Whiney Cyclists Craigslist

[Scat E46]

http://calgary.en.craigslist.ca/rnr/2614384507.html

LOL

[Joe-G]

:clap:

[ekguy]

lol hahaha. I love my bike...but damn that is one pouty motherfucker lol. Sometimes calgary makes me smile so much.

:D

[dirtsniffer]

fucking lol

[masoncgy]

:rofl:

[sevewone]

http://i52.tinypic.com/2rfwm5v.gif

[A790]

Ahahahahaha. Win :D

[J-hop]

Haha, I commute to work everyday on a bicycle but I've definitely developed a hatred as well for the majority of the cyclists on the road.

So many douche bag riders think that they have the right squeeze through on the shoulder at red lights to the front of the line. I've had fellow cyclists yell MOVE because I take my righful place in traffic and refuse to make the line of cars re-pass me and generally obstruct the flow of traffic.

The hilarious thing is these douche riders generally look exactly like the guy pictured, all suited up with their tour de France race bikes that they can't take over a pothole, and somehow I end up passing them on my POS mountain bike from the 80s?????

I agree the average commuter cyclist is a douche.

[JordanEG6]

Hahaha
Thank God

Cyclists piss me off to no end. These self-entitled douchebags think they can do whatever they want and then complain about road sharing when most of them don't follow any rules.

[Type_S1]

I like to try and run them off in to park vehicles when they try to pass everyone at red lights. I let them get infront of me and then close to a parked vehicle I get infront of them and slightly move over. :clap:

I'm a DBAG driver to cyclist's and proud of it. I would like to see my tax dollars going into more policeman downtown to ticket cyclists for dangerous driving, obstructing traffic and running red lights.

[alien]

And then there's the whole other breed of cyclists in downtown couriers...:guns:

[R-Audi]

Pure Awesome.

[adam c]

Originally posted by Type_S1
I like to try and run them off in to park vehicles when they try to pass everyone at red lights. I let them get infront of me and then close to a parked vehicle I get infront of them and slightly move over. :clap:

I'm a DBAG driver to cyclist's and proud of it. I would like to see my tax dollars going into more policeman downtown to ticket cyclists for dangerous driving, obstructing traffic and running red lights.

I've always been tempted to open my door when they try and pass but I don't want to damage my car in the process

[Ukyo8]

I can't even begin to describe how much I hate cyclists... :banghead:

[kvg]

Great rant:thumbsup:

[n1zm0]

http://images.stuffofawesome.com/scumbag-cyclist-1315990803-3431.jpg

[alien]

^^^^^^ Thanks.:thumbsup:

[Myrrinda]

hahahahaha, awesome

[swak]

Why so much hate?? Holy shit.

I'm a respectful and proud cyclist. And its drivers like you guys puffing out your chests on here that encourage that driver/cyclist separation even more.

In the end, if I'm putting my life at safety by moving over to the RH side of the road anymore, I will not move. Fuck you if my safety measures makes your commute .5 mins longer.

[CUG]

Originally posted by swak
Why so much hate?? Holy shit.

I'm a respectful and proud cyclist. And its drivers like you guys puffing out your chests on here that encourage that driver/cyclist separation even more.

In the end, if I'm putting my life at safety by moving over to the RH side of the road anymore, I will not move. Fuck you if my safety measures makes your commute .5 mins longer. Because FK YOU!

[soccernut]

I think it just comes down to the City not being bicycle-friendly.

You have to either bike on the paths or the road. In my experience, I was either too fast on the path or too slow on the road. Did not enjoy any of it.

[speedog]

Originally posted by soccernut
I think it just comes down to the City not being bicycle-friendly.

You have to either bike on the paths or the road. In my experience, I was either too fast on the path or too slow on the road. Did not enjoy any of it. Not on 10th Street NW anymore - dedicated bike lanes showed up from 5th Avenue NW all the way to Northmount Drive NW..

[swak]

.. That's so much BS now. I live just off there, and think its the worst thing this city has done.
Turn 10th st south into a 1 lane to accomidate bikes?

As an avid cyclist, I even say fuck that.

[adam c]

Originally posted by swak
Why so much hate?? Holy shit.

I'm a respectful and proud cyclist. And its drivers like you guys puffing out your chests on here that encourage that driver/cyclist separation even more.

In the end, if I'm putting my life at safety by moving over to the RH side of the road anymore, I will not move. Fuck you if my safety measures makes your commute .5 mins longer.



Originally posted by swak
.. That's so much BS now. I live just off there, and think its the worst thing this city has done.
Turn 10th st south into a 1 lane to accomidate bikes?

As an avid cyclist, I even say fuck that.

Stereotype appears to fit

[J-hop]

Originally posted by swak
Why so much hate?? Holy shit.

I'm a respectful and proud cyclist. And its drivers like you guys puffing out your chests on here that encourage that driver/cyclist separation even more.

In the end, if I'm putting my life at safety by moving over to the RH side of the road anymore, I will not move. Fuck you if my safety measures makes your commute .5 mins longer.

What streets do you ride on? I take 4st to prince's island park to get down town and I am able to ride far enough to the right that cars can pass me without having to cross into the other lane. I've never had someone sit behind me unable to pass. I ride essentially right on the crack between the road surface and the curb, but then again I ride an appropriate bike for Calgary not some carbon fibre framed race bike with tiny tires meant for slick blacktop.

I personally don't think it is necessarily that Calgary isn't built for bikes but more the mentality of the riders. Which is apparent in the types of bikes these people buy and the way in which they disregard the need for traffic to flow properly dispite their presence.

Not to say I'm the perfect cyclist, I'm sure there has been many a time where I've pissed off a driver during my commute. But as a 'cager' turned rider I understand and do my best to not cause issues for the main road users.

[bignerd]

I was driving down 12 ave once, in the far left hand lane. The left hand curb lane has cars parked in it, found an open spot to park, signalled and pulled in. Guess a cyclist was splitting the lane between me and the parked cars and I "forced" him up onto the curb.

I didn't see the big issue... if he had been in the lane following behind me he would of seen my turn signal.

[K3RMiTdot]

i hate cyclists

[Irae]

To all of you that intentionally try to run cyclists off the road - How do you treat those cyclists who follow all the traffic rules?

I for one cycle to work regularly, have never rolled through a stop sign without stopping, never split lanes, never weave through traffic and never taken advantage of riding through crosswalks with the pedestrians

I'd wait in the lane behind all the other cars, at each and every light.

There are many of us cyclists who will ride as far to the RHS as it is safe to do so, and by the same token, take up the full lane when it is not safe to ride in the RHS (as by law, we are entitled to the same piece of roadway, but as a courtesy, hug the RHS whenever possible)

Would you still have such animosity towards cyclists who you can clearly tell respects the law?

[dirtsniffer]

ya, you can take a lane, but impeding traffic is a no no in the alberta traffic safety act
http://www.roadlawyers.ca/demerits.html

[alien]

Does anyone know if you are allowed to ride a bike on John Laurie or Crowchild? I thought they were considered freeways therefore not permitted for cyclists yet i still see them once in awhile.

[JfuckinC]

Originally posted by alien
Does anyone know if you are allowed to ride a bike on John Laurie or Crowchild? I thought they were considered freeways therefore not permitted for cyclists yet i still see them once in awhile.

lol you gotta have a screw loose if you even wanna ride down them :rofl:

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by alien
Does anyone know if you are allowed to ride a bike on John Laurie or Crowchild? I thought they were considered freeways therefore not permitted for cyclists yet i still see them once in awhile.

If a bike was holding up traffic on one of these roads I would be calling the non-emergency line and honking at you non-stop.

