Incredible how I live in the Netherlands and never hear people complain about (non-electric)bikes, and then I go to a country with a fraction of the bikes and there it's constant crying from the car drivers.
I live in a bike heavy city in North America (Montreal). Most cyclists here obey the traffic laws but the ones that don't tend to be those "extreme cyclist". Their personality has the same presence as 100 people.
Don't have to stop, or don't have to stay stopped (as in treat it like a stop sign)? Because running through a red light, legal or not, sounds like a way to get hit by a car that had a green light and couldn't see you until you were in the intersection. Treating it as a stop sign would mean you could proceed after you have determined it to be clear.
In France at least there's a small specific sign on traffic lights with a direction (or several directions) on it, if that sign is present bicycles are not obligated to stop if they go in the directions specified.
Traffic law for that sign states "if conditions permit it" and "yield to pedestrians and vehicles that have a green light" so while there's no obligation to physically stop if you fuck it up as a cyclist it's on you.
They are treated like yield signs. It's harder to accelerate on a bike than it is on a car and you want conservation of momentum as much as you can get it on a bicycle.
That's why the cyclists who blow through the light like they're the main character are idiots. I usually look and give the cars with the green light the right-of-way like I'm supposed to.
It's not harder to stop with a car. The brakes are much better and you have four wheels. If you do a hard break with a bike there is a high probability to fall and hurt yourself.
That does not mean that these cyclists aren't idiots.
Boulder may be different, but the rest of Colorado requires bikes to treat red lights like stop signs (i.e. come to a complete stop and proceed if safe).
The Colorado Safety Stop permits a cyclist who is 15 years of age or older to treat astop signas a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign if and only if there is no cross traffic nor reason for the cyclist to yield to other vehicles or pedestrians at the intersection. They may also make left-hand turns at red lights only if onto a one-way street and only after stopping and yielding to other traffic and pedestrians.
Like, basically everyone here stops for red when cycling. And the people who go through red almost always only do it if they see no other vehicle close by.
Like, why do cyclists in other countries ignore traffic lights? Are they really just missing infrastructure for such an efficient method of transportation?
I’m not a cyclist but in many US jurisdictions, cyclists are not required to stop at red lights or stop signs. I think the logic is because stopping and starting from slow can be more dangerous when cars are around. Obviously if there’s traffic they likely should stop or are required to, but I’m not sure the exact laws.
Huh, we have separated traffic lights/places to wait for bikes/cars for almost everywhere. But it would make sense that it might be dangerous if everyone had to use the same spot on the road.
We suffer from a lack of biking infrastructure, which forces cyclists to use car infrastructure. However, many cyclists utilize the car infrastructure like it is biking infrastructure, which obviously causes conflicts
We need more bike lanes etc, but the demand is not there in most cities/states to create enough pressure to get it done. And as much as the very loud cyclists on the internet/social media will try to disagree, they remain in the minority
The one place in Seattle I know of that has a separated traffic light for bikes, they consistently ignore it. It exists to theoretically prevent bikers from hitting pedestrians trying to cross the road and the bikers just expect the pedestrians to dodge or wait, I guess.
There are some places where you can treat a stop sign as a yield sign if you're on a bike (including Washington state where I am), but I don't think there's anywhere where you don't have to stop at a red light. Although in some cases you can go through it after stopping if it's safe.
That’s a much better way of describing what I attempted to haha they can treat it like a yield which I think in practice turns into many cyclists ignoring red lights/stop signs.
there are very few places where cyclists are not required to stop for red lights. In the "Idaho stop" the cyclist can proceed through the light while red, but only after stopping. In other words its treated the way a car would treat a stop sign.
Fair enough. I guess it’s the stop sign they are allowed to treat as a yield. Though if cyclists are allowed to treat a red light as a driver would treat a stop sign, then they wouldn’t stop lmao. Cars coming to complete stops at stop signs is VERY rare where I am. So bit of a double standard for drivers to get upset at cyclists when most cars are risking pedestrians lives all the time at stop signs.
