Why is the right at war with cyclists? We’re not ‘wokerati’ – we’re just trying to get around | Zoe Williams
Why is the right at war with cyclists? We’re not ‘wokerati’ – we’re just trying to get around | Zoe Williams
Riding a bike is not a political act, yet cyclists have become the bete noire for the anti-woke, anti-green, anti-liberal crowd, writes Zoe Williams
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm not at war with them... The cyclists here are at war with cross walk signals!
Two times in the last couple of years I've tried to turn right on red coming home at night, watching traffic on the left, turn back to the right and a cyclist is literally in front of my car as I'm about to apply the gas to turn! They would be laying across my hood without a fast reaction time.
Number one, I don't believe they are supposed to be riding on sidewalks, and number two they completely disregard traffic signals/walk signals.
Granted this is in the U.S., specifically in Florida, and I don't blame them for not wanting to be on the normal roads here as they will literally be run over by a jackass in a lifted F350; but I do wish they would at least abide by the pedestrian crossing signs as I really would prefer not to hit anyone!
Our state is so backwards the concept of public transit is an afterthought and very few places are remotely walkable... We have some bike trails here and there, but everything is designed for cars because living near a population center is too expensive for most and requires you to commute by car.
Two times in the last couple of years! I see a trend here those are numbers we can't ignore
It is true that people ride bikes on sidewalks here in an effort to stay out of the road, I see them every day and am passed by several when I walk to work. Even the ebikes are on the sidewalk. Also true that at intersections it's dangerous as fuck, and by law they are supposed to be in the road and stopped at Red light. But if you are turning right on red, the pedestrian presumably has the right of way - you have a red light. I've had to slap the hood of several cars who were looking only at traffic in one direction and not the direction their car is about to move in, while I'm crossing a street on foot.
They do not have the right of way in this case, part of the issue, at least in my county, is that we have really backwards walk signals.
They show walk, then a few seconds later change to a flashing hand (don't walk) with a count down, which makes very little sense. I don't think the people are paying attention to them anyways.
We have those. The flashing hand and countdown, the pedestrian still has right of way - it's just to let you know not to start crossing the intersection and how much time you have remaining to cross it. Sort of a long yellow light for walkers.
It does NOT give cars turning right on red the right of way. I don't know where you live but if it's the US you are misinterpreting that countdown and hand flashy sign.
I'm aware, I think they are very confusing to pedestrians. I know when I see a red flashing sign when I'm going to cross, my first thought is don't.. and I think it contributes more to people being confused and just saying screw it and crossing any time.
A walk sign with a countdown would make more sense, a red flashing hand with a count down could be interpreted as don't walk till this is done, or you can walk for X# of seconds.
Yet no mention of how many times they witnessed unsafe/illegal driving behavior compared to the cyclists. Solid case we need to ban these cyclists. They are a threat to motorists, and collision with a bike could scratch their car's paint.
Cars going over the speed limit is literally just accepted as fine by 90% of drivers but god forbid a cyclists goes through a stop sign at 20km/h looking both ways constantly to make sure it's safe.
I see cars roll through stop signs at 30km/h weekly.
I encounter cars going twice the speed limit on one of the few designated bike routes in my city multiple times a week. I've almost been hit by these cars multiple times.
I've seen cars go through red lights at full speed 3 times in the past two years.
People are insanely reluctant to the idea that people bikes should maybe not have to follow rules that were written for vehicles that impair your vision and hearing, regularly kill and maim, and require a license and insurance.
It was more a commentary of my county and how poorly it is laid out for bicycles, did you read the rest of it or stop after the first line?
I wouldn't be caught dead on a bike here, I drive what many could consider an economy car (to me it's a 4 door smaller sedan) and I am often asked why I drive something so small.
Even our smaller main roads here are 3 lanes each way, and nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, barring trails is designed with bicycles in mind.
Two times in the last couple of years I’ve tried to turn right on red coming home at night, watching traffic on the left, turn back to the right and a cyclist is literally in front of my car as I’m about to apply the gas to turn! They would be laying across my hood without a fast reaction time.
Maybe don't try accelerate without looking where you're going???
Stop oppressing their cager rights!
Hey there, serious question, could you please inform me as to what a cager is? I have never heard this term before.
Thanks!
@SolNine @negativeyoda Cage is a term some people use for cars, as they act like cages, seperating the driver from everything else.
