Support NeoGAF

[nVidiot_Whore]

Most states have minimal speed rules. I know mine has, check if yours does too:
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30100/30132/810826.pdf

Gawd, I'm so tired of your ignorant posts.

in summary: fuck cyclists who cause dangerous situations on the road and cause either accidents or pileups by taking up an entire lane. xxxracerxxx, I appreciate that you do not try to take up the entire lane.

He was saying that cars are required to go a certain speed.

He has to admit it because to not admit it would be a lie.

So instead he came up with some explanation having to do with brake lights. It's called intellectual dishonesty.

Cars are required and expected to go a certain speed for safety and practicality reasons. It is unsafe to introduce vehicles moving at dramatically slower speeds into traffic that is moving at a higher speed.

THAT is why cars are not allowed to drive around at 5mph or 10mph on a 30-40mph road. To admit it would be to admit to himself why people are so annoyed at bicycles.. and actually have a pretty logical reason to be annoyed. It's extremely impractical and unsafe.

 

[xxracerxx]

The point is, roads ARE designed with a certain speed of traffic flow in mind. You're slowing us down and causing pile-ups. Fuck you.

The bicyclist is the catalyst for that action. Just like if a deer or a drunk person ran into the middle of the road, a car driver's reaction would naturally be to swerve to avoid them. Except the bicyclist aren't drunk or an animals, they have full sentience of what they're doing, they're just entitled assholes.

Where do you live? I find that this is one of the most important questions when arguing this topic.

 

[agrajag]

He was saying that cars are required to go a certain speed.

He has to admit it because to not admit it would be a lie.

So instead he came up with some explanation having to do with brake lights. It's called intellectual dishonesty.

Cars are required and expected to go a certain speed for safety and practicality reasons. It is unsafe to introduce vehicles moving at dramatically slower speeds into traffic that is moving at a higher speed.

THAT is why cars are not allowed to drive around at 5mph or 10mph on a 30-40mph road. To admit it would be to admit to himself why people are so annoyed at bicycles.. and actually have a pretty logical reason to be annoyed. It's extremely impractical and unsafe.

Yeah, it's dumb that cars can't drive around at 5mph, but cyclist that take up an entire lane can. But people here live and die by teh law as if laws aren't human constructs that aren't infallible.

Where do you live? I find that this is one of the most important questions when arguing this topic.

Most of my commutes are in Miami. (yes, I know we have shitty drivers, no need to remind me)

 

[The Faceless Master]

So the Tour De France is like N****s in Paris?

toothpaste EVERYWHERE!!!

this is what happens when you read GAF while brushing your teeth...

 

[NawidA]

I'm looking at the minimum speed rule and I only see it regarding cars.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

The bicyclist is the catalyst for that action. Just like if a deer or a drunk person ran into the middle of the road, a car driver's reaction would naturally be to swerve to avoid them. Except the bicyclist aren't drunk or an animals, they have full sentience of what they're doing, they're just entitled assholes.

You're telling everyone to not ride a bike in the street as legally allowed because they get in your way and inconvenience you, but they're the entitled assholes.

 

[tapedeck]

So the Tour De France is like N****s in Paris?

I dont care how late I am, I must quote this.

Well done.

 

[agrajag]

I'm looking at the minimum speed rule and I only see it regarding cars.

Right. It would be dumb if there was a rule that expected cyclists to keep up with the flow of traffic, they can't go that fast! The point is that cars are expected to go a certain speed, and slower vehicles on the road cause pile ups. Be off to the side so people can pass you safely, don't take up way more space than your tiny little bike needs.

You're telling everyone to not ride a bike in the street as legally allowed because they get in your way and inconvenience you, but they're the entitled assholes.

My plight is for all motorists, not just myself.

 

[xxracerxx]

Most of my commutes are in Miami. (yes, I know we have shitty drivers, no need to remind me)

Well if you want cyclists out of your way, it is time for you to go down to city hall meetings and demand better bicycle infrastructure.

Going to Google Maps and Miami, FL and clicking on the Bicycling map layer, there is no other real option for cyclists to get off the road as your cities bicycle infrastructure sucks.

 

[NawidA]

Right. It would be dumb if there was a rule that expected cyclists to keep up with the flow of traffic, they can't go that fast! The point is that cars are expected to go a certain speed, and slower vehicles on the road cause pile ups. Be off to the side so people can pass you safely, don't take up way more space than your tiny little bike needs.

But that can horribly unsafe and safety overrides everything.

 

[arab]

you guys are idiots. biking isn't simply a hobby or exercise. above all, it is mobility. just because you wanna drive your 4x4 chugging fries and eating dicks whilst someone else decides to make the ecological and economical decision doesn't give you the right to hit them or degrade their lifestyle.

oh and this wired editor is about to be jobless.

