Dreaded cyclists

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,638
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
But accountability does, hence number plates and insurance.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,404
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
narf;n3545921 said:
Prizrak' claim was that cars don't attack bicycles.
My claim was that there was never a case of a mob of cars going after cyclists, for all your pedantism you sure can't read very well.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,404
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
narf;n3545919 said:
This one must have had a numberplate on the bicycle, how else would the police have made the arrest for public drinking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confli...Bridgeport.jpg
WTF is public drinking anyway? :dunno: Something drivers of cars never do, I guess.

Also this, same page:







People gonna people :dunno: mode of transportation doesn't appear to matter much.
Yeah all of those were due to cyclists being entitled dicks and disrupting traffic, which didn't seat well with some of the less patient/stable drivers. Remove Critical Ass from the equation and suddenly those drivers have no reason to do anything.
 

Eye-Q

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
5,390
Location
Hamburg, Autobahnland
Car(s)
None anymore...
prizrak;n3545917 said:
Wow, a whopping estimated 15 instances within 20 years while there are thousands of peaceful Critical Masses every year - I won't deny aggression at Critical Mass events (sometimes originating from car drivers, sometimes from cyclists), that would be ridiculous, but that only proves that only an extremely tiny fraction of Critical Masses contain conflicts. That is normal when there are people interacting with each other, it's not unusual, given the instances of road rage exclusively between car drivers.

prizrak;n3545924 said:
Yeah all of those were due to cyclists being entitled dicks and disrupting traffic, which didn't seat well with some of the less patient/stable drivers.
By that logic it would be OK to ram a car off the road which is parked so it disrupts traffic and causes a massive traffic jam. In cities with tram tracks on the streets you sometimes see trams stopped because there is a car parked and they can't pass it, causing a traffic jam for cars. Is it OK to ram that car or the tram from the road because they disrupt traffic?

prizrak;n3545924 said:
Remove Critical Ass from the equation and suddenly those drivers have no reason to do anything.
As if aggressive drivers are only triggered by Critical Mass...


IMHO it's not about accountability, but about education and de-escalation from all sides. You are always about "x against y" - when there are more cyclists on their own, ideally separated part of public place, there is more space for cars. Yes, I realize that if you give cyclists more space it has to come from somewhere, often from roads which were used by cars before, but you need much less space for a cyclist than for a car so if 20% of people decide to cycle there are 20% less cars on the road which in turn frees up the remaining road for other car drivers. Of course there has to be a mutual understanding and respect for each other, that includes cyclists as well as car drivers, otherwise nothing really works. The majority of cyclists and the majority of car drivers do respect each other.

I know there are different highway codes in different countries (and states in the US for that matter), but I guess in all highway codes one of the first paragraphs, if not the first one is something like "The participation in traffic requires permanent caution and mutual respect". That includes cyclists which are allowed on most roads. If it happens to be a (large) group of cyclists - regardless if it's Critical Mass, a group of friends or a company outing - that large group has to stick to the highway code (which includes the right to be treated as one vehicle, at least here in Germany, otherwise the group would get fragmented and disrupt other traffic even more), exactly as other ttraffic participants have to stick to the highway code.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,767
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
narf;n3545919 said:
People gonna people :dunno: mode of transportation doesn't appear to matter much.
Exactly. This is why bicycles should have licence plate and insurance.


Eye-Q;n3545928 said:
Wow, a whopping estimated 15 instances within 20 years while there are thousands of peaceful Critical Masses every year
This actually shows how civilized car drivers can get, given that they have to endure the thousands of peaceful Critical Masses disrupting their days or blocking their ways for mostly no reason at all apart showing off.

- I won't deny aggression at Critical Mass events (sometimes originating from car drivers, sometimes from cyclists), that would be ridiculous, but that only proves that only an extremely tiny fraction of Critical Masses contain conflicts. That is normal when there are people interacting with each other
As said by Narf, and to Narf, people are people. So why wouldn't a bicycle need registration and insurance?