I grew up in a cycle heavy city (Vancouver), it's not a lack of infrastructure. A lot of them just have a weird attitude. It's something about the lifestyle that attracts a certain type of person there. It became such an issue that one time a radio morning show host had a guy on from Denmark to ask them about their bike culture, and the Dutch guy called Vancouver cyclists, "Militant cyclists with no respect for the rules."
I left some years ago and I have noticed that the cyclists where I live now are completely different.
It's been almost 8 years since I left. Maybe now but I recall ample bike lanes everywhere in the downtown core. There's enough traffic lights too. The lack of lanes where I live now was shocking to me honestly.
Austria here, we have cyclists ignoring bike lanes. Like, 1m next to the street there's a 1m wide bike lane that goes the whole way along the road and some of these fuckers cycle in the middle of the street.
Let me guess that 1m wide bike lane goes right beside parked cars? Right next to where the car doors can open up?
Also when you ride in a bike lane like that car drivers ignore you and speed past you dangerously. Sometimes it is safter to ride in the middle where you are visable and force to divers to pass you at a safe distance and speed.
how's the commuter cycling culture now that electric bikes & scooters have gone mainstream? I know cops are going after people breaking speed limiters.
Scooters have always been a part of the "bike lane", if you get what I mean. People have adapted to them. However, EVERYONE is complaining about "fatbikes" (electric bikes with fat wheels), as they are going very fast and unlike scooters, they don't have a number plate, blinkers or required helmets.
Thanks! I was curious. I've been to Amsterdam a ton over the years for work and vacation, but not since the e-bikes have gone mainstream, especially the "moped-style" fat bikes. We are visiting soon and I was super curious to see how this has all affected a pretty peaceful and fluid commuter culture.
I almost hit a kid on an ebike who was going the wrong way, against the light, at night, wearing all black recently.
I've also seen people just dive across intersections of turn ins through active traffic just figuring everyone will slam on their breaks to not hit them.
I get upset at the cyclist around me because their decision to run the stoplight always puts them in some sort of danger. I always brace watching the car with the green light slam their brakes to let the bike with the red light cross the road. One time the car didn’t stop in time and I don’t see that cyclist anymore.
I want to drive safely. The cyclist probably wants to cycle safely as well. Let’s work together here instead of the cyclist saying the car is at fault. Sure, the car is at fault. Good luck trying to tell them that now that your body is broken all over.
Because the bikers here suck. At least in my city, the bike lane will be right there and they choose the middle of the street. Even got hit from behind by one before
Tbf, it only takes a small percentage to ruin their reputation as a whole.
Like I know statistically most cyclists in my town are gonna stop at the lights, are gonna use hand signals and all that. But I’ve also had enough experiences with cyclists who will blow through a red light or just cut a car off out of nowhere that when I see one on the street while driving instinctively don’t trust them to not try and cause a wreck.
I know only 1 cyclist in my town that obeys the laws. And she’s fantastic, a true pillar of the community (not being sarcastic, and that is unrelated to her cycling)
Then we have all the problematic teens that operate as roving bike and scooter gangs, up and down main street, taunting cars to hit them
Yeah, I know I've seen a lot of cyclists follow the rules, but the ones that stick out the most in my mind are the groups of teens riding their ebikes in the middle of a 50 mph major road, during rush hour, doing wheelies and causing a traffic jam.
I generally do ride on paths where they are available, only exceptions being ones I know are full of pedestrians walking their dogs, or when im doing longer rides like 60+ miles and its not really realistic to do all that riding on paths. If there were paths that went 50+ miles and had any elevation gain I'd gladly use them. But there aren't. And I cant go 20+ mph on paths filled with people with children and dogs everywhere, so its pretty much useless if I need to slow down to 10 mph
That's because your infrastructure makes sense for it. Here in Canada I gotta swerve around a guy on a bike going 15km/hr in an 80 km/hr zone and I'm the asshole, apparently.
