Jump to content

Complaints About How Bicycles Act On The Roads


heights

Recommended Posts

You can further break down cyclists into those seeking to exercise, those commuting, and those seeking to prove a point or make a statement.

I would reason that the first two groups are alert and respectful of all that is around them. Problems arise when you want to join the third group. You need to ride assuming that everyone around you is an idiot, rather than riding to prove a point or enforce your lane rights. When my dad was teaching me to drive and explaining right-of-way at an intersection he made the point that "it does not matter who had the right of way if you end up dead. If someone wants to break the law let them. If it bothers you that much, become a cop."

I have respect for cyclists, I have respect for drivers, I don't have respect for "Critical mass" types.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can further break down cyclists into those seeking to exercise, those commuting, and those seeking to prove a point or make a statement.

I would reason that the first two groups are alert and respectful of all that is around them. Problems arise when you want to join the third group. You need to ride assuming that everyone around you is an idiot, rather than riding to prove a point or enforce your lane rights. When my dad was teaching me to drive and explaining right-of-way at an intersection he made the point that "it does not matter who had the right of way if you end up dead. If someone wants to break the law let them. If it bothers you that much, become a cop."

I have respect for cyclists, I have respect for drivers, I don't have respect for "Critical mass" types.

Your dad had the right of it.

I have respect for the CM people, not all of them.

I used to do it myself, and the vast majority of people do it because they are excited to be able to ride in a large group of friendly people, and as a means of outreach and a demonstration about the numbers. It bothered me that everyone was okay with corking, but beyond that...

The minority of riders were the militant &$*(s that rode on the wrong side of the street and didn't understand the whole premise of 'share the road is a two way street', even when they were on a two way street.

It was always the same 10 or so guys that would start doing it every time, other riders would just follow suit, and probably wouldn't have done it had they not started doing it.

I cannot speak for now, it's been nearly 2 years at this point since I've participated in a real critical mass, and I anticipate it will be a long while before I join again, but the point is, the minority really spoils it for the whole group, unfortunately.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen it.

I visit my relatives over there at least once every 2 years for about 2 weeks at a time. up until I was 18 we'd stay for a full month visiting relatives every two years.

Yes, if you enter the bike path, you better make sure there's no cyclists coming, they won't stop. I've never seen this happen on the regular sidewalk though. I'm not saying it doesn't or won't happen, I just find it hard to believe based on my experience.

I don't doubt it though, with more bicycles than people (over 880,000 bicycles in Amsterdam, and 780,000 people living there) that some kind of run-in between a bicycle and a person will happen on a sidewalk. I also can say very confidently that if you saw this occur once, instead of every step of your journey, the incident was singular and the exception rather than the rule.

Next time you're over there and you see it happen, tell the guy on the bike he's a "stom eikel" It's direct translation is 'stupid acorn', but when used as an insult, stom still means stupid, but eikel means something a lot more inflammatory than acorn. PM me if you want to know, cause I'm sure it'll be censured if I write it, and I'm no fan of dodging swear filters.

I saw it a couple of times - pretty sure it was by BUI practititoners. Wonder if they can get a ticket for that there? Probably wouldn't want to insult them either - never a good idea to get into a kerfuffle when you are not a local. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I see you making an unqualified generalization saying that all Uptown truck drivers don't drive well, I will be happy to call that out as well. Aim for your target, not for every cyclist in Uptown.

Agreed. Maybe it was an overbroad generalization.

I also will look forward to you policing all the other threads for everybody else's overly broad generalizations that crop up with alarming frequency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been on a few Moonlight Rambles and one year (can remember which one) the route took us through Midtown right when the drunks were leaving the bars. To make matters worse the coppers were responding to an incident on Fannin near the old Fu Kim ( always loved that name...) and all the nervous drunkies were freaking out behind their wheels at the site of sirens. I had some drunk diva turn her car into me in a panicked effort to get out of being surrounded by cyclists. No blood, no foul, but I was still blown away of how close I came to a major injury. Needless to say, several witnesses gave her a reason to call Maaco as she crawled out of there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, but, but, but... those bike riders are selfish. Don't they realize that I am in a hurry? What about ME and MY time? My modified truck that violates those pesky EPA rules because I shouldn't have to follow any commie governmental regulations that try and give us things like clean air and waterways shouldn't have to slow down for selfish bike riders. Seriously, selfish bike riders are selfish. I am talking about ME here and how this affects MY life.

Signed,

SMUMark

Those pesky bike riders are not just inconveniencing me - they are inconveniencing the other 25-30 cars that they around, and they are doing it on a continual basis until they reach their destination...once I am past them its over for me - but they are just another cars problem 100 feet further down the road...They inconvenience far more than just me -they inconvenience more people than not...Its not about me...Im not the selfish one, the bike rider is the selfish one. I inconvenience nobody as I drive politely and with the speed of traffic - the bike rider inconveniences every single person that he encounters.

As to modifying my truck, your dang right I did, and I have no guilt about it at all....The EPA mandates on diesel engines remains one of the dumbest regulations to ever come through that absolutely worthless political hack Agency. By removing an exhaust gas recirculator [EGR valve] (which literally takes extremely hot exhaust gas and funnels it back into the engine to be burned again to remove carbon] you reduce the efficiency of the engine by about 20%...

