9 ms·

"Cyclists flagrantly violating traffic laws" is probably one of the most prevalent anti-bike rhetoric tools used by drivers to justify ill behavior towards cycl

by bri3d 5y ago

"Cyclists flagrantly violating traffic laws" is probably one of the most prevalent anti-bike rhetoric tools used by drivers to justify ill behavior towards cyclists. So, I can absolutely understand a cyclist getting upset with another for flagrantly violating a traffic law. It's unfortunate that this is where this situation has evolved to, but I think it's a lot more understandable (and nuanced) than "cyclist wasn't car-ing hard enough."

nobodyandproud 5y ago
> "Cyclists flagrantly violating traffic laws" is probably one of the most prevalent anti-bike rhetoric tools used by drivers to justify ill behavior towards cyclists. It’s not entirely unjustified. I deal with badly behaved weekend cyclists every week. Like, why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit). Or going the wrong way in a one-way? Lots of entitled type-As ruining the experience for regular cyclists.
- Hello71 5y ago
  > Or going the wrong way in a one-way? why should cyclists be required to follow one-way signs? the point of one-way streets is that the street can be narrowed to a single car width; cars are too wide to pass in narrow streets, so a single direction of travel must be shown on both ends, otherwise cars will be stuck in the middle and have to reverse to get out. bicycles don't have this problem. the only justification for one-way cycling is high-traffic streets with danger of collision, but in such high-traffic scenarios I think 99.99% of cyclists will self-organize into reasonably consistent traffic flows, no sign required.
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    Are you trolling, to make cyclists look bad? If I drive and hit a cyclist going ignoring the one way, the following things happen: -Emotional trauma for the driver -Death or serious injury for the cyclist -No punishment; or maybe a lawsuit against the cyclist for damages, if I want to be an asshole. Because the cyclist was in the wrong.
    - _dain_ 5y ago
      Not the person you're replying to, but why would you think this is trolling? In some countries it's quite common for streets to be one-way for vehicle traffic but two-way for bikes. I don't think the suggestion is for cyclists to ignore the law, but for the road signage to be changed to allow this to happen legally.
      - nobodyandproud 5y ago
        Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics). Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?
        _dain_ 5y ago
        >Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics). I think a lot of places have them. Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, the UK ... basically any European country. I mean it's not like every (or even most) one-way street is like that in those places, but they're common enough. There are also "advisory cycle lanes", where there is physically one car lane, but cars can go in both direction. They are expected to (slowly and carefully!) go into the cycle lanes either side in order to pass each other. Speed limit is very low on these ofc. >Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed? Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide. Take an existing two-lane road, cut it down to a single lane down the middle and have half-width cycle lanes either side. It's easier to do that on a wide road than a narrow European city road. (American lanes are too wide anyway.) The problem is not "roads designed for cars", it is politics designed for cars. The roads are not immutable, they can be modified, if there is political will. It can be done: Netherlands was rebuilt after WW2 to be car-dependent in the American pattern, and then that was undone in the 1970s onwards after the oil crisis and record pedestrian fatalities: https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Screenshot-2021-11-22-at-18.20.33-1024x627.png https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/... There is a myth that European cities have always been pedestrian and bike friendly because they inherit their street design from a time before cars -- not always so! Things have gone back and forth.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Because people driving on one way streets will be looking for traffic coming only one way. They won’t look the other way except to check for pedestrians, and a bike can move much faster. However, much of the problem is resolved if street parking is reduced or eliminated.
    - Hello71 5y ago
      > will be looking for traffic coming only one way which direction is that, exactly? any cyclists or pedestrians coming the wrong way down the street will be in front of the vehicle. are you saying that drivers will exclusively look behind their vehicle while driving down a one-way street, and only very occasionally look in front?
      - nobodyandproud 5y ago
        Not the OP but do you believe every oneway road has infinite visibility? No bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions? And what happens when a car and cyclist both go at a 20 mph pace? How much time does the driver have to react, if the cyclist doesn’t?