[lilmira]

No shoulder, merge lane and traffic at 70-100km/h don't mix well with cyclist.

[Khyron]

I'm sure it would be much better to have all the extra cars on the road and create even more traffic. You should be encouraging the bikers cause then it's more road for you.

My commute used to be over 60kms a day a couple times a week and for the most part the only hassles I had were along the south side of the zoo/inglewood. There is a shoulder and the bikes SHOULD be passing all the cars sitting waiting to turn since we turn on the path, not memorial. But every now and then I'd have some redneck douche in a pickup be a dink.

Good thing is that with the cheap price of helmet cams, a lot more idiots are going to be getting tickets, if not criminal charges.

Don't confuse the downtown courriers with normal commuters.

Edit: And we can cycle on any road other than deerfoot. I avoid Glenmore, but I have used Memorial before.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by J-hop


But as a 'cager' ...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/newsfeed/000/157/122/f.gif

I don't know what it is about cyclists saying this word.. but it really pisses me off.

[alien]

Originally posted by Irae

Would you still have such animosity towards cyclists who you can clearly tell respects the law?

Last week i saw a cyclist stopped at a light waiting to cross or turn on to 53rd St and i had to double take.

[swak]

Originally posted by J-hop


What streets do you ride on? I take 4st to prince's island park to get down town and I am able to ride far enough to the right that cars can pass me without having to cross into the other lane. I've never had someone sit behind me unable to pass. I ride essentially right on the crack between the road surface and the curb, but then again I ride an appropriate bike for Calgary not some carbon fibre framed race bike with tiny tires meant for slick blacktop.

I personally don't think it is necessarily that Calgary isn't built for bikes but more the mentality of the riders. Which is apparent in the types of bikes these people buy and the way in which they disregard the need for traffic to flow properly dispite their presence.

Not to say I'm the perfect cyclist, I'm sure there has been many a time where I've pissed off a driver during my commute. But as a 'cager' turned rider I understand and do my best to not cause issues for the main road users.

I live in the NW, and ride a lot on Northmount, 10th St., downtown, everywhere really.
*Sat here a few min's while typing this, and really cant seem to think of an actual scenario, but it does happen when riding where you do need to take the lane to maintain your safety.

[whiskas]

Bike couriers are the worst. I ride my bike around DT and it's apparent that a few douchebags ruin it for the rest of us riders.

It's always funny how everyone at a 4 way stop sign freezes, even if they were halfway through the intersection , because they're expecting me to blast through it.

This is usually followed by looks of confusion and amazement by other drivers when I actually come to a stop at the stop sign.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by whiskas
Bike couriers are the worst. I ride my bike around DT and it's apparent that a few douchebags ruin it for the rest of us riders.

It's always funny how everyone at a 4 way stop sign freezes, even if they were halfway through the intersection , because they're expecting me to blast through it.

This is usually followed by looks of confusion and amazement by other drivers when I actually come to a stop at the stop sign.

You have come across nice drivers! I would speed up :rofl:

[Afrodeziak]

It's probably the same people who bitch about parking prices downtown that bitch about cyclists, small children who cry, getting pwned on COD, door dings, fat people.

Embrace the quality of life that we have here in Calgary... not like we're in a 3rd world. Someone who's choosing a different mode of moving from point A to B, should be the least of your issues.

I look forward to the point where Calgary's density increases to the point that driving to/from downtown is out of the question. You folks have no choice but to ride a bike or take transit... as is in many other North American Cities. Sure it may never happen.. but,

Can't we all just get along?

[adam c]

Originally posted by Afrodeziak
It's probably the same people who bitch about parking prices downtown that bitch about cyclists, small children who cry, getting pwned on COD, door dings, fat people.

Embrace the quality of life that we have here in Calgary... not like we're in a 3rd world. Someone who's choosing a different mode of moving from point A to B, should be the least of your issues.

I look forward to the point where Calgary's density increases to the point that driving to/from downtown is out of the question. You folks have no choice but to ride a bike or take transit... as is in many other North American Cities. Sure it may never happen.. but,

Can't we all just get along?

No.

[dirtsniffer]

nvm:zzz:

[no_joke]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
so let's say a whole crap load of people pay for a service. then along comes this group of people who don't pay to use it and want you to accomodate their wants and desires. sounds like a piss off to me

BIKE LANES. FUCK THAT

Pretty sure that tax revenue pay for the roads and that nearly all cyclists are taxpayers. So let's say I, as a cyclist, pay for a service as much as anyone else does and along comes a group of people who want to run me off the road when I want to use it...

[no_joke]

oops

[dirtsniffer]

you're funny. and pretty misguided how roads are funded. the majority of road funding comes from gas tax bro. some federal money comes into play on building highways. so you can bike on those if you want.

oh and FUCK YOU

[Sugarphreak]

....

[Irae]

Sugarphreak - I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, and indeed I do choose the routes where I can reasonably keep up to the speed limit, and choose bike paths/side streets where at all possible. Bikes have no place on roads with a 70+ speedlimit imho.

LED strobes on the front and rear of the bike to alert drivers around me of my presence, as well as a high vis jacket.

I too, get very irritated when other cyclists ruin it for everyone, and give all cyclists a bad name by splittling traffic, and not following the rules of the road; they should be ticketed as a motor vehicle driver would if they broke the law.

THanks for the constructive feedback.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Although I've never tried to intentionally run a cyclist off the road (ok, once... but that was like 6 years ago and the guy had it coming).

I'd say you have the right attitude in general. Waiting your turn in line at stops and following the same rules other vehicles follow is how it should be if you want to be taken seriously and respected as a fellow vehicle.

Where I see a flaw in your logic is the fact that you seem to think you have the right to the entire lane all the time. If you can do the speed limit, I would have no problem at all with you in the regular flow of traffic... but when you can only do 30-40km tops and the posted speed limit is 50 to 60km, you are obstructing traffic.

When obstructing traffic, you should pull to the side and allow other vehicles to pass freely. Not because it is a courtesy, or you are a nice guy... but because it is the law. You could be an elderly old lady or an avid cyclist, but just the same, you shouldn't be on the roadway if they are unable to keep up with the flow of traffic (or at a minimum do the posted speed limit).

I am sure there are some cases where you cannot get off the roadway and cannot let people pass you safely... IMO you should equip your bike with hazard lights and activate them when those situations unexpectedly arise. If you are aware of a section of road like this, you should detour around it.

You are completely incorrect. The Alberta traffic act views a bicycle as a vehicle, and is entitled to the entire lane. That means when you pass a bike, you are supposed to switch lanes entirely, exactly the same as if you were passing a motorcycle or a scooter. Riding under the MAXIMUM speed limit is not obstruction, even if you really wish it was. Thus on a single lane road with a double yellow, by law, you don't get to pass. Courtesy is to ride as close to the right as possible, and in the shoulder when available.

In BC there is a rule about when a line of cars gets to 10+ behind, an RV or other slow moving vehicle is supposed to pull over, but not in AB.

I love biking with CPS officers, because they can and do go visit people later on in their shift.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[msommers]

Funny all these guys talking about about wanting to take out a cyclist. What if you did? You'd risk killing someone to prove a point? Have criminal charges?

Not sure on the rules but could be hit and run, your insurance would have to pay for all the medical bills etc. People ride bikes. My roommate cut his commute time in half by biking to work instead of being stuck in traffic.

Couriers downtown have a deathwish, I'll give people that. But in the same sentence, people would bitch that their package didn't get delivered fast enough if the couriers stopped doing what they do! Calgarians these days are something else.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


For the record I was careful to word that "Unable to keep up with the flow of traffic"... which is the law. Yes, the posted speed limit is the maximum, and if all other traffic is doing 30km in a 50 zone, then you are correct that it is not obstruction and you are absolutely entitled to a full lane. But say on the other hand everybody in traffic is doing 20km over the limit, then the speed limit would govern.