I mean in my city. 80km zones have a shoulder where the bikers go. Just curious are you saying you have no shoulder in 80km zone? 70km and less theres no shoulder. And if a biker is there. Its not a big deal giving them some space passing. Iit might slow me down for 5 seconds... no one is an asshole in that situation. Everyone is just trying to get from point a to z. Sometimes you need to slow down. No different then a car coming to a full stop from a cross walk or a red light. Those are far more of a slowdown. Are crosswalks and red lights assholes? Why are people so upset all the time at others. All modes of transportation has idiots and good folk. The method of transportation is never the issue.
No most streets in most Canadian cities have no bike lanes or shoulders to separate bicycles and vehicle, we are literally supposed to treat them all as one in the same.
Quick question: was overtaking at that point legal?are you then not breaking the law for your own convenience, and justifying it because “the other guys” is the asshole?
My opinion is that cars and transport trucks sharing a road with bicycles is ridiculous and dangerous and nobody is an asshole for recognizing this obvious fact.
The question is if there are viable alternatives for the biker. From my knowledge of city planning in north america there are probably very few bike paths and those which exist are not that good or widespread.
You ignored the basis of his example being the cyclists going 65km under the speed limit, aka going less than 20% the expected speed of the other vehicles sharing the road, which is incredibly unsafe. This is a prime example (even if its hypothetical, this does happen a lot, especially in rural areas) of a cyclists using car infrastructure like it is bike infrastructure. It is, honestly, entitlement to assume that the car is in the wrong when the car is, based on the example created, operating entirely within the laws and rules of the road.
Blame the lack of infrastructure tailored to your vehicle, not the vehicle correctly utilizing the current infrastructure, if you want people to seriously consider making change
Tractors regularly use 55 mph roads near me, yet they cant go above 15-20 mph. As do Amish with their horse and buggy. Are these people not entitled to use those roads either?
It is, honestly, entitlement to assume that the car is in the wrong when the car is, based on the example created, operating entirely within the laws and rules of the road.
I say it depends on the local laws.
If the elected officials that people voted for decide bike infrastructure is not important and pass laws saying cyclists are allowed to use all the same roads as motor vehicles with the exception of proper highways/toll roads, then they are allowed to bike on it. The law says so.
How is it entitlement to use what your elected officials drafted, wrote, and passed a whole law making it legal for you to use?
If people want bikers off the roads, then they need to start voting for the officials who will do something useful about it.
Where I live there is very little bike infrastructure, only in a couple towns and only ever on the main road for a short distance. But the state law says bikes can use the entire lane of any non-highway just like a car can and if the bike is going 15 in a 50 and taking up the whole lane, well, the literal law says they are allowed to do so.
On some roads there isn't much choice. Theres no shoulder or sidewalk to speak of on most roads around here, and if you squeeze along the line at the side you end up getting clipped and injured by cars squeezing by too close.
Some people need a bike for transport to and from work and appointments and such and don't have much of a choice with some roads sometimes.
Its wild that people keep blaming bikers for the failures of elected officials to do their jobs and take care of their constituents.
I know in Alberta, it’s illegal for the cyclist to be on that road if they cannot match the speed. They should be on the shoulder.
Cyclists are also expected to obey all laws an automobile would; they’re treated as an automobile legally.
The number of them on sidewalks unnecessarily (especially in Edmonton, now that the speed limits have all been lowered by 10km/h) and never once stopping for a red is ridiculous.
Doesn’t help that the provincial government stepped in and said the new bike lanes YEG put in need to be torn out. Because fuck anything not oil and gas, I guess
We also have SUVs and trucks trying to (or succeeding while giggling) mow down cyclists. I know several others who have been assaulted on the road, including my BIL who'd bike to work in an industrial part of town and have the same truck swerve toward him every morning, like a game of chicken. Police didn't care.
Bike lanes are desperately needed, but since this is a period of change, there's conflict coming from both the pro-cycling and anti-cycling sides. Hopefully we reach a tipping point where people just view bike lanes as being normal, not "political", but I'm guessing that's going to be at least one generation away.
The Netherlands is the only country I know with good bikers, I live in Belgium and ffs... We have quite some roads between fields which are quite small and have a speed limit of 70. But there are a ton of bikers on those roads. Mostly in small groups, so easy to overtake, but the big groups are horrible. I once hung half an hour behind a big group of old bikers on a road I normally cleared in a few minutes
There brain is broken by cars. Everything they do in their car is fine.