In order for the engine to be able to burn the exhaust gas (instead of fresh air) the engine requires more fuel to combust the diesel because much of the air is now devoid of oxygen (diesel does not use a spark plug like gas)...the increase in fuel burned actually creates more pollution than the engine did prior to the EGR....Not only that, but the EGR causes the engine to operate at a much higher temperature causing premature failure of a number of engine components....EGR came about in 2005 and by 2011 only Dodge still uses it. All commercial trucks, light duty diesel trucks, tractors, etc have all discontinued its use and now use SCR technology, which introuduces UREA to the exhaust to do the same thing....EGR Valves contributed far more pollution than they ever saved, not only through increased fuel usage for the vehicle, increased refinery emissions from increased usage, but also through the scrapping and remanufacturing of a litany of engine components, as well as about 15% of the vehicles that met the scrap pile because the engine overheated and through a rod or cracked the block....So do I feel bad/guilty or special or cool for removing the EGR valve? Nope. I did the environment a favor....I reduced both emissions and fuel consumption.

Policies written by the government and then shoved down manufacturers throats are rarely good from a consumer or engineering standpoint....But hey continue on with your ignorant soapbox preaching...if you say something enough times more idiots will believe you.

Edited by Marksmu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing inconvenient about safely piloting your vehicle around obstacles that have a legitimate right to be there: it is your duty as a motorist. If you feel your duties are inconvenient, perhaps another form of transportation would be more to your liking?

Nobody is questioning their legitimate right to be there, but when they cause backups and 40-50 cars are sitting around not going anywhere changing lanes, playing bumper cars trying to avoid bikes that are slowing an entire roadway - then ya, they are inconveniencing people. Its not a big inconvenience but its an inconvenience. Stopping at red lights in the middle of the night when there is no traffic in any direction in sight is an inconvenience too...nobody questions the fact that they have to stop at the light - but it sure does seem stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is questioning their legitimate right to be there, but when they cause backups and 40-50 cars are sitting around not going anywhere changing lanes, playing bumper cars trying to avoid bikes that are slowing an entire roadway - then ya, they are inconveniencing people.

Doesn't really happen. What's really happening is a car having to take perhaps 15-20 seconds to slow and change lanes, and then having unrealistic expectations about being able to motor around the city unimpeded. It's classic privileged car culture. Maybe these people should just stay in the left lane so that they never have to change lanes. Bikes are required to ride on the right, except when making a turn or on a one-way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on OT....In just a few months time, The Leader headline will be "Heights Hipsters Convert" and forget about parking a car at Antidote or Premium Draught because the lot will be full of these:

post-6469-0-14176400-1348591233_thumb.jp

Now the real gripe in this thread is I don't believe that this can possibly be a bike sold by Wal-Mart. After all - we all know that everything sold by Wal-Mart is cheap, plastic Chinese crap.

And there definately is metal of some type in that photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bike rider inconveniences every single person that he encounters.

Your generalizations are getting ridiculous. I also ride politely and certainly do not inconvenience every person I encounter. When I'm driving my car and come across a cyclist, I don't feel inconvenienced at all. Maybe I have more patience than you or maybe it's because I ride too. Who knows? Like I said before, I'm just puzzled at why some cyclists choose to ride on major roads. No inconvenience to me, but I think they are dumb for risking their lives that way.

I did the environment a favor....I reduced both emissions and fuel consumption.

LOL. Reduced relative to what? to the gas guzzler it would have been? 17/22 mpg hardly qualifies as fuel economy. I sure hope you work in construction or haul some serious cargo for having 1.5 ton truck.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your generalizations are getting ridiculous. I also ride politely and certainly do not inconvenience every person I encounter. When I'm driving my car and come across a cyclist, I don't feel inconvenienced at all. Maybe I have more patience than you or maybe it's because I ride too. Who knows? Like I said before, I'm just puzzled at why some cyclists choose to ride on major roads. No inconvenience to me, but I think they are dumb for risking their lives that way.

LOL. Reduced relative to what? to the gas guzzler it would have been? 17/22 mpg hardly qualifies as fuel economy. I sure hope you work in construction or haul some serious cargo for having 1.5 ton truck.

I'm sure he's got a boat he takes to the lake once a year, isn't that justification enough?

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your generalizations are getting ridiculous. I also ride politely and certainly do not inconvenience every person I encounter. When I'm driving my car and come across a cyclist, I don't feel inconvenienced at all. Maybe I have more patience than you or maybe it's because I ride too. Who knows? Like I said before, I'm just puzzled at why some cyclists choose to ride on major roads. No inconvenience to me, but I think they are dumb for risking their lives that way.

Its not the evening riders or the early morning riders that anyone complains about - its those that choose to ride on busy, major thoroughfares, during rush hour...nobody dislikes bikes being on the roads when they are courteous and ride at responsible times. Its usually the hardcore riders, who chose to ride during peak rush hour times, presumably to work, that are the problem riders....I attempted to take a photo yesterday of captain jerk on Heights BLVD at 5:30 last night....He was riding North Bound smack in the middle of the car lane b/c it was inconvenient for him to have dodge the various garbage cans that people had already set out. He had traffic STOPPED all the way from 8th back to the Highway. He could not care less about the 100 cars behind him who he pissed off. Its those people who ruin it for the rest of you riders.

LOL. Reduced relative to what? to the gas guzzler it would have been? 17/22 mpg hardly qualifies as fuel economy. I sure hope you work in construction or haul some serious cargo for having 1.5 ton truck.

I run a ranch on the weekends, I use the truck to haul feed/hay/cattle/horses/tractors - no less than three times per month, but usually more like 6-8. I can't afford two vehicles, so the one I can afford has to be able to do both work and commuting....If you know a more fuel efficient means of moving big loads I would love to know it...Paying someone else is not an option b/c livestock usually choose to have their problems during the hours that normal people are asleep or opening Christmas presents...You cant afford to wait to find someone else in most instances.