If you are unable to keep up wiht the flow of traffic or at a minimum do the speed limit, you are obstructing traffic.

I am pretty sure it is illegal to obstruct traffic in AB as well, no?

It's not "keeping up with traffic". That's why horse carts and cement trucks and backhoes are allowed to drive on the road. There is no minimum speed limit.

Now "Legally allowed" and "Is a wise decision" are 2 different things. I'm allowed to ride on Glenmore, and have done so before, but try and avoid it as much as possible.

Here's the section from the driver's book:

•A cyclist riding their bicycle is considered by law to be a vehicle. When a cyclist has stopped and remains astride their bicycle at an intersection waiting for a traffic control signal, they are to be treated as a vehicle waiting for their turn to proceed.
•If a cyclist dismounts completely and is walking beside and pushing their bicycle, then they are considered by law to be a pedestrian.
•When passing a cyclist, go around them like you would any other vehicle.

•Cyclists are required to ride as close as practicable to the curb, however, they may need to ride further out when they have to steer away from drainage grates, pot holes, debris, loose gravel or sand, wet or slippery surfaces, rutted or grooved pavement and even dogs. Be aware of the roadway conditions that may affect a cyclist.


This is the funny one. Legally can own the whole lane, but to facilitate passing, ride as close to the right as you feel safe.

And yes:

Ride single file except when overtaking and passing another cycle.

It is ILLEGAL for a person over 12 years old to ride on the sidewalk.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[msommers]

Insurance? For what!

[Sugarphreak]

...

[swak]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Liability, like ever other car.

Examples:

-If a cyclist splits a lane to go around a car and smacks into a pedstrian on a crosswalk. He should be liable for the persons injuries.

-If a cyclist runs a red and hits an expensive car, he should be liable to fix any damages to the car.

Not saying i condone such activity, but i have a fried/know a guy (however you want to word it) who has been cut off, and hit more times than he can count now. And he is a pretty respectable commuter.
Having said such, on these encounters, drivers have also needed a new side mirror.

And for one, lane splitting is indeed legal. Theres no way in hell i'm going to wait in gridlocked traffic on a bicycle, EVER. I do on my motorcycle, but thats another story.

So in the end i strongly believe its the driver's egos that need to change, not cyclists' habits.

ALSO, i STRONGLY believe that bike lanes are not the answer, if i had my way, id take each and every one away. This only separates the bikes from traffic even more, and even more strongly condones such ignorant attitudes that bikes have no place on the road.
...For example, ive been commuting down 10th street for 5+ years now into the downtown core. Not once have i had an issue. This bike lane crap is ridiculous.

But going to the original topic of this thread, whats even more ridiculous is having guys enforce bikes on the pathway (we cant win!). For not dismounting, when its ridiculous to do so. And then if its not that, its speeding, etc.
This is the reason in those 5 years commuting, i have only touched the pathway a handful of times.

[dirtsniffer]

its pretty frustrating to have to pass the same cyclist after each and every red light. well not for me, its frustrating getting stuck because people in front of me do not know how to pass safely or at all.

lane splitting is for sure illegal in alberta, maybe bicycles have there own rules though

[Kennyredline]

I cycle a lot, to/from work everyday, and I follow the rules for the most part. If it's raining or freezing, I'll run a light if I can, without making anyone else adjust their driving. I stay as far to the right as I can safely, and cyclists are allowed 1 meter from the curb, but I try to use as little of that as I can.
I laugh at the people that bitch about cyclists, when I'm sure I could spend 5 minutes driving with them, and pick apart THEIR habits too.
Calgary drivers have no right to bitch about other people not following the rules of the road.

[4runneron36s]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
you're funny. and pretty misguided how roads are funded. the majority of road funding comes from gas tax bro. some federal money comes into play on building highways. so you can bike on those if you want.

oh and FUCK YOU

Hey bro, are you saying that I, as a truck owner, have more right to the road than you because I buy more fuel? Cool, now get off MY road.

Oh, and by the way, the AB Gubmnet spends more on roads than it directly receives, so in fact, EVERYONE pays for roads. Thanks for coming out, bro.

[Kg810]

Originally posted by Khyron


It's not "keeping up with traffic". That's why horse carts and cement trucks and backhoes are allowed to drive on the road. There is no minimum speed limit.

Now "Legally allowed" and "Is a wise decision" are 2 different things. I'm allowed to ride on Glenmore, and have done so before, but try and avoid it as much as possible.

Here's the section from the driver's book:

•A cyclist riding their bicycle is considered by law to be a vehicle. When a cyclist has stopped and remains astride their bicycle at an intersection waiting for a traffic control signal, they are to be treated as a vehicle waiting for their turn to proceed.
•If a cyclist dismounts completely and is walking beside and pushing their bicycle, then they are considered by law to be a pedestrian.
•When passing a cyclist, go around them like you would any other vehicle.

•Cyclists are required to ride as close as practicable to the curb, however, they may need to ride further out when they have to steer away from drainage grates, pot holes, debris, loose gravel or sand, wet or slippery surfaces, rutted or grooved pavement and even dogs. Be aware of the roadway conditions that may affect a cyclist.


This is the funny one. Legally can own the whole lane, but to facilitate passing, ride as close to the right as you feel safe.

And yes:

Ride single file except when overtaking and passing another cycle.

It is ILLEGAL for a person over 12 years old to ride on the sidewalk.

Not sure you are fully correct on this.

I don't think you should be comparing horse carts, cement trucks and backhoes to cars and cyclists? :nut: ... You are comparing vehicles with equipment/loads or mechanically incapable of driving like a car or riding the curb/gutter like cyclists are supposed to.

Might want to re-read Division 1 of the Traffic Safety Act - Use of highway and rules of the road regulation - http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2002_304.pdf

The minimum speed is not prescribed but the minimum speed is technically anything that is not impeding traffic / blocking the movement of traffic. So if the traffic around you is going 50km/hr and you as a cyclists feel and have been thinking you can go whatever speed you like that's under the speed limit, given normal weather conditions + road conditions, you'd be wrong. If there is no reason for you to be slow moving when you choose to take up the right lane instead of staying in the gutter, you are impeding traffic. If you want to take the right lane instead of riding the gutter, go the speed limit.

So while cyclists can move further out when dodging the things you listed, it is retarded if the cyclists uses this as an excuse to ride out further from the curb the entire time. All the cyclists I've come across are not going fast enough where they aren't impeding/obstructing traffic. Almost all of the cyclists are blocking the normal flow of traffic by doing their own take on the regulations you listed.

There is nothing worse than being at the front of a red light in the right lane to have some Tour de France whiney pouty cyclist come alongside of you and position himself just a bit in front of your bumper and then when the light turns green he rides slow as fck and stays just enough into the lane where you are forced to merge into the left lane. To add to the frustration of seeing him go 30-40km/hr, he'll catch up to you at the next light and do the same fucking thing again. :banghead:

[swak]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
its pretty frustrating to have to pass the same cyclist after each and every red light. well not for me, its frustrating getting stuck because people in front of me do not know how to pass safely or at all.

lane splitting is for sure illegal in alberta, maybe bicycles have there own rules though

Actually, on a bicycle its not.
... Says all the cops ive "lane split / ak.a filtered" past in traffic.
And if its not legal, officials clearly don't care.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Kg810


Not sure you are fully correct on this.



