Dreaded cyclists

This is a strawman. No serious cyclist I know (and I know a lot) would say that you were wrong about any of these things or attempt to defend any of these behaviors.

Also, I could just as easily make a nice strawman list about some of the dangerous behaviors I see drivers doing around bikes. This would get us nowhere.

I see tons of people pull stupid shit in cars, but aside from speed limits I don't see cars blatantly disregarding rules of the road en masse. Yes I see some light runners from time to time and there is an occasional confused person who goes wrong way on a one way but bicycles? I can count the number of them I seen actually follow the rules on one hand, and this being NYC I see a whole lot of bicycles.

P.S. Also what's a serious cyclist?

P.P.S. It doesn't list your location but its very possible that your experience is different because of where you are (wherever that is).

P.P.S. You seem to have some strange victim mentality here as well, you are acting as if we are singling out cyclists for being dumb, yet we have TWO different threads about drivers and a thread about motorcycles being idiots.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately for your argument, these are all things I have heard on more than one occasion from more than one cyclist. Yes, even the one about running traffic control devices. I would not have put them here unless I had actually heard each one of these from more than one cyclist. It certainly doesn't mean that every cyclist says these things, I've also met many who are just as annoyed as I am by the attitudes of the entitled pricks. Of course, these tend to be the ones who ride responsibly and courteously - as I said, I don't have a problem with these cyclists; in fact, I go out of my way to accommodate them and protect them.

It is inconvenient that there are asshole cyclists and that they are so visible and often aggressive while still managing to claim that they are being victimized, but that is the sad truth of things. You may cry "strawman!" all you like simply because you did not witness the conversations I am referencing, but that doesn't change the fact that they occurred or that people I know very well trot these tropes out regularly whenever someone starts to complain about cyclists behaving badly.
 
This is a strawman. No serious cyclist I know (and I know a lot) would say that you were wrong about any of these things or attempt to defend any of these behaviors.

Also, I could just as easily make a nice strawman list about some of the dangerous behaviors I see drivers doing around bikes. This would get us nowhere.

One of the news stations in San Francisco has a regular feature of running reports on cyclists behaving badly. Some of their videos have been linked upthread. You have only to go look at the comments on the reports or the videos to see cyclists making those exact excuses and defending those indefensible points. You also see it on cyclist forums.
 
Speaking of which:

[video=youtube;xL-8UXJrXZo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL-8UXJrXZo[/video]




[video=youtube;FvD4u-mcDbg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvD4u-mcDbg[/video]




If you check out the guy's channel, he does also mock motorists and pedestrians for bad behavior, but it's only the bicyclists screaming about how they're being discriminated against.

Check out the excuses.
 
Last edited:
YQTiHyF.jpg
 
Speaking of which:
[...]
I can totally relate, I was yelled at by fellow cyclists behind me a couple of times for actually stopping at a stop-sign and giving way to traffic. Some cyclists are utter dicks. (que ftfy posts)

On a related sidenote: I Germany it was always quite a funny dance, "stopping" at a stop-sign. Your wheels have to stop and you have to put one foot on the ground ... wich results in millisecond-stops if you know what you?re doing ...


"this is too damn convienient, having a safe, seperate bike-lane. I wanna drive on the road, like all the cool kids."
 
[video=youtube;FvD4u-mcDbg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvD4u-mcDbg[/video]

Now, the first part, where the cyclist and the Golf nearly collide, is a perfect example of what I was saying.

It is a standard of the road code that you have to keep completely to the right before parking, or when you have to turn, to avoid blocking someone else's line and to avoid dangerous situations.
It is a standard of the road code that you can not overtake someone on the right (or left for countries driving on the left)
It is a standard of the road code to signal with indicators any change in trajectory, to warn other people and avoid dangerous situations.

Why are these three a standard? Because it is difficult to even see people coming from behind. All vehicles are full of blind spots, and all drivers can only see where their eyes are facing. If you make someone need to focus on two completely different directions at once, you are bound to have problems.

