This is from a regularly scheduled Everglades Bike Club weekend ride in Key Biscayne, USA, on a 10km stretch of road, and all the drivers know to expect it will be there in the mornings.
This is from a regularly scheduled Everglades Bike Club weekend ride in Key Biscayne, USA, on a 10km stretch of road, and all the drivers know to expect it will be there in the mornings.
Based on most of the comments here so far, you all hate cyclists more than cars.
I feel like this thread made it to some frontpages. Never good when that happens.
there’s a lot of vroom vroom apologists who spend their days on these threads. it’s wild.
Its like those people who go to the childfree forums and act like a ‘genocide’ is being committed against parenrs and wanna-be-parents …
jfc forreal? that’s a thing?
how do these fucks have so much free time?
bro hit up childfree lemmy or even r/childfree on reddit iif you can stand the new reddit and see for yourself.
Survey after survey shows that most people are currently parents or want to be parennts in the future… WHAT GENOCIDE?!
fucking hell…
8 billion aren’t enough people in the world, nah, it’s genocide to not add to the problem… wow.
What I really seem to hate is just people with zero situational awareness operating any sort of vehicle.
I’m a cyclist and when I’m on a bike I try to use the road responsibly. If I’m no a long climb going 10km/h with cars behind me I try to stop when possible and let them pass safely. I don’t ride next to someone else chatting and blocking the entire lane. I don’t ride on roads with speed limits over 60km/h. I would never do what they are doing in the video. It’s just disrespectful and causing unnecessary tension between drivers and cyclists.
This isn’t a confessional, it’s OK.
Have you seen how many cyclists there are? Like, should they all ride in line, and let cars pass at an opportunity? What kind of opportunity would that be? 😅 How’s that supposed to work out?
In Germany there’s a law, that 15 cyclists and above are allowed (and should) use the whole lane in a pack, because it slows and obstructs traffic less than 15 or 100 cyclists in a line. Nobody could ever pass that line correctly and safe.
And
So, nobody should cycle from village A to village B, ever?
They are not using the whole lane. They are using both of the lanes of this side of the road. This is a one-way road, the other is at the other side of the (large) median.
If they only used one whole lane, drivers could pass them on the left lane. There is no “opportunity” needed, they would just be driving normally on the left lane while the bikes use the right one.
The whole situation was manufactured by the bikes and could’ve easily been avoided by using the road by following the rules: traffic goes on the right lane, unless you are going meaningfully faster, in which case you temporarily go on the left lane to pass the slower traffic.
From what I’ve seen in Germany many villages are linked by bike trails anyway. Usually the bike trails are more direct than the major highways anyway
Many are, many are not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. You’re not allowed on highways anyway with the bike, but the normal country roads are usually 100 kph or at least 80 kph.
In my cycling club, when we plan events, if we know there will be this many cyclists we work with police and close the roads. This is the last one we did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Kfz9S6h4M You can check out the security measures. And we’re just a local club. We do things like this about 3 times a year. Other local clubs do the same. Having as many cyclist as in the video with no security is amateur hour and it’s irresponsible. My guess is they know this and they are doing this on purpose as a form of protests or something
In Spain the minimum velocity is half of the speed limit so a car has to go at least 45km/h on 90km/h road. Going slower than that causes dangerous situations. Bikes have to go on the shoulder and I don’t think that’s safe or responsible. I can get to all the villages using secondary, 60km/h roads.
Good for you. I don’t know of any road outside of my city that is less than 60 km/h, most are 80 or 100.
Well, from the short video, they have at least seemingly safety motorcycles, because the video is filmed from one. But it might as well be a protest, e.g. for better cycling infrastructure, what about it? If some lunatics protest in my city for whatever the fuck I also can’t just drive through them, just because I don’t like their topic or that they’re occupying the road. From my view, if this is a political thing, people need to accept it even more, because voicing an opinion and taking it literally to the street is important.
Then they are being disruptive on purpose. They are not trying to share the road responsibly, they are not doing this because that’s the best and safest way to do it.
I still don’t see them being very disruptive. They’re part of traffic and use the road, probably as intended with such a large group of cyclists. Doesn’t excuse or warrant assholish (and dangerous) behavior of car drivers.
And, once again, 'cause you just skipped over that part. If it is a protest, the other participanis still would need to accept it, because this is how protest works in a society.