I am absolutely correct, and you can ask any police officer that has anything to do with traffic enforcement. There is no "ride in the gutter" rule. I can ride my bike in the right lane of Glenmore at 25km/hr and it's not obstruction, unless there is a clear shoulder to the right that I could be using instead, which there usually is. I could also get tagged if it was a single lane and I was intentionally blocking cars from getting past at all (ie, being a dick on purpose)

Riding to Canmore or Bragg Creek almost never involves moving into a car lane because they have decent shoulders. Deerfoot is an exception (and you'll note there's specific signs forbidding cycling). Same with the Coquihalla in BC.

Insurance isn't really an issue as any vehicle/personal damage would be dealt with via small claims - no different than hitting a jaywalker with your car and suing him or his estate to get your car fixed. Some home insurance policies cover it as well. It's a lot less likely for a drunk cyclist to wipe out a family of 4 than it is with an f-150 which is where the public liability coverage is required.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by swak


Actually, on a bicycle its not.
... Says all the cops ive "lane split / ak.a filtered" past in traffic.
And if its not legal, officials clearly don't care.

You sound like one of the assholes who is the problem. If bike-riders could actually keep with the flow of traffic...I wouldn't mind. When you constantly hold me up and add 5 minutes to my commute, you deserve you go face first into a parked vehicle. Do you ever consider the TOTAL amount of time lost by individuals on a "cyclists" commute. Every car they come in contact with they probably add 30 seconds to a minute minimum on average to someone's commute. When your downtown and affecting 300 cars...look at all the time you are wasting for people. Their time IS much more important then yours.

The worst, as another poster said above, is when they ride to the front of traffic lines and park themselves in front of a cars bumper and then hold up the whole damn line of traffic. This is where if I have the chance I try to rub them out into a parked vehicle. Technically I am doing nothing wrong if I "pass him legally" I am just driving normally and he should be riding safely BEHIND me not trying to lane-split or anything. So I don't see a problem with my driving habits at all. When passing bikers I always give them enough space because I don't want to cause harm to them even if they do bother me...it is when I see them directly trying to screw everyone else over. If you want to be like a vehicle why shouldn't you wait in line behind the car you should be following? What gives you the right to butt in line?

If cyclists just changed they retarded things they did we could all get along. :D :D :D

[vrsc400]

V3nMnr8ZirI

[Sugarphreak]

...

[J-hop]

Originally posted by swak


Actually, on a bicycle its not.
... Says all the cops ive "lane split / ak.a filtered" past in traffic.
And if its not legal, officials clearly don't care.

According to the post made earlier from the drivers handbook when someone is riding their bicycle they are to bet treated as a vehicle, in AB no vehicle can lane spit therefore you are wrong. The cop either didn't know the law or figured it wasn't worth his time to deal with.

Interesting that you, as an avid cyclist, want to believe the rules of the road when they benefit you (ie: cars treating you like a vehicle and giving you full use of the lane) but not when the law causes you to have to be respectful to other road users.....

As a cyclist who doesn't lane split I encourage everyone in here to pinch off the shoulder when you see a cyclist trying to filter down the shoulder or have your passenger open their door so the cyclist can't get by.

[RY213]

It seems to me car drivers are doing the majority of whining in this thread...:whocares:

[alien]

Originally posted by RY213
It seems to me car drivers are doing the majority of whining in this thread...:whocares:

That's because most cyclists (before i get raged on, note that i said "MOST") are generally think they've don't nothing wrong.

[urban.one]

If you argue that bikes cannot filter past cars, that is saying that there is no lane sharing - ie. single file for bikes and cars. Does that mean no filtering of cars past bicycles - cars must move out of the right lane and pass the bicycle in the left lane?

[urban.one]

Hey thats great advice. Instead of losing a few seconds on your commute, youre advocating for drivers to attempt to injure a cyclist. A few seconds versus tying up traffic for a few hours while emergency crews and traffic investigators come out to the scene. Add in the time youll spend on the phone with insurance plus any time with police and courts. You sure would show that cyclist though... probably wont lane filter again if he knows whats good for him.


Originally posted by J-hop



Interesting that you, as an avid cyclist, want to believe the rules of the road when they benefit you (ie: cars treating you like a vehicle and giving you full use of the lane) but not when the law causes you to have to be respectful to other road users.....

As a cyclist who doesn't lane split I encourage everyone in here to pinch off the shoulder when you see a cyclist trying to filter down the shoulder or have your passenger open their door so the cyclist can't get by.

[Akumaz]

Originally posted by urban.one
If you argue that bikes cannot filter past cars, that is saying that there is no lane sharing - ie. single file for bikes and cars. Does that mean no filtering of cars past bicycles - cars must move out of the right lane and pass the bicycle in the left lane?

that is exactly what is being said. All in all, most cyclists are a hazzard to them selves and to other vehecles. I totally understand some people want to ride for different reasons, may it be to save on gas money, or time in some cases. But, unless there is a destinated bike trail, they are to be treated as cars, and those who weave through cars/traffic are not therefore, following the "rules". Correct me if i am wrong here, if one were to following the rules and to ride to work down town. While NOT splitting traffic and weaving, would it not take the same amount of time as driving? Since they are following traffic?

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by urban.one
If you argue that bikes cannot filter past cars, that is saying that there is no lane sharing - ie. single file for bikes and cars. Does that mean no filtering of cars past bicycles - cars must move out of the right lane and pass the bicycle in the left lane?

That is exactly what everyone is saying. Wait your turn....if you try so hard to ride on the road...wait you f'in turn.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by J-hop


As a cyclist who doesn't lane split I encourage everyone in here to pinch off the shoulder when you see a cyclist trying to filter down the shoulder or have your passenger open their door so the cyclist can't get by.

If there is an actual SHOULDER that's not lane splitting. It's a separate lane of travel that does not impact cars. Going down the middle, cutting in FRONT of cars, is splitting. I love that you encourage assault on people because they ride past you.

When I used to ride to work along 12 ST (the zoo), I ride in the right shoulder and cars pass on the left just flows fine until the bridge. Coming home, cars are bumper to bumper backed up, but I ride in my shoulder just the same as the morning. But every now and then some idiot thinks that somehow I'm impacting his travel and will try and slide over into the shoulder, even though my being there doesn't change his wait time at ALL. Hypocritical.

[tirebob]

Seems funny that on this thread so many people who regularly call people stupid because they get mad when someone parks like a douche taking up 2 prime spots or what-have-you, and can't understand why someone would ever inflict damage to that persons car out of frustration because only people who are complete douches would ever consider inflicting damage upon someones property for simply inconveniencing them, turn around and argue that someone deserves personal injury etc because they were inconvenienced in traffic by a few extra seconds here and there, or because they don't like how that guy on a bike takes advantage of his small size and the car can't...

I too get annoyed by being inconvenienced by things in traffic that slow down my commute etc, but by no means do I think that would ever justify intentionally causing injury to another person because they choose to commute in a different way than I do and it inconveniences me sometimes, just as one cannot justify damaging property out of the frustration of inconvenience...

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Kg810]

Originally posted by Khyron


I am absolutely correct, and you can ask any police officer that has anything to do with traffic enforcement. There is no "ride in the gutter" rule. I can ride my bike in the right lane of Glenmore at 25km/hr and it's not obstruction, unless there is a clear shoulder to the right that I could be using instead, which there usually is. I could also get tagged if it was a single lane and I was intentionally blocking cars from getting past at all (ie, being a dick on purpose)

Riding to Canmore or Bragg Creek almost never involves moving into a car lane because they have decent shoulders. Deerfoot is an exception (and you'll note there's specific signs forbidding cycling). Same with the Coquihalla in BC.


