Dreaded cyclists

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,027
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
Here is a simple fact, he has no reason to be on the road, there is a dedicated lane yet he goes on the road. Whether the road is empty enough for an overtake or not is completely irrelevant. So how about I drive on the shoulder then? After all it's empty. Furthermore a whole bunch of bikists bitch and moan that they are not respected by drivers, this right there is why.

While certainly true, in that picture there's no reason for drivers to bitch and moan either. Plenty of space to pass within your own lane given the width of the lane and how far to the right he's cycling.


Regarding the legal question, if you apply German rules he'd have to cycle in the right lane on the sidewalk - see the blue sign 240. Given how close the Portugese sign is to ours, I wouldn't be surprised if the regulations were similar too.
To me it looks like a wide sidewalk superimposed on a two-lane cycle path, with right-of-way given to pedestrians.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,156
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
Why do we bother building bike lanes, if bicyclists are not using them? We could be using that space for a sidewalk plus a parking area. Those would be used.

That is why that cyclist is arrogant. Public space has been dedicated to him, and not in a bad way, there, and he ignores it and still drives on the road. Why not let the cars drive on the sidewalk, then. (I hope we all get the provocation).

In this particular situation, the thing is not such a fuzz, if you have some common sense, but you cannot avoid noticing that that is not a legel place to cross the central line to overtake, and by keeping correctly into the car's lane I bet you're almost certain to keep near the cyclist enough as to make both uncomfortable. So the cyclist is forcing the car to a) stay behind, slowing down and losing time and fuel; b)keep near the cyclist while passing him, probably slowing down in the process; c) violating a rule by crossing a solid line. Non of these three possibilities is very nice, so it's not strange that drivers grow irritated of cyclists. Because, really: why not just use the bicycle lane?

(on a legal note: here, if there is a bicycle lane, you are requried to ride on it with your bike. Yes, even if it's horribly built. That in the photo is big, fast and seemingly safe,if you compare it to some horrors I can see here).
 
Last edited:

DanRoM

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
10,050
Location
Ruhr Area, Germany
Car(s)
MX-5 ND, Tracer 900 GT & two bikes
That is why that cyclist is arrogant. Public space has been dedicated to him
Wrong. That public space has been dedicated to cars - more precisely, dedicated to keep cyclists off the road so the cars can move unhindered. That is a very different approach and has nothing to do with doing good for cyclists.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,156
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
Wrong. That public space has been dedicated to cars - more precisely, dedicated to keep cyclists off the road so the cars can move unhindered. That is a very different approach and has nothing to do with doing good for cyclists.

The kerb is not for cars. That cycle lane is public space dedicated to bicycles (and/or pedestrians, in this case). Cars can not access it.

Also, you can't sit and pic-nic in the middle of the road, nor in the middle of the bike lane. And it's clearly to allow people to move around unhindered. Yes, even cyclists. Does this make them bad and shut them up if they request people don't pic-nic there?

Public space is shared. It should be destined to help everyone go on happily on their own way, not to bash on the head of currently sociopolitically badly-perceived groups of people by claiming some unfair advantage towards them.
 

eizbaer

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
7,031
Location
Frechen, Germany
Car(s)
Model 3, Cargobike
Speaking of fair... should we then not have a bike lane that is the exact width as that street? And another one of the same size for pedestrians? ... it's only fair, right? :D
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,156
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
Speaking of fair... should we then not have a bike lane that is the exact width as that street? And another one of the same size for pedestrians? ... it's only fair, right? :D

...No, we should have one cycle lane which was enough for one bycicle but not for two to run abreast and a kerb for one pederstirian but not for two. And make overtaking prohibited in certain areas...

That would be fair, wouldn't it? :-D

But seriously: is it really necessary to start with sarcastic answers while ignoring the serious questions?

I just asked why the cyclist has to ride on the car lane when he could use a well-built, straight and wide cycle lane. He forces cars to lose time, fuel, make both of them uncomfortable and/or crossing a solid white line. The cyclist gains far less than other people lose. Plus, what if it was't a car, what if it was a bus coming on the lane. The bus would surely lose fuel and time, thanks to the bicycle. Why? I can't find an answer, this is why I would like to know if anyone has an idea.
 

eizbaer

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
7,031
Location
Frechen, Germany
Car(s)
Model 3, Cargobike
As far as I am concerned, that dude is simply an ass who thinks he's too good for the perfectly adequate cycling path, agreed.

Still, how is it fair to give a car (usually one person - on average maybe up to 1.5) about 3 or 4 (in this particular case, usually even way more) times the room that cyclists and pedestrians get? Just because the driver chose to have massive amounts of steel and shit around them? The fact that a driver has that massive vehicle around them should, if anything, count against them because that way they take up much more room than they otherwise would. "Fair" would be having the same amount of room per person, not per vehicle.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,156
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
Still, how is it fair to give a car (usually one person - on average maybe up to 1.5) about 3 or 4 (in this particular case, usually even way more) times the room that cyclists and pedestrians get?

