How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

>>> Bicycles ridden by adults go too fast to safely mix with pedestrians
>>> on a sidewalk. Pedestrians, unlike vehicles, don't follow rules of
>>> the road or stay within "lanes" on a sidewalk. This is why you can't
>>> have someone moving 20 mph amongst those walking 3 mph.

>> That merely means that a bicyclist on the sidewalk must slow to walking
>> speed when he approaches a pedestrian

> No, it means that the cyclist can either ride at his own pace on the
> road, or he can walk his bicycle while on the sidewalk.

You're wrong. There is no such law.

>> -- just as cars are forced to slow
>> to bike speed when a bicyclist "takes" the right lane on a narrow street.

> Since when do cars have to slow down?

I specified a narrow street. That implies not enough room to pass the
bike in the right lane.

> If the cyclist is in the right
> lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow down.

Only if there's almost no traffic, which NEVER happens around here
(unless it's 2 AM, and not even the eco-freaks bike at that hour).

> The key difference between cyclists vs. pedestrians and cars vs.
> cyclists is that the latter two are restricted by rules of the road.
> Each of them must remain within lane markings and they are supposed to
> signal when changing lanes or direction.

EVERYONE is restricted by rules of the road when on the road. In some
places those rules give pedestrians extra privilege.

> Pedestrians on a sidewalk do not have to stay within a "lane" on the
> sidewalk, and they are not required to signal before changing direction.
>
> That difference is why cars going 20 to 40 mph faster than cyclists is
> safe (assuming separate lanes, of course), but cyclists going 15 mph
> faster than pedestrians is unsafe.

True, but only when you're within 10 feet or so of the pedestrians.

Brent P wrote:
> Then you should have the cement mixers and other slow motor vehicles use
> the sidewalk too.

I certainly expect them to pull over and let me pass at the first
opportunity. There is nothing wrong with expecting the same of bike
riders. And unlike cement mixers, they have that opportunity
continuously if a sidewalk is present.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that
> is all that matters.

That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of
"playing the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not the
hard way -- that the universal moral principle that slower traffic must
give way to faster, includes them.

>> That law needs to be put back the way it was.

> Heaven forbid you have to have some minor driving skill.

Driving skill has nothing to do with the question. The point is that
no one has any business needlessly slowing traffic. Repeat that until
you get it through your thick head.

In article >, John David Galt wrote:

> I specified a narrow street. That implies not enough room to pass the
> bike in the right lane.

The bicyclist can take the lane under the law in most states, if not all.

>> If the cyclist is in the right
>> lane, the car can easily pass in the left lane without having to slow down.

> Only if there's almost no traffic, which NEVER happens around here
> (unless it's 2 AM, and not even the eco-freaks bike at that hour).

I can easily pass bicyclists at all times of day in crowded traffic
especially when there is more than one lane in my direction of travel. I
don't understand why you people have such problems. It's not like the
bicyclist magically appears in front of you like a lloyd lounger or that
you bicycle hating r.a.d regulars have the inattention to the road as
carl taylor so 'unexpected' things pop out of nowhere.

I see the bicyclist up ahead, with considerable warning. I slow or speed
up slight to where I can change lanes and do. If traffic is so packed
that I cannot, odds are I'm not catching up to the bicyclist at all and
won't have to pass him any time soon.

In article >, John David Galt wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> Then you should have the cement mixers and other slow motor vehicles use
>> the sidewalk too.
>
> I certainly expect them to pull over and let me pass at the first
> opportunity. There is nothing wrong with expecting the same of bike
> riders. And unlike cement mixers, they have that opportunity
> continuously if a sidewalk is present.

Except with you, first opportunity for a bicyclist is 'get the **** off
the road NOW', as you are stating above in other words. Sorry I'm jumping
curbs or going off the pavement for you. When a safe oppertunity arises
to let you pass I will. Otherwise, deal.

Of course I don't often encounter drivers so incompetent. Almost all of
them pass easily without even slowing down.

In article >, John David Galt wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
>> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
>> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that
>> is all that matters.
>
> That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of
> "playing the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not the
> hard way -- that the universal moral principle that slower traffic must
> give way to faster, includes them.

I haven't had a slower car yield to me yet. And yes, I am often faster
than the motor vehicles.

