Bicyclists ruining it for everyone else in Triangle traffic - they DO NOT belong in traffic! (Holly Springs: moving, transportation)
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, CaryThe Triangle Area
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe the question is whether we as cyclists, obeying the law, want to be on these types of roads with dangerously crazy motorists. I don't.
I don't either, but still, there is no excuse for the Truck Driver. And some people rely on bikes for tranportation.
There needs to be increased penalties for people who maliciously use their vehicle as a weapon. In the given example, he purposely seemed to intimidate another car driver (the poster) and also endangered the cyclist, not clear if intentionally or not. Had he succeeded in killing them it might have been murder 2 and manslaughter, respectively.
And I'm sorry, I don't agree that the CYCLISTS "caused" this guy to do anything. He made a choice.
Like I said, I avoid riding legally on busy roads for exactly that reason. It's a shame that law abiding citizens can't do what is legal for fear of illegal drivers hurting them. THAT is the reason I don't ride on more roads.
Ugh. Subject is a dead horse, but still, I don't get the self-entitled drivers who have so little care for human life. I know it's a minority, but I can almost guarantee you there's a larger percentage of drivers who ignore the laws than cyclists. Doesn't matter who's at fault when you're dead though. My wife and daughter won't miss me any less.
I never said that at all. I don't blame the bikers, I was merely just venting and moreover, these situations are probably happening more and more. As I said, I am sympathetic to road bikers because I did it for years. I stopped because it got way too dangerous! I would love to start again, but I value my life more than the urge to road bike.
Maybe just a poor choice of words, but you did say that the cyclists are causing the drivers to act that way. I think I get what you meant, but I can see where it was interpreted that way.
It was interpreted as victim blaming, which is clearly not the case here. Anyway, I get what you meant, and it makes sense to me.
I never said that at all. I don't blame the bikers, I was merely just venting and moreover, these situations are probably happening more and more. As I said, I am sympathetic to road bikers because I did it for years. I stopped because it got way too dangerous! I would love to start again, but I value my life more than the urge to road bike.
But you said, “having bikers ride for miles on heavily traveled two lane roads is causing these lunatics to lose their minds!” That is literally laying blame on the cyclists, not the drivers.
This is more than just splitting hairs. Aggressive, distracted, and otherwise unskilled drivers are a lethal danger growing in numbers, regardless of whether you are a law-abiding motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian. Saying “bikers …causing these lunatics to lose their minds” is no different than saying “motorists not driving at a suitable speed is causing these lunatics to lose their mind.”
Edit: I do get your point, and I agree in substance. I feel it important to draw a line here, though: the aggressive, distracted driving is the fault of the aggressive, distracted human retaining the driving privilege, and it needs to be addressed. Period.
But you said, “having bikers ride for miles on heavily traveled two lane roads is causing these lunatics to lose their minds!” That is literally laying blame on the cyclists, not the drivers.
This is more than just splitting hairs. Aggressive, distracted, and otherwise unskilled drivers are a lethal danger growing in numbers, regardless of whether you are a law-abiding motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian. Saying “bikers …causing these lunatics to lose their minds” is no different than saying “motorists not driving at a suitable speed is causing these lunatics to lose their mind.”
Edit: I do get your point, and I agree in substance. I feel it important to draw a line here, though: the aggressive, distracted driving is the fault of the aggressive, distracted human retaining the driving privilege, and it needs to be addressed. Period.
It doesn't matter whether its legal for cyclists to be on the road or not. The law doesn't matter if you're dead.
The problem is the speed differential on these 2 lane highways, and there's basically no shoulder.
Cycling make a great weekend hobby. Fewer commuters = more enjoyable ride. I get it, the drive around Jordan Lake is one of the prettiest in our area!
Bicycles can be a practical form of transportation for commuting within city limits. Its easy to keep up with the pace of traffic on Franklin or Hillsborough St and drivers expect to encounter pedestrians and cyclists.
Commuting on a 2 lane road with bumper-to-bumper traffic and no shoulder for 10+ miles during the peak of rush hour - that is insane! The ride cannot possibly be enjoyable (i used to cycle). Are they out there just to prove a point? Some road bikes + gear can cost on par with a used car so this isn't a case of "I can't afford to drive". Why?? No commute and no joy ride is worth your life. Traffic laws cannot stop the laws of physics.