Removing EPA emissions devices makes a lot of sense when you actually look into the devices and realize that their intended purpose was purely political in nature and even then did not accomplish the goal desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attempted to take a photo yesterday of captain jerk on Heights BLVD at 5:30 last night....He was riding North Bound smack in the middle of the car lane b/c it was inconvenient for him to have dodge the various garbage cans that people had already set out. He had traffic STOPPED all the way from 8th back to the Highway. He could not care less about the 100 cars behind him who he pissed off. Its those people who ruin it for the rest of you riders.

Why not take Yale? Heights Blvd is slow even w/out a biker on it. I would venture to guess he was riding around 22mph, probably had a car 25 yards in front of him, but you probably didn't notice that because you were pissed you couldn't floor it to the next red light.

Edited by brian0123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nobody dislikes bikes being on the roads when they are courteous and ride at responsible times.

Au contraire, I've encountered plenty of people who do have a problem with bikes on the road at any time. I've been hit by cans, run off the road, and all sorts of other things.

As to riding during rush hour, we work too. Your problem with the Heights guy should be with the idiots that are putting trash cans in the street. Go knock on their doors and give them a piece of your mind if you care enough. If you don't, well, I guess you'll just have to deal with it.

Edited by kylejack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not the evening riders or the early morning riders that anyone complains about - its those that choose to ride on busy, major thoroughfares, during rush hour...nobody dislikes bikes being on the roads when they are courteous and ride at responsible times. Its usually the hardcore riders, who chose to ride during peak rush hour times, presumably to work, that are the problem riders....I attempted to take a photo yesterday of captain jerk on Heights BLVD at 5:30 last night....He was riding North Bound smack in the middle of the car lane b/c it was inconvenient for him to have dodge the various garbage cans that people had already set out. He had traffic STOPPED all the way from 8th back to the Highway. He could not care less about the 100 cars behind him who he pissed off. Its those people who ruin it for the rest of you riders.

Checked on google maps, Heights blvd seems to have a dedicated lane in some portions then parked cars take up the right lane further up north. Is that right? If the right lane is impeded by trash bins, etc, then the blame probably goes to those who put it there. Here's a video of a bike rider protesting bike lane obstruction. He was given a ticket for not riding in the bike lane even when it was obstructed, so he stays on the lane no matter what even with the obstructions. Pretty hilarious video.

I run a ranch on the weekends, I use the truck to haul feed/hay/cattle/horses/tractors - no less than three times per month, but usually more like 6-8. I can't afford two vehicles, so the one I can afford has to be able to do both work and commuting....If you know a more fuel efficient means of moving big loads I would love to know it...Paying someone else is not an option b/c livestock usually choose to have their problems during the hours that normal people are asleep or opening Christmas presents...You cant afford to wait to find someone else in most instances.

Removing EPA emissions devices makes a lot of sense when you actually look into the devices and realize that their intended purpose was purely political in nature and even then did not accomplish the goal desired.

That's reasonable. I just thought you were one of those pretenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not take Yale? Heights Blvd is slow even w/out a biker on it. I would venture to guess he was riding around 22mph, probably had a car 25 yards in front of him, but you probably didn't notice that because you were pissed you couldn't floor it to the next red light.

The Yale right turn lane is all jacked up right now forcing you to merge with the middle lane before making a right turn from the I-10 Feeder....Its not really a good option unless you cut over from Heights - even then its very rough and its often difficult to get onto 11th from Yale b/c there is no protected left. If you cut through the side streets its often difficult to get a good opening to cut across traffic right at peak rush hour.

I was only 2 cars back from the bike rider, there was nobody in front of him. He got caught at the light at 6th and stopped as the first person in the dead center of the road....He accelerated painfully slow and there was not a single car in front of him until you got close to the light at 11th. He topped out at about 18mph....I would bet 6 or 7 cars got through the light at 6th before it changed again, and by the time he got to 11th and turned right I could see in my mirrors that traffic was bumper to bumper all the way back as far as I could see.

As to the trash cans - he could have navigated around them, but he chose not to...its not like they are big obstacles - he chose not to bc it was inconvenient for HIM. So, in his self righteous I have a legal right to ride here glory, he backed up the entire road....it probably took more than 10 minutes for normal traffic to be reestablished. Not only that there are any number of streets not nearly as busy as Heights during peak rush hour - he did not take those streets b/c Heights has a bike trail. When he decided it was blocked he should have cut over but he didnt b/c he didnt want to be inconvenienced by having to start/stop at the stop signs.

Its hard to believe the Bike riders really do think that they are not a problem during rush hour....I'm not in a hurry but the selfishness is astounding. 100 people add 5 minutes to their commute and probably burn cumulatively more than 5-10 extra gallons of gas so ONE person either does not have to navigate around trash cans, OR so that same person does not have to start/stop at stop signs on the next street over. And us vehicle operators are the selfish ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run a ranch on the weekends, I use the truck to haul feed/hay/cattle/horses/tractors - no less than three times per month, but usually more like 6-8. I can't afford two vehicles, so the one I can afford has to be able to do both work and commuting....If you know a more fuel efficient means of moving big loads I would love to know it...Paying someone else is not an option b/c livestock usually choose to have their problems during the hours that normal people are asleep or opening Christmas presents...You cant afford to wait to find someone else in most instances.

Removing EPA emissions devices makes a lot of sense when you actually look into the devices and realize that their intended purpose was purely political in nature and even then did not accomplish the goal desired.