By that logic it would be OK to ram a car off the road which is parked so it disrupts traffic and causes a massive traffic jam. In cities with tram tracks on the streets you sometimes see trams stopped because there is a car parked and they can't pass it, causing a traffic jam for cars. Is it OK to ram that car or the tram from the road because they disrupt traffic?
It's not ok in all circumstances, but we surely cheer and applaud and approve when self-entitled people or morons get what they deserve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUrcgKSOLDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T9USqzl1vw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXVY8uAncsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHybPt6jWLg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u89KmsC2RxE

What happens then if the cyclists get what they look for? (I am opposed to violence, but, as we agree, people are people, so if they look for violence hard enough, they will find it).

IMHO it's not about accountability, but about education and de-escalation from all sides. You are always about "x against y" - when there are more cyclists on their own, ideally separated part of public place, there is more space for cars. Yes, I realize that if you give cyclists more space it has to come from somewhere, often from roads which were used by cars before, but you need much less space for a cyclist than for a car so if 20% of people decide to cycle there are 20% less cars on the road which in turn frees up the remaining road for other car drivers. Of course there has to be a mutual understanding and respect for each other, that includes cyclists as well as car drivers, otherwise nothing really works. The majority of cyclists and the majority of car drivers do respect each other.
That's basically what I say, yet what I see is cyclists getting a far better treatment and the thing getting rapidly very unfair for drivers. Plus, if you want to de-escalate, then Critical Mass has to go, because Critical Mass is a forceful reduction of other people's freedom for no other reason than getting attention, so it is the exact opposite than de-escalating.

I know there are different highway codes in different countries (and states in the US for that matter), but I guess in all highway codes one of the first paragraphs, if not the first one is something like "The participation in traffic requires permanent caution and mutual respect".
That's perfectly true, and as we say "drivers behaving badly need to be punished", we also -need- to say "cyclists behaving badly need to be punished". It is a form of justice, of mutual respect.

Safety, respect, helping. I've been saying this for more than 10 years, yet what I still see is quite far from that, and it is quite difficult even to agree that blocking traffic is not a good way of showing respect and collaboration.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,404
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Eye-Q;n3545928 said:
Wow, a whopping estimated 15 instances within 20 years while there are thousands of peaceful Critical Masses every year - I won't deny aggression at Critical Mass events (sometimes originating from car drivers, sometimes from cyclists), that would be ridiculous, but that only proves that only an extremely tiny fraction of Critical Masses contain conflicts. That is normal when there are people interacting with each other, it's not unusual, given the instances of road rage exclusively between car drivers.
Out of millions of car meets and auto club rides there have been 0 similar incidents.
Also Critical (du)M(b)ass is in and off itself and aggressive and disruptive event.


By that logic it would be OK to ram a car off the road which is parked so it disrupts traffic and causes a massive traffic jam. In cities with tram tracks on the streets you sometimes see trams stopped because there is a car parked and they can't pass it, causing a traffic jam for cars. Is it OK to ram that car or the tram from the road because they disrupt traffic?
Yes it is, any other questions?

IMHO it's not about accountability, but about education and de-escalation from all sides. You are always about "x against y" - when there are more cyclists on their own, ideally separated part of public place, there is more space for cars. Yes, I realize that if you give cyclists more space it has to come from somewhere, often from roads which were used by cars before, but you need much less space for a cyclist than for a car so if 20% of people decide to cycle there are 20% less cars on the road which in turn frees up the remaining road for other car drivers. Of course there has to be a mutual understanding and respect for each other, that includes cyclists as well as car drivers, otherwise nothing really works. The majority of cyclists and the majority of car drivers do respect each other.
You can't sit on two chairs with one ass, either bicycles are just another private vehicle and therefore subject to same laws and regulations OR it is special and therefore should not be given same level of protection as others. Choose one. Also neither you nor narf have been able to provide any reason as to why a bicycle should be exempt from basic registration, insurance and inspection beyond the "well it has no motor/engine", which is a non-reason.

