5 ms·

There's no legitimate reason to hate on any other mode of transportation. Unless you're on an interstate or other highway that specifically forbids certain vehi

by imgabe 4y ago

There's no legitimate reason to hate on any other mode of transportation. Unless you're on an interstate or other highway that specifically forbids certain vehicles or has a minimum speed, everyone else has the same right to use the road you do.

eptcyka 4y ago
Generally yes, but, especially in California, people often forget that it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic, regardless of the type of slower vehicle. EDIT: Yield here is a misnomer, what I mean to convey is that slower moving traffic by law is supposed to pass faster moving traffic if it's possible to do so safely, and this is a feat that I rarely see take place, be it with cyclists or drivers.
- andrewshadura 4y ago
  No? It absolutely isn't, why would you even think so?
- watwut 4y ago
  Do you have driving license?
- ajuc 4y ago
  > it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic WTF is wrong with you in America? When a bike goes on the pavement it's the bike that has to yield. When a pedestrian or a bike goes on a road - it's the cars that have to yield (usually, there's exceptions).
  - eptcyka 4y ago
    I was referring to traffic on roads, not sidewalks. Slower vehichles on the road have to yield to faster vehichles in so far that they have to let them pass.
    - ajuc 4y ago
      No they don't. Do you drive? Cause if so - you're a threat to other people... When a pedestrian crosses a street - cars and bikes have to stop for example. When a bike and a car meet on an intersection of equal roads with no lights or signs - whoever is on the left has to yield, no matter what their speed is. When signs or lights show who has to yield - it also doesn't matter if you drive a car/bike or walk. I can't think of a single instance where the law says you should yield just because you're slower. And if law doesn't say who should yield - it's customary to let the slower/more vulnerable to go first.
      - eptcyka 4y ago
        Pedestrians are not vehichles. I am specifically referring to a situation where there's traffic going one way on a road and slower vehicles are impeding on traffic behind them - in this case it's the responsibility of the slower vehicle to let the faster traffic pass in a safe manner. Seems like I've worded myself poorly here given that people are clearly misunderstanding me. Yes, at intersections, as a driver, I will let bicycles and pedestrians cross first if there's a stop sign or the traffic is moving slowly. However, when I'm driving my Prius on the highway and I don't feel like doing 15 MPH over the speed limit, I will move over and let the soccer mom pass. 30 minutes later when on a mountain road, I expect the soccer mom and the cycling enthusiasts to do the same.
        ralferoo 4y ago
        > 30 minutes later when on a mountain road, I expect the soccer mom and the cycling enthusiasts to do the same. I have a feeling that you'll end up killing someone on one of these mountain roads with that attitude. You wait behind them until you're on a clear stretch of straight road, and then overtake. If you don't have a clear stretch of road, you continue to wait behind them. Anything else, and you're putting either the cyclist in danger, or yourself and the oncoming traffic in danger.
        eptcyka 4y ago
        What specifically about that statement implies that I have an attitude that tends towards being dangerous on the road? I'm not saying that I'll be driving at inappropriate speeds or trying to tail-gate other cars or god-forbid cyclists on mountain roads. I prefer to keep my distance, especially around cyclists. All I'm saying is that it'd be nice if the slower traffic in front would actively let the faster traffic pass, using the turnouts or whatever they're called to stop and let others pass.
  - throwaway517492 4y ago
    It's not just an American thing. "6. Drivers must not drive at such a low speed that they constitute an obstruction or danger to the normal flow of traffic." [machine translated] https://www.aci.it/i-servizi/normative/codice-della-strada/titolo-v-norme-di-comportamento/art-141-velocita.html https://www.aci.it/i-servizi/normative/codice-della-strada/t...
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    No. Traffic is supposed to flow. A vehicle that's moving too slowly is an obstacle on the road. There is such a thing as a minimum speed and cyclists violate that every single day.
    - ajuc 4y ago
      > There is such a thing as a minimum speed and cyclists violate that every single day. On every road where minimum speed is introduced bikes are banned anyway. At least in my country. It's just motorways and expressways. Every other road does not have minimum speed and bikes can go as slow as they wish. Anything else would be discriminatory towards less fit people.