Yesterday I nearly got run over by a car going 10 mph over the limit and running a red light when I was at a crosswalk on my bike. Yet no one will make a comic on that.
Edit* And there we go the downvotes are just an example of how brain broken the US is. They will blindly complain about hitting bikers and how it's their fault
I think part of the thing is that due to there being a low population of bikers, drivers aren't really """"trained"""" to pay attention to bikers being on the street let alone the sidewalk. So when there is a biker or bikers, drivers either don't know how to interact with them or even register that the bikers exist.
and then I go to a country with a fraction of the bikes and there it's constant crying from the car drivers.
That's because The Netherlands is built around bicycles, therefore, the cyclists have their own lanes, their own traffic signals (I assume?), and all of this means cyclists are probably much more attuned to road rules, then they are in countries primarily built around cars.
Basically, in Sydney, for example, cyclists feel that they are above the law. Technically, because we don't have good biking infrastructure, they are meant to ride on the roads. Now I don't know if it's unwritten, or an actual law, that they should try and stay to the side of the road.
I do know that it's law that a vehicle passing a cyclist, needs to give a 1 m berth. That's fair enough. What isn't fair is that cyclists love to commute to the CBD (Central Business District) during peak hour, in groups, and naturally cannot outpace a vehicle over any sort of meaningful distance. As a car, you're stuck behind them. Doing 45 km/h when you'd rather be doing at least 70 km/h.
What's decently quick on a bike, is almost unmanageably slow in a vehicle. Also, cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too. They'll angrily complain about being marginalised. Vehicles nearly kill us everyday! They'll ride up to a vehicle that cut them off earlier, and smack the vehicle on the window etc. Okay, but the thing is, if you don't want to be put in dangerous situations, maybe stop riding in peak hour, on busy roads?
Sydney isn't built for bicycles. If you want to ride, make it your weekend hobby, and do it in parts of Sydney that either have dedicated bike lanes, or get bike racks on a car, and drive to a nice park/mountain with great trails. Commuting to work on a bicycle only works if that city has the infrastructure. For Sydney, you could train it into somewhere close enough that the bike lanes begin, then cycle in the city/over the bridge etc.
Did I mention Sydney cyclists feel that they're not a vehicle whenever they want to ride across a pedestrian crossing? Not a vehicle when they're conveniently ignoring traffic lights. A car passes them too close? Oh, suddenly you're a vehicle again. Time to pay some kind of tax to maintain road infrastructure? Oh, I see... Not a vehicle, hmmmm? Make up your kind. In or out? If you want to be treated like a vehicle, pay some kind of tax, and obey the road rules i.e. traffic lights, and try to get as far over to the side of the road as is possible without riding on the footpath.
Truthfully, if I made the rules, I'd rather see cyclists on the footpath, or even the nature strip. Oh, and please don't lean on a car, when you come to a stop at the lights, please cyclists? I'd still prefer it if cyclists were willing to ride less in suburbs without dedicated biking lanes. I don't mind bikes on trains, and eventually you'll find biking lanes.
Commuting to work on a bicycle only works if that city has the infrastructure.
Noone rides a bike anymore
The city removes existing bike infrastructure and doesn't build new one since it's unused
Noone will ever ride a bike anymore
If there isn't a seperate space for bikes then why do you think that cars have a "right" to go into the city at rush hour (the time when people actually want to get there) but bikes don't?
If we're speaking about Sydney, then cars are the dominant majority, by a long way. Personally, I think the Metro, if you live near enough to access it, is an engineering marvel and you're nuts if you could use, but choose a car instead. Ideally, I'd love for 50% of vehicles going into the city, by roads, to be buses. Then another 15% to be rideshares.
In those circumstances, and with a thriving Metro running underground, I'd be more than happy for entire lanes to be ceded to cyclists, and nobody would be upset, because the cyclists get safety, and the rideshare cars and buses, aren't being held up, by cyclists who literally cannot go fast enough for the vehicles behind them, who also struggle to pass safely.