group of cyclists - regardless if it's Critical Mass, a group of friends or a company outing - that large group has to stick to the highway code (which includes the right to be treated as one vehicle, at least here in Germany, otherwise the group would get fragmented and disrupt other traffic even more), exactly as other ttraffic participants have to stick to the highway code.
By that logic when me and 20 of my friends are out driving we should be treated as one vehicle and run red lights, stops, etc...
SirEdward said:
Plus, if you want to de-escalate, then Critical Mass has to go, because Critical Mass is a forceful reduction of other people's freedom for no other reason than getting attention, so it is the exact opposite than de-escalating.
This man gets it, there is literally 0 point in your movement, it does nothing to make cycling mainstream because it already is, even 10 years ago seeing a bicycle on the street was uncommon now they are everywhere, there are bike lanes, everywhere, there are even special segregated ones with traffic lights just for them in some places. But shit don't take my word for it, here is an SF chronicle article from 2015 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Critical-Mass-is-dying-of-self-inflicted-wounds-6481511.php
“There was a time when SF needed Critical Mass,” one wrote. “That time has run its course about a decade ago.”
“The Bike party seeks to bring the community together,” another wrote. “Critical Mass strives to keep it divided; we will never advance cyclist rights while these two exist in the same city.”
Bikes are mainstream. Just check out Market Street during commute hours. But now they’re transportation, not a political statement.
That's the thing you don't get, YOU WON ALREADY STOP FIGHTING.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,625
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
narf;n3546099 said:
Don't forget pedestrians. They're people too.
Pedestrians are not vehicles. Bicycles (allegedly) are - and a supposedly common one at that - so therefore they and their operators should be required to meet the same responsibilities and requirements of every other common vehicle used on public roads.

At the very least, they should be required to meet the same standards as their cousins, motorcycles and scooters.
 
Last edited:

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,638
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
narf;n3546099 said:
Don't forget pedestrians. They're people too.
So vehicles are people now? I know I've named my Xterra and both my bikes, but this is a little much.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,095
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'16 VW The Beetle Cabrio
prizrak;n3545943 said:
By that logic when me and 20 of my friends are out driving we should be treated as one vehicle and run red lights, stops, etc...
The same rule that allows bicycles to form a Verband allows cars, pedestrians, horseback riders, funeral processions, etc. to do the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy#Special_Convoy_Rights has a tiny description.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,095
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'16 VW The Beetle Cabrio
Blind_Io;n3546105 said:
So vehicles are people now? I know I've named my Xterra and both my bikes, but this is a little much.
If people are gonna people behind the wheel or handlebar, what's stopping people from people-ing without something to hold on to?
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,404
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
narf;n3546110 said:
The same rule that allows bicycles to form a Verband allows cars, pedestrians, horseback riders, funeral processions, etc. to do the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy..._Convoy_Rights has a tiny description.
For a pedant you are bad at reading once again, from your own link:
wikipedia said:
The Highway Code of several European countries (Norway, Italy, Greece, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, possibly more) includes special rights for marked convoys
Relevant part is bolded.
And
Clear and uniform marking has been required in court decisions for these rights to apply. Operating such convoy usually needs special permission, but there are exemptions for emergency and catastrophe intervention.
Do CM rides have clear and uniform markings? Do they obtain special permission? Or perhaps they are being used for emergency and/or catastrophe intervention? Curious about that last one, how do they manage to schedule those on specific day?
narf;n3546111 said:
If people are gonna people behind the wheel or handlebar, what's stopping people from people-ing without something to hold on to?
Using a vehicle is not a right, using your own body for traveling is. Not a complicated distinction.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,095
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'16 VW The Beetle Cabrio
prizrak;n3546112 said:
For a pedant you are bad at reading once again, from your own link:

Relevant part is bolded.
And

Do CM rides have clear and uniform markings? Do they obtain special permission? Or perhaps they are being used for emergency and/or catastrophe intervention? Curious about that last one, how do they manage to schedule those on specific day?
English Wikipedia appears to only focus on motor vehicle convoys. Read up for precision: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__27.html and https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__29.html
TL;DR §27: Motor vehicle convoys need to be uniformly marked.
TL;DR §29: Motor vehicle convoys are always classified as "excess road use", which needs permission.

