4 ms·

You've answered your own question. Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding ha

• hetman 13y ago
  Because the bike paths are unsafe. Frankly cyclists usually annoy me, but he's following the law, and probably better than most of the self entitled idiots in cars who get by with the VERY minimum of safety awareness on the road.
• kyledrake 13y ago
  FreakyT, if I ever see you in the street, I'm going to run you over for getting in my way. And it will be called an accident. I do not understand why it is so hard for people to understand this problem, but I've given up hope ever describing it in Internet comments. In the interim, if you ever want to get away with murder, use a car.
  • FreakyT 13y ago
    That'll teach me a lesson! Seriously though, he said that he was getting run over, he said he was being passed by in a dangerously close way. Have you ever tried to pass a cyclist on a two-lane road without a shoulder? You'll find it's extremely difficult.
    • kyledrake 13y ago
      Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. What could you possibly be doing that is more important than endangering someone's life? Do you understand that the cyclist has a legal right to be there, and that the reason for that legal right is safety?
      • TruthElixirX 13y ago
        What could the cyclist be doing that is more important than getting off of the road and letting traffic go around them instead of holding it up?
      • Brakenshire 13y ago
        > Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. I agree with your point, but to be fair, you could make a similar point about cyclists pulling over to let traffic pass. There are cases where overtaking is difficult for long distances, and in practice it's not realistic for a car to go at 10-15 mph behind a bike for miles at a time. For one thing, you risk drivers behind trying to overtake multiple vehicles at once. There has to be some sort of accommodation, at least in that limited case where passing is difficult, and cyclists moving slower than the flow of traffic. Although clearly that doesn't legitimize risking someone's life. Edit: Added second paragraph.
        • revelation 13y ago
          The accommodation is called the lane to your left. Switch over and pass me, just as you would a slower motorcycle or lorry. That said, noone guaranteed you could drive the speed limit. You will be surprised what is possible in practice if your considerations don't include to blatantly disregard other peoples safety.
          • Brakenshire 13y ago
            I don't drive fwiw, and I'm very much in favour of cycling, but there are roads near me which are fundamentally ill-suited to mixing cars and cyclists. In those circumstances, cyclists should adjust just as motorists should.
          • simcop2387 13y ago
            The problem with 'the lane to the left' is that there are frequently two lane roads where doing so is illegal because of the double yellow line. I used to see that frequently on some country roads that people would bicycle on, and going into the other lane is really not an option (saw several accidents where two cars hit each other because there was a cyclist). In those cases the cyclist is also blatantly disregarding others and their own safety, which is why every single one of those accidents the cyclist was getting a ticket because it was also illegal to cycle on the roads (they had a speed limit >35mph). Things are definitely far more difficult to balance, simply because there are also many places where the road conditions don't allow a cyclist to exist safely (no shoulder, high speed limit, and less than 300ft visibility).
  • dumbasskyle 13y ago
    Thank you for making it safer for cyclists. You must now be very, very careful for the rest of your life so as not to injure or kill a cyclist because of your post.
• Joeboy 13y ago
  > Why would people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane? Perhaps people could recognize that the existence of a cycle lane does not necessarily mean that it's safe or even physically possible to cycle within its boundaries.
  • busterarm 13y ago
    Given how many cops and taxis park in bike lanes and how many cars use bike lanes as turning lanes, yes, emphatically this.
• jackmaney 13y ago
  +1. +1,000,000 if I could.
• SethMurphy 13y ago
  In NYC, where the legal speed limit is 30mph and traffic is usually slower a bike taking up the whole lane does nothing to slow the overall traffic flow. If a bike can keep up the minimum speed for traffic they deserve the same piece of the road a car has, just like a motorcycle or scooter. I agree it is almost always safer to be in the normal flow of traffic than on the fringe of the bike lane (in NYC at least).