Asshole motorcyclist stories

[Pingfah]

Bicycles cause virtually no wear and tear on the road, and no pollution outside of that required to construct and maintain them. If a tax were imposed on cyclists to use roads, it should be negligible compared to the amount a driver should pay.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Hm. You know, I did say average speed, but should be a bit more specific: average moving speed. The parts where cars are going zero aren't necessarily that relevant--they drag down the average and obscure the fact that while traffic is in motion, the average speed is significantly higher (I'd suspect 30-40mph in these parts).

But that's exactly my point. The "moving speed" does *not* matter seperately from the average speed. Good for you if you can go 50mph between red lights, but you're still going to have to wait exactly as long as the cyclist with his meager 20mph max and the next light isn't going to become green any sooner either.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Bicycles cause virtually no wear and tear on the road, and no pollution outside of that required to construct and maintain them. If a tax were imposed on cyclists to use roads, it should be negligible compared to the amount a driver should pay.

Also gas tax doesn't pay for roads. If gas tax and only gas tax and not a single extra cent from the general budget is used for road building and maintenance I would be fine with banning cyclists. I'd just get a new mountain bike, fine with me. I doubt the car drivers would be happy with such an arrangement however...

 

[Pingfah]

And it's a stretch to imagine that a great deal of cyclists don't also own a car. In the UK they would be paying road tax on that.

If anything, when they choose to ride instead, shouldn't they be getting a tax rebate?

 

[MacLeod]

Well in the UK not only do we have to be something like US$11 for a gallon of Petrol/Diesel. We have somthing generally known as the Round Fund Lisence (aka Vehicle Excess Duty) Which wouldn't be to bad if all it was spent on maintain the roads. But I digress the fact that cyclist ignore things like Red Lights does annoy me slightly. It's fairly simple really you are not exempt from the highway code.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Cars ignore loads of rules on a constant basis also, just different ones - speeding, parking illegally (which can be dangerous too!), not stopping at crosswalks, not stopping at stop signs, not yielding, talking on the phone while driving, driving drunk, driving tired, failing to indicate to turn, not keeping proper distance to the car in the front of them, not keeping proper distance while overtaking, etc etc etc.

I don't believe for a second cyclists are less law abiding than drivers.

 

[MacLeod]

Motorists that ignore the continuly ignore the highway code annoy me as well. But I've seen far more cyclists ignore say a Red light than say a car. I'm sure all of us have at one time bend a rule or two.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

Almost any city actually, especially for people who don't have a secure parking spot at home and where they're going. Car drivers vastly overestimate the average speed they are travelling at.

Hm. You know, I did say average speed, but should be a bit more specific: average moving speed. The parts where cars are going zero aren't necessarily that relevant--they drag down the average and obscure the fact that while traffic is in motion, the average speed is significantly higher (I'd suspect 30-40mph in these parts).

Regarding motorists' "sense of entitlement," I think there's a good chance that it comes from actually paying for our transportation infrastructure when we pay for gasoline.* It's actually a regrettable thing, since gasoline taxes are a terribly regressive tax, but if we assume that it is fair to charge a user free for the road, bicyclists are the very definition of free riders (ha ha).

*For Europosters, it's not like gasoline taxes there, which I understand are often part of the general fund and seem to be exacted based to some extent on same motivations that we levy cigarette taxes here, i.e., as a discouragement. This isn't a criticism, insofar as gasoline users should probably pay a fairer share for the externalities of their gasoline consumption and, anyway, driving should be discouraged. (Although one could also argue that a tax of $6/gallon plus whatever the fuel actually costs might be slightly excessive.)

Given that bicycles obviate all that unpleasantness, does that make it a wash? I dunno.

Wow, it's amazing how totally wrong your statements are. In 2002, $27.6 billion was spent on local roads in the US - only $3 billion of which came from user fees. The rest came from general taxes (property and sales taxes), which are paid by bicyclists and drivers alike, even though the per-mile cost for driving is about 30 times as much as cycling (in terms of roadway costs, not including the huge subsidies for parking, collisions, congestion, and environmental costs). Therefore, car drivers are subsidized by bicyclists, who overpay into the system. So in actuality you should find a bicyclist and give them a couple hundred dollars a year as a way of equalizing the payments. I think most cyclists would gladly forgo the monetary payment if drivers just stopped acting like jerks and stopped endangering the lives of cyclists. In no way do car drivers "pay their own way" - they are by far the most heavily subsidized group of road users out there.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Motorists that ignore the continuly ignore the highway code annoy me as well. But I've seen far more cyclists ignore say a Red light than say a car. I'm sure all of us have at one time bend a rule or two.

