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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I do agree with the PP who drew a contrast between the "cyclist" in their lycra outfits vs. someone on a bike ride. The "cyclists" are really the problem here.

I don't understand the hostility to faster, skilled cyclists when you don't mind "someone on a bike ride" at 10 mph who can't even keep a straight line or know the rules of the road. Yes there are cyclist that never stop for signals or stop signs. But a large proportion of drivers don't come to a full stop either and they just have to press their foot to get going again. Everybody is better off when we all follow the rules of the road and act in predictable ways.

As a regular bike commuter, my normal pace is pretty much the 25 mph speed limit in most of DC and suburban residential streets. When I take the whole lane it's because it is SAFER. If I stay to the right of the lane, someone going 40 will try to zoom by inches from me. If he hits me, I'll barely leave a scratch on his fender, but that crash would likely be fatal for me. The scariest situations are the drivers that speed by only to slam on their brakes for a right turn directly in front of me - a crash that would put me under their wheels. The only drivers I'm impeding are the jack rabbit starts at the light and the cars that roll through stop signs and those that insist on going 20 mph over the limit.

Is it because you only feel powerful behind the wheel or that you couldn't imagine pedaling fast enough to keep up?

I'm not sure that I see where the correlation between riding "skill" and knowledge of the rules of the road. Again, typical cyclists arrogance. "I wear lycra, therefor I know more about the rules of the road than anyone else."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jesus what an arrogant position to take. So if I just jump on a bike right now and hit the road I instantly know what I'm doing and how to ride defensively?

I haven't seen a single person posting here as a cyclist saying they would try to run a driver off the road or intentionally collide with one for driving (in the cyclist's view) improperly.

So apparently there isn't a need for training on that count.

What's more, we license drivers because driving a car has the potential to cause serious harm to others, whether intentionally inflicted or not. That's simply not true of cyclists except in the rarest of cases - try searching for deaths caused by cyclists. They're few and far between.

So a cyclists has NOTHING to learn?!?!?! What would a defensive riding course hurt?

The Washington Area Bike Association offers classes on Safe City Cycling, I attended one. They are quite good. However licensing is still not practical, as it would mostly discourage cycling - cyclists are safest when there are more of them (plenty of studies on this) so this would make cycling less safe, not more. Since cyclists hardly ever endanger others, there is no need for mandatory training. It is still a good idea to get the training though - I recommend it to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I do agree with the PP who drew a contrast between the "cyclist" in their lycra outfits vs. someone on a bike ride. The "cyclists" are really the problem here.

I don't understand the hostility to faster, skilled cyclists when you don't mind "someone on a bike ride" at 10 mph who can't even keep a straight line or know the rules of the road. Yes there are cyclist that never stop for signals or stop signs. But a large proportion of drivers don't come to a full stop either and they just have to press their foot to get going again. Everybody is better off when we all follow the rules of the road and act in predictable ways.

As a regular bike commuter, my normal pace is pretty much the 25 mph speed limit in most of DC and suburban residential streets. When I take the whole lane it's because it is SAFER. If I stay to the right of the lane, someone going 40 will try to zoom by inches from me. If he hits me, I'll barely leave a scratch on his fender, but that crash would likely be fatal for me. The scariest situations are the drivers that speed by only to slam on their brakes for a right turn directly in front of me - a crash that would put me under their wheels. The only drivers I'm impeding are the jack rabbit starts at the light and the cars that roll through stop signs and those that insist on going 20 mph over the limit.

Is it because you only feel powerful behind the wheel or that you couldn't imagine pedaling fast enough to keep up?

I'm not sure that I see where the correlation between riding "skill" and knowledge of the rules of the road. Again, typical cyclists arrogance. "I wear lycra, therefor I know more about the rules of the road than anyone else."

I sometimes where lycra, and sometimes ride in casual clothes. You really can't tell from what you see which "camp" I am in. The distinction is not nearly as important in the biking community as it is in the minds of some drivers. Its kind of a way to say they don't hate all cyclists, just a certain set with certain attitudes they attribute to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I do agree with the PP who drew a contrast between the "cyclist" in their lycra outfits vs. someone on a bike ride. The "cyclists" are really the problem here.