Having a bike lane there by the side of the road, without allowing cars to step on it in case they have to turn or park, is very dangerous, because situations like this might arise.

Having a bike lane where cyclists are not needed to take care of what the cars do and are able to overtake them as if they were on a completely unrelated flow of traffic, is dangerous.

Both things combined, and this happens. And this is because there are few bikes on the road. If that lane was full of bikes, like one every meter, the car wouldn't be able to cross it at all, or she could do it only by taking extreme risks.

In this case, was the woman not paying attention, or was that she looked at her mirror exactly when the bike was in her blind spot? And, supposing she was indicating (which I don't think she was), would it be ok for the bike to overtake it, or would that be dangerous? I mean, turning right from the central lane of a street through another lane is forbidden because it is deemed (and it actually is) unsafe, but turning right through a bike lane is not even allowed, but even required? And the cyclists are not even bound to make it easy for the other vehicle to turn or merge, like other traffic should?
 
Last edited:
There are few bikes on the road? That segment was shot in San Francisco, where bikes are everywhere. The last time I was there I was driving the XTerra and trying to make a right hand turn. I checked my mirrors, saw a cyclist coming and waited for him to pass before I moved over the cycle lane to the right turn lane. He thanked me by pounding on the side of my car as he passed because I had my signal on - and presumably because I was a lesser form of human for driving an SUV and being in the vicinity of his highly-evolved cycling ass.
 
Last edited:
Now, the first part, where the cyclist and the Golf nearly collide, is a perfect example of what I was saying.

It is a standard of the road code that you have to keep completely to the right before parking, or when you have to turn, to avoid blocking someone else's line and to avoid dangerous situations.
It is a standard of the road code that you can not overtake someone on the right (or left for countries driving on the left)
It is a standard of the road code to signal with indicators any change in trajectory, to warn other people and avoid dangerous situations.

The first is generally correct in US road laws, but the second is *not* and the third only sometimes (some states do not require the use of signals). The second would result in even larger gridlock as some idiot would be hanging out in the left lane doing 20 under and nobody would be able to pass them. Or worse, a bicyclist doing 10 in a 50 in the left lane (which they do!) and everyone else being stuck behind them in all two or three lanes.

Both things combined, and this happens. And this is because there are few bikes on the road. If that lane was full of bikes, like one every meter, the car wouldn't be able to cross it at all, or she could do it only by taking extreme risks.

These videos were filmed in San Francisco, where as Blind says, the bicycle is very common. They're certainly not rare at all there.


In this case, was the woman not paying attention, or was that she looked at her mirror exactly when the bike was in her blind spot? And, supposing she was indicating (which I don't think she was), would it be ok for the bike to overtake it, or would that be dangerous? I mean, turning right from the central lane of a street through another lane is forbidden because it is deemed (and it actually is) unsafe, but turning right through a bike lane is not even allowed, but even required? And the cyclists are not even bound to make it easy for the other vehicle to turn or merge, like other traffic should?

She was legal in that she could turn right into the parking spot (which was apparently what she was doing) but she wasn't signaling (required in CA). You are allowed to pass through the bike lane to get to a parking spot. Cyclists are supposed to yield to turning traffic in that case (though there is the excuse in this case that she wasn't signaling). Do they? Rarely.
 
Last edited:
The first is generally correct in US road laws, but the second is *not* and the third only sometimes (some states do not require the use of signals).

Sorry, I wrongly assumed that there was a restriction on overtaking on the right. Here we have it. And we clearly disregard it in the cases you mentioned, but it's still not legal.

The idea that you can legally turn without signaling is somewhat flawed from the beginning, I think. Does that mean that the other lines of traffic don't have to make your manoeuvre easier (not that this happen often in real life anyway) because they simply don't know what you want to do? I understand it is so, but it seems rather unsatisfactory to me if we speak of safety.

These videos were filmed in San Francisco, where as Blind says, the bicycle is very common. They're certainly not rare at all there.

