You claimed that cars and bicycles don't mix. Yet, for some reason (laziness, stupidity, etc.) you posted a comparison of total deaths per mile of each while not posting anything about deaths in cars caused by bicyclists or deaths of bicyclists caused by cars. Why didn't you post something to support your claim? What is your problem?
OMG... that's SUCH an inconvenience. WHAH!!! I had to wait a few seconds for a cyclist to clear the bumper of my gigantic SUV. You poor delicate flower... I'm surprised you're not in therapy for the amount of B.S. you have to put up with.
At first yea, but I just did a google search and found out that cyclists have the same rights as motorists. My apologies!
I don't think it's just cyclists. On the trails I walk and hike on I've noticed that over the last few years people have gotten surly. If you nod or wave and say hello they just ignore you or give you an irritated glance. Not all, but far more than five years ago. I think people are just stressed out and pissed off and want to be left alone, or at least that's my working theory.
Why do you care why I care? What matters is that I'm right and they are hazards and should be banned from road.
you're arguing that riding bikes with cars isn't dangerous
I showed that it's an order of magnitude more dangerous
so which was it? 'cherry picked' or 'first thing in google'? try to keep you story straight
if you think the stats are wrong, feel free to post better stats
until you do, my point stands, bicycles and cars are a deadly mix and should not be on the road together
Even the 'best behaved' cyclist is a road hazard
I see cars swerving and braking for no reason and go 'Oh, I bet there's a bicyclist up there'
sho'nuff . . .
Because it's self evident to anyone who isn't trying to be a dumbass?
Do you really need stats to show that more bicycle fatalities occur from collisions with cars than from collisions with other bikes or trees or something?
When 'Fifty-seven percent of bicycle deaths in 1999 occurred on major roads' what do you think they were hitting? 98% of road miles are done by cars, it would be extraordinarily difficult for the vast majority of collisions to NOT be with cars.
Hazards to whom?
And you aren't right.
It's a dangerous situation. Do I make my turn and hope he's paying attention and yields right of way to me or do I brake and let him go first and run the risk of getting rear ended by someone not expecting me to stop when I have the right of way?
You bring up a good point, cbrunny. People go out on the trails for many reasons, and they may not be feeling very sociable at the time. I respect that, and don't expect every rider I pass to always say hi. It's just disheartening to get mad dogged by one rider, then cut off by another trying to get better splits. It leaves me thinking, "What the hell is wrong with everyone!?".
everyone on the road
perhaps you could post some evidence to backup your assertion?
Please support your rant that bicyclists are dangerous to people in cars, that they are a road hazard, etc. You know support your claim with facts.
Or just have some integrity and admit that bicycles annoy you.
Have you never seen people slam on the brakes to avoid a bicycle in their lane? Have you never seen people crossing into the oncoming lane to pass a bicyclist?
:thumbsdown: Christ that's a dumb argument. It's not a dangerous situation unless you make it one. You should yield right of way to the cyclist and wait for him to pass and then make your turn. It's the same exact scenario as with a pedestrian in a cross walk. You stop and wait for them to cross.
You stop at stop lights and risk getting rear ended by someone not paying attention. Should we ban stoplights?
I deal with this all the time as a driver and I've dealt with it as a cyclist. The only one who makes it dangerous is the driver of the car.
I've never seen any driver of any actual quality do either of those things.
Put another way, if you do those things, you're a bad driver.
because by definition anyone who does it a poor driver amirite?
In the end, it doesn't matter. Bad drivers are out there and you have to deal with them. Introducing situations that cause bad drivers to make mistakes is stupid.
But he is behind me in this situation, correct? I think the correct answer is to make the turn and it is up to him not to hit me.
No, actually it's not the correct answer. If you just passed a cyclist and turning right will block his travel and/or cause a collision you should yield right of way and wait for him to pass. If you're in doubt about whether turning will block his travel then just signal, stop and wait for him to pass. Believe me, he/she will appreciate it. It is the right thing to do.