        Hello71 5y ago
        Firstly, googling "cycling 20 mph", the first result is "20mph is a speed most cyclists are not able to average." Setting that aside, this is the exact purpose of speed limits, not one-way streets. One-way streets do not prevent pedestrians from popping out behind "bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions", or children, or debris, or potholes, or stopped or malfunctioning cars, or construction, or sudden road ends... Edit: If you can't stop in time for a bicycle, you can't stop in time for anything, and you need to drive slower. Unfortunately, many American drivers seem to believe that they own the road, and if dumb children run out onto the road and get flattened, that's their own fault for breaking the law.
        nobodyandproud 5y ago
        25 mph for a car is quite slow. It’s the standard around school zones. Are you suggesting cars go even slower? When two vehicles move towards each other at 25 mph, that’s 50 mph. It’s not 50 mph of automobile kinetic energy, but the human reaction time suffers the same. Reacting to a 10 to 20 feet distance at 50 mph isn’t easy nor realistic, in roads designed for 25 mph travel.
- ryukafalz 5y ago
  > Like, why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit). On a road with one lane in each direction? So that passing vehicles aren’t facing oncoming traffic for as long. If you’re giving them enough space when passing, you’re probably over the line anyway; would you rather be there for twice or three times as long if they were riding single-file?
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    If they’re going single file, then they have a paved space past the solid lane border. What’s happening is weekend cyclists having a conversation. Why is this okay?
    - ryukafalz 5y ago
      Setting aside the fact that the gutter is often full of uncleared debris that are likely to puncture a tire and there’s often not actually enough space there for a car to safely pass while staying in the lane next to it… You might be having a conversation with the person next to you in your car. Why is that okay?
      - nobodyandproud 5y ago
        It’s not a gutter.
    - matsemann 5y ago
      > If they’re going single file, then they have a paved space past the solid lane border. Incredibly dangerous to drive there with cars zooming past, just inches away. > What’s happening is weekend cyclists having a conversation. Why is this okay? Are you jealous, driving alone in a car taking up as much space as multiple cyclists?
      - nobodyandproud 5y ago
        That’s the rule where I’m driving and cycling. It’s done that way because the space is about five to seven feet wide of paved and another 10 feet of unpaved. So no, it’s not incredibly dangerous unless the cyclists make it that way.
- wpietri 5y ago
  > Like, why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit). At a guess, because going single file means that aggressive drivers will try blow past them, inches away, at 50 mph. So using the whole lane is much safer. And depending on where you are, it's also legal. In California, if the road is too narrow to share safely, even a single bicyclist is allowed to take up the whole lane. [1] > Or going the wrong way in a one-way? Yes, these people are terrible. [1] https://www.calbike.org/go_for_a_ride/california_bicycle_laws/ https://www.calbike.org/go_for_a_ride/california_bicycle_law...
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    Nah. A temporary passing I get. I’m talking about duos and trios just riding in sync having a conversation. This happens way too frequently in some areas of where I cycle. Nobody calls them out on it either, except honking drivers.
    - matsemann 5y ago
      Why should anyone call them out for anything? Honking at them is incredibly entitled behavior. Are your use of the road more important than other's?
      - nobodyandproud 5y ago
        Its not entitlement. It’s for their safety and courtesy, telling them that a car is passing because they (the cyclists) aren’t following the rules and interfering with the flow of traffic. At minimum, know that you’re giving up your right of way as a cyclist.
        wpietri 5y ago
        As I pointed out, it may well be within the rules. Yes, cyclists should be courteous. But they also deserve to be safe, and sometimes that safety requires occupying a full lane so aggro drivers don't pass them going too fast and too close. The truth is that a lot of drivers only respect other people in cars, so sometimes cyclists have to hold space like cars if they want to be safe.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Every weekend I see badly-behaved motorists taking up the entire lane of narrow roads in their little metal wagons with four empty chairs. Like, why do drivers do that? So entitled!