Sounds like you have the 6.0 SuperDuty. Is that right? That one was notorious for engine fires caused by the EGR regen cycle. You're right about EGR being a flawed technology. Speaking of going down in flames - Navistar bet the whole company on EGR instead of SCR for their big rigs too - and they just completely dumped all their last 10+ years work and are scrambling to license SCR tech from Caterpiller because the EPA said that their EGR does not and will never achieve the emissions level required. So the once favored technology has almost destroyed a big old corporation. I have a feeling that somebody will buy them up before long - they are hurting so bad from this.

You should have bought an old-school Powerstroke. Those 7.3's last forever. I still get between 15-16 mpg on mine. Turned over 349,000 miles two weeks ago.

But since you're being harangued by the HAIF do-goody police, I suggest instead you buy this:

post-10161-0-11763700-1348760009_thumb.j

It should suffice for your towing and commuting needs all in one vehicle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you have the 6.0 SuperDuty. Is that right? That one was notorious for engine fires caused by the EGR regen cycle. You're right about EGR being a flawed technology. Speaking of going down in flames - Navistar bet the whole company on EGR instead of SCR for their big rigs too - and they just completely dumped all their last 10+ years work and are scrambling to license SCR tech from Caterpiller because the EPA said that their EGR does not and will never achieve the emissions level required. So the once favored technology has almost destroyed a big old corporation. I have a feeling that somebody will buy them up before long - they are hurting so bad from this.

You should have bought an old-school Powerstroke. Those 7.3's last forever. I still get between 15-16 mpg on mine. Turned over 349,000 miles two weeks ago.

But since you're being harangued by the HAIF do-goody police, I suggest instead you buy this:

post-10161-0-11763700-1348760009_thumb.j

It should suffice for your towing and commuting needs all in one vehicle.

I do have the 6.0....had most of the engine replaced under warranty at 99,000 miles after it started smoking. EGR valve stuck open and caused the engine to get too hot...then it started leaking coolant and blowing white smoke....Ford knew the problem the second I drove it in the lot. New EGR valve, heads, head gaskets, 3 injectors, oil cooler, and a couple other miscellaneous parts that were fouled up by the defective EGR valve. Ford tech told me to have an EGR delete as soon as I put another 12,000 miles on it (new warranty for the repairs done)

I crossed that mark and did the delete....I was tempted to do the full upgrade putting in new studs, a performance oil cooler, and new intake, but the truck was paid for and the extra $4000 was not worth it in my mind.

As to that truck - I could not even back that out of my driveway....the street is too narrow. It would be a beast when towing though....Can't imagine its a fuel sipper....I feel that 17/22 is pretty good mileage considering the size and capabilities of the vehicle....there are lots of SUV's and sedans that do much worse than I do.

Edited by Marksmu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't witness the aftermath but my business partner in the 401 Studewood building told me a bicyclist was blown over the side of the Studewood bridge about two weeks ago, messed him up bad. Apparently he tried to ride on that little walkway next to the low rail figuring he was safer than riding in the southbound lane with those important people coming off of the White Oak light testing their 0-60 times into a blind curve. That bridge has to be the most dangerous stretch for bicyclists in the Heights.

That guy tended bar at Liberty Kitchen, heard he broke his back and his broken arm had to get fused (?). He is now recovering though. Scuttlebutt is that his friends are getting some sort of benefit together for him soon, maybe at Big Star Bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to that truck - I could not even back that out of my driveway....the street is too narrow. It would be a beast when towing though....Can't imagine its a fuel sipper....I feel that 17/22 is pretty good mileage considering the size and capabilities of the vehicle....there are lots of SUV's and sedans that do much worse than I do.

You could always just park it in the bike lane.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the trash cans - he could have navigated around them, but he chose not to...its not like they are big obstacles - he chose not to bc it was inconvenient for HIM. So, in his self righteous I have a legal right to ride here glory, he backed up the entire road....it probably took more than 10 minutes for normal traffic to be reestablished.

Look, Heights is a model for different modes of transit working together. Heights is the only road I'm aware of that has a *dedicated* bike lane, in addition to the street parking. If people are bringing their trash cans off their driveway, past the lane of street parking, all the way to the bike lane, what do you expect cyclists to do? Of course they have to move to the car lane. Darting from the bike lane out into traffic, back to the bike lane, back into the car lane sounds like just a fantastic way to get killed.

Your issue should be with the jerks who are dragging their trash cans all the way out to the middle of the road.

Edited by kylejack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

100 people add 5 minutes to their commute and probably burn cumulatively more than 5-10 extra gallons of gas so ONE person either does not have to navigate around trash cans, OR so that same person does not have to start/stop at stop signs on the next street over. And us vehicle operators are the selfish ones?

LOL stop the hyperbole already. Bicyclists are among the smallest effects on your commute time or gas mileage.

As I posted before, you aren't selfish, you're just lashing out because you feel powerless and out of control when you have to share the road with bicyclists. Which makes you a dangerous driver, IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the trash cans - he could have navigated around them, but he chose not to...its not like they are big obstacles - he chose not to bc it was inconvenient for HIM. So, in his self righteous I have a legal right to ride here glory, he backed up the entire road....it probably took more than 10 minutes for normal traffic to be reestablished. Not only that there are any number of streets not nearly as busy as Heights during peak rush hour - he did not take those streets b/c Heights has a bike trail. When he decided it was blocked he should have cut over but he didnt b/c he didnt want to be inconvenienced by having to start/stop at the stop signs.

Navigating around them seems simple enough, so you're suggesting he would go from riding in the bike lane to main lanes of traffic to get around the trash cans. I'm going to venture a guess that it's probably been since before you got your drivers license since you've ridden a bike, and never on a street like Heights Blvd. Certainly not in a measurable amount of traffic.