Using a vehicle is not a right, using your own body for traveling is. Not a complicated distinction.
So people are only gonna people if they're using a vehicle? :?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,706
Eye-Q;n3545444 said:
That said, demanding licensing, registering and insuring bicycles because of those incidents won't prevent those incidents since assholes stay assholes. :dunno:
​​​​​​
narf;n3545447 said:
Happens with pedestrians, let's require a license for that.
narf;n3545919 said:
People gonna people :dunno: mode of transportation doesn't appear to matter much.
Eye-Q;n3545928 said:
Wow, a whopping estimated 15 instances within 20 years while there are thousands of peaceful Critical Masses every year ... That is normal when there are people interacting with each other, it's not unusual...
Just so we can be sure that you two are intellectually honest and not biased, the same logic should apply to guns, right?
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,767
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
narf;n3546099 said:
Don't forget pedestrians. They're people too.
That's a way to derail the discussion. Let's stick to it.

1) People are people, whatever they drive or ride.
2) Cyclists ask that the bicycle is treated as a vehicle, not as a toy, and given room, lanes, specific road rules; they do so in order to be able to ride in traffic on the road, with cars.
3) Accidents or incidents involving bicycles result in the same -type- of problems and damages caused by cars, motorbikes, scooters, and other vehicles in general.
4) Riding a bicycle is not a human right, just like smartphones, tv sets and cigarettes.

Given all of that, particularly number 3, and number 1, it is clear that bicycles should be subject to the same -type- of safety and accountability rules requested to other vehicles.

The reason cyclists hate this, mostly, is because they want to feel both the liberation of the lack of regulations and the possibilities of a vehicle.

Unfortunately, that is a delusional dream. The reality of overcrowdedness will never be less regulations, rather more.

If you want more freedom AND more possibilities, you need less population density.

Bicycles are fantastic tools to give you the illusion of freedom and less regulation while limiting your ability to move around in cities that are -still- designed, organized and built considering the long distances of cars and motor vehicles, not the limited range of the bicycle.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,404
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
narf;n3546119 said:
English Wikipedia appears to only focus on motor vehicle convoys. Read up for precision: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__27.html and https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__29.html
TL;DR §27: Motor vehicle convoys need to be uniformly marked.
TL;DR §29: Motor vehicle convoys are always classified as "excess road use", which needs permission.
I'm reading the link you sent me homie, my German is as good as my Mandarin, whic is to say shitty.
Also you are undermining your own argument, since the convoy rules only apply to motor vehicles, which is to say not bicycles as, per your own argument, they do not fit the definition.

So people are only gonna people if they're using a vehicle? :?
If you are not interested in a real discussion why do you bother showing up? By your own logic all people need to be locked 24/7 in small rooms to stop them from peopling, you included.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,095
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'16 VW The Beetle Cabrio
prizrak;n3546125 said:
I'm reading the link you sent me homie, my German is as good as my Mandarin, whic is to say shitty.
Also you are undermining your own argument, since the convoy rules only apply to motor vehicles, which is to say not bicycles as, per your own argument, they do not fit the definition.
As I've written, motor vehicle convoys need to be uniformly marked and always get permissions - as a corollary, other convoys (bicycles, pedestrians, horses, etc.) don't need to be uniformly marked or always get permissions.
 
Last edited:

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,638
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Isn't this mostly to do with oversized vehicles, over weight vehicles that require escort, and special events like road racing?

This whole thing seems like it doesn't apply to either side, so why are we talking about it?
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,404
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
narf;n3546136 said:
As I've written, motor vehicle convoys need to be uniformly marked and always get permissions - as a corollary, other convoys (bicycles, pedestrians, horses, etc.) don't need to be uniformly marked or always get permissions.
But that doesn't mean that bicycles are going to be treated as a convoy, since the law seems to be specific to motor vehicles. Granted I can't read the law, but unless it specifically mentions that all other types of vehicles are allowed to run in convoy however they want your argument is invalid. Also last I checked pedestrians moving in convoy would be a parade and they typically require a permit.

P.S. Neither horses, nor pedestrians are vehicles, they are animals and therefore are treated differently.
 
Last edited:
Top