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    Drivers get tickets or worse if they don’t follow the rules. I would love if cyclists everywhere also had the same expectations; and loss of cycling privileges, if they didn’t.
- bri3d 5y ago
  I really don't see very many traffic law violations from cyclists, and once you put aside nitpicking about stop signs, the number gets extremely low. Each time a cyclist has annoyed me or created an extremely dangerous situation of their own accord, it mostly just came down to poor route selection by cyclists, which represents an infrastructure problem, or exactly one traffic law violation: speeding. Cyclists riding in packs represent a route selection and availability issue. Large groups of cyclists have to decide between being annoying or being dangerous every time they ride on a road without a bike lane or large shoulder. Whether they're riding two or three abreast (in which case everyone just has to wait for them, the annoying choice), or single file in a line (in which case vehicles have to cross the center line for a very long time to pass safely, the dangerous choice), there is no safe and friendly way for them to coexist on these routes. Now, of course, these cyclists did make the decision to do this - so, the debate here becomes fairly existential. Personally as a cyclist, I avoid these roads and situations, but I'm not convinced that "these people shouldn't be doing this" is a societally beneficial option here. Cyclists who speed aggressively do really annoy me. Both on footpaths, where they build animosity with pedestrians and create dangerous collisions, and on mountain descents, where they regularly out-ride their sight lines and braking ability.
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    The signs say single file; but a duo or trio of cyclists decide the rules don’t apply to them. It’s a danger to them, to drivers, and to other cyclists (the ones coming down the other direction). In my experience it’s not a constant problem but it’s not a trivially small number either.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      How is riding side by side in a lane dangerous?
      - bri3d 5y ago
        When there's a dedicated bike lane or a wide shoulder, riding side by side impedes car traffic unnecessarily. In this situation, when cyclists are riding single file, vehicles can pass without needing to enter the opposing lane. Riding two or three abreast, vehicles cannot pass without needing to enter the opposing lane. In the absence of a bike lane or wide shoulder, I don't feel that it matters much as it's just an unsafe situation regardless - there's an argument that a large group in a pack is shorter and therefore safer and easier to pass, an argument that having to swing "wide" into the opposing lane is more dangerous, an argument that cyclists in this situation simply should not be passed (in which case IMO they should pull out at the next opportunity, just as a slow motor vehicle would be required to do in many states), and an argument that the situation shouldn't exist to start with.

by bri3d 5y ago

nobodyandproud 5y ago

> "Cyclists flagrantly violating traffic laws" is probably one of the most prevalent anti-bike rhetoric tools used by drivers to justify ill behavior towards cyclists. It’s not entirely unjustified. I deal with badly behaved weekend cyclists every week. Like, why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit). Or going the wrong way in a one-way? Lots of entitled type-As ruining the experience for regular cyclists.

Hello71 5y ago
> Or going the wrong way in a one-way? why should cyclists be required to follow one-way signs? the point of one-way streets is that the street can be narrowed to a single car width; cars are too wide to pass in narrow streets, so a single direction of travel must be shown on both ends, otherwise cars will be stuck in the middle and have to reverse to get out. bicycles don't have this problem. the only justification for one-way cycling is high-traffic streets with danger of collision, but in such high-traffic scenarios I think 99.99% of cyclists will self-organize into reasonably consistent traffic flows, no sign required.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  Are you trolling, to make cyclists look bad? If I drive and hit a cyclist going ignoring the one way, the following things happen: -Emotional trauma for the driver -Death or serious injury for the cyclist -No punishment; or maybe a lawsuit against the cyclist for damages, if I want to be an asshole. Because the cyclist was in the wrong.
  - _dain_ 5y ago
    Not the person you're replying to, but why would you think this is trolling? In some countries it's quite common for streets to be one-way for vehicle traffic but two-way for bikes. I don't think the suggestion is for cyclists to ignore the law, but for the road signage to be changed to allow this to happen legally.
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago
      Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics). Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?