When you are not in a regular lane and have to navigate from bike lane to main lane to get around crap that doesn't belong there, you're at a far higher risk of getting into an accident with a car, is he selfish for not wanting to die? Reason for this is, a driver sees the bike in the bike lane, the driver assumes he/she can ignore him and the debris he has to navigate around, the bicycle does take time to look and see what traffic is doing when he approaches, but since the driver has already put him out of mind, he doesn't see that he wants to (indeed has to) merge, the car doesn't slow down and runs over the bicycle and rider. Congrats, now the driver has to clean blood off their car because the cyclist was trying to be courteous and not waste your valuable time.

I'm not going to presume to know why he rides a bike, whether it's a life choice, or if he can't afford a car, it frankly doesn't matter. He rides a bike, that's simple enough. You drive a big truck, you gave your justification, which frankly doesn't matter, you drive a truck, why does it matter why does it matter why you drive a truck?

And it sounds like based on your experience it increased your drive time (and that of others) by about a whole 30-45 seconds. I'm staggered at his complete selfishness and lack of regard for your 30 seconds you could have saved on your commute. which likely isn't even the case because instead of being backed up behind stoplights at one intersection, you would have been backed up behind stoplights at another intersection.

edit: if I were cycling down heights, and were of a mind to malicious about the situation, I'd likely just stick my foot out and knock the trash cans out of my way, inconveniencing the people who try to inconvenience me, but really force me to inconvenience motorists.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to presume to know why he rides a bike, whether it's a life choice, or if he can't afford a car, it frankly doesn't matter. He rides a bike, that's simple enough. You drive a big truck, you gave your justification, which frankly doesn't matter, you drive a truck, why does it matter why does it matter why you drive a truck?

Thank you.

Unfortunately on here, personal choices too often are deemed incorrect whether they are are what you drive, where you choose to live, how many square feet your house is, what you believe, how much you recycle, or how often you shop at Whole Foods vs. Wal-Mart.

When in reality, this forum should all be discussing how too much faux stucco sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its hard to believe the Bike riders really do think that they are not a problem during rush hour....I'm not in a hurry but the selfishness is astounding. 100 people add 5 minutes to their commute and probably burn cumulatively more than 5-10 extra gallons of gas so ONE person either does not have to navigate around trash cans, OR so that same person does not have to start/stop at stop signs on the next street over. And us vehicle operators are the selfish ones?

Heights from I-10 heading north is less than 2 miles. I ride the entire length of it on my Longboard in 9 minutes. Pretty sure the bicycle would do the same in less than 10 minutes (i'm guessing around 7-8 minutes)... while it would take a car around 4 minutes. I seriously doubt it held up the 100+ cars you suggest, even if it did only a percentage of them would be going the entire length of heights.... Exaggerate much? Even your example of a jerk rider seems like a perfectly normal, fine non jerk thing to me... There are jerk riders out there though for sure.

I drive a jeep wrangler... obviously I don't care that much about mpg... (although my Vespa gets almost 100mpg).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This week two guys have been riding down San Felipe on my route to work. I pass them at about 6:35am every day. During this time San Felipe is full of people changing lanes, passing and turning off the road, traffic speed is 40-45mph and it's dark. They were in the right lane this morning. As I was coming upon them a car that needed to turn right was trapped behind them. As soon as the car turned right one of the riders swerved out to the left in front of me without realizing I was there. I guess he just thought no one else was behind them. Lucky for him I was keeping my eye on him and was able to slam on my brakes to avoid running him down. We were also lucky no one was behind me. He got back into the right lane and waved me past. We both missed a moment that would have changed our lives forever by a second.

On my home yesterday I saw a lady swerve to miss a police car that had pulled in front of her. She hit a tree hard. I passed her car maybe 15 seconds after she hit the tree, the cop hadn't even gotten out of his car yet. The airbag deployed and she was sitting in the car holding her nose. It looked like she was OK.

I know it's legal to ride your bike down San Felipe. I also know that I'll find a better place to ride mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it sounds like based on your experience it increased your drive time (and that of others) by about a whole 30-45 seconds. I'm staggered at his complete selfishness and lack of regard for your 30 seconds you could have saved on your commute.

edit: if I were cycling down heights, and were of a mind to malicious about the situation, I'd likely just stick my foot out and knock the trash cans out of my way, inconveniencing the people who try to inconvenience me, but really force me to inconvenience motorists.

He never exceed 18mph. I was not so much inconvenienced as were the other 80 cars behind me...I just fail to understand why once he realized the entire bike lane was blocked he did not divert to street with FAR less traffic.

LOL stop the hyperbole already. Bicyclists are among the smallest effects on your commute time or gas mileage.

As I posted before, you aren't selfish, you're just lashing out because you feel powerless and out of control when you have to share the road with bicyclists. Which makes you a dangerous driver, IMO.

Im not the one who burned all the extra fuel, it was the 80-100 cars behind me, who sat at the light at 6th again, who sat on the feeder waiting to turn onto Heights, and who then sat stop/go all the way down heights b/c it was going to take about 8-10 light cycles to normalize the traffic again. He literally backed up the entire blvd.

Im not aggressive or dangerous behind the wheel...just the opposite, I'm very passive..I have not been ticketed since I was 19, but when I see someone inconveniencing others Im not too PC to point it out. One person creates an annoyance, however minor, because he is too selfish to realize a problem and move to a less congested street to alleviate it....and I have no problem with the bike rider kicking the garbage cans over...You create a problem you get to deal with the repercussions.

