Cyclists -- Why do you hog the road even with a large shoulder?

[Anonymous]

This is why cyclists are douches and they will just never admit to this. Yes, we have to "share the road". The reality is roads are built and designed for cars not bicycles. To be a cyclist and bitch about cars on the road is like moving to the country and complaining about the wildlife. It was there first.

Bicycles and cars are incompatible and for cyclists to claim any moral high ground is forgetting who and what the road is really built for in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

Just so you know, the speed limit is a maximum speed, not a minimum. When the sign says "25 MPH" that does not mean that driving 29MPH is okay, but driving 23MPH is forbidden.

Driving up to 10 MPH over the limit is widely considered acceptable. Why is driving one mile under the limit unacceptable?

Driving to slow can impede traffic. Even on a highway you are required to turn on your hazards and remain in the far right lane.

Do your thing but neither a car nor a bike has a right to impact the other. If cars are lined up behind you just pull over and let them pass.

Bikes are banned from almost all limited access highways. I am mostly concerned with city streets.

And driving slower impedes traffic. So does an accident caused by you driving too fast. Driving 24 MPH in a 25 MPH zone may delay you. As long as it is not done to intentionally slow traffic it is not illegal. Driving 26MPH though seldom enforced, IS illegal. It is very difficult to maintain exactly the same rate of speed in city conditions. Ergo, I think the belief that it is wrong to drive even 1 MPH below the speed limit, leads to speeding.

When I am riding my bike, I do try to pull over on streets where there are cars behind me, and I am going well below the speed limit. However it is not always possible to do so safely, because of parked cars. Generally I am not riding on such streets for more than a couple of blocks anyway.

And I am concerned with narrow country roads that can still be very busy.

I avoid narrow country roads, I have heard too many horror stories about cyclists being hit by douchebag drivers out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why cyclists are douches and they will just never admit to this. Yes, we have to "share the road". The reality is roads are built and designed for cars not bicycles. To be a cyclist and bitch about cars on the road is like moving to the country and complaining about the wildlife. It was there first.

Bicycles and cars are incompatible and for cyclists to claim any moral high ground is forgetting who and what the road is really built for in the first place.

Every department of transportation in this region insists that roads are for both cars, trucks, buses, and bikes (limited access highways apart). That is the law, and that is the political reality of transportation in this region.

And no one I know bitches that cars are on the road (indeed, 90% of cyclists also drive). We only bitch when they do dangerous things.

BTW, just so you know, bicycles existed before internal combustion engines, and paving of roads was initially done at the instigation of cyclists.

You, however, appear to be a douche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

Just so you know, the speed limit is a maximum speed, not a minimum. When the sign says "25 MPH" that does not mean that driving 29MPH is okay, but driving 23MPH is forbidden.

Driving up to 10 MPH over the limit is widely considered acceptable. Why is driving one mile under the limit unacceptable?

Driving to slow can impede traffic. Even on a highway you are required to turn on your hazards and remain in the far right lane.

Do your thing but neither a car nor a bike has a right to impact the other. If cars are lined up behind you just pull over and let them pass.

Bikes are banned from almost all limited access highways. I am mostly concerned with city streets.

And driving slower impedes traffic. So does an accident caused by you driving too fast. Driving 24 MPH in a 25 MPH zone may delay you. As long as it is not done to intentionally slow traffic it is not illegal. Driving 26MPH though seldom enforced, IS illegal. It is very difficult to maintain exactly the same rate of speed in city conditions. Ergo, I think the belief that it is wrong to drive even 1 MPH below the speed limit, leads to speeding.

When I am riding my bike, I do try to pull over on streets where there are cars behind me, and I am going well below the speed limit. However it is not always possible to do so safely, because of parked cars. Generally I am not riding on such streets for more than a couple of blocks anyway.

And I am concerned with narrow country roads that can still be very busy.

I avoid narrow country roads, I have heard too many horror stories about cyclists being hit by douchebag drivers out there.

The drivers are not douchey, the country road is a poor choice for cyclists. Visibility can be poor and very few bailout options for either driver or cyclist. But my guess is you have rarely ever driven on country roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

Just so you know, the speed limit is a maximum speed, not a minimum. When the sign says "25 MPH" that does not mean that driving 29MPH is okay, but driving 23MPH is forbidden.