I don't blame cyclists nor drivers. I blame our laws for not giving us more flexibility in controlling who has access to the highway. The rapid growth in this area has made have made the highways less safe for everyone - motorists and cyclists alike. Our insurance rates have been going up in North Carolina as a result.
Rural-ish 2 lane roads that have become major thoroughfares (particularly around rush hour) should have limits on cyclist access during rush hour. I've been nearly hit head on by drivers passing bicycles several times. City streets with lower speed limits should always be accessible by bike. However, if you're trying to "commute" by bike between 2 cities, put it on a damn bus bike rack and ride the bus to the city limits.
Whoever thought it was a good idea to put a 20lb bike going 10mph on the same roads as a 4000+ lb vehicles shuttling kids to activities, people coming home from work, etc is pretty bad. Add to the fact that people don't even know how to drive their 4000 lb vehicles and you have a mess.
Or maybe the cars should be 2000 lbs. (the best-selling car in Europe is 2022 is 2359 lbs., and yet their society still functions), should never go over 55 MPH, and people operating them should be instructed better. That would make roads safer for everyone, including drivers and pedestrians. So why the focus on bicyclists?
Maybe it's because it seems easier to blame a few individuals who look different from you, than to blame a wider society or other individuals (bad drivers) who more closely resemble you.
Or maybe the cars should be 2000 lbs. (the best-selling car in Europe is 2022 is 2359 lbs., and yet their society still functions), should never go over 55 MPH, and people operating them should be instructed better. That would make roads safer for everyone, including drivers and pedestrians. So why the focus on bicyclists?
Maybe it's because it seems easier to blame a few individuals who look different from you, than to blame a wider society or other individuals (bad drivers) who more closely resemble you.
It isn't possible to build the car you are describing because manufacturers are legally required to include numerous air bag systems, backup cameras, and emissions technology. The transition from a mechanically simple device like a carburetor to fuel injection added significant weight. Emissions equipment like EGR and Secondary Air sap horsepower, requiring bigger and heavier engines. Hybrid vehicles have even more technologies and components and have been indirectly mandated through CAFE standards.
I drove a Geo Metro in High School. It weighed around 1700 lbs and didn't have more than 60 HP. No air bags, no power steering, manual everything - no computer modules (added weight) to open and close the door locks, windows, etc.... it did have A/C, but a lot of them didn't. In that car, it was just additional weight that could have been eliminated.
That vehicle got me better gas mileage than pretty much anything on the market today using "primitive" technology. I could easily get 45-50 MPG in any driving condition and the car was AFFORDABLE! In spite of our technological advances, today's economy cars don't get any better MPG than those from the late 80s & early 90s. The government places onerous MPG demands on automakers with its CAFE standards. Combine that with all of the required equipment and safety regulations, engineers have a limited number options to meet all the requirements.
Electric vehicles are disproportionately heavy and an even greater threat to cyclists.
It doesn't matter whether its legal for cyclists to be on the road or not. The law doesn't matter if you're dead.
The problem is the speed differential on these 2 lane highways, and there's basically no shoulder.
Cycling make a great weekend hobby. Fewer commuters = more enjoyable ride. I get it, the drive around Jordan Lake is one of the prettiest in our area!
Bicycles can be a practical form of transportation for commuting within city limits. Its easy to keep up with the pace of traffic on Franklin or Hillsborough St and drivers expect to encounter pedestrians and cyclists.
Commuting on a 2 lane road with bumper-to-bumper traffic and no shoulder for 10+ miles during the peak of rush hour - that is insane! The ride cannot possibly be enjoyable (i used to cycle). Are they out there just to prove a point? Some road bikes + gear can cost on par with a used car so this isn't a case of "I can't afford to drive". Why?? No commute and no joy ride is worth your life. Traffic laws cannot stop the laws of physics.
I don't blame cyclists nor drivers. I blame our laws for not giving us more flexibility in controlling who has access to the highway. The rapid growth in this area has made have made the highways less safe for everyone - motorists and cyclists alike. Our insurance rates have been going up in North Carolina as a result.
Rural-ish 2 lane roads that have become major thoroughfares (particularly around rush hour) should have limits on cyclist access during rush hour. I've been nearly hit head on by drivers passing bicycles several times. City streets with lower speed limits should always be accessible by bike. However, if you're trying to "commute" by bike between 2 cities, put it on a damn bus bike rack and ride the bus to the city limits.