by imgabe 4y ago

eptcyka 4y ago

Generally yes, but, especially in California, people often forget that it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic, regardless of the type of slower vehicle. EDIT: Yield here is a misnomer, what I mean to convey is that slower moving traffic by law is supposed to pass faster moving traffic if it's possible to do so safely, and this is a feat that I rarely see take place, be it with cyclists or drivers.

andrewshadura 4y ago
No? It absolutely isn't, why would you even think so?
watwut 4y ago
Do you have driving license?
ajuc 4y ago
> it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic WTF is wrong with you in America? When a bike goes on the pavement it's the bike that has to yield. When a pedestrian or a bike goes on a road - it's the cars that have to yield (usually, there's exceptions).
- eptcyka 4y ago
  I was referring to traffic on roads, not sidewalks. Slower vehichles on the road have to yield to faster vehichles in so far that they have to let them pass.
  - ajuc 4y ago
    No they don't. Do you drive? Cause if so - you're a threat to other people... When a pedestrian crosses a street - cars and bikes have to stop for example. When a bike and a car meet on an intersection of equal roads with no lights or signs - whoever is on the left has to yield, no matter what their speed is. When signs or lights show who has to yield - it also doesn't matter if you drive a car/bike or walk. I can't think of a single instance where the law says you should yield just because you're slower. And if law doesn't say who should yield - it's customary to let the slower/more vulnerable to go first.
    - eptcyka 4y ago
      Pedestrians are not vehichles. I am specifically referring to a situation where there's traffic going one way on a road and slower vehicles are impeding on traffic behind them - in this case it's the responsibility of the slower vehicle to let the faster traffic pass in a safe manner. Seems like I've worded myself poorly here given that people are clearly misunderstanding me. Yes, at intersections, as a driver, I will let bicycles and pedestrians cross first if there's a stop sign or the traffic is moving slowly. However, when I'm driving my Prius on the highway and I don't feel like doing 15 MPH over the speed limit, I will move over and let the soccer mom pass. 30 minutes later when on a mountain road, I expect the soccer mom and the cycling enthusiasts to do the same.
      - ralferoo 4y ago
        > 30 minutes later when on a mountain road, I expect the soccer mom and the cycling enthusiasts to do the same. I have a feeling that you'll end up killing someone on one of these mountain roads with that attitude. You wait behind them until you're on a clear stretch of straight road, and then overtake. If you don't have a clear stretch of road, you continue to wait behind them. Anything else, and you're putting either the cyclist in danger, or yourself and the oncoming traffic in danger.
        eptcyka 4y ago
        What specifically about that statement implies that I have an attitude that tends towards being dangerous on the road? I'm not saying that I'll be driving at inappropriate speeds or trying to tail-gate other cars or god-forbid cyclists on mountain roads. I prefer to keep my distance, especially around cyclists. All I'm saying is that it'd be nice if the slower traffic in front would actively let the faster traffic pass, using the turnouts or whatever they're called to stop and let others pass.
- throwaway517492 4y ago
  It's not just an American thing. "6. Drivers must not drive at such a low speed that they constitute an obstruction or danger to the normal flow of traffic." [machine translated] https://www.aci.it/i-servizi/normative/codice-della-strada/titolo-v-norme-di-comportamento/art-141-velocita.html https://www.aci.it/i-servizi/normative/codice-della-strada/t...
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  No. Traffic is supposed to flow. A vehicle that's moving too slowly is an obstacle on the road. There is such a thing as a minimum speed and cyclists violate that every single day.
  - ajuc 4y ago
    > There is such a thing as a minimum speed and cyclists violate that every single day. On every road where minimum speed is introduced bikes are banned anyway. At least in my country. It's just motorways and expressways. Every other road does not have minimum speed and bikes can go as slow as they wish. Anything else would be discriminatory towards less fit people.