Driving up to 10 MPH over the limit is widely considered acceptable. Why is driving one mile under the limit unacceptable?

Driving to slow can impede traffic. Even on a highway you are required to turn on your hazards and remain in the far right lane.

Do your thing but neither a car nor a bike has a right to impact the other. If cars are lined up behind you just pull over and let them pass.

Bikes are banned from almost all limited access highways. I am mostly concerned with city streets.

And driving slower impedes traffic. So does an accident caused by you driving too fast. Driving 24 MPH in a 25 MPH zone may delay you. As long as it is not done to intentionally slow traffic it is not illegal. Driving 26MPH though seldom enforced, IS illegal. It is very difficult to maintain exactly the same rate of speed in city conditions. Ergo, I think the belief that it is wrong to drive even 1 MPH below the speed limit, leads to speeding.

When I am riding my bike, I do try to pull over on streets where there are cars behind me, and I am going well below the speed limit. However it is not always possible to do so safely, because of parked cars. Generally I am not riding on such streets for more than a couple of blocks anyway.

And I am concerned with narrow country roads that can still be very busy.

I avoid narrow country roads, I have heard too many horror stories about cyclists being hit by douchebag drivers out there.

The drivers are not douchey, the country road is a poor choice for cyclists. Visibility can be poor and very few bailout options for either driver or cyclist. But my guess is you have rarely ever driven on country roads.

I have driven on plenty of country roads. I have experienced douchy drivers that way, who tailgate you when you drive the speed limit, who drive too fast for the conditions, etc. And the incidents I have seen written up were the drivers' fault. Do you need me to google them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why cyclists are douches and they will just never admit to this. Yes, we have to "share the road". The reality is roads are built and designed for cars not bicycles. To be a cyclist and bitch about cars on the road is like moving to the country and complaining about the wildlife. It was there first.

Bicycles and cars are incompatible and for cyclists to claim any moral high ground is forgetting who and what the road is really built for in the first place.

Every department of transportation in this region insists that roads are for both cars, trucks, buses, and bikes (limited access highways apart). That is the law, and that is the political reality of transportation in this region.

And no one I know bitches that cars are on the road (indeed, 90% of cyclists also drive). We only bitch when they do dangerous things.

BTW, just so you know, bicycles existed before internal combustion engines, and paving of roads was initially done at the instigation of cyclists.

You, however, appear to be a douche.

And yet they aren't designed for bikes at all. Go figure. So yes, the road is insisted to be shared but stop acting like cyclists can do no wrong. In this thread alone we have cyclists admitting to breaking the rule of the road for no other reason than "local custom". WTF is that? Arrogance and douch-baggery, that is what it is. Blow through a four way stop and get pasted for all care. Split the lane in the city and get swiped by a car changing lanes for all I care, but you own the behavior that put your ass in traction.

It doesn't matter if you are right when the other thing is 4000lbs. I hope your attitude is of comfort to your family and their lawsuit when you are dead or crippled because you ride based on "local custom". I hope you kiss your family goodbye every time your righteous ass goes riding.

Idiot.

[Anonymous]

http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/69-year-old-bicyclist-killed-in-hume-accident


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/anne-arundel-cyclist-killed-at-blind-spot-in-road/2013/08/22/eb0d49fe-0b65-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/two-montgomery-cyclists-killed-while-on-their-tandem-bike/2015/10/31/2e004b40-8034-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

Just so you know, the speed limit is a maximum speed, not a minimum. When the sign says "25 MPH" that does not mean that driving 29MPH is okay, but driving 23MPH is forbidden.

Driving up to 10 MPH over the limit is widely considered acceptable. Why is driving one mile under the limit unacceptable?

Driving to slow can impede traffic. Even on a highway you are required to turn on your hazards and remain in the far right lane.

Do your thing but neither a car nor a bike has a right to impact the other. If cars are lined up behind you just pull over and let them pass.

Bikes are banned from almost all limited access highways. I am mostly concerned with city streets.

