3 ms·

> You've got a right to use the lane just as much as I do, but be a good citizen and actually let me pass you safely. If you hear me coming up behind you or not

> You've got a right to use the lane just as much as I do, but be a good citizen and actually let me pass you safely. If you hear me coming up behind you or notice my flashing high beams, please dip to the right a bit so that I can continue past you and leave you safely. Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users? As you say, bike user have just as much right to the lane as car users. That means they can use the entire thing, just like car users do. If their rights are equal, why do you expect bikes to squeeze over and force them to share the lane side-by-side with you?

nojs 4y ago
You’re missing the major point that bikes go much slower than cars, so it makes sense for traffic flow to let cars pass safely.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  Nothing against letting cars pass safely. Just think that demanding bikes let you invade their safety buffer isn’t how you perform a safe pass.
lelanthran 4y ago
> Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users? I assure you almost all car drivers get annoyed by slow-moving[1] obstacles in their path, whether car, camel or bike. Why on earth would you think that someone would not get annoyed? [1] Depending on how slow the obstacle is moving, the annoyance can range from muttering-under-the-breath to honking in disbelief at the inconsideration shown by the obstacle. When you see a line cars all slowing following some obstacle for a large amount of time, it's unreasonable to expect that the drivers won't be annoyed. When you're on your bike, wouldn't you be annoyed at slowing to less than 10% of your speed for the duration of your journey because of a slower-moving obstacle?
- avianlyric 4y ago
  > I assure you almost all car drivers get annoyed by slow-moving[1] obstacles in their path, whether car, camel or bike. > > Why on earth would you think that someone would not get annoyed? Oh I’m so sorry. Clearly driver annoyance is far more important than avoiding cycle and pedestrian, death and injury. Please go right ahead, intimidate and mow those slow moving obstacles. Prehaps driver should take some time to realise that cyclist don’t like holding up traffic either, they don’t do it for finishes, they do it because the lack to cycle infrastructure means they have no other options. Don’t want bike slowing down car traffic, build dedicated infrastructure for them so they don’t have to share the same space as cars. Everybody wins, cyclists don’t need to worry about being hit by cars, car don’t have to get stuck behind bikes.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > Oh I’m so sorry. Clearly driver annoyance is far more important than avoiding cycle and pedestrian, death and injury. Please go right ahead, intimidate and mow those slow moving obstacles. That wasn't the point I made. People get annoyed by obstacles; it's a people reaction, not a car-driver reaction. Are you seriously saying that cyclists won't be annoyed if they were forced to share their route with much slower moving obstacles?
    - avianlyric 4y ago
      How does annoyance justify not allowing cyclist to use the road safely? > Are you seriously saying that cyclists won't be annoyed if they were forced to share their route with much slower moving obstacles? I'm sure they would. But it's much harder to kill a person with a bike during a road rage incident, than it is to kill a person with a car. That's the fundamental difference here, cyclist annoyance has never led to pedestrian death, can you honestly say the same is true of car drivers?
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        > How does annoyance justify not allowing cyclist to use the road safely? I'm not justifying "not allowing cyclist to use the road safely", I'm pointing out that people don't like obstacles. It's not specific to cyclists like you make it seem, and not specific to car drivers like you make it seem. It's unreasonable to expect that people not be people.
wolrah 4y ago
> Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users? Look in the manual for your car (or pick a random one on the internet and download it). If the headlight stalk has a momentary mode there's a good chance it's literally referred to as "flash-to-pass". It's not aggressive, it's how to communicate a desire/intent to pass to slower traffic. To your specific question, have you ever seen a line of cars behind a tractor or school bus on a rural road? Or an octogenarian doing 48 MPH on a highway? How about bicyclists on a path shared with pedestrians? Funny that, cyclists often have the same problems with pedestrians as drivers have with cyclists. Heck, I'd bet joggers have conflicts with walkers. It's not about the bicycle, it's about slow traffic blocking fast traffic. Slow traffic that is blocking fast traffic on a shared path should attempt to enable safe passing, for everyone's benefit. Sometimes, especially in hilly/mountainous areas, this involves actually pulling over and stopping because there's not enough room to allow for safe passing in motion. It's not unheard of for such roads to have pull-off areas specifically for this purpose. It's courteous and it makes everyone's day better.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  > Look in the manual for your car (or pick a random one on the internet and download it). If the headlight stalk has a momentary mode there's a good chance it's literally referred to as "flash-to-pass". It's not aggressive, it's how to communicate a desire/intent to pass to slower traffic. This is clearly a cultural thing. It doesn't exist where I live, there's no such thing a flash-to-pass, and would actually be illegal to perform here. > How about bicyclists on a path shared with pedestrians? Funny that, cyclists often have the same problems with pedestrians as drivers have with cyclists. Heck, I'd bet joggers have conflicts with walkers. I strongly believe that cyclist sharing space with pedestrians need to be patient, slow down and give pedestrians plenty of space. I also believe that cyclist that don't should be vilified. However a big difference between car vs bike and bike vs pedestrian is that car vs bike = dead cyclist, bike vs pedestrian = injured pedestrian and cyclist. Cyclist kill between 0 to 2 pedestrian a year in the US, cars kill over 7000 pedestrians and around 1000 cyclists every year in the US. Cyclist's aren't perfect, but they're 4000x less dangerous than car drivers. > Slow traffic that is blocking fast traffic on a shared path should attempt to enable safe passing, for everyone's benefit. Sometimes, especially in hilly/mountainous areas, this involves actually pulling over and stopping because there's not enough room to allow for safe passing in motion. It's not unheard of for such roads to have pull-off areas specifically for this purpose. It's courteous and it makes everyone's day better. I agree it's courteous, and I certainly make an effort to do this. But the arrogance of drivers to demand that vulnerable road users make way for them, and failure to make space is a licence for drivers to injure and kill vulnerable road users is beyond comprehension.