And I do ride my bike down the hike/bike trail frequently....I often ride kids in tow down to the marble slab @ target....its a great ride and I block zero cars and avoid the runners/walkers....When I ride, I always believe the cars have the right of way, regardless of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt like hopping on my three-speed and weaving, helmetless, into this thread:

I figured Marksmu would have a truck full of "serious cargo," because he sounds so very mechanically inclined -- like he would have been a useful person to know when we needed to disable the check engine light on an ancient Honda long enough for it to pass inspection.

But perhaps even he might acknowledge that the average pickup has an umbrella in the gun rack and a bag of cat food in its very pristine bed, and its driver no especially industrious purpose.

I think people who approach driving with a lot of anger are a hazard, and the Venn diagram of those folks and consumers with a Live and Let Die attitude and preference for heavy vehicles would show quite a bit of overlap.

And I know I will be pilloried for this, but when people suggest they need a heavy SUV because they care about their family too much to get anything less, it irks me. Until gas got so high it resembled an arms buildup or something. Their "precious cargo" is safe (so they think) and they don't care about collateral damage. I know it's not their fault the seat belt law mandates big cars for families. The oft-quoted figure is that seat belts are thought to have saved some 250,000 lives since 1975. But of the million and a half automobile deaths since then, or disabling accidents, I wonder how many would have been averted if moms and dads didn't need to have seating for eight or nine in their respective cars.

I am thinking of five cousins and Mother crammed into the splendidly non-practical-as-a-family-car late-sixties Jaguar E Type whose "back seat" seemed to be meant for a suitcase. I was very little and it was dark and we had stalled -- what a surprise! -- in the rain on Westheimer.

I think people are on board with seat belts. Maybe the law could be repealed and people could be allowed to stuff themselves into smaller, lighter cars like they used to; as long as overall they continued to wear seat belts, perhaps getting heavier cars off the road would offset the change, safety-wise.

I have a weird feeling this may be crazy talk, though. My filter may be broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately on here, personal choices too often are deemed incorrect whether they are are what you drive, where you choose to live, how many square feet your house is, what you believe, how much you recycle, or how often you shop at Whole Foods vs. Wal-Mart.

I'm assuming this tangent is because I called him out on the mpg, but it was probably unwarranted since he gave a very good reason why he drives the truck in the first place. I could care less what he drives. The reason why I commented on it was that I found it funny to read about someone driving a very inefficient vehicle claiming to do the environment a favor. If it was not part of his livelihood and he just wants to drive a big truck, he is very welcome to do so, but don't do it while wearing a "tree hugger" hat; but I guess hypocrisy can be a personal choice too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He never exceed 18mph. I was not so much inconvenienced as were the other 80 cars behind me...I just fail to understand why once he realized the entire bike lane was blocked he did not divert to street with FAR less traffic.

Well, he seemed to be doing fine on the road. It worked great for him, once he moved out of the trashcan littered bike lane. If the 80 cars behind you were not satisfied with the road, perhaps they should have diverted to a street with far less traffic.

Edited by kylejack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You create a problem you get to deal with the repercussions.

It’s statements like this that suggest to me you’re potentially a dangerous driver. If you think bicyclists are creating problems, what repercussions will you resort to out of frustration when you’re driving?

It’s not personal. When I’m riding my bike, my own safety is my priority, so I have to adjust my risk assessments accordingly.

I don’t need to know that you’ve got a ticketless driving record, that you take the kids bike riding, or that you have a cool ride. I’m still lobbying for a new pickup truck; last time wifey got a new car, all I got was a new bike ;)

When I ride, I always believe the cars have the right of way, regardless of the law.

You may be expressing the same thing I am saying about my priority of my safety when I ride, but I also think you’re operating under the misperception that cars have the “right of way” over and above anyone else on the road.

In terms of natural selection, you are correct, the car will win over the bike every time in an accident. In terms of legal right of way, that’s how things work in less developed countries, i.e. the larger the vehicle, the more right of way it has. For some Houston drivers, it works that way here too. But actually, we have traffic laws geared to make things as efficient and safe as possible, accommodating the diversity of modes of transportation we have in the city. Bicycles have as much right to the road as other vehicles, even if the driving culture says you have to rebel against the notion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt like hopping on my three-speed and weaving, helmetless, into this thread:

I figured Marksmu would have a truck full of "serious cargo," because he sounds so very mechanically inclined -- like he would have been a useful person to know when we needed to disable the check engine light on an ancient Honda long enough for it to pass inspection.

But perhaps even he might acknowledge that the average pickup has an umbrella in the gun rack and a bag of cat food in its very pristine bed, and its driver no especially industrious purpose.

I think people who approach driving with a lot of anger are a hazard, and the Venn diagram of those folks and consumers with a Live and Let Die attitude and preference for heavy vehicles would show quite a bit of overlap.

And I know I will be pilloried for this, but when people suggest they need a heavy SUV because they care about their family too much to get anything less, it irks me. Until gas got so high it resembled an arms buildup or something. Their "precious cargo" is safe (so they think) and they don't care about collateral damage. I know it's not their fault the seat belt law mandates big cars for families. The oft-quoted figure is that seat belts are thought to have saved some 250,000 lives since 1975. But of the million and a half automobile deaths since then, or disabling accidents, I wonder how many would have been averted if moms and dads didn't need to have seating for eight or nine in their respective cars.

I am thinking of five cousins and Mother crammed into the splendidly non-practical-as-a-family-car late-sixties Jaguar E Type whose "back seat" seemed to be meant for a suitcase. I was very little and it was dark and we had stalled -- what a surprise! -- in the rain on Westheimer.

I think people are on board with seat belts. Maybe the law could be repealed and people could be allowed to stuff themselves into smaller, lighter cars like they used to; as long as overall they continued to wear seat belts, perhaps getting heavier cars off the road would offset the change, safety-wise.