It doesn't matter whether its legal for cyclists to be on the road or not. The law doesn't matter if you're dead.
--Most everyone has acknowledged this
The ride cannot possibly be enjoyable
--I used to use my bike to commute to work, enjoyable was not a qualifier. Unfortunately my work let out at rush hour.
--Some people don't have the means to own a car, are you saying they just "shouldn't work", or must be forced to use busses which are not adequate around this area? Or do they not count?
Traffic laws cannot stop the laws of physics.
--Agreed, but most people again are acknowledging that. The whole thing is that this topic comes up ALL THE TIME, and not just here, but everywhere. Law or no law, there is no excuse for a driver to not see a bike. I don't care if it's a windy 2-lane road with blind curves (AGAIN, I personally choose not to ride on them, some don't have that luxury). If a driver whips around a blind bend and hits a cyclist who is in the lane, it's a tragedy for all. The cyclist will probably be dead, and the driver, GOD WILLING, will spend the rest of his life in prison for his negligence.
And for what it's worth, replace "cyclist" with "Fallen Oak Tree", "toddler chasing a ball", or "Farm Tractor during Harvest" and you get the same result. The ire should not be directed at cyclists, drivers should be held accountable to live by the law, and be held accountable to it.
Again, I get your point that people should choose (if they have the luxury of having a choice) not to ride in those conditions, but you are still, whether you realize it or not, effectively blaming the cyclist (or oak tree, farmer or toddler). The only blame is for drivers to be in control of their vehicle in all situations. Until that mindset is changed, there is still a problem.
As much as I hate it, I've had to make comprises as a driver too. I used to love to drive my convertable on empty country roads, whipping around the curves and pretending I was driving my Red Barchetta at my Uncles Country Farm (Lyric Reference) but that had to stop SPECIFICALLY because I don't want to come around a bend and take a cyclist out.
I drive. I ride. It hits me on both ends. But I still do the responsible thing and don't complain about it. (I do complain about people who complain about it though...)
It doesn't matter whether its legal for cyclists to be on the road or not. The law doesn't matter if you're dead.
--Most everyone has acknowledged this
The ride cannot possibly be enjoyable
--I used to use my bike to commute to work, enjoyable was not a qualifier. Unfortunately my work let out at rush hour.
--Some people don't have the means to own a car, are you saying they just "shouldn't work", or must be forced to use busses which are not adequate around this area? Or do they not count?
Traffic laws cannot stop the laws of physics.
--Agreed, but most people again are acknowledging that. The whole thing is that this topic comes up ALL THE TIME, and not just here, but everywhere. Law or no law, there is no excuse for a driver to not see a bike. I don't care if it's a windy 2-lane road with blind curves (AGAIN, I personally choose not to ride on them, some don't have that luxury). If a driver whips around a blind bend and hits a cyclist who is in the lane, it's a tragedy for all. The cyclist will probably be dead, and the driver, GOD WILLING, will spend the rest of his life in prison for his negligence.
And for what it's worth, replace "cyclist" with "Fallen Oak Tree", "toddler chasing a ball", or "Farm Tractor during Harvest" and you get the same result. The ire should not be directed at cyclists, drivers should be held accountable to live by the law, and be held accountable to it.
Again, I get your point that people should choose (if they have the luxury of having a choice) not to ride in those conditions, but you are still, whether you realize it or not, effectively blaming the cyclist (or oak tree, farmer or toddler). The only blame is for drivers to be in control of their vehicle in all situations. Until that mindset is changed, there is still a problem.
That is (hopefully) all....
I'm talking pretty specifically about the roads around Jordan Lake such as 751, Farrington Point, Martha's Chapel, etc. There aren't any employers in that area and I don't see commuters really - mostly older folks that have likely retired. I feel sorry for anyone who would have to make a commute that is at minimum 10-15 miles on a crowded road by bike. Having a road bike of my own, I know that those carbon fiber Trek's and Cannondale's are NOT cheap. They are more expensive than a cheap used car and FAR more expensive than a basic scooter. I don't believe lack of transportation is the cause of what I am seeing.
Either way accidents happen, that's why they call them such. No one wants to see an innocent person die, and likewise, no one wants to live with the pain and guilt of being responsible for said death. Seems like our road rules were written in the hose & buggy days when no one lived here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
