowed to do things bicyclists aren't allowed to. I suppose for consistency you are arguing that these these rules shouldn't exist either?

Shivetya 11y ago
there still needs to be laws keeping them off roads over 35 or such; I ride a bike. Unless there is a dedicate bike lane being on a road with speeds like that is just asking for trouble even if it is long and straight. also, tag them like cars. no reason they should not have tag fees if they want to use the road
- witten 11y ago
  Bicycle registration has been tried, and it doesn't work from a practical or fiscal perspective: http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/seattle-voices/bicycle-registration http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/s...
- lutorm 11y ago
  You never ride on highways? How do you get anywhere?
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  Where is there a road in San Francisco with a speed limit over 35MPH, but without a separate bike lane? I'm sure there is one but I can't think of it. It's definitely an edge case which should not affect how one thinks about the Idaho Stop.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  Also, roads are primarily funded by general revenues such as sales and payroll taxes. The idea that your registration fees buy you access to the road is completely absurd. Registration fees in California cover a tiny fraction of road costs, and even registration fees together with fuel taxes are not even a majority of the money spent on roads.

witten 11y ago

How late did you arrive at your destination? How much earlier would you have arrived had the bicyclist been driving a car instead?

TulliusCicero 11y ago

Cyclists shouldn't have to share the road, because they should have separate infrastructure. Bikes and cars in the same space is nearly as dumb as cars and pedestrians in the same space.

parennoob 11y ago

> Granted most places don't have bike lanes but IMO you shouldn't be on a road where the speed limit is 45 and you're blocking a line of cars. Then appeal for that to be made the law. Otherwise what are you doing deciding who should and shouldn't be on the road? Usually 45 mph roads are 2-lane, there is a perfectly serviceable extra lane for all the car drivers in a hurry. > The other day everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy going 15mph on his bicycle, and once we did, at the next stop sign he just cruised to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked slowed down even more cars. You were probably driving too close to him (with your rant, I wouldn't be surprised) and pushed him into that space. > If you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards. Bicycles yielding at stop signs isn't right. I agree, on a road that is open to both motorists and cyclists, no one should be forced to ride in the narrow space between the rightmost lane and the curb. Cyclists should be given the use of a specific lane, just like all other vehicles.

Eric_WVGG 11y ago

Not only is your rant off-topic, so is your conclusion. You just rattled off a whole list of irritants that have nothing to do with bicycles yielding at stops.

pbsurf 11y ago

at the next stop sign he just cruised to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked slowed down even more cars If the cyclist passed you and even more cars already at the stop sign, that implies that if, instead of passing him, you simply followed him as you would have any other vehicle, you would have ended up in the same place in the queue of motor vehicles at the stop sign. Thus you saved zero time by passing the cyclist. In city traffic, the average speed of a cyclist can easily be greater than the average speed of motor vehicle, yet many motorists, perhaps not understanding the difference between maximum speed and average speed, insist on rushing past cyclists at the first opportunity, safe or not, just to stop and wait at the next intersection.

eridius 11y ago
I'm not the OP, but it sounds like the cyclist came up the edge of the lane, between the car and the curb, to get in front again. A car can't follow a bike into a 2-foot-wide gap.
- anon4 11y ago
  No, no it can't. But as far as I'm aware, the bike is allowed to ride in the 2-foot-wide gap. And still, the bike isn't stopping you from going forward. In the case when there really isn't enough space to pass the bike - the road is just too thin, the guy on the bike is a dumb asshole and shouldn't ride on that road.
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  The point is that it did no good to pass the cyclist if they arrived at the intersection after you and then had enough time before the light changed to gingerly pedal to be in front of you. Even if your top speeds were wildly different, the fact that you both still ended up in the same place at the same time but further down the road, implies that there was no need to pass. To belabor the point, you would be said to have the same mean velocity, but different peak velocities.
  - eridius 11y ago

brobinson 11y ago

>everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy Reminds me of the beginning of this video in California: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u64SFHVYyyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u64SFHVYyyg

anon4 11y ago
Yeah nah, I bike a lot and that guy is a dumb asshole. Why wasn't the guy in the white car honking at him?