How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

Mike Latondresse wrote:
>
> Jim Yanik .> wrote in
> > "fair"? Fair would be bicycles paying to use the roads just like
> > any auto does.And such autos fees begin usually at $25 per year.
> >
> Sorry Jim "fair" would be that the fees are paid to cyclist given that
> they don't cause the injuries and social havoc that other motor
> vehicles do plus make no negative contribution to the enviroment. I
> would suggest that about $5000/year be paid to commuting cyclist on a
> declining scale depending on mileage.

What a joke!. My college roommate ended up in the infirmary
after he was in a bike only accident. Two bikes totaled and
one person with a broken arm, the other with cuts and
abrasions. Or then there was another friend that a bike ran
into when he was in a pedestrian crosswalk on campus (the
bike ran the stop sign as well). No broken bones, but a lot
of bruises.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:


> And the motorist are paying for it. I don't think bicyclist
> should be run off the road. However, I do think they need
> stop pretending that they "own" the road.

Of course, bicycle driver DO own the roads to the same extent that
motorists own the roads.

As long as cycle
> riders follow the rules, I have no problem with them. But
> gutter riding and running stop signs and stop light are
> common cyclist practices that irritate the heck out of me.
> It seems to me that a certain percentage of cyclists are
> arrogant jerks who feel they have a right to do these
> things.

Why do those behaviors "irritate" you? Unless they cause you to alter
your behavior, they have no impact on you. I'm not condoning the
behavior, just questioning your rationale.

I dislike motorist illegal behavior, like ubiquitous breaking of the
posted speed limit and running red lights because it endangers me.


>
> So for "vehicular bicyclists" the solution is to license
> bikes like other vehicles that use the road. Charge
> registration fees like cars, require registration plates
> like cars, require safety inspections like cars, charge
> property taxes like cars, require operator licenses like
> cars, and enforce traffic rules for bikes like cars. One of
> the rules that will need to be enforced is a minimum speed
> on many roads (like for cars).
>

Cars and other motor vehicles require those things because they have
proven to be dangerous to other people. With rare exception, bicycles
are not hazardous to others, and so go unregulated.

The only place minimum speed exists is on freeway design roads. Normal
roads have traffic that comes to a stop (lights, congestion,
discharging/pickup of passengers), or a near stop (turning, slowing for
full stops, entering traffic, etc.). Minimum speeds are not practicable.
In urban areas, the average speed of traffic on some segments is slower
than bicycle speed!

Wayne

On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:58:16 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>Hey Scott, I ran into an actual arrogant pedalcyclist today.
>
>I am waiting in a queue at a traffic light. About 6th in line, I'm in the
>center of the lane behind a minivan. A guy on a mountain bike passes me
>in the gutter and starts passing the motor vehicles ahead... the light
>turns green and he nearly gets right hooked twice. He cuts through the
>intersection in front of the minivan that I am behind. Now the minivan is
>slowed to his speed, and thusly so am I. In a few seconds, the minivan
>was able to pass, and then I got to pass mr. mountain bike.
>
>I said to him 'lovely gutter passing', He responded with an arrogant
>"Whatever".
>

You're waiting in a lane behind five cars - or 4 motor vehicles and a
minvan. I can't even imagine such a thing. What's a gutter? You mean
the area where bikes pull up to the red light to wait? I should wait
in a lane so that when the light turns green they run me over?

I think I bike in a different environment than you do. Manhattan.
Sometimes I'm in a bike lane. Sometimes there are so many cars and
ped-cabs and pedestrians in the bike lanes that I end up in the middle
of the road with cars all around.

I can't even conceive of just waiting in line with cars. I pull up to
the intersection as best I can, and usually don't bother waiting for
the light to turn green.

The secret, as far as I can tell, is to be considerate. I don't cut
off cars, bikes, or pedestrians. Or even those stupid ped-cabs. I
leave the bike lanes and get into traffic to avoid the unpleasantness
of cars turning across the bike lane. I even try not to startle
pedestrians by doing things that they don't expect. But I'm sure not
waiting in line with cars. That's half the fun of biking in the big
city.

"kj" <fds> wrote in message ...
> What is a "pedalcyclist"?
>
> Is that someone who rides a bicycle?

It's a term that only a total FRED would ever use.

If you hear someone use it then move away from them,
they are nobody and worthless.

dgk wrote:

> I can't even conceive of just waiting in line with cars. I pull up to
> the intersection as best I can, and usually don't bother waiting for
> the light to turn green.

Actually, it's better to follow the rules of the road. It makes it much
easier for drivers to predict your next move.

If you're located in nonstandard positions at an intersection, or go
through one when the light is red, then other drivers are less likely to
see you and are more likely to hit you.

Please follow the rules of the road. They apply to every vehicle,
motorized or not.