Yes because you're willing to overlook people breaking rules that you also break, but those other people, they're the ones who are horrible. Passing a red light with no cross-traffic - how awful! Driving over a crosswalk despite people waiting to go - oh well, couldn't break in time, no biggie.

 

[Myasishchev]

Almost any city actually, especially for people who don't have a secure parking spot at home and where they're going. Car drivers vastly overestimate the average speed they are travelling at.

Hm. You know, I did say average speed, but should be a bit more specific: average moving speed. The parts where cars are going zero aren't necessarily that relevant--they drag down the average and obscure the fact that while traffic is in motion, the average speed is significantly higher (I'd suspect 30-40mph in these parts).

Regarding motorists' "sense of entitlement," I think there's a good chance that it comes from actually paying for our transportation infrastructure when we pay for gasoline.* It's actually a regrettable thing, since gasoline taxes are a terribly regressive tax, but if we assume that it is fair to charge a user free for the road, bicyclists are the very definition of free riders (ha ha).

*For Europosters, it's not like gasoline taxes there, which I understand are often part of the general fund and seem to be exacted based to some extent on same motivations that we levy cigarette taxes here, i.e., as a discouragement. This isn't a criticism, insofar as gasoline users should probably pay a fairer share for the externalities of their gasoline consumption and, anyway, driving should be discouraged. (Although one could also argue that a tax of $6/gallon plus whatever the fuel actually costs might be slightly excessive.)

Given that bicycles obviate all that unpleasantness, does that make it a wash? I dunno.

Wow, it's amazing how totally wrong your statements are. In 2002, $27.6 billion was spent on local roads in the US - only $3 billion of which came from user fees. The rest came from general taxes (property and sales taxes), which are paid by bicyclists and drivers alike, even though the per-mile cost for driving is about 30 times as much as cycling (in terms of roadway costs, not including the huge subsidies for parking, collisions, congestion, and environmental costs). Therefore, car drivers are subsidized by bicyclists, who overpay into the system. So in actuality you should find a bicyclist and give them a couple hundred dollars a year as a way of equalizing the payments. I think most cyclists would gladly forgo the monetary payment if drivers just stopped acting like jerks and stopped endangering the lives of cyclists. In no way do car drivers "pay their own way" - they are by far the most heavily subsidized group of road users out there.

Ah, but property taxes are levied on motor vehicles.

And as far as subsidizing the transportation network goes: cyclists don't eat, or use the tremendous number of services (roughly all of them) absolutely dependent upon ICE-driven transport?

In any event, I generally agree that cycling's impact on roadways is not nearly the same as that of automobiles. I still think that dedicated bike lanes are necessary, if we wish to permit bicyclists to ride in general traffic (which I do).

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Bicyclists...ugh. Why they should be allowed to create a road hazard by traveling where CARS go, I have no idea.

Maybe it's because bicycles are vehicles

They are not, except in the broadest possible sense of the term. A device whose maximum speed for the average user without assistance by gravity is on the order of 20mph is an annoyance and a hazard on roadways, which operate at a level twice as fast or faster. It's not a great deal different than running in the middle of a lane, which I think we can all agree would be bothersome and unwanted.

I don't mind the sentiment. Bikes are probably the least carbon intensive mode of transportation short of astral projection, and it's well that they're good for your health. But they are not ideal road vehicles; what we need are dedicated bike lanes.

I'm absolutely certain I preach to the choir, though, inasmuch as bicyclists are the most self-satisfied lot in the world. You know, besides vegetarians.

Thank you very much...you made my point very nicely. Ideally, we could get more dedicated bike lanes and paths, and that would solve the problem. Roads with bike lanes are very pleasant, for all involved. Otherwise--it's a hazard.

 

[TheBrew]

Yeah, I am pro-bike lanes. I generally stick with my rule that everyone on the road, regardless of mode of transit, are terrible at driving/riding/walking.