And driving slower impedes traffic. So does an accident caused by you driving too fast. Driving 24 MPH in a 25 MPH zone may delay you. As long as it is not done to intentionally slow traffic it is not illegal. Driving 26MPH though seldom enforced, IS illegal. It is very difficult to maintain exactly the same rate of speed in city conditions. Ergo, I think the belief that it is wrong to drive even 1 MPH below the speed limit, leads to speeding.

When I am riding my bike, I do try to pull over on streets where there are cars behind me, and I am going well below the speed limit. However it is not always possible to do so safely, because of parked cars. Generally I am not riding on such streets for more than a couple of blocks anyway.

And I am concerned with narrow country roads that can still be very busy.

I avoid narrow country roads, I have heard too many horror stories about cyclists being hit by douchebag drivers out there.

The drivers are not douchey, the country road is a poor choice for cyclists. Visibility can be poor and very few bailout options for either driver or cyclist. But my guess is you have rarely ever driven on country roads.

I have driven on plenty of country roads. I have experienced douchy drivers that way, who tailgate you when you drive the speed limit, who drive too fast for the conditions, etc. And the incidents I have seen written up were the drivers' fault. Do you need me to google them?

I don't need you to do anything but keep your bike off narrow country roads for your own safety. Again, it isn't about who is the jerk, it is about picking a safe route to ride. I tend to look both ways when crossing the street in DC too, certainly not because I have to. I have the right of way after all. Everyone must stop for me, but can they and will they is what you must ask yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/69-year-old-bicyclist-killed-in-hume-accident


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/anne-arundel-cyclist-killed-at-blind-spot-in-road/2013/08/22/eb0d49fe-0b65-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/two-montgomery-cyclists-killed-while-on-their-tandem-bike/2015/10/31/2e004b40-8034-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html

I don't care, the consequence of choosing a poor road. Choose wrong and the danger goes up exponentially. But I'm sure they were right, but they are still just as dead. Perhaps that should go on their tombstone, "I had the right to the full lane"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why cyclists are douches and they will just never admit to this. Yes, we have to "share the road". The reality is roads are built and designed for cars not bicycles. To be a cyclist and bitch about cars on the road is like moving to the country and complaining about the wildlife. It was there first.

Bicycles and cars are incompatible and for cyclists to claim any moral high ground is forgetting who and what the road is really built for in the first place.

Every department of transportation in this region insists that roads are for both cars, trucks, buses, and bikes (limited access highways apart). That is the law, and that is the political reality of transportation in this region.

And no one I know bitches that cars are on the road (indeed, 90% of cyclists also drive). We only bitch when they do dangerous things.

BTW, just so you know, bicycles existed before internal combustion engines, and paving of roads was initially done at the instigation of cyclists.

You, however, appear to be a douche.

And yet they aren't designed for bikes at all. Go figure. So yes, the road is insisted to be shared but stop acting like cyclists can do no wrong. In this thread alone we have cyclists admitting to breaking the rule of the road for no other reason than "local custom". WTF is that? Arrogance and douch-baggery, that is what it is. Blow through a four way stop and get pasted for all care. Split the lane in the city and get swiped by a car changing lanes for all I care, but you own the behavior that put your ass in traction.

It doesn't matter if you are right when the other thing is 4000lbs. I hope your attitude is of comfort to your family and their lawsuit when you are dead or crippled because you ride based on "local custom". I hope you kiss your family goodbye every time your righteous ass goes riding.

Idiot.

Actually many roads are being rebuilt with bike lanes, etc, but that is not possible for every road. I do not see though what how a paved road is not designed for bikes. Try riding on one, you will find that the road is perfectly rideable. What is is not designed for is for you to go cruising along at 60MPH without ever having to slow down and wait for a safe place to pass a cyclist. Its not that they are not built for sharing, its that your idea of sharing involves zero inconvenience to you.

As for idahoing stops, as practiced by many cyclists it is a safe and useful behavior (if we stopped doing it, it would slow down city drivers much more). Its not arrogance, its logically determining what to do on a road balancing many factors. It is technically illegal in this region (for now - there is a proposal to change the law in DC) but so is driving even 1 MPH over the speed limit.

And believe me, cyclists are strongly concerned with self preservation - few do things likely to get themselves killed, which is why so many ride so much with so few fatalities.


