4 ms·

They do belong on roads. Paved roads were created for bicycles. The law classifies them as road vehicles. You are required to know the vehicle code in order to

They do belong on roads. Paved roads were created for bicycles. The law classifies them as road vehicles. You are required to know the vehicle code in order to qualify for a drivers license. Right of way precedence is one of them. Being "pissed off" because another citizen is exercising their rights within the law isn't an excuse to harm them without repercussions.

User23 4y ago
Most jurisdictions have not only a maximum speed, but also a minimum speed. Impeding the flow of traffic is an infraction. Literally nobody cares when cyclists stay on the right and don’t obstruct the flow of traffic.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Most states don't have a minimum speed limit or only have it on limited access highways. There will be a classification for slow moving vehicles with additional stipulations. Most states also have an AFRAP rule for being as far to the right as practicable. The key point is that practicability may require being anywhere in the lane depending on circumstances. If you have the right of way people without the right of way have to yield and drive safely. Driving behind a bicyclist in the lane to avoid debris is no different that driving behind a combine taking up 75% of the entire road.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    I can't remember the last time I've witnessed a motorist abusing a bicyclist. I'm sure it happens, because of course there are exceptions. By and large most people seem to share the road just fine. The one time I thought I might see some actual mayhem was after I waited in a long line of cars on a relatively narrow uphill street that were waiting for an opportunity to safely pass a slow moving bike. It went pretty well. But about halfway up that hill we got stopped at a light, and that bicyclist rode right up the line of cars to the front, and made everyone pass him again. LOL. Nobody actually did anything aggressive, but you could feel the unhappiness there. He was a dick. Most riders are not, just like most motorists are not.
    - KennyBlanken 4y ago
      > I can't remember the last time I've witnessed a motorist abusing a bicyclist. It's easy to not witness something when you're not the subject of it. For example complaints of racism, sexism, etc by the victims in the workplace are often met with claims by white men that they 'rarely see it.'
SoftTalker 4y ago
Are you required to know the vehicle code to qualify to operate a bicycle on the roads? If they are legally "road vehicles," why not?
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Yes. But bicycles don't carry the significant risk of killing other people which is why motor vehicle licensing exists in the first place.
- taeric 4y ago
  To an extent, yes. But just as recreational vehicles are treated a bit more loosely, so are bikes. In large because they do post relatively little risk to others. Is akin to boating laws. By and large, take a kayak wherever you want. Bigger boats, though?
rootusrootus 4y ago
You're making an argument to authority, which is not what I was doing. In fact, I was saying I think the authority is wrong. Physics says bikes and cars should not share the same space. At a certain point, if you want to push it that far, you have to answer the question of why bicycle riders aren't required to have a driver license, carry insurance, register their bikes, and have license plates. Because if you think a bike can't cause a serious accident, you haven't driven the roads too much. Bikes should have an actual bike lane dedicated to them. Full stop. Putting them on roadways just makes everyone less happy and less safe.
- tjr225 4y ago
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    That's a bit over the top, don't you think? And you make it kinda personal, calling me an asshole for suggesting that we'd all be better off if we built actual bike infrastructure. I'm very courteous to other road users, whether they be driving cars, riding bikes, or walking. I'm not the asshole in this conversation.
    - tjr225 4y ago
      No, I do not think the following is over the top- it is hypothetical. You can choose whether or not you want to follow the rules we've settled on and you can choose whether or not you want to behave nicely/kindly: > If for some reason you think that the physics of your vessel makes you immune to being nice, kind, or otherwise agreeable to our societal constructs, I’m forced to assume you are an asshole.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  > if you want to push it that far, you have to answer the question of why bicycle riders aren't required to have a driver license, carry insurance, register their bikes, and have license plates. Because both the scale of destruction and death a cyclist is capable of is nowhere near that of someone driving even a small compact economy car, and the relation between damage caused vs suffered is nowhere as disproportionate? A driver can plow through a crowd of dozens of people, killing and maiming, and not suffer the slightest injury. > Because if you think a bike can't cause a serious accident, you haven't driven the roads too much. Never has a cyclist damaged a building, much less obliterated a storefront or killed people sitting inside said building. Or taken out a traffic light, or telephone pole. Never has a structural engineer had to evaluate a building or bridge after a cyclist hit it. Never has a cyclist caused a mass casualty event. A cyclist causing a death is so unheard of it's literally national news.
shard 4y ago
This is cultural, believe it or not. In Korea, bicycles are expected to be on sidewalks and not sharing the road with cars, and there are often bike paths on pedestrian sidewalks.