      - _dain_ 5y ago
        >Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics). I think a lot of places have them. Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, the UK ... basically any European country. I mean it's not like every (or even most) one-way street is like that in those places, but they're common enough. There are also "advisory cycle lanes", where there is physically one car lane, but cars can go in both direction. They are expected to (slowly and carefully!) go into the cycle lanes either side in order to pass each other. Speed limit is very low on these ofc. >Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed? Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide. Take an existing two-lane road, cut it down to a single lane down the middle and have half-width cycle lanes either side. It's easier to do that on a wide road than a narrow European city road. (American lanes are too wide anyway.) The problem is not "roads designed for cars", it is politics designed for cars. The roads are not immutable, they can be modified, if there is political will. It can be done: Netherlands was rebuilt after WW2 to be car-dependent in the American pattern, and then that was undone in the 1970s onwards after the oil crisis and record pedestrian fatalities: https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Screenshot-2021-11-22-at-18.20.33-1024x627.png https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/... There is a myth that European cities have always been pedestrian and bike friendly because they inherit their street design from a time before cars -- not always so! Things have gone back and forth.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Because people driving on one way streets will be looking for traffic coming only one way. They won’t look the other way except to check for pedestrians, and a bike can move much faster. However, much of the problem is resolved if street parking is reduced or eliminated.
  - Hello71 5y ago
    > will be looking for traffic coming only one way which direction is that, exactly? any cyclists or pedestrians coming the wrong way down the street will be in front of the vehicle. are you saying that drivers will exclusively look behind their vehicle while driving down a one-way street, and only very occasionally look in front?
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago
      Not the OP but do you believe every oneway road has infinite visibility? No bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions? And what happens when a car and cyclist both go at a 20 mph pace? How much time does the driver have to react, if the cyclist doesn’t?
      - Hello71 5y ago
        Firstly, googling "cycling 20 mph", the first result is "20mph is a speed most cyclists are not able to average." Setting that aside, this is the exact purpose of speed limits, not one-way streets. One-way streets do not prevent pedestrians from popping out behind "bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions", or children, or debris, or potholes, or stopped or malfunctioning cars, or construction, or sudden road ends... Edit: If you can't stop in time for a bicycle, you can't stop in time for anything, and you need to drive slower. Unfortunately, many American drivers seem to believe that they own the road, and if dumb children run out onto the road and get flattened, that's their own fault for breaking the law.
        nobodyandproud 5y ago
        25 mph for a car is quite slow. It’s the standard around school zones. Are you suggesting cars go even slower? When two vehicles move towards each other at 25 mph, that’s 50 mph. It’s not 50 mph of automobile kinetic energy, but the human reaction time suffers the same. Reacting to a 10 to 20 feet distance at 50 mph isn’t easy nor realistic, in roads designed for 25 mph travel.
ryukafalz 5y ago
> Like, why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit). On a road with one lane in each direction? So that passing vehicles aren’t facing oncoming traffic for as long. If you’re giving them enough space when passing, you’re probably over the line anyway; would you rather be there for twice or three times as long if they were riding single-file?
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  If they’re going single file, then they have a paved space past the solid lane border. What’s happening is weekend cyclists having a conversation. Why is this okay?
  - ryukafalz 5y ago
    Setting aside the fact that the gutter is often full of uncleared debris that are likely to puncture a tire and there’s often not actually enough space there for a car to safely pass while staying in the lane next to it… You might be having a conversation with the person next to you in your car. Why is that okay?
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago
      It’s not a gutter.
  - matsemann 5y ago
    > If they’re going single file, then they have a paved space past the solid lane border. Incredibly dangerous to drive there with cars zooming past, just inches away. > What’s happening is weekend cyclists having a conversation. Why is this okay? Are you jealous, driving alone in a car taking up as much space as multiple cyclists?