Odd how you keep going back and forth between actual dangerous cyclists behavior (lane splitting between moving lanes of traffic for example) and your belief that bikes do not belong on the road. If you were concerned about safety you would want cyclists to ride, but more safely. It appears that you just want them out of your way, and use the usualy rhetoric about being hit to scare them away.

Fact is your big vehicle will not protect you from cardio vascular disease. Biking adds to life expectancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/69-year-old-bicyclist-killed-in-hume-accident


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/anne-arundel-cyclist-killed-at-blind-spot-in-road/2013/08/22/eb0d49fe-0b65-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/two-montgomery-cyclists-killed-while-on-their-tandem-bike/2015/10/31/2e004b40-8034-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html

I don't care, the consequence of choosing a poor road. Choose wrong and the danger goes up exponentially. But I'm sure they were right, but they are still just as dead. Perhaps that should go on their tombstone, "I had the right to the full lane"

These folks lived in those places. They did not have a better road to ride on. And none of the roads made accidents inevitable, the drivers did.

But you don't care. Because you are a douche. Well I don't care what you think when your state raises its gas tax, or installs speed cameras, or increases fines for reckless driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't have a problem with cyclists who ride in the lane so long as it is in the right third of the lane so that passing is easy and safe. If the rider rides in the center of the lane, that is unnecessary and obnoxious, especially when he or she is aware of a line of cars waiting to pass. Unless a cyclist can maintain the speed limit, he or she should pull over to let cars pass.

I also believe cyclists can ride side by side as long as traffic is VERY light. If traffic is moderate to heavy, cyclists should ride single file, or at least have the cyclist on the left side pull back so that cars can pass.

The cyclists who feel justified in obstructing traffic for the benefit of their workout regimen are the ones who are making this an issue. If it weren't for their pompous behavior, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Signed an avid cyclist.

Just so you know, the speed limit is a maximum speed, not a minimum. When the sign says "25 MPH" that does not mean that driving 29MPH is okay, but driving 23MPH is forbidden.

Driving up to 10 MPH over the limit is widely considered acceptable. Why is driving one mile under the limit unacceptable?

Driving to slow can impede traffic. Even on a highway you are required to turn on your hazards and remain in the far right lane.

Do your thing but neither a car nor a bike has a right to impact the other. If cars are lined up behind you just pull over and let them pass.

Bikes are banned from almost all limited access highways. I am mostly concerned with city streets.

And driving slower impedes traffic. So does an accident caused by you driving too fast. Driving 24 MPH in a 25 MPH zone may delay you. As long as it is not done to intentionally slow traffic it is not illegal. Driving 26MPH though seldom enforced, IS illegal. It is very difficult to maintain exactly the same rate of speed in city conditions. Ergo, I think the belief that it is wrong to drive even 1 MPH below the speed limit, leads to speeding.

When I am riding my bike, I do try to pull over on streets where there are cars behind me, and I am going well below the speed limit. However it is not always possible to do so safely, because of parked cars. Generally I am not riding on such streets for more than a couple of blocks anyway.

And I am concerned with narrow country roads that can still be very busy.

I avoid narrow country roads, I have heard too many horror stories about cyclists being hit by douchebag drivers out there.

The drivers are not douchey, the country road is a poor choice for cyclists. Visibility can be poor and very few bailout options for either driver or cyclist. But my guess is you have rarely ever driven on country roads.

I have driven on plenty of country roads. I have experienced douchy drivers that way, who tailgate you when you drive the speed limit, who drive too fast for the conditions, etc. And the incidents I have seen written up were the drivers' fault. Do you need me to google them?

I don't need you to do anything but keep your bike off narrow country roads for your own safety. Again, it isn't about who is the jerk, it is about picking a safe route to ride. I tend to look both ways when crossing the street in DC too, certainly not because I have to. I have the right of way after all. Everyone must stop for me, but can they and will they is what you must ask yourself.

But people who live there have no other roads to ride on. You can bet I choose where to ride based on my safety - but you had better not drive like a douche, or you may just find that killing a cyclist has consequences for YOUR life.