Are you kidding? Did you even bother to click the link and read Division 1? You should also re-read the regulations you posted.

In case you didn't know what I was referring to in Division 1, here is part 2(1)(c), which specifically says to not;


(c) drive a vehicle at such a slow rate of speed so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic then existing on a highway except when it is necessary to do so for the safe operation of the vehicle or to comply with Parts 1 and 2.

So this part mentions that vehicles should not drive a vehicle at such a slow rate of speed where it impedes or blocks the normal traffic speed. When it's necessary to do so, i.e - a bunch of shit blocking the gutter and you need to move out further to the right lane. Show me how you can decifer that you are allowed to go 25 km/hr and not impede or block traffic when other vehicles are travelling at 50 km/hr? That's slower than playground zone speed. :facepalm:


The next part in the Division 1 section, 3(1), states;


3(1) If a person driving a vehicle is driving the vehicle on a highway at a speed that is less than the normal speed of the traffic on the highway at that time and place and under the conditions then existing, that person shall drive the vehicle

(a) in the right traffic lane then available for traffic, or

(b) as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway,

except when either

(c) overtaking and passing another vehicle travelling in the same direction, or

(d) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

I'm sure most people will understand that a car cannot exercise (b) as the car will still be blocking at least half the lane anyways, so (a) is the obvious choice. (b) aligns more with cyclists, which says to drive as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. If you ask me what the closest part of the roadway to the curb is called, I would answer the gutter. It mentions "as practicable" which in other words means "capable" or "feasible" or "practical." If you're telling me you are a cyclists and incapable to ride the gutter or think it is practical to impede + block traffic, you should probably consider another means of transportation. That type of thinking is as bad as someone who has ZERO skill and clue on how to drive a manual and decides "hey, i heard driving manual cars is better for gas mileage, I don't know how to drive a manual car but who the fck cares I'll be halping the environment!" Then the fucker stalls at every light, every hill, every turn and cannot for the life of him shift passed 1st gear. Totally allowed right? :nut:

Riding the right lane and taking the whole lane is not pratical and is not as close to the curb/edge of the road way.


The next part I want to bring up is Cyclist regulations and rules.

Operation of cycle

77(1) A person who is operating a cycle on a highway

(a)...
(b)...
(c)...
(d)...
(2) A person who is operating a cycle, other than a motor cycle, on a highway shall operate the cycle as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway unless that person is in the process of making a left turn with the cycle.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person who is operating a cycle, other than a motor cycle, on a one-way highway in an urban area shall ride as near as practicable to either curb or edge of the roadway unless that person is in the process of crossing from one curb or edge of the roadway to the opposite curb or edge of the roadway.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person who is operating a cycle, other than a motorcycle, on a highway that has shoulders

(a) in the case of a highway that has paved shoulders, shall operate the cycle on the right shoulder, and

(b) in the case of a highway that does not have paved shoulders, shall operate the cycle as far to the right of the roadway as practicable,

unless that person is in the process of making a left turn.


Sounds to me that cyclists should be riding on paved shoulders when there is paved shoulders and when there isn't, get as close to the curb as possible. Where does it say "A cyclist can ride in the entire right lane if he/she wishes to and is not required to go the speed of normal traffic."


Last point to bring up is;

Cyclists are required to ride as close as practicable to the curb, however, they may need to ride further out when they have to steer away from drainage grates, pot holes, debris, loose gravel or sand, wet or slippery surfaces, rutted or grooved pavement and even dogs. Be aware of the roadway conditions that may affect a cyclist.


Sounds to me that Cyclists have the possibility and might ride further out from the curb/edge to steer away from obstacles and unfavorable conditions, that is completely fine. But don't tell me the entire time you're riding in the entire right lane at 25 km/hr that you are doing so to dodge/steer away from the things listed above. Seriously, where the hell are you getting the idea that you can ride the entire right lane and go slower than traffic speed? Because a cop said so? Cops don't make rules, they enforce them. :nut:


-edit- missed a [ /quote ]

[swak]

^^ BUT... vehicles passing cyclists are required to pass them as they would any other car. This means, not passing in the same lane as the other vehicle. SOOOOOO in that case, it wouldn't matter if the bike was as in the gutter (which is not practicle at all), or in the LH wheel well (taking the lane).

Far too often when riding if i were to move my elbow out an inch, id be hit by the passing cars mirror.
This is why i take a more dominant lane position most of the time, thus forcing drivers to pass LEGALLY.

In my lifetime, ive never once been stopped by police for unsafe/illegal riding habits. And ive crossed many cops in my commtues.

[Kg810]

Originally posted by swak
^^ BUT... vehicles passing cyclists are required to pass them as they would any other car. This means, not passing in the same lane as the other vehicle. SOOOOOO in that case, it wouldn't matter if the bike was as in the gutter (which is not practicle at all), or in the LH wheel well (taking the lane).

Far too often when riding if i were to move my elbow out an inch, id be hit by the passing cars mirror.
This is why i take a more dominant lane position most of the time, thus forcing drivers to pass LEGALLY.

In my lifetime, ive never once been stopped by police for unsafe/illegal riding habits. And ive crossed many cops in my commtues.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with Cyclists that are trying to stay as close to the gutter as possible. I can understand that it isn't the best to ride in the gutter, but that isn't to say it's not possible.

The problem I have is when Cyclists interpret the rules and regulations in their favor to justify their Tour de France attitude.

It's funny you guys mention that cops don't have an issue and whatnot, but I find even funnier that of all the times I've seen some cop trailing a cyclist, the cops never legally signal in the left lane to pass either. This is for rush hour and when Cyclists are riding close to the curb. Even when the Cyclist is riding a little more aggressively into the right lane, I've seen cops signal left, never make it into the left lane and go back into the right lane after passing the Cyclist.

People can be unpredictable and everyone has a different tolerance level. Add in rush hour and a dumb fuck Cyclist who thinks he can do whatever the hell he wants, that a recipe for road rage. All I can say is, if I were a Cyclist, I would try my best not to inconvenience other commuters as everyone is trying to get home safely and the last thing I'd want is for someone to cut me off with their vehicle or aggressively pass me and put me in danger. I'm not saying all Cyclists are like this, but man, there are a bunch of them out there that have no concept of this and have the mentality that they are entitled to do whatever they want.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by urban.one
Hey thats great advice. Instead of losing a few seconds on your commute, youre advocating for drivers to attempt to injure a cyclist. A few seconds versus tying up traffic for a few hours while emergency crews and traffic investigators come out to the scene. Add in the time youll spend on the phone with insurance plus any time with police and courts. You sure would show that cyclist though... probably wont lane filter again if he knows whats good for him.




No not at all, you did not read my post. I advocate drivers preventing riders from squeezing by on the side NOT trying to hit them, you've mis interpreted what I said no where in my post did I say attempt to hit them, that would be a stupid and ignorant thing to say. Also by along the shoulder I meant between the car and the side of the road not where there is an actual shoulder that is different, then a rider wouldn't impede traffic at all.


Originally posted by Khyron


If there is an actual SHOULDER that's not lane splitting. It's a separate lane of travel that does not impact cars. Going down the middle, cutting in FRONT of cars, is splitting. I love that you encourage assault on people because they ride past you.


You didn't read my post correctly either (see above) :D


Originally posted by Sugarphreak

That is a truly terrible piece of advice :thumbsdow

Fair enough if you don't agree with preventing cyclists from squeezing through on the right at lights. But I sincerely hope you aren't yet another reading comprehension fail... (see above)

[swak]

Let's be honest here, if it were possible for cars/trucks, and motorcycles to do the same, I can guarantee you all the above would be lane splitting as well.
Theory coming from how unreasonable, disrespectful, and ignorant drivers in this city are.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Khyron]

It's not just one buddy cop. I ride with guys from Cops For Cancer, and several cycle officers. Yes you stay right as practical but that doesn't mean in the damn gutter. If the road is gravelly I'm in the right "tread" lane where cars would have their right tires. Legal and correct.