Of course they would have to accept it. What do you think I’m saying? That it’s ok to just ram them? But it’s actually not how protests works in a society. You apply for a permit and ensure everyone safety. The law defines bases on which such permit can be denied. Courts make sure that administration fallows this laws.
And it doesn’t really matter if it’s very disruptive or just a little bit disruptive . It’s not a normal weekend bicycle ride that is a normal part of traffic. It’s done in a way that inconvenient to other people on the road. That’s the point people are making here. Not that it’s illegal (depends on local laws) or that it’s ok to murder them. Just that it’s disruptive.
Other people pointed out this is a weekly event scheduled with local authorities.
Like we all recognize that a car driving in the grass is unsafe and unusual, but there’s more people mad at the bikers for using the road correctly and safely.
Maybe, just maybe, the bikers did what they are supposed to do and the guy trying to drive in a ditch in a compact car is the one who is out of pocket.
Go ride on the shoulder up the mountain from Benagalbón to Almáchar and tell me how that goes. You clearly aren’t riding anywhere near Málaga.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Fuck off with your gate kipping. I cycle where I want.
It means there is no fucking shoulder.
So basically, you aren’t a self centered asshole is what you are saying?
Imma stop you right there. That’s not “being respectful”, it’s being a fucking pushover. The last thing you want to do while on a climb steep enough to drop you to 10 km/h is pull over and stop. Pull across to the side of there’s enough room for them to pass, sure, but keep that momentum at all costs.
That said, if this ride is on open roads, then road rules should be followed. Where I live that means two abreast (plus more if overtaking), but a blob that’s at least 5 wide in parts.
Who am I racing? It changes absolutely nothing for me. I’m not stopping in places that are bad for it but if there’s a road where I can get of the road for 5 seconds and then start again it costs me absolutely nothing to do it.
Who said anything about racing? It costs a huge amount. Starting on a 10% grade hill is an enormous amount of energy compared to just keeping going as you were, and it puts you in significant danger as you do it.
I already explained that “being able to stop” also means “being able to start later”. I have no idea why you’re so worried about my energy expenditure. Don’t worry, I will get back home even if my mountain times will be terrible.
Personally speaking because I am both. Cyclists don’t obey the rules of the road to the same rigor as a car. Both parties are open to hate.
Now that said, only one of them is in a 2 tonne death machine.
Most cars don’t obey the rules of the road for shit. Case in point above
Yeah and case in point a cyclist is rarely going to kill someone in a head on collision but a car will.
Even in the post, one driver freaks out and does this unhinged maneuver, all the others stay behind the bikes. So fuck off with “most cars”.
Indeed, why should they? The rules of the road where made expressly for cars, not bikes, and there are several states which sensibly make carve outs for bicycles and motorcycles.
But, as you point out, the risk for breaking the rules–real or perceived–fall entirely on the cyclist, so I absolutely see no equivalence.
Ya don’t break a rule; the car runs you over because distracted driver.
Ya break a rule to avoid distracted driver; you get ran over because your rule breaking in your tiny and light bicycle triggered the road rage of someone in a SUV whose control was entirely based on spite and the fact everyone else should follow rules without exception (that the state legislature carved for cyclists to try to minimize their deaths).
Being a cyclist commuter is fun, much recommended.
The problem with cars is that they immediately make every other form of transportation incredibly shitty.
Pedestrians and cyclists get killed. Buses get stuck in traffic.
I hate cars, but what am I supposed to do? Getting out of my car is just an invitation to get killed by one. And if I wanted to live entirely without a car, I’d have to move to a city, where I would never be more than 12-feet away from cars and have to cross a road every block, risking my life because of shitty fucking cars.
When we say, “We’re not saying get rid of cars, we’re just saying we need options”, to not scare the carbrains, well, the only way to have real options (ie safe roads) is to have roads entirely without cars.
YUUP YUP YUP!
We have to get rid of these ‘reforms after reforms’ for car centric infraatructure and for car company, oil company, and plastics companies lobbyists because they will mever make us all happy. We CANNOT reform society in its current form to allow us to use cars and for all other people who use other forms of transportation to also be happy inside most municipalities. We are doing this right now and most of us are unhappy about our transportation. Car users get stuck in traffic, create traffic, and those who dont use cars get mowed down by them like its air.
WE NEED COMPLETE REVOLUTION. Reform will nnevevr work. We. Need. Revolution.
We have to completely revolutionize how we use our roads , transporarion paths , and transportation methods , and how we construct or even demolish different transporation infrastructure.