And of course this is why when someone does have to ride on a country road, they need to ride in the center of the lane, to discourage unsafe douchey in lane passing. Also why they should ride with helmet cams, and in groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't need you to do anything but keep your bike off narrow country roads for your own safety. Again, it isn't about who is the jerk, it is about picking a safe route to ride. I tend to look both ways when crossing the street in DC too, certainly not because I have to. I have the right of way after all. Everyone must stop for me, but can they and will they is what you must ask yourself.

Maybe we should stop funding repairs to narrow country roads that are not available to be shared by all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why cyclists are douches and they will just never admit to this. Yes, we have to "share the road". The reality is roads are built and designed for cars not bicycles. To be a cyclist and bitch about cars on the road is like moving to the country and complaining about the wildlife. It was there first.

Bicycles and cars are incompatible and for cyclists to claim any moral high ground is forgetting who and what the road is really built for in the first place.

Every department of transportation in this region insists that roads are for both cars, trucks, buses, and bikes (limited access highways apart). That is the law, and that is the political reality of transportation in this region.

And no one I know bitches that cars are on the road (indeed, 90% of cyclists also drive). We only bitch when they do dangerous things.

BTW, just so you know, bicycles existed before internal combustion engines, and paving of roads was initially done at the instigation of cyclists.

You, however, appear to be a douche.

And yet they aren't designed for bikes at all. Go figure. So yes, the road is insisted to be shared but stop acting like cyclists can do no wrong. In this thread alone we have cyclists admitting to breaking the rule of the road for no other reason than "local custom". WTF is that? Arrogance and douch-baggery, that is what it is. Blow through a four way stop and get pasted for all care. Split the lane in the city and get swiped by a car changing lanes for all I care, but you own the behavior that put your ass in traction.

It doesn't matter if you are right when the other thing is 4000lbs. I hope your attitude is of comfort to your family and their lawsuit when you are dead or crippled because you ride based on "local custom". I hope you kiss your family goodbye every time your righteous ass goes riding.

Idiot.

Actually many roads are being rebuilt with bike lanes, etc, but that is not possible for every road. I do not see though what how a paved road is not designed for bikes. Try riding on one, you will find that the road is perfectly rideable. What is is not designed for is for you to go cruising along at 60MPH without ever having to slow down and wait for a safe place to pass a cyclist. Its not that they are not built for sharing, its that your idea of sharing involves zero inconvenience to you.

As for idahoing stops, as practiced by many cyclists it is a safe and useful behavior (if we stopped doing it, it would slow down city drivers much more). Its not arrogance, its logically determining what to do on a road balancing many factors. It is technically illegal in this region (for now - there is a proposal to change the law in DC) but so is driving even 1 MPH over the speed limit.

And believe me, cyclists are strongly concerned with self preservation - few do things likely to get themselves killed, which is why so many ride so much with so few fatalities.


Odd how you keep going back and forth between actual dangerous cyclists behavior (lane splitting between moving lanes of traffic for example) and your belief that bikes do not belong on the road. If you were concerned about safety you would want cyclists to ride, but more safely. It appears that you just want them out of your way, and use the usualy rhetoric about being hit to scare them away.

Fact is your big vehicle will not protect you from cardio vascular disease. Biking adds to life expectancy.

They are allowed on the road however that does not mean that they should be on the road, or every road. Two different things. Pick better, safer routes. I don't do anything to scare them away. I just drive, but if either of us make a mistake I was my car and move on.

I'm a road runner and believe me, I can't afford to be righteous or arrogant. I pick my routes and time of day accordingly.

The question of the thread asked "Why do you hog the road even with a large shoulder?" And the only real answer anyone has given is nothing more than "because I can". Where is the safety in that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't need you to do anything but keep your bike off narrow country roads for your own safety. Again, it isn't about who is the jerk, it is about picking a safe route to ride. I tend to look both ways when crossing the street in DC too, certainly not because I have to. I have the right of way after all. Everyone must stop for me, but can they and will they is what you must ask yourself.

Maybe we should stop funding repairs to narrow country roads that are not available to be shared by all.

Or, we should tax road bikes and have them registered like any other vehicle on the road. Their tax and registration fee can fund the construction of bike lanes.