Cager is a term for a driver.Gotcha, thanks!
Let me further explain to you what is occurring here:
People on bicycles, without stopping, will ride from a sidewalk, across an intersection, 2 or 3 lanes per side here, fairly big roads. When you pull up to a light, you are watching for oncoming traffic in addition to any changes to the area you may turn into. A bicycle, who wasn't there and rides into an intersection with complete disregard for traffic or crosswalk signals can be in front of your car in a literal split second. If I wasn't looking before accelerating (I am in a manual car and have to put it into gear and all), I would simply run them over. Clearly, that isn't the case, but I imagine with the age of people here and the size of the vehicles they drive it is not an infrequent occurrence.
I'm really surprised how many people missed the sarcasm of my first sentence and literally the rest of the post...
If you have a red, wouldnt the crosswalk signal be green?
In my city, bikes can go in sidewalks everywhere except a few blocks downtown.
So chances are it's the motorists legal responsibility to look out for, and yield to pedestrians and cyclists when they do a right on red.
It greatly depends on the traffic pattern here! I also mentioned this to another reply, but our county has IMO very poorly designed traffic patterns for road crossing. It will generally turn white with a walk sign for a few seconds, and then quickly shift to a flashing red hand indicator with a count down, which means you have X number of seconds remaining to walk until the full red hand (don't walk) shows up. Flashing red hand symbol IMO is not the best indicator for "you can still walk."
The times I've had this happen are at very large intersections that have 3 lanes each way on one side and 2 lanes per side on the cross road. With lead greens, and various traffic patterns the walk signs do follow a specific pattern, but there are also opportunities for right on red without the pedestrian having right of way. This mostly occurs during the transitional periods, and during lead greens, which can be a significant amount of time in intersections of this size.
Yes of course it's the motorists job to avoid running over pedestrians, I don't think that was ever a question.
That's interesting, I never considered a flashing hand as an indicator to stop. It is timed to a slow walker, so I can tell whether it's safe to cross if I can run across.
I would argue that the signal you should pay attention to is your red light. Which also doesn't mean you can't go through the intersection (this is bad policy in my opinion), but it does mean that you need to look out for and yield to people driving, and walking across the intersection.
It is generally not a good idea to bike on the sidewalk on the wrong side of the road. But sometimes that is the safest option.
Our county and state in general is miserable for biking and pedestrians outside of designated trails. I only know a handful of people who are serious about road biking, and multiple have been in serious accidents due to motor vehicles.
Right on red is dangerous and kills pedestrians and cyclists alike because of
moronsmotorists looking left and turning right.Right on red is standard driving practice in my entire state unless otherwise posted. No one has a 180 FOV, your head has to swivel, and generally you look in multiple directions multiple times before turning.
Just like people in cars pedestrians and cyclists alike can also be negligent of the law and break right of way.
If we didn't have right on red here, the traffic nightmare would be significantly exacerbated.
Just like people in cars pedestrians and cyclists alike can also be negligent of the law and break right of way.
Pedestrians and cyclists generally aren't driving machines that weigh tons and routinely kill people when they're negligent.
If we didn't have right on red here, the traffic nightmare would be significantly exacerbated
I recommend you do some reading on the subject. The only thing that fixes traffic problems are robust public transport and increased walkability and cycling infrastructure.
Plus, as a motorist, I'd rather lose 3 minutes on my commute if it saves a few pedestrian and cyclist lives on the regular, while making the city a more pleasant and hospitable place to live in.
I more than welcome you to come to my county, the most densely populated and poorly designed for any kind of walk ability and communicate to our various cities how to improve! Some spots such as St. Pete, Dunedin and a few other downtowns are walkable, but most of the area the residential zones are far from many other businesses and services, as least much to far to walk.
That isn't a joke when I say cities, as literally, you drive 10-15 minutes and you are in a different municipality controlled by a completely different governing body. We have a county wide public transit body, but each city has its own objectives and desires.
I am not oblivious to anything you are stating, but it is much more complex than stating obvious solutions we would all love to have. My work is a 25-30 minute drive, and the only public transit option is a bus, which takes 2 hours, not kidding!
Attempting to simply redesign a disaster that went from orange groves to wild urban sprawl necessitates funding on a variety of levels, state, county and local, and land that isn't readily available here.