I don't understand the hostility to faster, skilled cyclists when you don't mind "someone on a bike ride" at 10 mph who can't even keep a straight line or know the rules of the road. Yes there are cyclist that never stop for signals or stop signs. But a large proportion of drivers don't come to a full stop either and they just have to press their foot to get going again. Everybody is better off when we all follow the rules of the road and act in predictable ways.

As a regular bike commuter, my normal pace is pretty much the 25 mph speed limit in most of DC and suburban residential streets. When I take the whole lane it's because it is SAFER. If I stay to the right of the lane, someone going 40 will try to zoom by inches from me. If he hits me, I'll barely leave a scratch on his fender, but that crash would likely be fatal for me. The scariest situations are the drivers that speed by only to slam on their brakes for a right turn directly in front of me - a crash that would put me under their wheels. The only drivers I'm impeding are the jack rabbit starts at the light and the cars that roll through stop signs and those that insist on going 20 mph over the limit.

Is it because you only feel powerful behind the wheel or that you couldn't imagine pedaling fast enough to keep up?

I'm not sure that I see where the correlation between riding "skill" and knowledge of the rules of the road. Again, typical cyclists arrogance. "I wear lycra, therefor I know more about the rules of the road than anyone else."

Let me explain then. While there are exceptions, generally people don't buy cycling outfits unless they ride a lot. Generally people who ride a lot know more about riding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jesus what an arrogant position to take. So if I just jump on a bike right now and hit the road I instantly know what I'm doing and how to ride defensively?

I haven't seen a single person posting here as a cyclist saying they would try to run a driver off the road or intentionally collide with one for driving (in the cyclist's view) improperly.

So apparently there isn't a need for training on that count.

What's more, we license drivers because driving a car has the potential to cause serious harm to others, whether intentionally inflicted or not. That's simply not true of cyclists except in the rarest of cases - try searching for deaths caused by cyclists. They're few and far between.

So a cyclists has NOTHING to learn?!?!?! What would a defensive riding course hurt?

The Washington Area Bike Association offers classes on Safe City Cycling, I attended one. They are quite good. However licensing is still not practical, as it would mostly discourage cycling - cyclists are safest when there are more of them (plenty of studies on this) so this would make cycling less safe, not more. Since cyclists hardly ever endanger others, there is no need for mandatory training. It is still a good idea to get the training though - I recommend it to all.

That is great that there are classes. Licensing is not necessary.

And now, OMG the freakin class isn't recommended because I am scared that a cyclist is endangering me, the class is to teach riders defensive riding as well as the rules of the road again for their protection, not mine. But who needs it, I mean this thread is only 12 pages in because "share the road" is working out so well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: You assume the douchebag cyclists in the lycra are "faster and skilled"?

Why do you assume everyone wearign lycra is a douchebag? I know plenty of people who wear lycra to ride who are the kindest, finest people I know, and who ride safely and politely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: But who needs it, I mean this thread is only 12 pages in because "share the road" is working out so well.

Share the road works pretty well. Share the anonymous message board, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, can you tell me which rural counties you live in so I can know to avoid them?

Simple, all of them douche

You live in all of them? Impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, can you tell me which rural counties you live in so I can know to avoid them?

I know someone in a wheelchair from a bike accident with a car. It is not worth the risk . Just avoid the whole area.

I know someone who died in a car car accident on a country road.

I know people who died from cardio vascular disease.

Sorry, scaring us off won't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you in Loudoun? Reston Century was on Sunday. They of course had the right to ride the entire lane, and that was undoubtedly the safest way to ride to avoid being run off the road. If they were riding at 10MPH (I would imagine most were faster) they were not endangering anyone (also IIUC it was pretty well marshalled) To pass you have to wait for a place where it is safe to pass. It is also, IIUC a once a year event (and of course they choose Sunday when roads are most quiet)

They were riding legally and safely, from all I can gather.

AFAICT they got any necessary permits. And Loudoun police have given tickets to riders who broke traffic laws.