Becaus that road is not just for cars with 1.5 people on it. It is far more versatile. it could be a taxi, it could be a disabled's car, it could be a bus, it could be a van or a lorry moving otherwise impossibly heavy things around, it could be an ambulance, it could be a car with 2 or more people inside, it could be several things, not just the standard way we think about personal trasnportation and which is used to demonize it.

Personal transportation adapted to the fact that roads -had- to be large, and cars adapted to what they are now. Also, car size grows because marketing and people not giving a... let's say not caring about other things, but just wanting more.

Plus, motorized transportation has advantages that neither bicycle nor pedestrians have. It allows for carrying around things, it allows for faster traveling, it can shelter you from the weather, it makes traveling possible for pretty much everyone, one way or another. Walking is not as versatile, though it gets almost there, while and the most limited form of traveling is actually bicycles. Because there are so many reasons why you can't use a bicycle, and being a personal vehicle, it doesn't allow you to ride it if you're not also driving it.

Clearly, our societies have gone far beyond what's reasonable for motorized transportation, specifically in the personal form, with useless mass moved around, waste of fuel and room to store vehicles, but the idea of private motorized (whatever kind of motor) transportation while sheltered from the weather is, I think, one of the best developments of the last century, and bicycle is simply not as good, though it definitely is greener, cheaper and, if you're already healthy enough, healthier.

But what should count, after all, is not if we drive a car or a bike, but what our general lifestyle is. Resources are limited, yes. But what if I want to use my share on a car rather than other things?
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
As far as I am concerned, that dude is simply an ass who thinks he's too good for the perfectly adequate cycling path, agreed.

Still, how is it fair to give a car (usually one person - on average maybe up to 1.5) about 3 or 4 (in this particular case, usually even way more) times the room that cyclists and pedestrians get? Just because the driver chose to have massive amounts of steel and shit around them? The fact that a driver has that massive vehicle around them should, if anything, count against them because that way they take up much more room than they otherwise would. "Fair" would be having the same amount of room per person, not per vehicle.

You argument makes me wonder if you are smoking something and not sharing. Cars don't just carry people, they carry cargo, they can carry multiple people, etc... Really roads are there to facilitate commercial activity not just to allow people to get around, in that regard bicycles make little sense as they cannot carry nearly as many goods as a cargo van or even a passenger car. And hell you wanna talk about fair? Motorcycles and mopeds should be allowed in dedicated bike lanes too.

Also remember cars are capable of carrying more than one person in the first place bicycles not so much. I was just out driving wife and baby to a dr's appt about an hour away by car, good luck doing that shit on a bike. So no cars aren't bigger than they need to be, they are the size that makes most sense if you want versatility and safety.

I can't help but notice that you drive a "big" car, not an enclosed motorcycle.
 
Last edited:

eizbaer

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
7,031
Location
Frechen, Germany
Car(s)
Model 3, Cargobike
I know it's utterly ridiculous to have bicycle lanes and footpaths the size of roads... and honestly, it wouldn't make any sense. I was just deliberately being an ass, sorry about that! Just took on the hat of the radical cyclist for a second here, I'm not really being serious. "Fairness" in this regard should not be a deciding factor anyway, it simply doesn't work. As you say, it's about much more than the amount of people or the amount of cargo transported, but includes many more factors that can't possibly be objectively measured (e.g. you wanting to transport your child in safety and comfort), at least not without inciting a massive argument.

To be honest, as an almost daily cyclist, the kind of cycle path in that picture there I would consider heaven (and why I consider that guy an idiot). That's miles better than most of the stuff we get here. Mostly what the "bicycle campaign" boils down to here is painting some lines onto the existing street and thus claiming to have created many miles of cycling paths - despite the fact that I could've ridden in that exact space any time I wanted and those lines don't change anything in the attitude of the drivers, my position next to them on the road or my safety.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
To be honest, as an almost daily cyclist, the kind of cycle path in that picture there I would consider heaven (and why I consider that guy an idiot). That's miles better than most of the stuff we get here. Mostly what the "bicycle campaign" boils down to here is painting some lines onto the existing street and thus claiming to have created many miles of cycling paths - despite the fact that I could've ridden in that exact space any time I wanted and those lines don't change anything in the attitude of the drivers, my position next to them on the road or my safety.
With you on that, if NYC had bike paths like the one in the picture I would actually ride my bicycle places (like work).
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,867
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I just asked why the cyclist has to ride on the car lane when he could use a well-built, straight and wide cycle lane. He forces cars to lose time, fuel, make both of them uncomfortable and/or crossing a solid white line. The cyclist gains far less than other people lose. Plus, what if it was't a car, what if it was a bus coming on the lane. The bus would surely lose fuel and time, thanks to the bicycle. Why? I can't find an answer, this is why I would like to know if anyone has an idea.

I've posted about this before, but we have a similar situation here, only worse. I was reminded of it because I drove past it yesterday and some jackass on a bicycle was wobbling between two lanes and obstructing traffic while doing his Lance Armstrong impression.

