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

[Anonymous]

This is why we need flying cars.

I'm very conscious of cyclists' right to share the road. That doesn't stop me from gritting my teeth a bit when I see one of them taking up the lane on the parts of Beach Drive with the worst visibility. But so what? It's an extra 30 seconds (or less) out of my life that I have to wait to pass.

[Anonymous]

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 can guarantee you, I know of no cyclist who does not attempt to find safer routes to get to where they want to go. Even folks looking for long recreational rides generally look for safer choices.

I don't do anything to scare them away.

Someone here keeps saying "you will get killed" "Stay the hell away" and similar.

I just drive, but if either of us make a mistake I was my car and move on.

If you do something reckless or illegal (and that was what happened in the incidents I linked to) you will not just do that.


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.

As a runner, you may not realize that some of us ride to get places. Also I have seen plenty of runners who run in dangerous places, and they have options (like sidewalks) that cyclists generally do not have.

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?

There were plenty of reasons given for why people take the lane (not hog the road) when there is a shoulder - I am not going to rehash the thread for you.

[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.

I trust you will then get off the road when you come across a horse-drawn buggy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The sales taxes on bikes and accessories is more than enough to do that. But since the bike lanes are mostly for your convenience, to get us out of your way, you should probably pay for them.

BTW registering bikes is impractical - the license plate to be visible would be too large and heavy. Without a license plate there would be no enforcement. The localities that required registration have mostly dropped it. Because its impractical, and because they want to encourage more biking, not less. Biking reduces pollution, improves health, enables urbanism, and yes reduces congestion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, if done ratably by the wear and tear created by weight, and also paid for substantially from general revenues, like most non-federal roads.

If you are a driver who doesn't want conflicts with bikes you can take one of two positions:
1) Bikes stay off the road or pay their own way
2) Pay for bike lanes and wider roads to reduce car/bike conflicts

To me the answer is obviously #2. Happy to hear your explanation as to why #1 is both fair and remotely unselfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except y'all are the ones going on about it doesn't matter who is right, because we will die. Fine, say that as much as you want, it will win you no friends.

I think it does matter who is right. I will not defend a reckless cyclist, but I will not accept that it does not matter when people die because of reckless drivers. And you know what, increasingly legislators are listening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 can guarantee you, I know of no cyclist who does not attempt to find safer routes to get to where they want to go. Even folks looking for long recreational rides generally look for safer choices.

I don't do anything to scare them away.

Someone here keeps saying "you will get killed" "Stay the hell away" and similar.

I just drive, but if either of us make a mistake I was my car and move on.

If you do something reckless or illegal (and that was what happened in the incidents I linked to) you will not just do that.

Anne Arundel cyclist killed at blind spot in road

Where was the illegal act by the driver in this accident? The cyclist was in a shaded part of the road at the crest of the hill that was a blind spot. The driver was not speeding nor drunk. This was wrong place, wrong time and here the cyclists always loses.

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.



As a runner, you may not realize that some of us ride to get places. Also I have seen plenty of runners who run in dangerous places, and they have options (like sidewalks) that cyclists generally do not have.

And thank you for lowering your carbon footprint but your reasons are your own and don't really matter.

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?

There were plenty of reasons given for why people take the lane (not hog the road) when there is a shoulder - I am not going to rehash the thread for you.

There were two reasons, no need for you to rehash them:
1. Because I can
2. Loose gravel on the side. (this was the only legitimate safety reason that I read in all of ten pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, if done ratably by the wear and tear created by weight, and also paid for substantially from general revenues, like most non-federal roads.

If you are a driver who doesn't want conflicts with bikes you can take one of two positions:
1) Bikes stay off the road or pay their own way
2) Pay for bike lanes and wider roads to reduce car/bike conflicts

To me the answer is obviously #2. Happy to hear your explanation as to why #1 is both fair and remotely unselfish.

The maintenance is the same, sorry, in fact to be even safer, bike lanes need to be added, which could require any number of infrastructure changes, such as power lines being moved etc. I also suppose you will want the bike lanes plowed in the winter too. The impact of adding truly wider lanes that make a honest safe impact should be taxed by the rider not the driver. As a driver I'm not allowed in the bike lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, if done ratably by the wear and tear created by weight, and also paid for substantially from general revenues, like most non-federal roads.

If you are a driver who doesn't want conflicts with bikes you can take one of two positions:
1) Bikes stay off the road or pay their own way
2) Pay for bike lanes and wider roads to reduce car/bike conflicts

To me the answer is obviously #2. Happy to hear your explanation as to why #1 is both fair and remotely unselfish.

The maintenance is the same, sorry, in fact to be even safer, bike lanes need to be added, which could require any number of infrastructure changes, such as power lines being moved etc. I also suppose you will want the bike lanes plowed in the winter too. The impact of adding truly wider lanes that make a honest safe impact should be taxed by the rider not the driver. As a driver I'm not allowed in the bike lane.

Maintenance for bike lanes is very low, because bikes are so light. Only the heaviest used multiuse paths are plowed (plowing an ordinary striped bike lane adds almost nothing to the cost of plowing the road it is on, aside from which they are often not plowed anyway, and when they are, they are used as sidewalks.

It is very rare that power lines are moved to add bike lanes. Generally bike lanes are added to streets to by widening overly wide regular lanes, for the sake of calming traffic and improving walkability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anne Arundel cyclist killed at blind spot in road

Where was the illegal act by the driver in this accident? The cyclist was in a shaded part of the road at the crest of the hill that was a blind spot. The driver was not speeding nor drunk. This was wrong place, wrong time and here the cyclists always loses.