And how is one supposed to safely and leagally pass that many cyclists?

If it was marshalled properly, you would not need to pass everyone riding in the Century at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I do agree with the PP who drew a contrast between the "cyclist" in their lycra outfits vs. someone on a bike ride. The "cyclists" are really the problem here.

I don't understand the hostility to faster, skilled cyclists when you don't mind "someone on a bike ride" at 10 mph who can't even keep a straight line or know the rules of the road. Yes there are cyclist that never stop for signals or stop signs. But a large proportion of drivers don't come to a full stop either and they just have to press their foot to get going again. Everybody is better off when we all follow the rules of the road and act in predictable ways.

As a regular bike commuter, my normal pace is pretty much the 25 mph speed limit in most of DC and suburban residential streets. When I take the whole lane it's because it is SAFER. If I stay to the right of the lane, someone going 40 will try to zoom by inches from me. If he hits me, I'll barely leave a scratch on his fender, but that crash would likely be fatal for me. The scariest situations are the drivers that speed by only to slam on their brakes for a right turn directly in front of me - a crash that would put me under their wheels. The only drivers I'm impeding are the jack rabbit starts at the light and the cars that roll through stop signs and those that insist on going 20 mph over the limit.

Is it because you only feel powerful behind the wheel or that you couldn't imagine pedaling fast enough to keep up?

I'm not sure that I see where the correlation between riding "skill" and knowledge of the rules of the road. Again, typical cyclists arrogance. "I wear lycra, therefor I know more about the rules of the road than anyone else."

Let me explain then. While there are exceptions, generally people don't buy cycling outfits unless they ride a lot. Generally people who ride a lot know more about riding.

No budge from the cyclists on classes. I get it. This is why you are a douche. When you made the leap to get the lycra where you empowered with knowledge and skill? Were you just born with the "gift"? When did you know you were just ready? And is this transference of knowledge for all riders when they decide to purchase the lycra?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I do agree with the PP who drew a contrast between the "cyclist" in their lycra outfits vs. someone on a bike ride. The "cyclists" are really the problem here.

I don't understand the hostility to faster, skilled cyclists when you don't mind "someone on a bike ride" at 10 mph who can't even keep a straight line or know the rules of the road. Yes there are cyclist that never stop for signals or stop signs. But a large proportion of drivers don't come to a full stop either and they just have to press their foot to get going again. Everybody is better off when we all follow the rules of the road and act in predictable ways.

As a regular bike commuter, my normal pace is pretty much the 25 mph speed limit in most of DC and suburban residential streets. When I take the whole lane it's because it is SAFER. If I stay to the right of the lane, someone going 40 will try to zoom by inches from me. If he hits me, I'll barely leave a scratch on his fender, but that crash would likely be fatal for me. The scariest situations are the drivers that speed by only to slam on their brakes for a right turn directly in front of me - a crash that would put me under their wheels. The only drivers I'm impeding are the jack rabbit starts at the light and the cars that roll through stop signs and those that insist on going 20 mph over the limit.

Is it because you only feel powerful behind the wheel or that you couldn't imagine pedaling fast enough to keep up?

I'm not sure that I see where the correlation between riding "skill" and knowledge of the rules of the road. Again, typical cyclists arrogance. "I wear lycra, therefor I know more about the rules of the road than anyone else."

Let me explain then. While there are exceptions, generally people don't buy cycling outfits unless they ride a lot. Generally people who ride a lot know more about riding.

No budge from the cyclists on classes. I get it. This is why you are a douche. When you made the leap to get the lycra where you empowered with knowledge and skill? Were you just born with the "gift"? When did you know you were just ready? And is this transference of knowledge for all riders when they decide to purchase the lycra?

You don't deserve a polite response, but here goes.

By the time I got my first lycra, I had taken the WABA class. I had also read about safe cycling techniques on bike blogs. I had also met cycling friends who discussed how to ride safely. I had also gained skill from having ridden a fair amount, in ordinary clothes.

And no there is nothing automatic, but I do find most lycra wearing cyclists have a lot of knowledge and skills.

