4 ms·

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 tr

by 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).
- 001sky 13y ago
  Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. Intentionally slowing down and blocking traffic is an offense. If you are impeding the free flow of traffic, you may need to pull over. Where this is not possible, then its a different situation (ie, no shoulder or other hazard). But as a general rule, these are also places you should avoid ex-ante if you know will you will be obstructing traffic with reasonable foresight. That might be a devil's advocate stance, but its not without merit. It amazes me how much arrogance and lack of street smarts many cyclists have (at least on the internet). I bike in urban areas and in rural ones. But people who are jerks <cause> accidents at a disproportionate rate. And its not just the drivers. On the flip side, cars and suvs are driving faster and more dangerous (as they are larger) than years ago. That's a real problem. But a different issue. IMHO.
- kotakota 13y ago
  The cyclist should pull over and wait until the road is clear or ride in roads with lower speed limits and less traffic. The cyclist is the one impending traffic and therefore should be the one to be inconvenienced. Also the cyclist is the one who endangered their own life by deciding to ride in the street with cars. Even though cyclists have the right to be on the road they are still expected to fallow the traffic laws including signaling turns, stopping at stop signs and lights, and not impeding traffic flow. If they fallowed the laws they wouldn't be in danger. The vast majority of bicycle/vehicle accidents happen at intersections where surprise surprise cyclists very rarely fallow the law.
  - revelation 13y ago
    Are we now in magic land? Whats up with you and the other commentators in the immediate vicinity making up laws like "impeding traffic flow"? If you dead stop and block a lane, you are breaking the law. And I see it plenty of times every day with delivery drivers, who also treat cycle paths as extended parking spaces. Not riding the speed limit is simply not breaking a "traffic law", and I can not the imagine the state of delusion you have to be in to think it is.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - kotakota 13y ago
      Impeding traffic flow is a law in most states and counties and is frequently referenced in accident trials definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeding-traffic/ You should probably at least google something before you immediately claim its made up. Oh but wait that would be using common sense
  - collyw 13y ago
    I cycle around the city in Barcelona, where the drivers are often arseholes. In a dense city like Barcelona, the traffic doesn't go so fast, and I can usually keep up with most cars, except when accelerating from lights. That doesn't matter. If a car is behind, me they seem to think they have a right to drive too close and honk their horn at me to tell me to get out of the road, even though they will be stuck behind the car that is 20 meters ahead of me.

by FreakyT 13y ago

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).
001sky 13y ago
Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. Intentionally slowing down and blocking traffic is an offense. If you are impeding the free flow of traffic, you may need to pull over. Where this is not possible, then its a different situation (ie, no shoulder or other hazard). But as a general rule, these are also places you should avoid ex-ante if you know will you will be obstructing traffic with reasonable foresight. That might be a devil's advocate stance, but its not without merit. It amazes me how much arrogance and lack of street smarts many cyclists have (at least on the internet). I bike in urban areas and in rural ones. But people who are jerks <cause> accidents at a disproportionate rate. And its not just the drivers. On the flip side, cars and suvs are driving faster and more dangerous (as they are larger) than years ago. That's a real problem. But a different issue. IMHO.
kotakota 13y ago
The cyclist should pull over and wait until the road is clear or ride in roads with lower speed limits and less traffic. The cyclist is the one impending traffic and therefore should be the one to be inconvenienced. Also the cyclist is the one who endangered their own life by deciding to ride in the street with cars. Even though cyclists have the right to be on the road they are still expected to fallow the traffic laws including signaling turns, stopping at stop signs and lights, and not impeding traffic flow. If they fallowed the laws they wouldn't be in danger. The vast majority of bicycle/vehicle accidents happen at intersections where surprise surprise cyclists very rarely fallow the law.
- revelation 13y ago
  Are we now in magic land? Whats up with you and the other commentators in the immediate vicinity making up laws like "impeding traffic flow"? If you dead stop and block a lane, you are breaking the law. And I see it plenty of times every day with delivery drivers, who also treat cycle paths as extended parking spaces. Not riding the speed limit is simply not breaking a "traffic law", and I can not the imagine the state of delusion you have to be in to think it is.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - kotakota 13y ago
    Impeding traffic flow is a law in most states and counties and is frequently referenced in accident trials definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeding-traffic/ You should probably at least google something before you immediately claim its made up. Oh but wait that would be using common sense
- collyw 13y ago
  I cycle around the city in Barcelona, where the drivers are often arseholes. In a dense city like Barcelona, the traffic doesn't go so fast, and I can usually keep up with most cars, except when accelerating from lights. That doesn't matter. If a car is behind, me they seem to think they have a right to drive too close and honk their horn at me to tell me to get out of the road, even though they will be stuck behind the car that is 20 meters ahead of me.