Yes, but I was thinking more of a "traffic jam" situation, with an endless line of bicycles flowing on the bike lane. The lack of visibility from inside the car is evident.
It would be better if the cyclists, as you said, were supposed to yield to turning traffic, but is it really regulated (standard traffic code)? And if that is the case, does cycling require actually knowing that regulation? In theory yes, but since you can ride with no licence, what happens if someone simply doesn't know how to behave?

Then there is the fact that, as you point out, very few cyclists actually yield in those situations. It is not strange, in my opinion: many cars don't either. But car on car, you can prevent this kind of problems by simply getting into the lane in advance and take away any physical passing space before actually turning. With this configuration (and bicycles) you can't. It really seems to me as if you are turning while crossing an entire line of traffic. It is dangerous.

Plus, in case of collision, it doesn't matter if it was the oblivious cyclist vs the visibility-limited car, or the oblivious car vs the innocent cyclist; the car will be considered at fault every time.

I personally think it is just a matter of number of cyclists. As long as they are few and interpsersed, no problem, but in case of heavy bicycle traffic, things will get dire for cars, even if they behave correctly. And it is clear that the idea is having more and more cycling traffic.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I wrongly assumed that there was a restriction on overtaking on the right. Here we have it. And we clearly disregard it in the cases you mentioned, but it's still not legal.

over here, there's a distinction between "overtaking" and "passing with the flow of traffic", which is certainly legal to do on the right. takes care of that situation spectre described.
 
over here, there's a distinction between "overtaking" and "passing with the flow of traffic", which is certainly legal to do on the right. takes care of that situation spectre described.

Yes, there is a similar regulation here, but it usually involves people driving correctly. From a technical point of view, a single vehicle on the left of the road would render the rule not working, or highly debatable. You would be tolerated in overtaking in such conditions as much as you like, but it would still be not legal, or so bordering as to require a judge.

WARNING - BORING STUFF AHEAD: the rule here states that you can overtake on the right when the flow of traffic is heavy enogh to -require- for two or more lines of traffic to flow parallel to each other, because in this case it is considered "passing along" and not "ovetaking", but you already have to understand when that is the case (usually heavy traffic). Two lonely vehicles on the road, and you're stuck (even if overtaking in that situation is generally tolerated if done safely). This was a problem with motorways and lane huggers, because if the traffic is heavy enough, then a lane hugger is no more a lane hugger, but if the traffic is light enought to identify someone as a lane hugger, then you could not overtake him because the traffic flow was not intense enough to allow for it. This went on until a regulation was introduced that states that if you are already on a lane more to the right than the other vehicle, you are "passing along" the car, not overtaking, in any situation; but you have to be there -before- approaching the other vehicle. Of course you can ask how much "before" is "before enough", and that's what generates the confusion and quarrels.
END OF BORING STUFF

This ability to pass along, however, makes in general the cyclist-car relation more complicated. If the bike lane is indeed a different line of traffic, then the bicycles can rightfully pass along on the right. The car should have to merge into the bike lane of traffic, except it can't because it can't step over onto the lane, so technically it must wait until a possibly endless line of other vehicles pass along, until it's free to move, cutting a full lane that still has right of way, while subject to terrible visibility... It's like passing through dedicated tram lanes or tracks (like in Bruxelles - been there): you can't occupy it, your visibility is s**t and you have to yield. It would be a nightmare if the trams were too frequent, and I am sure it still poses problems and generates crashes. Of course I'm taking the full spectrum of possibilities in bike traffic heavyness, which can appear overdone because the volume of bike traffic is not necessarily so high, but since the direction is to make bikes a first choice mobility solution in cities, I consider it correct to think ahead.

Of course this problem would be greatly mitigated (not solved) if the cyclists should yield to a turning vehicle indicating correctly, as Spectre said it is the case in the States, but I don't really know if that is so in Europe, and in both areas, aside the fact that we know people don't do that normally, just as they don't when they drive, I don't know what happens if the cyclist simply doesn't know the rule, which is possible because of no licence. Also, this surely isn't the case when the bike lane is onto the pavement at crossroads with no traffic lights (most common (I've seen it for the first time in Berlin)). That is another face of the same problem.
 