The motorist attempted to pass approaching the crest of a hill. We all know this is unsafe, because you can't see oncoming traffic. The motorist then swerved back to the right, hiiting and killing the cyclist, due to an oncoming car. It was the wrong placece, and wrong time to attempt a pass.

[Anonymous]

Anne Arundel cyclist killed at blind spot in road

Where was the illegal act by the driver in this accident? The cyclist was in a shaded part of the road at the crest of the hill that was a blind spot. The driver was not speeding nor drunk. This was wrong place, wrong time and here the cyclists always loses.

As the popular athlete and Annapolis High School track coach neared the shaded top of that hill on her bicycle Wednesday evening, she was hit from behind by a Honda van whose driver was eager to get around the lone cyclist.

She was approaching the top of the hill. She would have been visible to a car behind her. And she was hit from behind, by someone trying to pass where it was not possible to pass safely in the opposite lane. The driver could have waited to pass until both the van and the cyclist were past the crest of the hill, and it was possible to pass safely in the opposite lane. The driver did not, because killing someone was not as big a deal as waiting to pass.

Douchebaggery is not an adequate word for what the driver of the van did. That is why I do not ride in the country side when I have a choice. And it is why I do not care about the complaints of rural drivers. When you take killing people seriously, I will listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Interesting excuse (living there) for riding on an unsafe road. I live on an unsafe road, and when we first moved here, I tried riding on it a few times. Then I stopped when I saw how dangerous it was. I started taking my bike on my car to other locations to ride. It is really inconvenient, but I would take the inconvenience over risking my life. On my road, I HAVE to "take the road" in order to ride. Consequently, drivers behind me must wait until I turn off to pass, or risk passing into oncoming traffic on a curvy country road. If you are a cyclist and you live on one of these roads and ride on it, there is only one word to describe you. IDIOT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, if done ratably by the wear and tear created by weight, and also paid for substantially from general revenues, like most non-federal roads.

If you are a driver who doesn't want conflicts with bikes you can take one of two positions:
1) Bikes stay off the road or pay their own way
2) Pay for bike lanes and wider roads to reduce car/bike conflicts

To me the answer is obviously #2. Happy to hear your explanation as to why #1 is both fair and remotely unselfish.

The maintenance is the same, sorry, in fact to be even safer, bike lanes need to be added, which could require any number of infrastructure changes, such as power lines being moved etc. I also suppose you will want the bike lanes plowed in the winter too. The impact of adding truly wider lanes that make a honest safe impact should be taxed by the rider not the driver. As a driver I'm not allowed in the bike lane.

Maintenance for bike lanes is very low, because bikes are so light. Only the heaviest used multiuse paths are plowed (plowing an ordinary striped bike lane adds almost nothing to the cost of plowing the road it is on, aside from which they are often not plowed anyway, and when they are, they are used as sidewalks.

It is very rare that power lines are moved to add bike lanes. Generally bike lanes are added to streets to by widening overly wide regular lanes, for the sake of calming traffic and improving walkability.

You've never widened a road, you have very little understanding of what is above below or what easements may take place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anne Arundel cyclist killed at blind spot in road

Where was the illegal act by the driver in this accident? The cyclist was in a shaded part of the road at the crest of the hill that was a blind spot. The driver was not speeding nor drunk. This was wrong place, wrong time and here the cyclists always loses.

As the popular athlete and Annapolis High School track coach neared the shaded top of that hill on her bicycle Wednesday evening, she was hit from behind by a Honda van whose driver was eager to get around the lone cyclist.

She was approaching the top of the hill. She would have been visible to a car behind her. And she was hit from behind, by someone trying to pass where it was not possible to pass safely in the opposite lane. The driver could have waited to pass until both the van and the cyclist were past the crest of the hill, and it was possible to pass safely in the opposite lane. The driver did not, because killing someone was not as big a deal as waiting to pass.

Douchebaggery is not an adequate word for what the driver of the van did. That is why I do not ride in the country side when I have a choice. And it is why I do not care about the complaints of rural drivers. When you take killing people seriously, I will listen.

And yet no charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, if done ratably by the wear and tear created by weight, and also paid for substantially from general revenues, like most non-federal roads.

If you are a driver who doesn't want conflicts with bikes you can take one of two positions:
1) Bikes stay off the road or pay their own way
2) Pay for bike lanes and wider roads to reduce car/bike conflicts

To me the answer is obviously #2. Happy to hear your explanation as to why #1 is both fair and remotely unselfish.

The maintenance is the same, sorry, in fact to be even safer, bike lanes need to be added, which could require any number of infrastructure changes, such as power lines being moved etc. I also suppose you will want the bike lanes plowed in the winter too. The impact of adding truly wider lanes that make a honest safe impact should be taxed by the rider not the driver. As a driver I'm not allowed in the bike lane.

Maintenance for bike lanes is very low, because bikes are so light. Only the heaviest used multiuse paths are plowed (plowing an ordinary striped bike lane adds almost nothing to the cost of plowing the road it is on, aside from which they are often not plowed anyway, and when they are, they are used as sidewalks.

It is very rare that power lines are moved to add bike lanes. Generally bike lanes are added to streets to by widening overly wide regular lanes, for the sake of calming traffic and improving walkability.

You've never widened a road, you have very little understanding of what is above below or what easements may take place.

Again, roads are not typically widened when bike lanes are added in urban areas. Lanes are narrowed, sometimes parking is removed.