In article >, dgk wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:58:16 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Hey Scott, I ran into an actual arrogant pedalcyclist today.
>>
>>I am waiting in a queue at a traffic light. About 6th in line, I'm in the
>>center of the lane behind a minivan. A guy on a mountain bike passes me
>>in the gutter and starts passing the motor vehicles ahead... the light
>>turns green and he nearly gets right hooked twice. He cuts through the
>>intersection in front of the minivan that I am behind. Now the minivan is
>>slowed to his speed, and thusly so am I. In a few seconds, the minivan
>>was able to pass, and then I got to pass mr. mountain bike.

>>I said to him 'lovely gutter passing', He responded with an arrogant
>>"Whatever".


> You're waiting in a lane behind five cars - or 4 motor vehicles and a
> minvan. I can't even imagine such a thing.

It's illegal in IL to pass on the right in that situation unless there is
8 feet of available road width. There wasn't.

> What's a gutter?

The curb, where the sewer grates are.

> You mean
> the area where bikes pull up to the red light to wait? I should wait
> in a lane so that when the light turns green they run me over?

I take the lane and take my turn. I haven't been 'run over'.

> I think I bike in a different environment than you do. Manhattan.
> Sometimes I'm in a bike lane. Sometimes there are so many cars and
> ped-cabs and pedestrians in the bike lanes that I end up in the middle
> of the road with cars all around.

I do not know NYC traffic law. If lane splitting is legal there, it's a
different story.

> I can't even conceive of just waiting in line with cars. I pull up to
> the intersection as best I can, and usually don't bother waiting for
> the light to turn green.

So you are part of the problem.

> The secret, as far as I can tell, is to be considerate. I don't cut
> off cars, bikes, or pedestrians.

You aren't being considerate when you force people to pass you again.

> Or even those stupid ped-cabs. I
> leave the bike lanes and get into traffic to avoid the unpleasantness
> of cars turning across the bike lane. I even try not to startle
> pedestrians by doing things that they don't expect.

Bike lanes are simply crap IMO. They exist as a feel good measure for
people without the skills to ride in traffic.

> But I'm sure not
> waiting in line with cars. That's half the fun of biking in the big
> city.

My fun is moving fast enough that I can use any lane of my choosing.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> It's not "punitive" if every type of vehicle using the road pays a usage
> fee.

You want bicyclists to pay a disproportional fee. Hence puntive. Your
goal is to remove bicyclists from the road.

>> You make it very clear it's just about your irrational hate.
>
> Strange,I actually enjoy bicycling.(but not in traffic.)

Then don't complain about the taxes being used to build bicycle paths
that go around in circles since you are the kind of person they are being
built for.

>>> deem necessary,and that it's perfectly legal. If you can "take the
>>> lane" at will,then you already have full use.
>>> (it's wiser to stay as far right as you can,though)
>>
>> I cannot take the lane at *ALL* times legally.
>
> But you probably do anyways.

*sigh* And I suppose you kill puppies for fun?

>> You make me pay auto
>> level taxes on a bicycle and I want the full space of a car. I will
>> take the lane ALWAYS. You think it's bad now getting around a
>> bicyclist? Wait until I am doing convoy zig-zags in the lane.

> Anything to be a rolling roadblock,huh?

Context is meaningless to you. If you want to play usenet games I'll just
killfile you.

>>> Besides,MCs can *keep up with traffic* at traffic speeds,at any road
>>> or other conditions.(here comes the boasts of keeping up with 25mph
>>> traffic",except in a headwind,or if it's really hot out,or......)
>>> Also,you would have to go by the AVERAGE bicyclist,who definitely
>>> does not keep up with traffic.You folks in the bike shorts do not
>>> qualify as "average",IMO.
>>
>> Irrelevant to your tax scheme. You want to tax bicyclists like cars
>> then all the special restrictions go away. That's the deal. You can
>> struggle to get around bicyclists the way you have to in order to get
>> around half blind senior citizens with reflexes measured on a calender
>> driving along in their crown victorias.

> Many of those bicyclists ARE half-blind senior citizens.Or drunks who've
> lost their driver's license,or kids. THOSE are the "average" bicyclist.

POBs are trying to stay out of the way of cars, stay off the road, and are
not vehicular bicyclists. They are a problem because they don't become
part of traffic. They are riding the way you want them do, don't
complain.

Meanwhile vehicular bicyclists are not in the way, move swiftly, obey the
vehicle code, etc and so forth and you want them removed because they
are using the road. Irrantional.

> No,it's not."FAIR share" means you pay a user fee just as the other road
> vehicles pay. An exclusion is NOT "fair" by any measurement.

You want a punitive tax with a nice semantic title to justify your
irrantional hate of road bicyclists.