 

[Jobiensis]

People get pissed off that you are blocking their way when you are exceeding the speed limit. I think some cyclists take 'take the lane' a bit too far, but any one saying they should ride on the sidewalk is ignorant.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Right. It would be dumb if there was a rule that expected cyclists to keep up with the flow of traffic, they can't go that fast! The point is that cars are expected to go a certain speed, and slower vehicles on the road cause pile ups. Be off to the side so people can pass you safely, don't take up way more space than your tiny little bike needs.

With your arguments, you're not allowed to use the word "safely." At what point does the bike rider's safety matter to you? They ride further from the right to protect themselves from being doored, buzzed, or right hooked. You are literally asking people to put themselves in much greater danger just so you can have a more convenient commute.

 

[agrajag]

Well if you want cyclists out of your way, it is time for you to go down to city hall meetings and demand better bicycle infrastructure.

Going to Google Maps and Miami, FL and clicking on the Bicycling map layer, there is no other real option for cyclists to get off the road as your cities bicycle infrastructure sucks.

The sidewalks are a perfectly viable option. They're empty most of the time, as barely anyone walks on foot. You're going to throw laws in my face, but don't talk about danger, because it's in no way more dangerous to ride on an empty sidewalk.

 

[Htown]

So the Tour De France is like N****s in Paris?

DAYUM

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

it's in no way more dangerous to ride on an empty sidewalk.

Yes it is. Intersections.

 

[Big-E]

Rumblings that there is a push to ban bicycles from roads when there are designated bike routes nearby in Vancouver. This should be common sense but sadly is not but I doubt this will happen.

 

[NawidA]

The sidewalks are a perfectly viable option. They're empty most of the time, as barely anyone walks on foot. You're going to throw laws in my face, but don't talk about danger, because it's in no way more dangerous to ride on an empty sidewalk.

Alright, first of all that is illegal in many places. Second, that is unsafe.

 

[Jobiensis]

The sidewalks are a perfectly viable option. They're empty most of the time, as barely anyone walks on foot. You're going to throw laws in my face, but don't talk about danger, because it's in no way more dangerous to ride on an empty sidewalk.

Cycling on the sidewalk is a good way to get hooked and when you do it'll be your fault.

 

[iamblades]

It is clearly the wrong venue(which is a problem with modern social networking where the work and private lives can get mixed up rather easily) and is a clearly hyperbolic argument, but there is no reason to freak out just because someone used a word you don't like.

Even if you didn't have the knowledge of the prior usage he was referencing, it should be clear from context that his statement wasn't intended to be racist if you actually read the tweet instead of just knee-jerking as soon as you saw the word.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

All of agrajag's arguments could be dispelled if he'd actually try these things he suggests. He clearly has little or no experience with what he is lecturing everyone about.

Laws and behavior aren't arbitrary. People do things and laws forbid things for good reasons.

 

[xxracerxx]

The sidewalks are a perfectly viable option. They're empty most of the time, as barely anyone walks on foot. You're going to throw laws in my face, but don't talk about danger, because it's in no way more dangerous to ride on an empty sidewalk.

Are you as a driver looking for a cyclist on a sidewalk when turning right? Riding in the road is just safer for a biker than it is too ride on a sidewalk.

Rumblings that there is a push to ban bicycles from roads when there are designated bike routes nearby in Vancouver. This should be common sense but sadly is not but I doubt this will happen.

So I would have to walk my bike to get anywhere that there wasn't a designated bike lane? That is ridiculous.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

In my town they have designated bike lanes on the roads.

 

[7threst]

Cycling on sidewalks is one of the dumbest and most unsafe things to do. And it is probably not allowed in most countries for that exact same reason...

 

[agrajag]

Of course I'm looking for cyclists as well as pedestrians when making a right turn, as I should be. I don't drive with a blindfold on. You make it sound like bikers throw caution to the wind and just blaze through intersections like some sort of automatons too. Why not come to a stop, see if the road is clear and keep going? Why not use pedestrian crosswalks to cross intersections? Pedestrians get ticketed for jaywalking, cyclist should get ticketed for jayriding.

 

[Metrotab]

Seemed to me like he was trying to create an analogy between the treatment of cyclists on the road and the historical treatment of black people. Incredibly stupid to use that word? Sure, even as a Lennon reference. Very overreaching analogy, potentially offensive? Ayup.

But I can't see the racism other people apparently see in that tweet, unless you took it as an offensive statement towards cyclists, which doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[captainnapalm]

This might have been ok in the 90s. Most people would have a) gotten the reference and b) seen it in the proper context. Nowadays people just see the N word.