In article >, John David Galt wrote:
>>> That law needs to be put back the way it was.
>
>> Heaven forbid you have to have some minor driving skill.
>
> Driving skill has nothing to do with the question. The point is that
> no one has any business needlessly slowing traffic. Repeat that until
> you get it through your thick head.

Who's slowing traffic? Not me. It's the lack of a driver's skill that
slows traffic. It's the car that is difficult to pass.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, John David Galt wrote:
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
>>> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
>>> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced, that
>>> is all that matters.
>>
>> That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of
>> "playing the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not
>> the hard way -- that the universal moral principle that slower
>> traffic must give way to faster, includes them.
>
> I haven't had a slower car yield to me yet. And yes, I am often faster
> than the motor vehicles.

I've had cars ease to the right to let me pass -- usually on long, curvy
downhills. I return the favor when the road straightens out by signalling
'em to come on by. (It's amazing how good will can actually work like
that.)

The vast majority of drivers can recognize that, literally, a 10-second
delay won't in fact retard their /overall/ progress one iota. Then, of
course, there are morons like John David Galt. (Similarly, the vast
majority of cyclists are considerate of and cooperative with motorists; the
antagonistic idiots who treat every bike ride like a "me versus them"
confrontation don't do ANYONE any good.)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:15:55 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>My wife and I went for a walk this afternoon. The sidewalk was very
>narrow - only wide enough for my wife and I to walk side by side. As
>we walked, our son (who is away at college) called, so she took the
>call and was talking to him, not really paying attention to what was
>ahead. Presently, an older gentleman riding a bicycle approached from
>ahead of us. When he saw that my wife wasn't paying attention (and
>thus was not going to step aside to let him ride past) he came to a
>stop, then stood there glaring at us. As we passed by, he very
>petulantly began to ring his little thumb-bell repeatedly, as if to
>express his outrage that we didn't get out of his way. I turned to him
>and said "use the bike lane, ****head." Then we walked on, shaking our
>heads in disbelief.
>
>Why do supposedly mature adults think it's OK to ride their bikes on
>the sidewalk? Here's another couple we saw today on our walk:
>
>http://tinypic.com/539poy
>
>There's a perfectly good bike lane (or shoulder, as Brent likes to
>call them) not five feet from these lard-asses, yet they feel the need
>to endanger pedestrians on the sidewalk. Why?!?!?!?
>
>People like these give good, courteous, law-abiding pedalcyclists a
>bad name.

Wow, Good post judging by the number of replies so far. Stirred up the
old hornet's nest. Now for my comments.

When I was much younger I once bought a pad of fake parking tickets.
They thanked the offender for being thoughtless and taking up two
parking spaces and hoped that the fleas of 1000 camels would infest
their armpits. I can still not figure out why folks park right in the
middle of two spots or park in ways that fail to maximize the number
of spots on a block.

Your pictures for the most part are places where there appear to be
many available spots so the impact is lessened. Sort of hard to
complain about lousy parking when it makes no difference. Still, I
share your outrage at thoughtless parking. Worse if it is not
thoughtless.

I sometimes bike on the sidewalk, and this is in Manhattan where it is
definitely illegal. But sometimes the streets are so congested that it
is simply unsafe to bike on it. Or, more likely, it is just too
crowded for me to be able to ease by cars and trucks and I would have
to wait as long as they do to get by. You know that it is FUd when
there are three lanes of traffic and a bike can't squeeze by nohow.

So up on the curb I go. That said, I go very slowly and do not disturb
pedestrians. Except for the few folks with broomsticks up their asses
who bitch that it is illegal to bike on sidewalks. Note that I have
caused them no problem. I haven't whizzed by or startled them or
anything. Probably very lawabiding themselves and never cross against
a light.

I see that your shots are either of Florida or some place like that.
Sure looks like Florida to me. Anyway, folks ride on the sidewalk
there because no one walks on the sidewalk. Drive here, drive there,
no walk. And, if it is Florida, it is dangerous to bike on the streets
because, well, older folks drive on the streets. And the impatient
ones who are trying to get past the older folks.

Final comment. I'm surprised that you don't have pictures involving
the stupid things that folks distracted by their cell phones do. Like
stopping in the middle of the sidewalk.