I have a weird feeling this may be crazy talk, though. My filter may be broken.

It's not just the required seat belts that are the big users of space. Its the child seats. That's where the real arms race in size is. They are friggin huge. I'll be glad when the last two little ones get tall and heavy enough to be only in belts. It will be much more room and comfort for everyone else in the vehicle. I admit - they probably are safer for the little ones (although with it seems like just about every single brand eventually being recalled - who knows) but man to they take up space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming this tangent is because I called him out on the mpg, but it was probably unwarranted since he gave a very good reason why he drives the truck in the first place. I could care less what he drives. The reason why I commented on it was that I found it funny to read about someone driving a very inefficient vehicle claiming to do the environment a favor. If it was not part of his livelihood and he just wants to drive a big truck, he is very welcome to do so, but don't do it while wearing a "tree hugger" hat; but I guess hypocrisy can be a personal choice too.

it's not unwarranted (I don't think), but it is ultimately a justification for the choice a person makes, depending on point of view, that justification could be sloughed off as being a pithy justification, where theirs is nobler.

Marksmu decides to drive a truck because he feels that it helps him manage his ranch better. the guy commuting by bike decides to ride a bike (I'd guess) because it's a hell of a lot cheaper and allows him to afford living in the heights. I'll bet that either of them, when confronted with the opposite person's justification would agree it's a good reason.

It would be easy to say that an old beater of a truck that you keep on the farm would be exceedingly cheap to purchase and maintain (coupled with an economical small or mid-sized car for city driving). Compared to the cost of a driving a truck daily and occasional farm use, it's probably an even cheaper overall proposition. at the end of the day though, he's got his reasons, and that's fine by me. I just wish he would extend the same courtesy to people who don't make the same decisions as him.

would he rather a vehicular version of historic districts that restricted vehicular use of streets based on the type of vehicle you're using? Sounds really great, put the bikes on one street, and cars on another, and just don't let trucks drive on anything except for the freeways. actually, that doesn't sound too bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not unwarranted (I don't think), but it is ultimately a justification for the choice a person makes, depending on point of view, that justification could be sloughed off as being a pithy justification, where theirs is nobler.

Marksmu decides to drive a truck because he feels that it helps him manage his ranch better. the guy commuting by bike decides to ride a bike (I'd guess) because it's a hell of a lot cheaper and allows him to afford living in the heights. I'll bet that either of them, when confronted with the opposite person's justification would agree it's a good reason.

It would be easy to say that an old beater of a truck that you keep on the farm would be exceedingly cheap to purchase and maintain (coupled with an economical small or mid-sized car for city driving). Compared to the cost of a driving a truck daily and occasional farm use, it's probably an even cheaper overall proposition. at the end of the day though, he's got his reasons, and that's fine by me. I just wish he would extend the same courtesy to people who don't make the same decisions as him.

would he rather a vehicular version of historic districts that restricted vehicular use of streets based on the type of vehicle you're using? Sounds really great, put the bikes on one street, and cars on another, and just don't let trucks drive on anything except for the freeways. actually, that doesn't sound too bad.

Indeed an on farm vehicle would be ideal, if I only needed it on the farm....but there are few on farm uses for a truck, and the farm is rural and very few of the things I need the truck for are available locally...I actually feel that I'm at a competitive advantage as to having my property within an hour of Houston....I get everything here in Houston for a fraction of the price that the truly rural property owners have to pay....I pick stuff up throughout the week, leave it on the trailer and then haul the trailer back to the farm on weekends. Its incredibly convenient, and its a huge cost savings. Also most true "farm trucks" are not street legal (IE they run off-road diesel - no taxes)....its not legal to use one of those trucks to bring a load of cattle to market.

When actually on the farm, the truck is parked...everything is done by tractor or UTV....Our property is very low and frequently wet...trucks just get stuck...they are more work than help.

Anyways, I dont begrudge anyone for what they drive or if they ride...I just wish everyone had the common courtesy to look up out of the world they are living and see if the actions they are taking are causing quite a few others to be inconvenienced...We all know Heights blvd is a great place to ride a bike, unless the bike lane is blocked...when its blocked its a bad place to ride a bike. Up until yesterday my main complaint with bike riders on Heights is that they never obey any traffic laws...the guy yesterday was just an poopy head...there was any number of things he could have done to not block traffic and he chose none of them. Conversely any driver could have peeled off and gone another route as well, but it seems to me the majority user should not have to cater to the minority user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the required seat belts that are the big users of space. Its the child seats. That's where the real arms race in size is. They are friggin huge. I'll be glad when the last two little ones get tall and heavy enough to be only in belts. It will be much more room and comfort for everyone else in the vehicle. I admit - they probably are safer for the little ones (although with it seems like just about every single brand eventually being recalled - who knows) but man to they take up space.

The hospital wouldn't let me leave with my newborn until I showed them I had a car seat (they were on to me). I was pleased to show them that I did have one. I didn't understand that it was meant to lay flat and backwards for infants, though. I just propped him upright, a baby less than twenty-four hours old, in the car seat as if he were a toddler. He slumped a bit, to be candid. I recall on the way home having the feeling, as so often, "This seems not quite right."

But when he was strapped in, he was really secure! I can't remember why, but people often had difficulty figuring out how to release him. Once he went off with my friend and her children and when I arrived to pick him up more than an hour later he was sitting in their living room in his car seat, with his little friends playing around him, like a deposed king. She wanted to cut the straps but was afraid it would be hard for me to afford another car seat.