Also not sure what you mean by no budging. I recommend classes for cyclists. I support them. But I see no reason they need to be mandatory. And, BTW, they will not teach cyclists to stay out of your way, which is what you seem to want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I do agree with the PP who drew a contrast between the "cyclist" in their lycra outfits vs. someone on a bike ride. The "cyclists" are really the problem here.

I don't understand the hostility to faster, skilled cyclists when you don't mind "someone on a bike ride" at 10 mph who can't even keep a straight line or know the rules of the road. Yes there are cyclist that never stop for signals or stop signs. But a large proportion of drivers don't come to a full stop either and they just have to press their foot to get going again. Everybody is better off when we all follow the rules of the road and act in predictable ways.

As a regular bike commuter, my normal pace is pretty much the 25 mph speed limit in most of DC and suburban residential streets. When I take the whole lane it's because it is SAFER. If I stay to the right of the lane, someone going 40 will try to zoom by inches from me. If he hits me, I'll barely leave a scratch on his fender, but that crash would likely be fatal for me. The scariest situations are the drivers that speed by only to slam on their brakes for a right turn directly in front of me - a crash that would put me under their wheels. The only drivers I'm impeding are the jack rabbit starts at the light and the cars that roll through stop signs and those that insist on going 20 mph over the limit.

Is it because you only feel powerful behind the wheel or that you couldn't imagine pedaling fast enough to keep up?

I'm not sure that I see where the correlation between riding "skill" and knowledge of the rules of the road. Again, typical cyclists arrogance. "I wear lycra, therefor I know more about the rules of the road than anyone else."

Let me explain then. While there are exceptions, generally people don't buy cycling outfits unless they ride a lot. Generally people who ride a lot know more about riding.

No budge from the cyclists on classes. I get it. This is why you are a douche. When you made the leap to get the lycra where you empowered with knowledge and skill? Were you just born with the "gift"? When did you know you were just ready? And is this transference of knowledge for all riders when they decide to purchase the lycra?

You don't deserve a polite response, but here goes.

By the time I got my first lycra, I had taken the WABA class. I had also read about safe cycling techniques on bike blogs. I had also met cycling friends who discussed how to ride safely. I had also gained skill from having ridden a fair amount, in ordinary clothes.

And no there is nothing automatic, but I do find most lycra wearing cyclists have a lot of knowledge and skills.

Also not sure what you mean by no budging. I recommend classes for cyclists. I support them. But I see no reason they need to be mandatory. And, BTW, they will not teach cyclists to stay out of your way, which is what you seem to want.

I believe classes should be mandatory for your protection.

And you don't know what I want so please don't assume that you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And exactly what driver claimed that they would run any cyclist off the road? Please, post the quote or stfu.

Both of the following suggest a desire to run a cyclist off the road or indifference to that happening.

Anonymous wrote:I think the verdict is unanimous for the most part. Cyclists who don't pull over are jerks. I am sure one of these days a driver with a serious case of road rage will take a few out...if it hasn't been done already. Hopefully this will teach them a lesson.

Anonymous wrote:

Ive got news for you, I'm not risking a head on collision that takes all of us out because you want the middle of the lane. If I come "way too close" when passing then that is for my protection as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And exactly what driver claimed that they would run any cyclist off the road? Please, post the quote or stfu.

Both of the following suggest a desire to run a cyclist off the road or indifference to that happening.

Anonymous wrote:I think the verdict is unanimous for the most part. Cyclists who don't pull over are jerks. I am sure one of these days a driver with a serious case of road rage will take a few out...if it hasn't been done already. Hopefully this will teach them a lesson.

Anonymous wrote:

Ive got news for you, I'm not risking a head on collision that takes all of us out because you want the middle of the lane. If I come "way too close" when passing then that is for my protection as well.

Neither claim a willingness or an intent to run a cyclist off the road.

The first quote claimed that they could picture someone with roadrage running a cyclists off. That is a prediction and one based on a history of road rage incidents that do not involve cyclists at all. Not really a threat.

The second quote implied avoiding an accident that would likely kill all involved. Not sure I really see a smoking gun of "I'm gonna run you off the road"!