 

[thetechkid]

Of course I'm looking for cyclists as well as pedestrians when making a right turn, as I should be. I don't drive with a blindfold on. You make it sound like bikers throw caution to the wind and just blaze through intersections like some sort of automatons too. Why not come to a stop, see if the road is clear and keep going? Why not use pedestrian crosswalks to cross intersections? Pedestrians get ticketed for jaywalking, cyclist should get ticketed for jayriding.

Why are you posting stuff?

 

[ch0mp]

The sidewalks are a perfectly viable option. They're empty most of the time, as barely anyone walks on foot. You're going to throw laws in my face, but don't talk about danger, because it's in no way more dangerous to ride on an empty sidewalk.

You should try riding on the footpath at 30kmh, see how safe it is.

 

[7threst]

In my town they have designated bike lanes on the roads.

Yes, they have that here too. in fact, the whole infrastructire of this country (Netherlands) is designed with bikes in mind too.

 

[Chris R]

Of course I'm looking for cyclists as well as pedestrians when making a right turn, as I should be. I don't drive with a blindfold on. You make it sound like bikers throw caution to the wind and just blaze through intersections like some sort of automatons too. Why not come to a stop, see if the road is clear and keep going? Why not use pedestrian crosswalks to cross intersections? Pedestrians get ticketed for jaywalking, cyclist should get ticketed for jayriding.

It isn't jayriding though if they have the right-of-way. If they aren't stopping at stop signs and blowing through red lights though go ahead and ticket them. I follow all road signs when I'm cycling, even though I try to stay off the road for the most part (90% of the "sidewalks" I ride on are bike paths recessed away from the road with a proper width to facilitate bikes and pedestrians thankfully).

 

[NawidA]

Of course I'm looking for cyclists as well as pedestrians when making a right turn, as I should be. I don't drive with a blindfold on. You make it sound like bikers throw caution to the wind and just blaze through intersections like some sort of automatons too. Why not come to a stop, see if the road is clear and keep going? Why not use pedestrian crosswalks to cross intersections? Pedestrians get ticketed for jaywalking, cyclist should get ticketed for jayriding.

This guy is unbelievable.

 

[Ken Masters]

so does this guy still have a job?

 

[agrajag]

It isn't jayriding though if they have the right-of-way. If they aren't stopping at stop signs and blowing through red lights though go ahead and ticket them. I follow all road signs when I'm cycling, even though I try to stay off the road for the most part (90% of the "sidewalks" I ride on are bike paths recessed away from the road with a proper width to facilitate bikes and pedestrians thankfully).

That's how most sidewalks are here as well. I don't see how the going through an intersection when a car is turning right any more of a dilemma than it is for a pedestrian. If you have right of way, go for it, the car will wait.

 

[xxracerxx]

Of course I'm looking for cyclists as well as pedestrians when making a right turn, as I should be. I don't drive with a blindfold on. You make it sound like bikers throw caution to the wind and just blaze through intersections like some sort of automatons too. Why not come to a stop, see if the road is clear and keep going? Why not use pedestrian crosswalks to cross intersections? Pedestrians get ticketed for jaywalking, cyclist should get ticketed for jayriding.

With everything you have been saying, I am just going to assume you have not ridden a bike since you were a young child.

This is exactly why the guy on Twitter was saying try it for 3 months and see how it feels (he said it in an awful way but the point still stands).

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

That's how most sidewalks are here as well. I don't see how the going through an intersection when a car is turning right any more of a dilemma than it is for a pedestrian.

Pedestrians can sidestep or jump back.

If you have right of way, go for it, the car will wait.

This is cute.

 

[Jobiensis]

If you have right of way, go for it, the car will wait.

Lolz, that must be why right and left hooks are so uncommon.

 

[agrajag]

With everything you have been saying, I am just going to assume you have not ridden a bike since you were a young child.

This is exactly why the guy on Twitter was saying try it for 3 months and see how it feels (he said it in an awful way but the point still stands).

Why would I, I have a damn car!

 

[xxracerxx]

Why would I, I have a damn car!

Because for one thing, biking is fun.

 

[AkuMifune]

Why would I, I have a damn car!

You mean it's not tempting to ride in the middle of the road at 25mph with all kinds of goofy protective equipment on fucking up traffic and acting like a self-entitled asshole?

You guys are fine really, just move your assess to the right please.

 

[xxracerxx]

You mean it's not tempting to ride in the middle of the road at 25mph with all kinds of goofy protective equipment on fucking up traffic and acting like a self-entitled asshole?

A single helmet is now considered "goofy protective equipment?"

And you speak like everyone rides in the middle of the road every opportunity they get.

 

[agrajag]

A single helmet is now considered "goofy protective equipment?"