Making reforms around cars will lead us nowhere. Cars have always been a deadly or time consuming problem for all other people who use other forms of transportation…so…revolutionize society so that cars are so rare that ONLY the governmental officials or people out in VERY open areas using cars recreationally ever get to use them. Ban cars from the majority of the innards of EVERY municipality. YOU DONT HAVE TO BUILD CAR-CENTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE CITIES AND TOWNS WHEN IT IS PRACTICALLY ILLEGAL FOR CARS TO BE OPERATED INSIDE THEM.
I think this creeping incrementalism definitely has a limit. I think the goal is to build enough of a political constituency that you can push for the big changes… but for real change, you eventually have to TRULY inconvenience drivers. Look how the fucking freak out about barriers… like there was a barrier protecting a bike lane that kept getting hit by cars… so they removed the barrier!! The best we can do is paint and stick strips that cars always drive over or park on, and they’re still furious. So, yeah, we have to start defeating them on the local level, in places where it IS possible to live without even a drivers license–the kinds of places where the people with cars drive into for work and therefore don’t have a direct vote.
I would love for my city center to become car free. There is like a square mile that would make so much sense.
maybe its my metro area but I feel motorists are more likely to not follow the rules. There is cyclists but its a pretty low percentage. The ones that do though really do and make themselves a nuisance. There was a guy that would just ignore the red light on a major intersection. like two four lanes. during rush hour because I guess he felt since everything is slowed up he can just fuck right through.
Nah, you’re correct. Any time a study is done on this it finds that either drivers and cyclists break the law at similar rates, or drivers break it more.
There’s also the difference in why they do it. Drivers break the law out of convenience. Because it’s easier to do, or because it gets them where they’re going faster. Cyclists sometimes do that, but far more than drivers, they’re likely to do it because it’s safer. Because laws are often made for car drivers in ways that aren’t appropriate to cyclists, and so breaking the law is often safer. The classic example is treating stop signs as give way signs in places that haven’t implemented an Idaho Stop rule.
Sources:
Super thank you! Sources!
Depending on your local that could be perfectly legal. It’s called an Idaho Stop. You can treat stop signs as yields and red light like a stop sign. You’re not supposed to treat a red light as a yield so if he’s doing that it’s illegal everywhere as far as I know.
there are cars in the intersection which you can’t do with a stop so its not treating the red light like a stop.
My 2 cents is the closer to a downtown you get the better the drivers are because of proximity however the cyclists are shit at obeying rules. Outside downtown cars are horrible in respecting cyclists who usually end up better at obeying laws because of the speeds.
You’re actually right and it goes down to how drivers respond to their surroundings. Areas with narrower streets, more traffic, and more pedestrians encourage drivers to be more observant passively.
When you have a wide, clear, straight road people pay less attention.
It’s a psychology thing and some people are trying to design roads around the concept
Bullshit
Makes sense actually, the rules of the road were made almost explicitly for cars and in many cases following all of them can put a cyclist in serious danger.
Spend a few years downtown in any metropolitan area and see if you change your tune. The amount of cyclists (myself included) who drive through lights or advances, don’t indicate directions, wrong way on a one way street, cutting through parking lots or alleys the list goes on and on.
No, it’s objectively bullshit. It’s been studied many times and the result always proves that carbrained nonsense to be bullshit.
Drivers break the law all the time. They run blatant reds. They fail to stop when safe to do so at a yellow. They speed. They ignore stop signs. They fail to give way to pedestrians. The pass cyclists too close. They fail to indicate correctly at roundabouts more often than they do it correctly.
The only difference is people are too carbrained to even notice these. Oh, and the reasons for it (cyclists tend to break the law for their own safety unlike car drivers who do it for convenience) and the consequences when they do (cyclists endanger nobody except occasionally themselves, drivers endanger everyone around them).
“Cyclists don’t obey the rules of the road to the same rigor as a car.”
Because you don’t need a license for a bike, the rules are there because cars and motorbikes are incredibly dangerous compared to walking or biking (for everyone involved). A large part of people who bike don’t know the rules because they don’t need to, just the basic stuff and having situational awareness is enough. The issue is that many in all above mentioned kinds don’t have that, they’re either too dumb, thinking about something else or using their phones etc. But it’s way more important for the people who are in control of the most dangerous vehicles to be the ones who know and follow the rules.