I am glad kids are safer in cars, though it seems odd they're in booster seats until nearly kindergarten. When I was little my favorite place was lying in the floorboard, my head inches from the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the required seat belts that are the big users of space. Its the child seats. That's where the real arms race in size is. They are friggin huge. I'll be glad when the last two little ones get tall and heavy enough to be only in belts. It will be much more room and comfort for everyone else in the vehicle. I admit - they probably are safer for the little ones (although with it seems like just about every single brand eventually being recalled - who knows) but man to they take up space.

Those toddler seats are gigantic. My back seat is enormous and the toddler seat takes up part of the middle seat on the bench....In my wifes much smaller car, two toddler seats would take up the whole back. There would be no usable middle seat and the kids would be able to reach out and smack each other.

The infant seats are not too bad though....Right now Im only 1 infant seat and 1 toddler seat. If we had a third before number 1 was out of the toddler seat I would need another vehicle. How ridiculous is that? A huge truck cant legally seat three kids under 5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad kids are safer in cars, though it seems odd they're in booster seats until nearly kindergarten. When I was little my favorite place was lying in the floorboard, my head inches from the ground.

I agree - I'm glad they are safer too. And it's past kindergarten. I believe the new law which came into effect last year is booster seat till eight years old or 80 lbs. I'm glad they have the age limit - my 17 year old is only 87 lbs - she didn't hit 80 till about 2 years ago. She would have been pretty upset to have to be put back into a booster.

When I was little, I use to love to stretch out across the whole back seat and sleep. Guess it's a good thing there was never a panic stop needed back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those toddler seats are gigantic. My back seat is enormous and the toddler seat takes up part of the middle seat on the bench....In my wifes much smaller car, two toddler seats would take up the whole back. There would be no usable middle seat and the kids would be able to reach out and smack each other.

The infant seats are not too bad though....Right now Im only 1 infant seat and 1 toddler seat. If we had a third before number 1 was out of the toddler seat I would need another vehicle. How ridiculous is that? A huge truck cant legally seat three kids under 5?

My truck is older - 1997 - so no front air bag. So one of the big child seats goes in between my wife and me in front on the split bench. That lets us get more car seats/boosters in than the newer ones can.

I'm toying with the idea of finding a good welding shop and running a 1" steel bar behind the rear bench in my cab of my pickup. Up near the top of the seat. Then I could attach two more shoulder belts in the middle to it giving me 4 seatsbelts in back. My kids are small - and even full grown will be able to fit four across (once we get rid of those &*$* car seats).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was little, I use to love to stretch out across the whole back seat and sleep. Guess it's a good thing there was never a panic stop needed back then.

No, you're misremembering. There were sudden stops. You would have rolled into the floorboard. I was already there so there was really nowhere for me to go. In the front seat, yes, we occasionally hit our heads on the glove box, but that was why my mother always flung her arm out when she hit the brake, to prevent that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conversely any driver could have peeled off and gone another route as well, but it seems to me the majority user should not have to cater to the minority user.

I guess my best bet is to just ride around on bicycles in giant packs with my friends, then. Use our majority to do what we want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree - I'm glad they are safer too. And it's past kindergarten. I believe the new law which came into effect last year is booster seat till eight years old or 80 lbs. I'm glad they have the age limit - my 17 year old is only 87 lbs - she didn't hit 80 till about 2 years ago. She would have been pretty upset to have to be put back into a booster.

When I was little, I use to love to stretch out across the whole back seat and sleep. Guess it's a good thing there was never a panic stop needed back then.

Maybe this is part of the obesity problem, are parents fattening up their kids so they don't have to put them in booster seats?

I recall being packed like sardines into the wagon part of a station wagon a few times. One of my friends dad's had a Toyota Chinook, no seatbelts at all for the people riding in the back. we used to take turns 'surfing' in the little aisle thingy. Good times.

Typically though my parents were very strict that we wore our lapbelts while riding in the back seat, and this was back as far as the late 70s.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're misremembering. There were sudden stops. You would have rolled into the floorboard. I was already there so there was really nowhere for me to go. In the front seat, yes, we occasionally hit our heads on the glove box, but that was why my mother always flung her arm out when she hit the brake, to prevent that.

You might be right. I must have hit my head and lost the memory. That could explain so many other things, but I digress.

Your front seat tale makes me think of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer stops short on George's mom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my best bet is to just ride around on bicycles in giant packs with my friends, then. Use our majority to do what we want.

Once bicycles replace cars as the prominent and most widely used form of transportation then yes you will be the majority user. Until then your not helping your cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the hatred of people in cars behind cyclists (especially in the city). If you don't like the cyclist in front of you, just go over to a different road. The cyclist slowed you down (by at most) a couple minutes and was obeying the law. You're throwing a hissy-fit and getting worked up over nothing. Chill out, roll down the window, enjoy the drive down Heights Blvd, and respect your fellow man who happens to want to get some exercise and not use a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the hatred of people in cars behind cyclists (especially in the city). If you don't like the cyclist in front of you, just go over to a different road. The cyclist slowed you down (by at most) a couple minutes and was obeying the law. You're throwing a hissy-fit and getting worked up over nothing. Chill out, roll down the window, enjoy the drive down Heights Blvd, and respect your fellow man who happens to want to get some exercise and not use a car.

Internet griping does not equal hatred.....I was not annoyed at the biker so much as the selfish attitude of the biker...his time is apparently worth more than 80-100 cumulative other peoples.

Its like making everyone behind you at a restaurant wait to order their meal b/c you are next in line and you are buying for your boss who has you on hold....why should everyone else wait for just one person when that person could just step aside and let the next one go.

Nobody got worked up, nobody tried to take the biker out, nobody even honked - but you could see the lines of cars behind him that were swerving left/right trying to figure out what the big hold up was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...