 

[thestrangequark]

Maybe it's because bicycles are vehicles

They are not, except in the broadest possible sense of the term. A device whose maximum speed for the average user without assistance by gravity is on the order of 20mph is an annoyance and a hazard on roadways, which operate at a level twice as fast or faster. It's not a great deal different than running in the middle of a lane, which I think we can all agree would be bothersome and unwanted.

I don't mind the sentiment. Bikes are probably the least carbon intensive mode of transportation short of astral projection, and it's well that they're good for your health. But they are not ideal road vehicles; what we need are dedicated bike lanes.

I'm absolutely certain I preach to the choir, though, inasmuch as bicyclists are the most self-satisfied lot in the world. You know, besides vegetarians.

Thank you very much...you made my point very nicely. Ideally, we could get more dedicated bike lanes and paths, and that would solve the problem. Roads with bike lanes are very pleasant, for all involved. Otherwise--it's a hazard.

No, drivers who cannot respect cyclists are a hazard. I deserve the right to commute to work even though I don't have a car. And until every road has a bike lane, and until drivers start respecting those lanes...

...and the fact that a cyclist cannot always remain in them, then I will continue to ride in the street. I do so as safely as possible, and I abide by the same laws as do drivers, but I don't have two tons of steel, seat belts, and airbags to protect me, so I'd say the 5 seconds it takes off your commute to slow down a little and pass me safely isn't really that much to ask.

 

[Canadave]

^ Indeed. It's also ridiculous to claim that cyclists are a "hazard" when there are so many people whizzing about at 60 km\h in two tons of glass and steel.

Also, bike paths are all well and good, but in this city, they tend to wind and twist all over the place, as a lot of them follow the rivers. It's great if you're just out for a recreational ride as they're quite pleasant and scenic, but if you want to go somewhere in a reasonable amount of time, you pretty much have to bike on the road.

 

[KJbushway]

I hate bikers, people who ride "hogs". Riding a crotch rocket is fine because most of the time they are solo (I plan to eventually get one myself), but these damn bikers ride around with a posse acting like its the Wild West.

Just never say this to a real biker, might not take it lightly. Crotch rockets are actually far more dangerous when it comes to traffic, for they are known more for what is mentioned above, weaving in and out of traffic with little concern for other traffic, running red-lights. To me I happen to love Harley's and think Crotch rockets are the worst thing to ever come about.

 

[Scout101]

Pointless thread, bad generalizations, ignoring car drivers' faults to go after a biker (who probably WAS an ass), and even claiming cruiser bikes are more dangerous/aggressive than crotchrocket riders. Pretty much wrong up and down the post, not worth much more than that.

 

[Captain_Nick]

I don't know what a crotchet rocket is but it sounds vaguely erotic.

All of this argument about taxes and road rules and stuff isn't really relevant. They are straw men that car drivers use to justify bullying cyclists. The real issue is simple - car drivers hate bike riders because they get away with things that car drivers can't. Bikers fly through traffic, they ignore stop signs and red lights, and when it suits them they hop onto the footpath and 'become' pedestrian traffic. And they have fun doing it! Rarely do you see a cyclist with a frown on his face. In the meantime you are stuck in your car, not moving and feeling very hard done by.

That is what this is all about.

You know what you have to do to fix it. Let go of your hate, and get on a bike.

One month ago I couldn't ride a bike and now I am champion of the roads. I tell you it can be done if you are willing to take a risk and let go of the negative emotions that are holding you back.

 

[Canadave]

I don't know what a crotchet rocket is but it sounds vaguely erotic.

I'm assuming a "crochet rocket" would be someone who can make an afghan really, really quickly.

A crotch rocket, on the other hand, is one of those zippy, overpowered sports bikes that are often seen weaving through traffic. Like this:

Personally, if I was ever to learn to ride a motorcycle, I'd be more interested in something more classic, like this:

 

[KJbushway]

I give you a Teal'c bow for showing that lovely bike(not talking about the girl crotch rocket bike)

 

[Pingfah]

^ Have you ever tried to ride a "girl crotch rocket bike"?

Pointless thread, bad generalizations, ignoring car drivers' faults to go after a biker (who probably WAS an ass), and even claiming cruiser bikes are more dangerous/aggressive than crotchrocket riders. Pretty much wrong up and down the post, not worth much more than that.

I'd probably blow some minds if I mentioned that I own a sports bike AND a cruiser.

Shocking, I know.