I've been cut off by a car that just passed me and I can't tell you how infuriating (not to mention dangerous) it is to have to suddenly take evasive actions to avoid hitting the dumbass who just cut me off.
There aren't any good stats on bicycle/car collisions, or even worse, car/car collisions caused by bicycle avoidance.
However, it's called not being blind.
Have you never seen people slam on the brakes to avoid a bicycle in their lane? Have you never seen people crossing into the oncoming lane to pass a bicyclist? These are what we call 'risky behaviors'
Sure people will do this for cars too occasionally, but for cyclists it's much closer to 'all' than 'occasionally'. Anything that causes cars to behave in an unexpected manner is a 'bad thing' that leads to accidents.
Of course they annoy me. There's no reason for those road hazards to be out there.
Because it's self evident to anyone who isn't trying to be a dumbass?
Do you really need stats to show that more bicycle fatalities occur from collisions with cars than from collisions with other bikes or trees or something?
When 'Fifty-seven percent of bicycle deaths in 1999 occurred on major roads' what do you think they were hitting? 98% of road miles are done by cars, it would be extraordinarily difficult for the vast majority of collisions to NOT be with cars.
Auto crashes are the leading cause of death for people age 6-27, males age 6-23 & 26, and females age 4-6 & 8-28. (4)
Deaths from Cars.
Car collisions kill 34,000 people each year in the U.S. (NHTSA, DoT, 2009), and car emissions kill 30,000.
Motorists usually at fault.
The NYC group Right of Way says: "After NYC cycling fatalities increased twofold in 1999, police rushed to cover their, er, reputation by claiming (without analysis or supporting data) that cyclists are to blame in 75% of cycling deaths. Right of Way took a closer look. Surprise! The truth is just the reverse, as listed in our report, The Only Good Cyclist (PDF)." According to Right of Way, over 90% of pedestrian deaths in NYC are the fault of drivers. And research from Toronto shows the same thing for car-bike crashes.
Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook.
A study by the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition shows that three out of four at fault drivers were never even cited for hitting and killing pedestrians. 22% of fatal pedestrian crashes involved hit and run drivers, yet, none of the runaway motorists were found or charged. In New York, 70-92% of drivers were at-fault in killing pedestrians and cyclists, but 74% didn't even get a ticket. (RightOfWay.org, 1999) The story in Austin is similar.
I agree 100%. Bad drivers should not be allowed to be in situations that have potential for disasters. As you've suggested here, bad drivers should not be drivers.
The thing is that this one is not intuitive. People don't think about a bike lane as being a real lane of traffic because the cyclist is still in the painted, physical traffic lane.
You wouldn't turn right from the 2nd lane and cut-off the 1st lane of traffic. Same rule applies here. It just isn't painted on the road.
There aren't any good stats on bicycle/car collisions, or even worse, car/car collisions caused by bicycle avoidance.
Have you never seen people slam on the brakes to avoid a bicycle in their lane? Have you never seen people crossing into the oncoming lane to pass a bicyclist? These are what we call 'risky behaviors'
Sure people will do this for cars too occasionally, but for cyclists it's much closer to 'all' than 'occasionally'. Anything that causes cars to behave in an unexpected manner is a 'bad thing' that leads to accidents.
Are we talking about a dedicated bike lane here? I thought we were talking about a normal road, no dedicated lane. In that case, I don't think ciclist has right of way. He is behind me. I don't drive anywhere that has dedicated lanes so never bothered learning the rules for those.No, actually it's not the correct answer. If you just passed a cyclist and turning right will block his travel and/or cause a collision you should yield right of way and wait for him to pass. If you're in doubt about whether turning will block his travel then just signal, stop and wait for him to pass. Believe me, he/she will appreciate it. It is the right thing to do.
I've been cut off by a car that just passed me and I can't tell you how infuriating (not to mention dangerous) it is to have to suddenly take evasive actions to avoid hitting the dumbass who just cut me off.