>

That's how I feel about Amish buggies.
I'm a bicyclist and would never ride more than a 3 person pack on a well travelled road that is shared with cars because the cars need to be able to get around us. I don't expect a car to travel 15mph just because they can't get around 5 cyclists that are spread out. As a matter of fact, most places it is illegal to ride in packs for that very reason and you aren't even supposed to be side-by-side. Courtesy goes both ways and cyclists and motorists need to work together. Nobody owns the road. >

And yet we’ve all seen packs of Bicycles clogging up the road. 
Quite frankly I don’t think it’s a good idea for 5,000lb SUVs going 55mph and 175lb cyclists going 15mph to be sharing any kind of road. >


they vandalize public roads with spray paint arrows and symbols to show their friends which way to go

Sounds like there was an organized cycling event. >

Agree but they need to abide by the road rules also or they loose that privilege. Also a little common sense goes a long way. >

As a commuter cyclist, fuck biking on such a road. My safety is more important than my chosen method of exercise. 
HOWEVER, this is why we need a push for separated bike lanes. 
You don't want me to bike where you drive.
I don't want you to drive where I bike. >

Exactly.
It's not the cyclists clogging up the road, it's the DRIVERS clogging up this world for everyone else. >

Every time this topic comes up, I'm reminded of the time I witnessed a pack of dudebros on their weekend social spandex ride attack an ambulance (lights and sirens blaring, mind you) for having the audacity to honk at them.
I mean how dare the EMTs feel the emergency patient they were transporting or rushing to was more important than their trust fund street gang. >

If the street is a hwy you cannot ride so slow as to impede traffic flow. Same rules as cars. > >

Sounds like you have a problem with your government not making cycle lanes >

Nope. Have a problem with government not banning this crap. Perhaps when a government official and their children are killed it will come up for a vote. >

So it's just government mandates that there be no free method of travel? Sounds dystopian >

Capitalism baby >

Where are the cyclists supposed to drive? Also if people drive like assholes and go into oncoming traffic that's not their fault >

People, like that UPS driver, as wrong as he was, have JOBS TO FINISH. Including your order - someday - possibly. So when you complain its late or its broken because he had to slam on the brakes and everything got crushed, you know why now. 
Where are they supposed to ride? I have no idea. You couldnt pay me enough money to put my body next to 55 MPH metal boxes going around blind turns and limited sight distance hills. These people are NOT SMART. >

You know some people can't afford cars? My city has zero public transportation, is spread out over like 5 miles, and has very little in the way of bike/pedestrian lanes. Should I just give up and die since I'm too poor to buy a new car? >


You realize that the cost of a high-end, new bicycle and the cost of a hoopty are about the same, right? >

Okay and you do realize they make cheaper bikes? You can buy one at Walmart that will get you to work for 60 dollars.
Obviously if I'm talking about people needing bikes if they can't afford cars I'm not talking about folks riding around on these >

And you obviously didn't catch the insinuation that bike lanes are usually only built in areas populated by people who can afford bikes that cost as much as a cheap car.
Until the upper middle class wants bike lanes, you won't see them. Do you see the bigger picture? I've had to bike to work out of necessity. Guess what? You're not in it unless you got the dough. It sucks, but that's the reality.
You're complaining that you're too poor to afford a car and wining about wanting bike lanes. I'm telling you that because you do not have the means to provide yourself transportation, you likely do not have the means for society to take your complaints seriously and give you a bike lane. Society only cares about the wealthier castes.
BTW: 5 miles is not that long of a commute. >

I think it’s insane that modern society is so accepting of people literally playing with their toys in traffic. If someone suggested that we need skateboard lanes or hula hoop lanes they’d be laughed out of the room, but it’s the exact same thing. Then they claim they take up the whole lane for safety or we need bike lanes for safety…if safety is your concern, nothing would save more cyclists’ lives than banning them from the road completely. >