Here's a radio broadcast of one of them DEFINING it in the press:

http://www.cbc.ca/homestretch/episode/2011/06/07/bike-rules/

Start at 1:30 (also explains why we wear bright "tour de france" clothing :nut: )

2:05 is the "Does a cyclist take a whole lane" and the answer is no you stay as right as possible, but you effectively have the whole lane because no one can legally pass in the same lane! It's no different than a smart car or a motorcycle - you don't get to squeeze past!

Plus we can move to the left lane if turning left soon.

It's badly defined, because even if I'm in the gutter on a single lane, and you pass on the left giving me my space you're crossing double yellow/centre which is a passing violation, which is retarded. So there is a lot of discretion by the officers. A lot of the talk about slow moving vehicles in the traffic act doesn't apply to bikes, same as all the bits about turn signals and brake lights doesn't apply. I wish they'd just make the rule that bikes can be passed as long as cars give 5 or so feet of room.

But make no mistake, with how common helmet cams are becoming, buzzing a cyclist might end up with your ass in jail.

And I never split lanes if it means the same car will pass me twice. I wait, in my lane, unless you're never going to see me again. Remember, unless you're talking to some skinny jean fixie riding hipster in Seattle, the biker probably drives a car as well and gets just as annoyed with idiots as you do.

[rob the knob]

from my time away i remember this story

[rob the knob]

this story



Cyclist killed motorist in road rage attack after driver opened his car door in front of him
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 8:27 PM on 3rd June 2011

Comments (25)
Add to My Stories
Share

Jailed: Cyclist Paul Lambeth punched motorist Tony Magdi, who later died from his wounds
A cyclist was jailed for 18 months today after he killed a motorist who opened his car door in front of him.
Tony Magdi, 52, died three weeks after being assaulted outside his greengrocer's shop in Hove, East Sussex, on November 7 last year.
Paul Lambeth, 36, was originally charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm, but this was changed to manslaughter following Mr Magdi's death at Hurstwood Park Neurological Centre in Haywards Heath on November 28.
Sentencing him at Hove Crown Court, Judge Michael Lawson QC said he had given Lambeth credit for pleading guilty at the first available opportunity.
But he added that the fact that he did not give himself up straight away - and only did so after he had already been identified as a suspect and police were looking for him - was a strong aggravating factor.
Outlining the circumstances of the case, prosecutor Amy Packham said Lambeth had been cycling with two friends, James Jones and Michael Wilson, eastbound along Portland Road towards central Hove at around midday when the incident happened.
The three men were cycling in a line with Mr Jones in front when they approached Mr Magdi's Jaguar which had just pulled up and parked. Mr Magdi then opened his door before the cyclists had passed.

More...
Ex-boxer killed his best friend with a single blow in row over sister of X Factor star Liam Payne
'The door struck a passing cyclist. There was a collision between the cyclist and the door,' Miss Packham said.
'This cyclist was not the defendant, it was his friend Mr James Jones, and they collided, causing Mr Jones to lose control of his bike and fall on to the road.'
Miss Packham said the collision forced Lambeth and Mr Wilson to brake and swerve, while a fourth passing cyclist, Anthony Randles, fell off his bike.
The court heard that, although all four cyclists were initially angry with Mr Magdi - with Lambeth hurling insults at the apologetic driver - 'the immediate confrontation and anger had passed'.
Miss Packham continued: 'It was at this point that the defendant suddenly punched Mr Magdi without provocation' and he fell hard on to the pavement.'
The prosecutor said Mr Jones then shouted at Lambeth, asking him why he had landed the punch, to which he replied: 'I'm not wearing it.'
Lambeth then mounted his bike and cycled away with Mr Wilson.
Mr Jones and Mr Randles tried to assist Mr Magdi by putting him in the recovery position, but when it became clear that he was unconscious and unresponsive, Mr Jones too panicked and fled the scene.
A passing doctor came to Mr Magdi's aid and he was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton by ambulance.
However, a CT scan showed he had significant bleeding on his brain and he was transferred to Hurstwood Park where he died three weeks later.

[Kg810]

Originally posted by Khyron
It's not just one buddy cop. I ride with guys from Cops For Cancer, and several cycle officers. Yes you stay right as practical but that doesn't mean in the damn gutter. If the road is gravelly I'm in the right "tread" lane where cars would have their right tires. Legal and correct.

Here's a radio broadcast of one of them DEFINING it in the press:

http://www.cbc.ca/homestretch/episode/2011/06/07/bike-rules/

Start at 1:30 (also explains why we wear bright "tour de france" clothing :nut: )

2:05 is the "Does a cyclist take a whole lane" and the answer is no you stay as right as possible, but you effectively have the whole lane because no one can legally pass in the same lane! It's no different than a smart car or a motorcycle - you don't get to squeeze past!

Plus we can move to the left lane if turning left soon.

It's badly defined, because even if I'm in the gutter on a single lane, and you pass on the left giving me my space you're crossing double yellow/centre which is a passing violation, which is retarded. So there is a lot of discretion by the officers. A lot of the talk about slow moving vehicles in the traffic act doesn't apply to bikes, same as all the bits about turn signals and brake lights doesn't apply. I wish they'd just make the rule that bikes can be passed as long as cars give 5 or so feet of room.

But make no mistake, with how common helmet cams are becoming, buzzing a cyclist might end up with your ass in jail.

And I never split lanes if it means the same car will pass me twice. I wait, in my lane, unless you're never going to see me again. Remember, unless you're talking to some skinny jean fixie riding hipster in Seattle, the biker probably drives a car as well and gets just as annoyed with idiots as you do.

I like how you've been saying you can take the whole lane and here's a cop saying "no, you can't." And about your interpretation and justification, yeah cars are not legally able to squeeze by a cyclist, but then why the fuck is a cyclist allowed to do that? I've never in my life seen a cyclist line up with the cars, they squeeze on by like they own the road and when you do the same they get their panties in a bunch. And btw, I don't care about the clothing, it's just the whole attitude of some of those select cyclist enthusiasts that are so anal about you driving correctly but they themselves do whatever the hell they want.

Yes I know you can move to the left if you are making a left turn, it was mentioned several times in the rules and regulations I posted.

It is badly defined and what's also retarded is how cyclists are classified as vehicles when they require no "license" to be on the road sharing the same roads as other vehicles that go through several years of learners to be able to qualify to drive. I would love to see classes teaching anyone who decides they want to cycle how to properly ride and learn how not to irritate other drivers. I hardly see cyclists properly signal, they just do a quick glance behind and turn or switch lanes, I see them blow through stop signs, I see them go straight in a right-hand only turning lane and much more.

A lot of the slow moving vehicle stuff doesn't apply? Really? How do you figure that? :facepalm: ... This is one reason why there is so much confusion, cyclists pick and choose what rules and regulations apply to them as they see fit.

I would love it if cyclists required a license and license plate, that way I can call in every douche bag cyclist that feels like he can break any rule.

I understand you are one of the cyclists that probably try their best not to annoy/irritate drivers and do everything correctly, but there are way more out there that misinterpret the rules and regulations because it isn't so clearly defined. Just because it doesn't say what to do exactly, cyclists still have to use common sense and make the best judgment on when to ride further out and when not too. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should be doing it the whole commute home. If the situation calls for it, the driver will most likely see why and give you space, but if you abuse it and do it the whole way the driver(s) will get irritated.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Kg810
[B]

I like how you've been saying you can take the whole lane and here's a cop saying "no, you can't." And about your interpretation and justification, yeah cars are not legally able to squeeze by a cyclist, but then why the fuck is a cyclist allowed to do that?