This is Northwest Highway at White Rock Creek in Dallas.



You can go look and explore the area for yourself here: https://goo.gl/maps/wqHptrEJBCr

This stretch is a newly constructed long pair of bridges over creek bottoms and is zoned for 50mph. The white path to the north is a conspicuously marked bicycle and pedestrian path that was installed at over a million dollars' expense at the time the new bridges were installed. It's quite nice, safe, leveled and there's no reason not to use it (especially since there are few pedestrians).

Except bicyclists refuse to use it and instead block 1-2 lanes of traffic on the bridge ALL THE DAMN TIME.

In fact, as part of the bridge construction, miles of bicycle/pedestrian trails were laid all around it. Only a small part of the new trail network's visible in this picture (the gray lines) - you can see more at the link above.



And yup, the bicyclists refuse to use them and ride on the streets instead.
 

eizbaer

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
7,031
Location
Frechen, Germany
Car(s)
Model 3, Cargobike
And yup, the bicyclists refuse to use them and ride on the streets instead.

o_O Those paths look like cyclist heaven... they're practically full roads. What the fuck is wrong with those people? Do they have a death wish? Do they need the additional attention of being an ass towards others? I have a stretch of about 100m on my way to work that does not have a bicycle path (not even one just painted onto the road) where I know I'm in the way of cars... it's the one part of my way to work that I feel like crap on. I know I'm in the way and I'm afraid that's the place I'll most likely be run over. If I could, I would avoid that particular stretch, but I can't. I'd be happy to take a detour (to a degree - I could of course basically double the distance I travel and avoid that bit... you know what I mean), but even that's not an option.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,867
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
o_O Those paths look like cyclist heaven... they're practically full roads. What the fuck is wrong with those people? Do they have a death wish? Do they need the additional attention of being an ass towards others?

Pretty much the highlighted part, yes. That's what I and others have been trying to get across in this thread - this is what American bicyclists are by and large like. Many take pride in obstructing traffic and delaying people in those 'evil' cars, etc.

If you keep following Northwest Highway to the west, you will see that the generous bike trails continue to parallel the street for quite a distance. Yet bicyclists seem to take particular delight in taking the hill just west of these bridges on the street, very, very slowly - all while wobbling about through multiple lanes and obstructing traffic - with that nice completely separated bike trail right next to them, totally empty.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,027
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
Why do we bother building bike lanes, if bicyclists are not using them? We could be using that space for a sidewalk plus a parking area. Those would be used.

That red thing on the right is a sidewalk that also allows bicycles, see the white-person-on-blue-sign on the right... we already are using that space for a (deserted) sidewalk.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,007
Location
near Cologne
Wow... I wonder if the fight between cyclists and motorists will end on page 97 of this thread? :lol:
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,156
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
That red thing on the right is a sidewalk that also allows bicycles, see the white-person-on-blue-sign on the right... we already are using that space for a (deserted) sidewalk.

The thread suddenly got in a direction which seems constructive, I hope for it to stay that way.

To be honest, as an almost daily cyclist, the kind of cycle path in that picture there I would consider heaven (and why I consider that guy an idiot). That's miles better than most of the stuff we get here.

Here bicycle paths like that do exist, but there are also many of them who are just white paint on a kerb, around trees and signs. It would have been better not to have them.

In general, the more a bike lane is out of vehicle traffic, the better it is for both. The wide, spread networks of bicycle lanes separated from the vehicle road network are very functional and efficient, and they can bring you to almost all places as well. I have some of them around here. That's the way to go, whenever possible.

Mostly what the "bicycle campaign" boils down to here is painting some lines onto the existing street and thus claiming to have created many miles of cycling paths

I understand you perfectly. It's even dangerous for all to do just paintwork. It's better to have nothing, keeps everyone alert (or should) and helps simplifying. That you are describing is the result of the way politics works, unfortunately.

This stretch is a newly constructed long pair of bridges over creek bottoms and is zoned for 50mph. The white path to the north is a conspicuously marked bicycle and pedestrian path that was installed at over a million dollars' expense at the time the new bridges were installed. It's quite nice, safe, leveled and there's no reason not to use it (especially since there are few pedestrians).

Except bicyclists refuse to use it and instead block 1-2 lanes of traffic on the bridge

That's, I think, the drawback of trying to push a greener mobility not by spread information and incentivizing people, but by nurturing the holier-than-thou extremisms. I think most countries face similar problems.

Those lane seem like heaven. Seen from the picture, it seems the right way to go: separated traffic lines. It is great where those things are real.

Wow... I wonder if the fight between cyclists and motorists will end on page 97 of this thread? :lol:

It would be nice. :)

The war should be against idiots and arrogant people, the vehicle should have almost no relevance.
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,263
And this is why I hate them.

oGVyano.jpg
What possible reason could he have for not riding on the red part of the road? If sidewalks are clear, I always ride on them because it's safer, never mind when there is a whole bike lane!
 
Top