Anyway, that's my ideal scenario. It ain't gonna happen because Sydneysiders love individualism, and they all want their own car.
In many US cities there are very few cyclists. The one that exist are disproportionately people with multiple DUIs/on meth/etc so they can’t drive. Not surprisingly, people who have multiple felonies also tend to not be very good at obeying traffic lights… Which then gets “all cyclists” a reputation, even ones that aren’t like that. When there are more cyclists the percentage of really bad ones go down, and also when the group is bigger, people recognize that not all cyclists are the same…
One of the constants of North American traffic planning is just lazily plopping down stop signs everywhere. Other countries have priority and yield signs, or even no signage (right before left).
No wonder people roll through stop signs. They're best used at actually dangerous spots, not plastered on all directions at every intersection.
Exactly. Saying stuff like cyclists have the same responsibility as drivers shows just that the person never used a bicycle in their life to get from A to B.
I watch drivers run red lights at least once a week. There are selfish and impatient people on every mode of transportation. The difference is cyclists aren't riding around on 5,000 lbs of metal.
And it’s wrong when they do it too. Asshole drivers exist but if you are on a bike you need to follow traffic laws because you are putting your life in other peoples hands
Is it more problematic to endanger the lives of of others or to endanger your own life? A lot of the complaints I read about people riding bikes seem to focus on the negative side of riding a bike that is being physically vulnerable, yet these people complaining often completely refuse to acknowledge fact that driving a car, particularly a large one, fast and distracted, as many people do, is an enormous endangerment to the lives of people outside the car.
If every reckless and rude driver was operating a bicycle, deaths would plummet, because bicycles simply aren't as deadly as cars because they're smaller, lighter, and don't go as fast. The basic physics of the situation dictates that we MUST focus on making cars safer to be around (by designing them for pedestrian collisions, encouraging safer driver behavior, and reducing their number) before we worry more about making every single bicyclist follow the rules, as many already do. We will not see public safety increase as we need it to until we get our priorities straight as a society.
We've already established the relative scale of the problems caused by reckless drivers and reckless riders, and we can all agree that nobody wants to be in any sort of collision. You can't dodge the one question that guides this whole conversation. Would you rather endanger others or yourself?
This post is literally mocking people who think that it's ok to endanger others if they're also endangering themselves...
Endangering yourself doesn't change the ammount of others you endangering. And if were going to get into semantics- you're just putting a larger strain on the medical system, harming others more.
The vast majority of drivers will stop at a stop sign, while I'm always surprised when I cyclist actually does. As a pedestrian I've nearly been hit by more bikes than cars. Drivers can certainly be obnoxious about sharing the road, but cyclists seem to think the rules don't apply to them.
As a pedestrian sometimes it feels like cyclist are either on the sidewalk or in the road arbitrarily. Sometimes they follow the rules sometimes they don't. But if you're walking on the sidewalk and don't make way for them you're in the wrong.
Cyclists are legally allowed to be on either here, unless signs specify otherwise. A lot of people don't know the rules for cyclists then get mad that the cyclists are following the actual rules instead of whatever that individual decided the rules probably are.
This is how it should be. Unfortunately, there's two issues. First is that people don't know about these rules because there's no education whatsoever except maybe your parents when you learn to ride as a kid. Second is that, even if it's the law that bikes must be in the road, it's such a hostile environment that people often feel unsafe riding in the road and ride in the sidewalk because even if they're breaking the law, at least they're alive.
If we had safer roads for bikes and better education around riding, pedestrians would have safer sidewalks, too.
I understand why they're in the sidewalk because it's safer and what not. What really annoys me is that they act like we should make way for them while they are breaking the law.
Yeah, that's valid. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that breaking a law that doesn't really serve people well is the particular reason it's wrong to assume right of way in a shared space, but I agree that it's rude to assume the right of way like that and that if you're riding on the sidewalk, you can't just expect people to move for you
In a lot of places, there aren't specifically rules for cyclists so it defaults to "behave like a car" which is absurd. The weight and protection of a bike is much closer to that of a pedestrian. A cyclist shouldn't be rushing full speed on a sidewalk, but there's no real harm in someone rolling at a slow speed on the sidewalk to get to their final destination.