Bicycles are legitimate vehicles. Most people can ride at 15 mph and up. >

I get your point, and no, it isn’t safe to be riding your bike on a busy street with a 55 mph limit. They should ride in bike paths and on streets with slower speeds. But bikes are legally vehicles (where I’m from at least). This gives them as much right to a traffic lane as any car, motorbike, etc. And, in an effort to be more environmentally friendly, a lot of people are commuting to work by bike, which is why they are out during rush hour. From the sounds of your post though, I agree they should respect the rules of the road more >

I wish there was infrastructure for bikes and all the electric scooters/boards/unicycle things etc. Half the time there is barely any sidewalks to walk on and it fucking sucks. >

Replace bicyclists with cars and you'd be accurate. How many cycles caused death or property damage compared to cars? 
>As if they paid for full use of that lane
It's called taxation. Cars, and especially big rigs, do more road damage than a cycle ever will. >

So you drive recklessly and you wanna blame others for preventing you doing so.
Gotcha. >

did you read the post at all?
OP is talking about roads with 55mph speed limits. you're not speeding if you are driving 55mph in a 55mph zone. >

You also need to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. If you're traveling 55MPH, that's roughly 24 meters per second. At a blind bend you have maybe 4 meters you can see. You need to be going slow enough to come to a complete stop in those 4 meters. Can you react fast enough to fully stop your vehicle in .17 of a second from 55MPH? >

look i've never driven on the road that OP is referring to. all we know is that they are driving the posted speed limit (55mph) and that at that speeds there appear to be some blind turns. maybe the speed limit is too high for that road? i don't know. but it's not worth jumping to conclusions. without any further evidence it's a waste of time to assume that OP is lying and/or a secret asshole. all we have is their information, we might as well take it on faith. >

A speed limit is for a stretch of road overall. In areas of reduced visibility is is a legal requirement to slow down to be able to stop in the distance one can see to be clear. >

okay? have you been on this road that OP has been on? do you know what the speed limit is? do you know the last time the speed limit was examined and verified by the local department of transportation?
again, it's a waste of time to just assume the worst about OP and then argue about something we know nothing about. >

In Australia we have to drive 1.5 metres from them, some roads don’t have enough room to do this, so have to go slow behind these fuckers. >

Where I lived in the mountains I hated them solely because it was dangerous. So many blind turns where someone could easily be taken out >

I hope this is truly unpopular opinion. Man, just take a bike and don’t be so mad. Sometimes bicycle is the only transport people can rely on. >

Easy for you to say, you your children didnt almost get into a head on collision with a large truck but hey - I guess I am wrong, right?  Only transport? so that clump of wanna be Lance Armstrongs, all dressed as if they're in the grand tour didnt just leave their cars at the local elementary school? I am not complaining about the one dude trying to get to his job. He's more considerate of the rules of the road. You know I am right, its just not in you to agree....... until it happens to you, eh? >

Instead of blaming a cyclist try blaming the shitty infrastructure in you city so that people should be in danger to commute. This would not happen if you voted and required bicycle roads done in a safe way >

This isnt a city. This is country. Its rural. Its narrow, rural roads with no shoulders. People also need to use their brains and stop waiting for government to think for them. >

Why shouldn’t country have bicycle infrastructure? It’s really irrelevant to my comment. If you are against safe infrastructure, then stop waiting on other people to think of you, it’s a free country. “Use your brain” and solve your problems yourself >

Bike riders will hate you, because they think their tax-free access to the roads you pay for is some holy endowed right ... but you are correct. They need to ride trails, not roads. 
When they start paying for the roads, they can ride on them. >

The thing is, bikes don't damage the roads they drive on, cars (and especially big cars) do exactly that. 
The taxes that drives pay in conjunction with using a car cover only 51% of the cost of road upkeep. Meaning a cyclist actually pay a huge amount for what they actually cost while using the roads >

The thing is people don't damage taxis when riding them. Therefore taxis should be free. >