nojs 4y ago

You’re missing the major point that bikes go much slower than cars, so it makes sense for traffic flow to let cars pass safely.

avianlyric 4y ago
Nothing against letting cars pass safely. Just think that demanding bikes let you invade their safety buffer isn’t how you perform a safe pass.

lelanthran 4y ago

> Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users? I assure you almost all car drivers get annoyed by slow-moving[1] obstacles in their path, whether car, camel or bike. Why on earth would you think that someone would not get annoyed? [1] Depending on how slow the obstacle is moving, the annoyance can range from muttering-under-the-breath to honking in disbelief at the inconsideration shown by the obstacle. When you see a line cars all slowing following some obstacle for a large amount of time, it's unreasonable to expect that the drivers won't be annoyed. When you're on your bike, wouldn't you be annoyed at slowing to less than 10% of your speed for the duration of your journey because of a slower-moving obstacle?

avianlyric 4y ago
> I assure you almost all car drivers get annoyed by slow-moving[1] obstacles in their path, whether car, camel or bike. > > Why on earth would you think that someone would not get annoyed? Oh I’m so sorry. Clearly driver annoyance is far more important than avoiding cycle and pedestrian, death and injury. Please go right ahead, intimidate and mow those slow moving obstacles. Prehaps driver should take some time to realise that cyclist don’t like holding up traffic either, they don’t do it for finishes, they do it because the lack to cycle infrastructure means they have no other options. Don’t want bike slowing down car traffic, build dedicated infrastructure for them so they don’t have to share the same space as cars. Everybody wins, cyclists don’t need to worry about being hit by cars, car don’t have to get stuck behind bikes.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > Oh I’m so sorry. Clearly driver annoyance is far more important than avoiding cycle and pedestrian, death and injury. Please go right ahead, intimidate and mow those slow moving obstacles. That wasn't the point I made. People get annoyed by obstacles; it's a people reaction, not a car-driver reaction. Are you seriously saying that cyclists won't be annoyed if they were forced to share their route with much slower moving obstacles?
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    How does annoyance justify not allowing cyclist to use the road safely? > Are you seriously saying that cyclists won't be annoyed if they were forced to share their route with much slower moving obstacles? I'm sure they would. But it's much harder to kill a person with a bike during a road rage incident, than it is to kill a person with a car. That's the fundamental difference here, cyclist annoyance has never led to pedestrian death, can you honestly say the same is true of car drivers?
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > How does annoyance justify not allowing cyclist to use the road safely? I'm not justifying "not allowing cyclist to use the road safely", I'm pointing out that people don't like obstacles. It's not specific to cyclists like you make it seem, and not specific to car drivers like you make it seem. It's unreasonable to expect that people not be people.

wolrah 4y ago

> Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users? Look in the manual for your car (or pick a random one on the internet and download it). If the headlight stalk has a momentary mode there's a good chance it's literally referred to as "flash-to-pass". It's not aggressive, it's how to communicate a desire/intent to pass to slower traffic. To your specific question, have you ever seen a line of cars behind a tractor or school bus on a rural road? Or an octogenarian doing 48 MPH on a highway? How about bicyclists on a path shared with pedestrians? Funny that, cyclists often have the same problems with pedestrians as drivers have with cyclists. Heck, I'd bet joggers have conflicts with walkers. It's not about the bicycle, it's about slow traffic blocking fast traffic. Slow traffic that is blocking fast traffic on a shared path should attempt to enable safe passing, for everyone's benefit. Sometimes, especially in hilly/mountainous areas, this involves actually pulling over and stopping because there's not enough room to allow for safe passing in motion. It's not unheard of for such roads to have pull-off areas specifically for this purpose. It's courteous and it makes everyone's day better.

avianlyric 4y ago
> Look in the manual for your car (or pick a random one on the internet and download it). If the headlight stalk has a momentary mode there's a good chance it's literally referred to as "flash-to-pass". It's not aggressive, it's how to communicate a desire/intent to pass to slower traffic. This is clearly a cultural thing. It doesn't exist where I live, there's no such thing a flash-to-pass, and would actually be illegal to perform here. > How about bicyclists on a path shared with pedestrians? Funny that, cyclists often have the same problems with pedestrians as drivers have with cyclists. Heck, I'd bet joggers have conflicts with walkers. I strongly believe that cyclist sharing space with pedestrians need to be patient, slow down and give pedestrians plenty of space. I also believe that cyclist that don't should be vilified. However a big difference between car vs bike and bike vs pedestrian is that car vs bike = dead cyclist, bike vs pedestrian = injured pedestrian and cyclist. Cyclist kill between 0 to 2 pedestrian a year in the US, cars kill over 7000 pedestrians and around 1000 cyclists every year in the US. Cyclist's aren't perfect, but they're 4000x less dangerous than car drivers. > Slow traffic that is blocking fast traffic on a shared path should attempt to enable safe passing, for everyone's benefit. Sometimes, especially in hilly/mountainous areas, this involves actually pulling over and stopping because there's not enough room to allow for safe passing in motion. It's not unheard of for such roads to have pull-off areas specifically for this purpose. It's courteous and it makes everyone's day better. I agree it's courteous, and I certainly make an effort to do this. But the arrogance of drivers to demand that vulnerable road users make way for them, and failure to make space is a licence for drivers to injure and kill vulnerable road users is beyond comprehension.