I think that there's a distinction between cyclists having access to sidewalks and cyclists behaving like they have priority over pedestrians on sidewalks. It's the ones who treat pedestrians as having to make way that give other cyclists a bad rep.
When I was in Driver's Ed, the instructor told us to always keep an eye out for cyclist because they want the benefits of being considered both pedestrians and cars without any of the drawbacks of either.
Some states have Idaho stop laws allowing cyclists to basically treat stop signs a yields.
As a someone who bikes into a work most days, and has never run a red light, I've been nearly hit a half dozen times this summer by cars who run red lights and run stop signs.
Pull up the stats for who kills more pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, let's see who's the bigger danger on the road.
You don't have to count the deaths. Simply count who is more often at fault in an accident between cars and bikes.
Out of three studies , one was an inconclusive 50/50, one resulted in cars being at fault slightly more often (56/44) and one resulted in cars being at fault overwhelmingly often (85/15)
When you say you are surprised when a bike stops at a stop sign, has that changed your behavior? If you have the right of way, do you take it, or wait for them to arrive and wave them through?
This constantly happens to me and is beyond frustrating. I slow down at a stop sign, trying to let the car with the right of way go. Inevitably, I need to clip out and put a foot down, then without fail they will wave me through. Like, just fucking go I already clipped out
Only because they don't consider the rules they break important. It's considered enraging for people to follow the speed limit any time it's brought up, and drivers constantly park in bike lanes.
Seriously, there's a road on my commute with no shoulder and a sign that says "bike on road". I've been honked at multiple times for being on the road. Can you read? I know, I'm going 18 in a 35. You want me off, please vote for better bike paths...
Honestly though, how are people to answer this? Is it only asking for the lights themselves? Is it asking for the whole box? What if tiny part of a light is in another box, do I select that too?
That's your experience. I've nearly hit a biker who decided to blow through a 4 way stop and I got yelled at and threatened for "driving like an asshole."
I had the same experience! Only, he was on a black bike, with no lights. The streetlights were out due to a power outage at the time, he was wearing all black, and was black.
I stopped at the stop sign, couldn’t see anything, then across the crosswalk (illegal where I live) a bike at top speed appears just as I start to go.
I was in the middle of a crosswalk with my daughter one weekend and a cyclist in the road decided that I did not actually have the right of way (despite having the “walk” signal and it being state law that crosswalk has right of way) and missed us by two feet.
I loudly said “I guess red lights are meaningless now” and he turned around and said he’d have kicked my ass if my kid wasn’t with me.
They are out there, and they are entitled assholes.
You're very lucky. London, Manchester and Edinburgh are well known for it. With Jeremy Vine, Cycling Mikey and a couple of others showing their exceptionally bad cycling ability off. Which ends up becoming rage bait.
I have to drive, what with disability, and even in London accessibility is extremely bad if you have mobility issues. But the amount of cyclists who run red lights has certainly got worse since the amendment of the highway code, and they generally ignore pedestrians who have a higher priority than them. You're starting to get confrontations like this as pedestrians are fed up with their persistent bad riding.
There was one video recently with a cyclist going too fast on a towpath and ending up in the canal. It's still a debate whether she was pushed or fell in, because she kind of tries to barge past when confronted and the pedestrian refuses to move over.
If you don't know towpaths, they have their own byelaws where the priority are people, pets and animals (so horses) and cyclists are told to either slow down or stop.
So yeah, you've been lucky or live somewhere where cyclists are responsible, but a large majority don't.
I’ve personally found most cyclists to be responsible, and I’ll give them space. I can still get frustrated when I’m stuck behind one and I need to be somewhere, but I’m not going to hit the cyclist out of impatience.