And you speak like everyone rides in the middle of the road every opportunity they get.

I don't have to wear spandex shorts with crotch padding? If I wear regular shorts they might get snagged in the chain.

 

[NawidA]

You mean it's not tempting to ride in the middle of the road at 25mph with all kinds of goofy protective equipment on fucking up traffic and acting like a self-entitled asshole?

You guys are fine really, just move your assess to the right please.

Why would I, I have a damn car!

Seems like you guys don't really have any valid points besides "GET OFF MAH ROAD!".

 

[bill0527]

To me there is a difference between a bicyclist and a cyclist.

A bicyclist is somebody forced to ride to work with his backpack on while wearing his McDonalds uniform. That guy, yeah I'll cut him some slack for biking during rush hour.

A cyclist is the person in the hard hat, wearing his cycling shorts, out toning his thighs during rush hour. That guy, gets very little sympathy from me if he gets plowed. Yeah, it's perfectly legal for him to be out there, and as I said, there is no law against inconveniencing other people. And there's also not a law for being stupid because you've decided to hold up drive-time evening traffic instead if taking your ride somewhere a little less congested at a time when people aren't in a rush to get home from work and pick up their kids. And there's also not a law that says I have to like you for it.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Rumblings that there is a push to ban bicycles from roads when there are designated bike routes nearby in Vancouver. This should be common sense but sadly is not but I doubt this will happen.

if the bike routes are decent then I doubt a ban will be necessary. unfortunately, bike routes are often really poorly planned, added in places where they aren't needed (or where cyclists never travel) and absent from streets they are necessary. cities seem to think that adding X kilometres of bike paths somehow makes them more bike friendly. unfortunately, bike paths in the wrong locations will have very little positive effect. luckily, vancouver is doing a decent job with bike paths so far (a good job by canadian city standards)

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

That guy, gets very little sympathy from me if he gets plowed.

Holy shit.

 

[NawidA]

A cyclist is the person in the hard hat, wearing his cycling shorts, out toning his thighs during rush hour. That guy, gets very little sympathy from me if he gets plowed.

Yes, death to cyclists. Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[xxracerxx]

I don't have to wear spandex shorts with crotch padding? If I wear regular shorts they might get snagged in the chain.

I know you are just being factitious now, but what you have to realize is that the majority of cyclists are also owners and/or operators of cars just like you. Just because we choose to ride doesn't mean we should forgo safety to let a car get to the next red light that much faster.

A bicyclist is somebody forced to ride to work with his backpack on while wearing his McDonalds uniform. That guy, yeah I'll cut him some slack for biking during rush hour.

So what about the guy who works a white collar job who chooses to bike to work? No sympathy?

I am just going to ignore your other stupid fucking comment.

 

[agrajag]

To me there is a difference between a bicyclist and a cyclist.

A bicyclist is somebody forced to ride to work with his backpack on while wearing his McDonalds uniform. That guy, yeah I'll cut him some slack for biking during rush hour.

A cyclist is the person in the hard hat, wearing his cycling shorts, out toning his thighs during rush hour. That guy, gets very little sympathy from me if he gets plowed. Yeah, it's perfectly legal for him to be out there, and as I said, there is no law against inconveniencing other people. And there's also not a law for being stupid because you've decided to hold up drive-time evening traffic instead if taking your ride somewhere a little less congested at a time when people aren't in a rush to get home from work and pick up their kids. And there's also not a law that says I have to like you for it.

I like the cut of this guy's jib!

I know you are just being factitious now, but what you have to realize is that the majority of cyclists are also owners and/or operators of cars just like you. Just because we choose to ride doesn't mean we should forgo safety to let a car get to the next red light that much faster.

And I bet most of those hypocrites in this thread get just as annoyed when a cyclist causes a ten car pile-up in front of them when they're in their cozy cars. But on GAF, it's time to be all self-righteous.

 

[ch0mp]

To me there is a difference between a bicyclist and a cyclist.

A bicyclist is somebody forced to ride to work with his backpack on while wearing his McDonalds uniform. That guy, yeah I'll cut him some slack for biking during rush hour.

A cyclist is the person in the hard hat, wearing his cycling shorts, out toning his thighs during rush hour. That guy, gets very little sympathy from me if he gets plowed. Yeah, it's perfectly legal for him to be out there, and as I said, there is no law against inconveniencing other people. And there's also not a law for being stupid because you've decided to hold up drive-time evening traffic instead if taking your ride somewhere a little less congested at a time when people aren't in a rush to get home from work and pick up their kids. And there's also not a law that says I have to like you for it.

The funny part is that in heavy traffic, the cyclist is actually being help up by all the stationary cars. You are not going to get anywhere quicker without the cyclist there, you all end up stopped at the same set of lights.