Last edited:
Plus, in case of collision, it doesn't matter if it was the oblivious cyclist vs the visibility-limited car, or the oblivious car vs the innocent cyclist; the car will be considered at fault every time.

Not in NYC, cyclists have been bitching often and loudly about the fact that when they are at fault nothing happens to the driver.
 
I see tons of people pull stupid shit in cars, but aside from speed limits I don't see cars blatantly disregarding rules of the road en masse. Yes I see some light runners from time to time and there is an occasional confused person who goes wrong way on a one way but bicycles? I can count the number of them I seen actually follow the rules on one hand, and this being NYC I see a whole lot of bicycles.

Don't forget indicator use, or lack thereof.
Also all degrees of creative parking, I see those done by cars en masse every day.
Maybe a German phenomenon: Elefantenrennen - one truck creeps past the other at 0.1km/h difference, which is frequently seen on the Autobahn.
To throw motorcycles in the mix, I frequently see those overtake illegally.
To a lesser degree there's also improper maintenance such as blown lights or shitty tyres, also illegal but seen frequently.


It's not just speed limits that are bent by many motorists :no:


Disclaimer: Individual legalities may vary in your location. Modelled on my understanding of reasonable traffic behaviour and probably StV(Z)O rules.
 
The idea that you can legally turn without signaling is somewhat flawed from the beginning, I think. Does that mean that the other lines of traffic don't have to make your manoeuvre easier (not that this happen often in real life anyway) because they simply don't know what you want to do? I understand it is so, but it seems rather unsatisfactory to me if we speak of safety.

It doesn't seem to be statistically significant in the US - there doesn't seem to be much if any increase in collisions in states that do not require signaling over those that do. Whether this is due to it not mattering or due to people not signaling anywhere anyway or some other unknown factor is, I suspect, a matter for debate.

Yes, but I was thinking more of a "traffic jam" situation, with an endless line of bicycles flowing on the bike lane. The lack of visibility from inside the car is evident.
It would be better if the cyclists, as you said, were supposed to yield to turning traffic, but is it really regulated (standard traffic code)? And if that is the case, does cycling require actually knowing that regulation? In theory yes, but since you can ride with no licence, what happens if someone simply doesn't know how to behave?

Which is why I support mandatory licensure of cyclists who operate their bikes on the roads. Under the current system, they can always claim ignorance - which isn't supposed to be a defense, but sometimes is as a practical matter.

Then there is the fact that, as you point out, very few cyclists actually yield in those situations. It is not strange, in my opinion: many cars don't either. But car on car, you can prevent this kind of problems by simply getting into the lane in advance and take away any physical passing space before actually turning. With this configuration (and bicycles) you can't. It really seems to me as if you are turning while crossing an entire line of traffic. It is dangerous.

I did some digging; it seems that the general rule in the US is that prior to turning into a driveway, parking spot or cross street, the car is supposed to merge into the bike lane just to avoid such issues.

Does this happen in reality? Mostly no.

Plus, in case of collision, it doesn't matter if it was the oblivious cyclist vs the visibility-limited car, or the oblivious car vs the innocent cyclist; the car will be considered at fault every time.

Not in all states. Most states have a rule that says barring extenuating circumstances, the rearmost party is automatically at fault for the collision. If you contest it, it's often your word against the other person's as there's usually no other evidence - which is why increasing numbers of people in the US are starting to use dash and helmet cameras.

I personally think it is just a matter of number of cyclists. As long as they are few and interpsersed, no problem, but in case of heavy bicycle traffic, things will get dire for cars, even if they behave correctly. And it is clear that the idea is having more and more cycling traffic.

Which is dumb, in my opinion.

I see tons of people pull stupid shit in cars, but aside from speed limits I don't see cars blatantly disregarding rules of the road en masse. Yes I see some light runners from time to time and there is an occasional confused person who goes wrong way on a one way but bicycles? I can count the number of them I seen actually follow the rules on one hand, and this being NYC I see a whole lot of bicycles.