>>> So,really it's just a matter of "how much" for the bicycle usage fee.
>>
>> You are just hung up on the semantics of registration. You just want
>> to be punitive because you hate bicycling.

> Again,a false claim.

Completely true. You want dollars delivered under a specific title just
to satisify the semantics.

In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> > and mass transis. Last time I checked, bikes riders pay no
>> > user fees for using roads, bike paths, or sidewalks.
>>
>> I don't ride on sidewalks and most bike paths are useless. I pay more
>> taxes that go for roads than many people who drive everywhere do.

> I love to see how you can prove this. If you aren't driving
> a car, you aren't paying much in the way of taxes that go
> towards building and maintaining roads.

I have paid for 3 cars. Neither of my two useful cars get particularly
good fuel economy. I probably do pay more taxes than many people who
drive everywhere.

> I suppose you could
> argue that the taxes paid by the trucks that deliver your
> stuff are really "your taxes" however, the fact is, no cars
> / trucks paying road use fees (registrationa nd gas taxes),
> no roads for bikes either. Exactly what taxes are you paying
> that "go for roads?"

You make the false assumption that I don't drive. (Hint: I am posting
from rec.autos.driving)

I also own more than one property. I am also single, so that tax is not
diluted over multiple people. That means I am paying more in property tax
too.

The portion of the driving population paying more in taxes for the roads
in the state I live in I would wager is less than half.

In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>> Most of the roads I ride on are funded by PROPERTY TAXES. The remaining
>> ones are more than covered under other taxes I PAY.

> Where do you live?

IL.

> Can you provide evidence that this is the case.

The budget details are not online, nor am I am going to be that detailed
on where I live.

> I know in NC it is not true, but I can't be sure for
> other states / cities. In NC, the state returns a percentage
> of gas tax revenues to each town / city for road
> maintenance. In some cases towns supplement these funds, but
> usually not directly from property taxes.

Property taxes are where towns get their money in IL for the most part.

>> Let's get to the root of this arguement. It has nothing to do with paying
>> or not paying. It's just a made up reason to justify running bicyclists
>> off the roads. Motor vehicles needed thick pavement and wide lanes, so
>> you pay for it.

> And the motorist are paying for it. I don't think bicyclist
> should be run off the road. However, I do think they need
> stop pretending that they "own" the road. As long as cycle
> riders follow the rules, I have no problem with them.

Oh bull****. You bicycle haters are most ****ed off when a bicyclist
follows the rules of the road to the letter.

> But
> gutter riding and running stop signs and stop light are
> common cyclist practices that irritate the heck out of me.
> It seems to me that a certain percentage of cyclists are
> arrogant jerks who feel they have a right to do these
> things.

Guess what, they are doing what a good number of motorists have told me
to do as they tried to squeeze me out of my turn in traffic queues. I
hate gutter passing, wrong ways whatever, myself. But it doesn't change
the behavior I see from motorists as I follow the vehicle code.

>> > In fact, since many bike paths are actually funded by
>> > siphoning off gas tax revenues, if you aren't driving your
>> > car, you aren't even paying to maintain the bike paths.

>> Once again, I'll repeat. Bicycle paths are not for vehicular bicyclists.
>> They are for people like you, people who drive their bikes to a forest
>> preserve or something and then take a slow ride on the meandering and
>> often circular trails for an afternoon. When they are done they pack the
>> bikes back up in their _motor_ vehicles and go home.

> So for "vehicular bicyclists" the solution is to license
> bikes like other vehicles that use the road. Charge
> registration fees like cars, require registration plates
> like cars, require safety inspections like cars, charge
> property taxes like cars, require operator licenses like
> cars, and enforce traffic rules for bikes like cars. One of
> the rules that will need to be enforced is a minimum speed
> on many roads (like for cars).

Make it punitive. Get them damn bicyclists off the road!

You want my 75 cents a year and pay the dollar to collect it yourself,
fine. You want to charge me like a car, well then, you'll be waiting
behind me. Note, the requirement in IL is 'rightmost lane' for slower
than the speed of traffic. Only biyclists are further limited. If charged
like a car, well then, that restriction is moot. The rightmost lane is
mine, just like the senior citizen in the crown victoria.

In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> In article et>, Paul wrote:
>> ><rec.bicycles.misc removed>
>> >
>> > On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:58:32 -0500, Brent P , said the following in
>> > rec.autos.driving...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Fair. as in based on wear and tear done, space taken up, etc.
>> >
>> > Fair. As in costs to construct a road that wouldn't be there if it
>> > weren't for cars....
>>
>> That would be ZERO. Bicycles easily make their own trails.
>
> Then the problem is solved. Make your own trail and stay off
> the highways.

Want me to get out a jackhammer? You've had the public way paved for
motor vehicle use. That doesn't mean bicyclists have to go elsewhere. Not
my fault your favorite vehicles require such heavy infastructure.