thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:They obstruct vehicle traffic
By riding on the road where we're suppose to? For one who complains about people not following laws, in this instance, you conveniently withhold the complaint for following the law. Derp derp derp!
You need to drive on the side of the road. Not in a car lane. Not in the middle of the road. Until riders ride on the side of the road rather than the middle, I will continue to complain.
And if there's no side of the road? Then what?
Riding on sidewalks is dangerous for pedestrians and dangerous for bicycles when using 'pedestrian' walkways at intersections.
And I'll drive in the middle of a lane in areas where people park their cars and frequently open their doors without looking. You seem to imply that I should sacrifice my health so that you can arrive to work about 1 minute earlier. That perspective is cruel, selfish, and dumb. Hopefully, that's not your perspective, but demanding that bicyclists ride in area X ignores the risks which bicyclists may incur in area X. Other risks include running over debris (which is common in the shoulder on roads), and there's problems of people stepping to quickly into the street from the sidewalk without looking, etc.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:They run stop signs
If there's no one coming, then it's inefficient to stop for no one, and then go. If there's someone coming, but you're way closer to the stop sign then he is, then it makes sense to go. Otherwise, you'd have to stop, then he stops, then you go. That would be pointless.
The first part "[i]f there's no one coming" seems to be important. How does a cyclist determine if no one is coming? By looking both ways, right? How does a cyclist look both ways when he/she zooms through the stop sign or stop light?
If you ever rode a bike, you'd realize that going 10-15mph while being 2 feet from the front of your vehicle makes a huge difference in being able to look around corners and respond accordingly. Therefore, your questions are leading yourself to an imagined scenario. Of course, some bicyclists zoom through with little regard to the "who got there first" order, but in that case, it would be wrong of the bicyclist.
In my informal rules, timing of arrival to stop signs and stop times matter. Of course, that isn't worth expanding on ITT, but it all operates as I view each situation. Granted, there are some bicyclists who roll through stop signs when cars arrived first at the sign. That would be wrong. In circumstances where the bicyclist would arrive first or would have to stop first, then it's correct for him or her to roll through the stop sign.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:They weave in and out of traffic
Yeah, if the cars are going slow, I'll pass you up. Sorry if you're jealous.
Define slow. Is 25 mph slow? How about 15 mph?
I dunno, TGD. On the flat streets, I can get up to 25mph (maybe 30?), but that's pushing it for me. Usually in heavily congested areas, cars are going about 10-15, which is a speed I can easily push through and weave in and out of traffic. Somehow that's wrong? No, it isn't. I'm not posing a threat to anyone, and I know how to change lanes while incurring minimal risks to my own life.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:They are oblivious to the world around them
Some are, most aren't; otherwise, they'd get hit and significantly hurt. If you're surrounded in a frame of steel, how much do you fear being hit--compared to a bicyclist?
I fear hitting
Good for you, but don't you think bedub's characterization of all bicyclists is pretty absurd?
I've noticed that when people are surrounded in a frame of steel, they tend to be more likely to be oblivious, e.g. changing CDs or radio stations, texting, talking on phone, fiddling with their seats/electronics, looking at the GPS, singing, etc.
I guess you had no problem with the other ones?