One thing that came out of the red light camera experiment in Dallas was the fact that the number one violator of red lights by a huge margin was bicyclists. In fact, Dallas ended up turning off a bunch of their red light cameras because cars, trucks and motorcycles *weren't* running the red lights - and since bicycles don't have plates, their violations could not be ticketed. No revenue generated.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget indicator use, or lack thereof.
Not as big of an issue here as it is in other places strangely enough but yes agreed.
Also all degrees of creative parking, I see those done by cars en masse every day.
Define creative parking.
Maybe a German phenomenon: Elefantenrennen - one truck creeps past the other at 0.1km/h difference, which is frequently seen on the Autobahn.
That's a feature of speed governors your trucks employ, since we don't generally have them here it's rarely a problem.
To throw motorcycles in the mix, I frequently see those overtake illegally.
They do tend to ride like dicks but they are also not usually in anyone's way when they do it because of the speed differential. Though I specifically didn't point them out as they do do dumb shit a lot.
 
It doesn't seem to be statistically significant in the US - there doesn't seem to be much if any increase in collisions in states that do not require signaling over those that do. Whether this is due to it not mattering or due to people not signaling anywhere anyway or some other unknown factor is, I suspect, a matter for debate.

Yes, for sure. It is somewhat intriguing.

Which is why I support mandatory licensure of cyclists who operate their bikes on the roads. Under the current system, they can always claim ignorance - which isn't supposed to be a defense, but sometimes is as a practical matter.

I support that too. Even a very simple version, but mandatory.

I did some digging; it seems that the general rule in the US is that prior to turning into a driveway, parking spot or cross street, the car is supposed to merge into the bike lane just to avoid such issues.

Does this happen in reality? Mostly no.

That is indeed intelligent. It has always been one of my favourite solutions; it's what we do with bus lanes, after all. When you turn or park, you get on it. (here, at least)

The fact that the easy way is not generally used makes me curious, though.

Which is dumb, in my opinion.

I'm not that sure a higher number of -well-behaving- bicycles are necessarily worse. However, I'm a strong supporter of personal (and possibly private) motorized transportation, so I wouldn't want to see that disappear in favour of bicycles.

One thing that came out of the red light camera experiment in Dallas was the fact that the number one violator of red lights by a huge margin was bicyclists.

Of course, they have no licence plate...
 
That's a feature of speed governors your trucks employ, since we don't generally have them here it's rarely a problem.

Most fleet trucks now have a governor or at least a max speed alert system that's GPS cued. It's less of an issue up in the NE where speed limits are much lower, more of an issue down here where the highway speed limits are at or above the common governor/alert speed.

- - - Updated - - -

That is indeed intelligent. It has always been one of my favourite solutions; it's what we do with bus lanes, after all. When you turn or park, you get on it. (here, at least)

Unfortunately, in many parts of the US, you *cannot* actually cross into a bus lane to park, turn into a street, etc; either by law or by some sort of physical obstruction or marker.
 
Define creative parking.

A lot of this: http://forums.finalgear.com/vehicle-sighting-photos/parked-like-an-idiot-39343/

They do tend to ride like dicks but they are also not usually in anyone's way when they do it because of the speed differential. Though I specifically didn't point them out as they do do dumb shit a lot.

Actually, motorcycles (and anyone else for that matter) choosing illegal and unsafe spots for overtaking are more in anyone's way than all the other examples. Just recently, driving from Br?nnchen to the Ringmeet campsite on twisty roads with frequent 100km/h speed limits I had to mash the brakes to not get motorcyclist all over my grille.

Pointing them out because they do do dumb shit a lot is exactly my point, to show that dickishness isn't a bicycle monopoly.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why I support mandatory licensure of cyclists who operate their bikes on the roads. Under the current system, they can always claim ignorance - which isn't supposed to be a defense, but sometimes is as a practical matter.

Is there no traffic education in school?
 
Top