4 ms·

You do realise the two things you are suggesting are contrary? How is the driver giving the cyclist space if they expect the cyclist to move out of their way?

• scombridae 4y ago
  no effect on their life. Nearly everything we do has no near- or long-term effect. I'm a bicyclist, but also an organism whose time-distance feedback loop is jarred by a sudden obstructionist anomaly.
  • enneff 4y ago
    Yes I can see how the existence of other beings may be inconvenient to you.
• kazinator 4y ago
  > How is the driver giving the cyclist space if they expect the cyclist to move out of their way? That's like asking, how is a motorist giving another motorist space, if he expects a motorist moving at 8 mph to pull over? The faster motorist expects the slower one just to give up a portion of the space, for just a couple of seconds, to let them pass. Afterward, the slower one can have that space all to themselves until the cows come home, right? "I need it for 3 seconds to get by; you can have it all day" is more than reasonable. I don't understand where you're coming from. What if the cyclist comes to a complete halt and just stands there with the bike? Gee, how are you giving them space if you expect them to just stand off to the side and let other road users pass?
  • jeffbee 4y ago
    Drivers who are impatient toward cyclists are mostly taking out the frustrations caused by other cars on a visibly weaker and vulnerable road user. You wonder what would happen if a cyclist stopped in the middle of the lane? Car drivers do this all the time and they call it "double parking". Parked and double-parked cars use the majority of the road space and then drivers act like it's the cyclists who are delaying them. Fact is no cyclist has ever considered stopping needlessly in the middle of a lane. They do have places to go and a reasonable expectation of the enjoyment of the right-of-way in safety and comfort, however. Cyclists should and will operate at least 4 feet away from any parked cars, to avoid the "door zone". Drivers should anticipate this lane position from all cyclists, and should respond by staying a respectful distance behind the cyclist, chilling the fuck out, and passing if and only if a safe and legal opportunity presents itself. Any other expectation is just drivers being entitled pricks.
  • enneff 4y ago
    If a cyclist has to yield to every passing car, then in any busy area (where most people travel) the cyclist effectively always has to be off to the side, which is not safe. If the cyclist is not occupying an actual lane to themselves then they are constantly being passed too close by fast moving vehicles, and in danger of running into the suddenly-opening doors of parked cars or surprise pedestrians. Seriously, if you go somewhere where drivers are respectful of cyclists you’ll see it’s just so easy for it all to work smoothly and safely. The impatience of drivers, at the expense of others safety, is astounding to me. Also it should be noted that motorists give each other space for selfish reasons; they may damage their car or themselves if they collide with another car. If they hit a cyclist chances are they’ll kill or permanently maim the cyclist, but do little damage to their car, and so they have little reason to care. (!!!!!!)
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • kazinator 4y ago
      If you can't move at or above the posted speed limit, let others pass. It's as simple as that. You're not entitled to impede others. All users of the road are entitled to move at the speed limit, when there there is no problem ahead such as an accident, congestion, obstruction or construction. If you're not yourself impeded by such a predicament, and have an open road in front of you, you have no right to arbitrarily impede those behind you. It is simply rude. Don't go down roads where it's impossible to pass you, unless you can do the speed limit there. Don't go down roads where there are parked cars, but only a small clearance between parked cars and traffic moving faster than you. Or any analogous situation: like small clearance between a concrete wall and traffic or whatever. Find roads where there aren't parked cars, or else where there is a generous space between the parking strip and traffic, so that you can avoid doors, and there is room to pass you. Where I live, many of the larger streets that have two lanes in each direction, and a solid car's width between parked cars and traffic. Someone opening a small door will not door you, and you have time to avoid a large door being swung fully open. You can also find roads where there is simply not much traffic, so you can have them all to yourself most of the time. Drivers are not supposed to approach you closely when they pass; that's against the traffic code where I live, and likely in most places. A cyclist or motorcyclist must be passed as if they had an invisible car around them, so to speak. However, by straying farther into the lane, you're encouraging a reduction of the space between you and and the car that passes you anyway, which is counterproductive. Parked cars are a menace, no doubt. In some countries, they don't allow street parking in cities. To register a car, you must prove that you have some place off the street to stash it when you're not driving it. North American cities should follow suit. > little damage to their car, and so they have little reason to care You're simply a lunatic with this remark. Most drivers are normal people, not psychopaths, and are absolutely terrified of the idea of injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist. That's still true even if some of their behaviors need improvement.