User23 4y ago

Most jurisdictions have not only a maximum speed, but also a minimum speed. Impeding the flow of traffic is an infraction. Literally nobody cares when cyclists stay on the right and don’t obstruct the flow of traffic.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Most states don't have a minimum speed limit or only have it on limited access highways. There will be a classification for slow moving vehicles with additional stipulations. Most states also have an AFRAP rule for being as far to the right as practicable. The key point is that practicability may require being anywhere in the lane depending on circumstances. If you have the right of way people without the right of way have to yield and drive safely. Driving behind a bicyclist in the lane to avoid debris is no different that driving behind a combine taking up 75% of the entire road.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I can't remember the last time I've witnessed a motorist abusing a bicyclist. I'm sure it happens, because of course there are exceptions. By and large most people seem to share the road just fine. The one time I thought I might see some actual mayhem was after I waited in a long line of cars on a relatively narrow uphill street that were waiting for an opportunity to safely pass a slow moving bike. It went pretty well. But about halfway up that hill we got stopped at a light, and that bicyclist rode right up the line of cars to the front, and made everyone pass him again. LOL. Nobody actually did anything aggressive, but you could feel the unhappiness there. He was a dick. Most riders are not, just like most motorists are not.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    > I can't remember the last time I've witnessed a motorist abusing a bicyclist. It's easy to not witness something when you're not the subject of it. For example complaints of racism, sexism, etc by the victims in the workplace are often met with claims by white men that they 'rarely see it.'

SoftTalker 4y ago

Are you required to know the vehicle code to qualify to operate a bicycle on the roads? If they are legally "road vehicles," why not?

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Yes. But bicycles don't carry the significant risk of killing other people which is why motor vehicle licensing exists in the first place.
taeric 4y ago
To an extent, yes. But just as recreational vehicles are treated a bit more loosely, so are bikes. In large because they do post relatively little risk to others. Is akin to boating laws. By and large, take a kayak wherever you want. Bigger boats, though?

rootusrootus 4y ago

You're making an argument to authority, which is not what I was doing. In fact, I was saying I think the authority is wrong. Physics says bikes and cars should not share the same space. At a certain point, if you want to push it that far, you have to answer the question of why bicycle riders aren't required to have a driver license, carry insurance, register their bikes, and have license plates. Because if you think a bike can't cause a serious accident, you haven't driven the roads too much. Bikes should have an actual bike lane dedicated to them. Full stop. Putting them on roadways just makes everyone less happy and less safe.

tjr225 4y ago
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  That's a bit over the top, don't you think? And you make it kinda personal, calling me an asshole for suggesting that we'd all be better off if we built actual bike infrastructure. I'm very courteous to other road users, whether they be driving cars, riding bikes, or walking. I'm not the asshole in this conversation.
  - tjr225 4y ago
    No, I do not think the following is over the top- it is hypothetical. You can choose whether or not you want to follow the rules we've settled on and you can choose whether or not you want to behave nicely/kindly: > If for some reason you think that the physics of your vessel makes you immune to being nice, kind, or otherwise agreeable to our societal constructs, I’m forced to assume you are an asshole.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
> if you want to push it that far, you have to answer the question of why bicycle riders aren't required to have a driver license, carry insurance, register their bikes, and have license plates. Because both the scale of destruction and death a cyclist is capable of is nowhere near that of someone driving even a small compact economy car, and the relation between damage caused vs suffered is nowhere as disproportionate? A driver can plow through a crowd of dozens of people, killing and maiming, and not suffer the slightest injury. > Because if you think a bike can't cause a serious accident, you haven't driven the roads too much. Never has a cyclist damaged a building, much less obliterated a storefront or killed people sitting inside said building. Or taken out a traffic light, or telephone pole. Never has a structural engineer had to evaluate a building or bridge after a cyclist hit it. Never has a cyclist caused a mass casualty event. A cyclist causing a death is so unheard of it's literally national news.

shard 4y ago

This is cultural, believe it or not. In Korea, bicycles are expected to be on sidewalks and not sharing the road with cars, and there are often bike paths on pedestrian sidewalks.