Yah? Quote me. A cyclist effectively owns the lane because passing anywhere inside that lane is a violation. Keeping it a violation means that hopefully cars will be careful when they break it, which is expected. Ie, same as posting a 80km/hr on a road you really want to keep at 110.

Christ I remember riding to the comic book store on a single speed BMX on Glenmore. No internet to rage on, and I had no issues.



It is badly defined and what's also retarded is how cyclists are classified as vehicles when they require no "license" to be on the road sharing the same roads as other vehicles that go through several years of learners to be able to qualify to drive.


Oh, you mean a 25/30 question multiple choice test that any literate retard can pass? The bike guy is taking ALL the risk, you might get a broken mirror, the biker risks life. That's why the biker has the motivation not to get killed unlike the 17 year old speeding in his daddy's camry reading his Yo yo yo texts while eating a cheeseburger!



A lot of the slow moving vehicle stuff doesn't apply? Really? How do you figure that? :facepalm: ... This is one reason why there is so much confusion, cyclists pick and choose what rules and regulations apply to them as they see fit.


Yah, if there's no shoulder I can ride in the road (in a LANE) on virtually any road or highway in North America with no risk of ticket for being too slow. Just because I can't do 80+km/hr doesn't make me a slow moving vehicle in the legal sense. But riding in the middle of highway 8 when there's a nice fat shoulder would definitely get me tagged as one. See? It actually doesn't come up much as most roads have one. Old Banff Coach Road is a really bad one that doesn't (and I never touch it).



I understand you are one of the cyclists that probably try their best not to annoy/irritate drivers and do everything correctly, but there are way more out there that misinterpret the rules and regulations because it isn't so clearly defined.

There are thousands of bikers riding every day who don't act like jackasses - because we would prefer not to be killed. You just notice the fools (and the bike couriers)



Just because it doesn't say what to do exactly, cyclists still have to use common sense and make the best judgment on when to ride further out and when not too. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should be doing it the whole commute home. If the situation calls for it, the driver will most likely see why and give you space, but if you abuse it and do it the whole way the driver(s) will get irritated.

Exactly - my problem is the uninformed masses who yell "Get on the sidewalk" cause they don't get that we ARE allowed to be on the road, and we don't have to squish into the gutter to let you pass. I STILL ride on the sidewalk going up a couple of hills in town because there is no room and taking a lane would cause backups. And I don't need to deal with ragers.

And that force dismount part on the pathway near the new "candaycane bridge" oh my fukin god, that enrages me like you can't imagine.

[jonnycat]

I saw a whiny cyclist today. He was about 500m down the road to my right as I was at a T intersection. He heard someone spin their tires and looked back and assumed it was me, as there were no other cars in sight. As I was going past him in the left lane he rode over near the middle line. I was trying to figure out what the fuck he was doing so I slowed down. He just kept fucking staring at us in the car. My brother in law finally just gave him the finger. He promptly pulled over after we passed and wrote down my plate number.

Like Fuck off. I'd like to see him prove my bone stock awd car did a standing burnout.

To be clear, if it was me, this guy was nowhere near me and went out of his way to be a righteous holier than though cyclist. At least he had to take off all of his gear just to get a pen out. Obviously has nothing better in life to do.

[WithTheLightsOn]

I don't get what's the big deal with lane splitting. It's legal in Italy and I've seen it happen at about every intersection in Rome for 9 years, yet I've never seen anyone have a problem with it or get into an accident as a result of it. And trust me, if you ever wanted to see some of the worse drivers/riders/cyclists put together with people with short temper, please feel free to visit Rome. Beautiful city BTW. :rofl:

[speedog]

Originally posted by tirebob
Seems funny that on this thread so many people who regularly call people stupid because they get mad when someone parks like a douche taking up 2 prime spots or what-have-you, and can't understand why someone would ever inflict damage to that persons car out of frustration because only people who are complete douches would ever consider inflicting damage upon someones property for simply inconveniencing them, turn around and argue that someone deserves personal injury etc because they were inconvenienced in traffic by a few extra seconds here and there, or because they don't like how that guy on a bike takes advantage of his small size and the car can't...

I too get annoyed by being inconvenienced by things in traffic that slow down my commute etc, but by no means do I think that would ever justify intentionally causing injury to another person because they choose to commute in a different way than I do and it inconveniences me sometimes, just as one cannot justify damaging property out of the frustration of inconvenience...

Thank you tirebob.

After cruising through this thread, I'm left thinking WTF?

Over the past 30 years I've commuted to/from work on city transit, on a bicycle, on a motorbike and in personal/company vehicles. When cycling, I factored in the fact that I was not going to win in any collision and adjusted my cycling routes and how I cycled accordingly - broken bones or worse wasn't worth trying to assert my rights as another vehicle on the road. This meant not splitting lanes or riding up along the curb to the red light - big deal if it meant a couple more minutes to my ride, at least I was not placing myself (and possibly my family's future) at risk by making a poor decision or two.

And as a 4 wheeled traveler, I have to pick my battles as well - certainly, I am not going to lose 5 minutes in my commute due to short cutting cyclists. Realistically, the extra commute time is due to a great many other things then a couple of cyclists. I also have to consider my actions and reactions to events around me - one never knows what that other driver/cyclist may be capable of in a fit of rage/anger that has come about because of a short sighted reactive decision of my own. Again, a poor decision by myself in reaction to something someone else did (cyclist or not as there are a great number of idiots not driving bicycles out there) could seriously impact my life.

Really, people need to learn to chill out - yeah, it sucks that Deerfoot or many other routes clog up at times and it sucks that there are other people out there (cyclist or not) who do bend the rules or invade your space. But at then end of the day, getting to your destination safely should be the the optimal conclusion and I'd rather have a hug from my kid after a shitty commute home then having to explain to her why I'm sitting in the hospital or worse because of a poorly thought out reactive decision.

[msommers]

Originally posted by WithTheLightsOn
I don't get what's the big deal with lane splitting. It's legal in Italy and I've seen it happen at about every intersection in Rome for 9 years, yet I've never seen anyone have a problem with it or get into an accident as a result of it. And trust me, if you ever wanted to see some of the worse drivers/riders/cyclists put together with people with short temper, please feel free to visit Rome. Beautiful city BTW. :rofl:

I saw more people on scooters than bicycles but I totally agree, never saw an accident. People here just have a different mentality that will never change.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by msommers


I saw more people on scooters than bicycles but I totally agree, never saw an accident. People here just have a different mentality that will never change.

What are the streets like though, general size of the vehicles and speeds at which they travel?

From what I know of the area, which isn't much, it seems like an apples to oranges comparison. Like the annoying compaison that pops up on beyond all the time comparing German to Canadian roads...

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Type_S1
When you constantly hold me up and add 5 minutes to my commute, you deserve you go face first into a parked vehicle. Do you ever consider the TOTAL amount of time lost by individuals on a "cyclists" commute.

So, you're advocating possibly killing someone just because your commute is 5 minutes longer. One song.. nice. Not just that, but you're advocating costing some innocent party who parked their car a few thousand in damages.

Sounds to me like you shouldn't be allowed to have a license.

[Kg810]

Originally posted by Khyron


Yah? Quote me. A cyclist effectively owns the lane because passing anywhere inside that lane is a violation. Keeping it a violation means that hopefully cars will be careful when they break it, which is expected. Ie, same as posting a 80km/hr on a road you really want to keep at 110.