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago
      That’s the rule where I’m driving and cycling. It’s done that way because the space is about five to seven feet wide of paved and another 10 feet of unpaved. So no, it’s not incredibly dangerous unless the cyclists make it that way.
wpietri 5y ago
> Like, why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit). At a guess, because going single file means that aggressive drivers will try blow past them, inches away, at 50 mph. So using the whole lane is much safer. And depending on where you are, it's also legal. In California, if the road is too narrow to share safely, even a single bicyclist is allowed to take up the whole lane. [1] > Or going the wrong way in a one-way? Yes, these people are terrible. [1] https://www.calbike.org/go_for_a_ride/california_bicycle_laws/ https://www.calbike.org/go_for_a_ride/california_bicycle_law...
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  Nah. A temporary passing I get. I’m talking about duos and trios just riding in sync having a conversation. This happens way too frequently in some areas of where I cycle. Nobody calls them out on it either, except honking drivers.
  - matsemann 5y ago
    Why should anyone call them out for anything? Honking at them is incredibly entitled behavior. Are your use of the road more important than other's?
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago
      Its not entitlement. It’s for their safety and courtesy, telling them that a car is passing because they (the cyclists) aren’t following the rules and interfering with the flow of traffic. At minimum, know that you’re giving up your right of way as a cyclist.
      - wpietri 5y ago
        As I pointed out, it may well be within the rules. Yes, cyclists should be courteous. But they also deserve to be safe, and sometimes that safety requires occupying a full lane so aggro drivers don't pass them going too fast and too close. The truth is that a lot of drivers only respect other people in cars, so sometimes cyclists have to hold space like cars if they want to be safe.
jeffbee 5y ago
Every weekend I see badly-behaved motorists taking up the entire lane of narrow roads in their little metal wagons with four empty chairs. Like, why do drivers do that? So entitled!
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  Drivers get tickets or worse if they don’t follow the rules. I would love if cyclists everywhere also had the same expectations; and loss of cycling privileges, if they didn’t.
bri3d 5y ago
I really don't see very many traffic law violations from cyclists, and once you put aside nitpicking about stop signs, the number gets extremely low. Each time a cyclist has annoyed me or created an extremely dangerous situation of their own accord, it mostly just came down to poor route selection by cyclists, which represents an infrastructure problem, or exactly one traffic law violation: speeding. Cyclists riding in packs represent a route selection and availability issue. Large groups of cyclists have to decide between being annoying or being dangerous every time they ride on a road without a bike lane or large shoulder. Whether they're riding two or three abreast (in which case everyone just has to wait for them, the annoying choice), or single file in a line (in which case vehicles have to cross the center line for a very long time to pass safely, the dangerous choice), there is no safe and friendly way for them to coexist on these routes. Now, of course, these cyclists did make the decision to do this - so, the debate here becomes fairly existential. Personally as a cyclist, I avoid these roads and situations, but I'm not convinced that "these people shouldn't be doing this" is a societally beneficial option here. Cyclists who speed aggressively do really annoy me. Both on footpaths, where they build animosity with pedestrians and create dangerous collisions, and on mountain descents, where they regularly out-ride their sight lines and braking ability.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  The signs say single file; but a duo or trio of cyclists decide the rules don’t apply to them. It’s a danger to them, to drivers, and to other cyclists (the ones coming down the other direction). In my experience it’s not a constant problem but it’s not a trivially small number either.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    How is riding side by side in a lane dangerous?
    - bri3d 5y ago
      When there's a dedicated bike lane or a wide shoulder, riding side by side impedes car traffic unnecessarily. In this situation, when cyclists are riding single file, vehicles can pass without needing to enter the opposing lane. Riding two or three abreast, vehicles cannot pass without needing to enter the opposing lane. In the absence of a bike lane or wide shoulder, I don't feel that it matters much as it's just an unsafe situation regardless - there's an argument that a large group in a pack is shorter and therefore safer and easier to pass, an argument that having to swing "wide" into the opposing lane is more dangerous, an argument that cyclists in this situation simply should not be passed (in which case IMO they should pull out at the next opportunity, just as a slow motor vehicle would be required to do in many states), and an argument that the situation shouldn't exist to start with.