A bike has every right to be on the road just as a car does >

A bicycle is recognized as a vehicle when on the road. The bicycle has the same rights and obligations in traffic as you in your car. 
You need to get over it.
To me it sounds like you’re more willing to blame the several bicyclists in the opposite lane, which you’re not using, than the UPS truck driver who likely passed in an unsafe manner.
Because passing situations are done in passing zones that are engineered so that drivers can see ahead tells me the UPS driver was passing where he shouldn’t have been.
Check yourself. >

If they're recognised as vehicles the should follow the law. Which include not going so slowly that you block or impede traffic. If the speed limit is 55mph and the average cyclist goes about 18 mph don't you think that would impede traffic especially if they're  taking the whole lane as a group. >

Impede, sure. But so does the person doing 55 when I’m trying to use the public roadways as a racetrack. I just pick a place and time to pass safely. The burden of doing so is on whoever is going faster. >

I don't like irresponsible people no matter their means of transport.
I don't like irresponsible bikers, but let's be clear here.  Bikes aren't the ones almost killing people, car and truck drivers illegally passing are the ones almost killing people. >

I’ve never seen a bicyclist stop at a red light or stop sign. Don’t wanna follow the rules of the road? Don’t use it >


Bit my tongue far too long. People are (or likely have been) killed by these dopes. 

Oh boy just wait until you learn about how many people cars kills every year
Also idiot drivers are responsible for their own own idiot driving >

I have the same thoughts tbh >

We get it. You’re intolerant and in a hurry. Sharing a poorly designed infrastructure is just asking for far too much from someone as entitled as you. You’re whining about safety when you’re the one wrapped in 3k lbs of speeding steel. Poor you. Most of us can hold our breath for longer than it takes for you to endure such a tragic insult to your self righteousness. Yours is the saddest story I’ve heard all day. >

Just admit the sight of fit men in tight clothing is making you feel things you don't want to acknowledge >

You should express your opinion on a biking subreddit. Your opinion isn't unpopular. But the majority of people being killed are the bikers. So yeah let the cyclists know in their subreddits how you feel, they'd love to discuss this with you. >

As a motorist you are actually supposed to completely get in the other lane when passing by much slower modes of transport. think bikes/mopeds and its actually dangerous for them to try to hug the edge of the road in a neat file.  They are allowed to use that entire lane. get over yourself. If the way is not clear just be patient and wait til it is. >

I can ride my bike at exactly the speed limit and car drivers will always try to overtake. Now matter how much they can see ahead. Even if they just have time to get back in lane right in front of me in front of a stoplight or an intersection.
There's a single lane street near my neighbourhood with a 15km/h limit for cars that I often take on my way home. I can easily ride the speed limit or faster (legal for bikes), yet they always honk behind me (no space to let them pass without riding on the sidewalk) or they try and overtake way too close and make me bunnyhop onto tge sidewalk. The street, when going the speed limit takes about a minute, so it's not like they're trapped behind me forever.
Driving behind a bike just gives some drivers an urge to overtake, no matter what. That's what causes these situations more times than anything else. Might be because it feels like a waste of a lot of money for fuel and metal that drains most of the time of their mediocre life. While, at the same time, any nonlazy person with a bunch of interconnected levers (a bike is just that) can go just as fast, enjoy themselves while doing so, get healthy at the same time and even look better. Maybe they just have to feel better about themselves and speed and the knowledge they're protected by a ton, or more, of steel is the only thing that's left in their lives. So that's why they try to show it off as aggressively as they can or even make it their main personality trait. >

Once I was riding at 27 mph on a residential road, and a car went up to like 40 mph to pass me. Then they braked hard once they realized they were going way too fast. >

Bicyclists belong on sidewalks with the pedestrians, skateboarders, and scooters. >

Nope, they’ll just barrel over pedestrians. They should be banned everywhere except for dedicated bicycle trails. >

Entitled car driver... >

Yep. Fuck cyclists