"Legally can own the whole lane..."
"I can ride my bike in the right lane..."
"A cyclist effectively owns the lane..."

The impression I get from you is that you can take up the whole lane, which I have been saying that you can't and you've been arguing that you can this whole time. Then you post a link to a police officer saying "no."He then describes exactly where the cyclist should be riding and I quote;

Does a cyclist have the right to take up a whole lane?"
"No."
"They should be as far to the right as possible. So the nearest right curb"
"I mean if you're in that kinda right lane, that gougy lane area, you're doing fine."

Nearest right curb + gougy lane area = gutter or just off to the left a little bit. Not the whole right lane.

And after listening to that clip, it's funny how the question about a vehicle passing a cyclist isn't allowed if the vehicle is behind, but the majority of cyclists (and it sounds like you're in this group) think that cyclists are allowed to do it if the positions are reversed.

Cyclists want to be treated equally on the roads, but more often than not, cyclists bend the rules and every driver that sees them doing this, loses respect and patience in treating cyclists equally. I seriously don't understand the logic behind the difference of, if a vehicle is behind a cyclist, they -must- signal into the left lane, but it's apparently ok if a cyclist is behind a vehicle they can snake passed the vehicle. The cop even makes the direct comparison of a smartcar to a cyclist saying that other cars don't do that to smartcars. So if a cyclist is a smartcar, when the hell do you see a smartcar snaking through the curb and the vehicle that's already in the right lane? What would make way more sense is if the cyclist stayed put behind the vehicles infront, that way he/she isn't snaking up to the front at a red light which causes EVERYONE behind him/her to signal left, which is essentially doubling traffic on that street. If they got behind cars and made an effort to actually ride on the road like a vehicle, cars behind the cyclist would more than likely signal out of the lane like they would driving behind a slow moving vehicle.



Oh, you mean a 25/30 question multiple choice test that any literate retard can pass? The bike guy is taking ALL the risk, you might get a broken mirror, the biker risks life. That's why the biker has the motivation not to get killed unlike the 17 year old speeding in his daddy's camry reading his Yo yo yo texts while eating a cheeseburger!

Exactly, it's extremely unsafe and there are undefined rules and regulations. So because it's riskier riding a bike they get an automatic "pass"? I wonder how many cyclists actually know what the rules and regulations say and how vehicle regulations apply to them. So why the hell would drivers give a damn about cyclists who show no intention of wanting to follow rules correctly? I'd be willing to bet that if all the cyclists paid more attention to them holding up traffic, using proper hand signals, and not ride like a douche that drivers will notice that and give them the same treatment and drive/pass properly.



Yah, if there's no shoulder I can ride in the road (in a LANE) on virtually any road or highway in North America with no risk of ticket for being too slow. Just because I can't do 80+km/hr doesn't make me a slow moving vehicle in the legal sense. But riding in the middle of highway 8 when there's a nice fat shoulder would definitely get me tagged as one. See? It actually doesn't come up much as most roads have one. Old Banff Coach Road is a really bad one that doesn't (and I never touch it).

We are definitely talking about different roads here. But aside from that, you should ask your cop buddies if you were riding in the entire right lane going 25km/hr on a street where traffic is doing 50km/hr, would you be impeding traffic. Bare in mind this is during rush hour when everyone is going home and is on a street, not some big highway with shoulders.

Before the 10ST NW bike lane opened up, you'd have cyclists blocking cars in the right hand lane at every single light and force traffic down to a single lane. This continues all the way until you hit 14th ST NW and sometimes onward to Northmount Dr. Same shit happens in the morning on 19th ST NW & Capri Ave NW all the way to 16th Ave NW.



There are thousands of bikers riding every day who don't act like jackasses - because we would prefer not to be killed. You just notice the fools (and the bike couriers)

It's a little hard to know which ones are the jackasses when they all look the same.



Exactly - my problem is the uninformed masses who yell "Get on the sidewalk" cause they don't get that we ARE allowed to be on the road, and we don't have to squish into the gutter to let you pass. I STILL ride on the sidewalk going up a couple of hills in town because there is no room and taking a lane would cause backups. And I don't need to deal with ragers.

And that force dismount part on the pathway near the new "candaycane bridge" oh my fukin god, that enrages me like you can't imagine.

It's quite unfortunate that douche cyclists have ruined it for the rest of you guys. It's nice to see cyclist respect drivers and ride safely, but at the end of the day it just seems like so many people have had bad experiences with the shitty cyclists that they are all bitter and impatient whenever they see one.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by codetrap


So, you're advocating possibly killing someone just because your commute is 5 minutes longer. One song.. nice. Not just that, but you're advocating costing some innocent party who parked their car a few thousand in damages.

Sounds to me like you shouldn't be allowed to have a license.

Killing someone? No not at all. Follow the rules and everyone is fine. I am sure following the rules since I am in my lane...I like how you twist things to make a situation a drivers fault when a cyclist would be in the wrong.

I'm not advocating anything, I believe it is the retard on the bike that would cause any damage. Once again...trying to make it sound like its a drivers fault when he would do nothing wrong in the situation I explained.

What you just said is basically that an operator of a motor vehicle should have to change the way he is driving, possibly cause an accident with another car(if someone is lane splitting a motorist may have to move slightly into another lane) and possibly have a large insurance claim because a cyclist wants to break the law. :nut:

I don't ever try to do anything illegal to try to harm another on the road cyclist or not. Downtown I will wait my turn to pass a cyclist legally(no matter how pissed off), hell I never even honk or speed past them like a jerk. What I will do is that if a cyclist is doing something illegal and has the potential to cause harm to me, stop him from doing so. ;)

With the other posts I think all bikes should have to be licensed as well. I've seen numerous cars ran into, kicked and punched by cyclist which I think they should have to be insured to cover this and for other vehicles on the road to be able to report them to the police for various offenses.

[msommers]

Originally posted by J-hop


What are the streets like though, general size of the vehicles and speeds at which they travel?

From what I know of the area, which isn't much, it seems like an apples to oranges comparison. Like the annoying compaison that pops up on beyond all the time comparing German to Canadian roads...

The streets are typically more narrow (in some places, VERY narrow) but the vehicles are smaller as well. Percentage wise, I couldn't tell you. But there are scooters filtering and weaving through traffic everywhere in Rome. If that happened here, people would shit their pants and apparently, want to hit these people and send them to hospital or kill them.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Type_S1
When you constantly hold me up and add 5 minutes to my commute, you deserve you go face first into a parked vehicle. Do you ever consider the TOTAL amount of time lost by individuals on a "cyclists" commute.


Originally posted by Type_S1


Killing someone? No not at all. ~snip~

Hey, I'm just quoting what you stated. Face first into a parked car could easily kill a cyclist. If that's not how you feel, then don't say it.

[Hallowed_point]

I was really wondering what the cyclist riding down Macleod (no helmet too!) the other week was thinking..esp during rush hour! :nut:

[Khyron]

Here you go, another good reason to stay more left into YOUR lane.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Cyclist+killed+Queen+Street+when+doored+parked/5531940/story.html

Sure a couple of you are pleased.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by J-hop
Haha, I commute to work everyday on a bicycle but I've definitely developed a hatred as well for the majority of the cyclists on the road.

Oh, I hear you. As my lifestyle has shifted from cyclist to motorist, I've developed a healthy dislike of cyclists.

It's really unfortunate... So many are simply inconsiderate.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by codetrap




Hey, I'm just quoting what you stated. Face first into a parked car could easily kill a cyclist. If that's not how you feel, then don't say it.

Reading > You