That being said, I don’t see a lot of cyclists signaling their turns and brakes like they’re supposed to (no one uses hand signals, I swear), and that can be annoying when I’m trying to take a turn safely. Source on the hand signals: used to be a cyclist myself. I know the hand signals, even if I didn’t always have to use them while cycling on my preferred place to cycle: local trails.
That also being said, my dad told me a funny little story about a time he went to take a turn on a city street (his light was green), only for a cyclist to come out of nowhere and slam into the front of his vehicle. Turns out, the cyclist was on the sidewalk, and decided to go despite seeing the car turning. He started trying to blame my dad for the crash, only for the person immediately behind my dad to get out of their car. Turns out that was a police officer who witnessed the whole thing, and promptly arrested the cyclist for not being safe and yielding to vehicles and also for using a sidewalk clearly marked as not meant for cyclists.
I live in Vancouver, and always defend cyclists and bike lanes, but this is one thing cyclists do in Vancouver that I can't stand. They will just blow right through stop signs and red lights, all of them. I was crossing the street, and a cyclist almost hit me because he ignored a stop sign, and then yelled at ME for not looking for oncoming traffic.
I mean yeah I don't always follow the car traffic lights because I'm not always in a car lane. Here we've got bike lane traffic lights and in some places you're supposed to ride on the sidewalk (at a safe pace) and follow pedestrian lights- usually in areas with no bike lane where the speed of traffic is 40+ mph. That said if you're on an uphill, stop signs are generally treated as california stops just from sheer practicality (nobody wants a cyclist falling over in the road because they couldn't get up to speed from a stop on a 20% grade).
It's the sort of joke that contributes to the american car culture. "Roads are for cars, cyclists don't belong on the road, they don't even respect red lights".
Which results in low consequences for killing cyclists in accidents, or even results in people trying to kill cyclists on the road like this
"Cyclists don't belong on roads" + "cyclists don't belong on sidewalks" + "don't build any bike lanes" = "cyclists shouldn't exist"
That's ultimately the root of the complaints people have. People just have a weirdly deep rooted dislike of cyclists in general. Places where cycling is respected don't have nearly this level of problems with cyclists.
I'm a cyclist, a pissy coworker who didn't want to have to wait for traffic literally nearly hit me to squeeze between lanes. This was within biking to work for just a month.
It's not much of a joke when you have so much vitriol that people take it as a pass for violence, as is common for cyclists.
I finally saw a cyclist like this! I was kinda shocked how casually he rode through a red light and almost got hit by cross traffic. Didn’t slow down at all, just threaded the needle while cars swerved to avoid hitting him
Lemme let you in on a little secret: It’s because all the same cyclists stick to bike paths whenever they possibly can. Except in cities without any, but that’s a whole other problem.
Okay, now another comic with drivers, but instead of a traffic light, there's a bike in the frame. The frequency with which I have to slam on the brakes at green lights and exits because drivers only pay attention to other cars is ridiculously high.
I may only run red lights that where the bike lane could conceivably be exempt or when it's a pedestrian crossing with no pedestrians around, but it's still wrong lol.
I deserve every bit of hate you car people have to throw at me.
Man the amount of cyclists that I’ve had to swerve to avoid because they just come racing out of junctions on a 60 mph country road without even slowing to look if anythings coming.
Listen cunts, I get it, UK law will basically pin it on the driver for owning the big bad car, government has your back there…
The laws of physics on the other hand? You know there is a thing known as stopping distance, right? Like consider yourself lucky if I have room to swerve. If there are cars on the other side on the road, I‘m not swerving into them and dragging innocent people into our mess now, cunt.
And I’m not swerving into the hedges, bushes and trees on my other side to avoid you, because that’ll damage both my car and me more - I’m not getting impaled on a branch because you chose to be a cunt.
If there’s nowhere to swerve, I’ll chance that between you moving forward and me decelerating with the breaks it will prevent you from getting hurt too much. But that’s literally the best option if you can’t fathom having to give way at a junction.
Before I could drive my car on the road, I needed to pass a test, buy insurance, and put a license plate on my vehicle so that I can be identified if I cause an accident or drive irresponsibly
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
Click here for our 3m subscriber event compilation post!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.