lol Here's the link, it's it's up near the splash park https://www.alamy.com/sign-for-bike-lane-at-nocatee-ponte-vedra-florida-image311380805.html
the road doesn’t belong only to cars. You can’t ram a motorcycle or scooter out the way anymore than you can a cyclists. You can’t ram a slow driver and say “well it was a dick move to drive slow so it’s his fault”. I run i cycle I do them where it’s safe (bike lane and run sidewalks) and almost every single time I do I almost get hit by an idiot who believes the road belongs to them. They’ll make a right or left turn without looking.
Nobody is advocating to hit anyone lol. I do everything I can to slow down and avoid any idiot on a bike, scooter, golf cart, or anything else in the middle of the lane. I can avoid them and still think they are dicks for doing it.
I drive at the speed of traffic on the freeway and the speed limit on streets. Following the rules of the road isn’t difficult. I hate driving so when I do I follow the “better late than never” motto also I feel driving at a more casual pace allows me to be more centered and relaxed. Open the sun roof crank the tunes and Unwindulax my dude.
you in essence are advocating that. It’s sad you can’t see that is exactly what you’re doing. You’re pretending the road belongs to cars (not even motor vehicles but just cars). You’re then saying because the road is for cars it is too bad if cyclists get hit because they shouldn’t be dicks. And to you them being dicks is simply riding on the street. But the road doesn’t belong to only cars or motor vehicles and you can’t just ram anyone (regardless of what they are operating) simply because they aren’t moving fast enough for you. You’re basically saying if i hit anything with my car it’s their fault for not paying attention.
No, I not. You're inventing things that I've never said. "You're basically saying..." is a bullshit way to put words in my mouth.
I will drive no different than I normally do bc you have a dumb hobby that requires you to play in traffic with minimal protection beyond trusting in fellow man. Stupid games, stupid prizes.
it is what your words imply. Your logic 1. Roads belong to cars. 2. Cyclists shouldn’t ride in the road. 3. If cyclists ride in the roads it’s up to them to avoid getting hit. 4. If they get hit it’s their fault. what am I missing? While you never said “run a cyclists off the road” your “oh well it’s their fault “ attitude implies you’re okay with it. Your own words imply hitting a cyclists who is slowing down traffic is justifiable. But, if you want to hide behind semantics go ahead.
Jesus Christ, at no point did I say to hit them. I think someone that orders 100 lotto tickets with 10 people behind them at the gas station is a dick. Should we beat them? No! Same logic applies. Stop making up shit that was never said. I can think you're a dick without wanting you to die.
what did I make up in the post you quoted? Those four points are exactly your position, right? Me saying your words “imply” something isn’t me putting words in your mouth. It’s me saying by what you’ve said this is what I inferred or understood your position to be. You saying cyclists shouldn’t be in the road, that it’s up to them to avoid getting hit clearly implies it’s their fault if they get hit. So if it’s their fault they got hit the car drivers did something justifiable.
Not at all. They built miles and miles of trails for bikes so there's no need foe them to be in the middle of the road.
Upper middle class white dudes with $3000 road bikes being tedious and pedantic assholes: “why do people hate us? I was just riding my bike to protest the new housing development in my neighborhood!”
Yes I agree my post was tangential to your point. I just think discussing what driving/riding habits would make the roads safer for all drivers and cyclists is more interesting that arguing which group commits more technical infractions. Depending on the state you live in, it might be perfectly lawful for a cyclist to ride center-lane on a winding 55mph road, but it’s still an extremely dangerous practice.
There were so many pedestrian deaths when mass production of cars started because people did not understand the concept that the road "belonged" to cars, at least that was according to a historian I heard on NPR a few years ago where the story was around a recent street closing somewhere in NYC so pedestrians could be allowed unfettered use. The automobile industry has obviously a very public history of a decades long destruction of public transit and funding lobbyist groups to make roads seem like they only belong to cars.
This is the part you simply can not grasp. There is no “car lane.” There is a road and it has lanes. And in Florida, cyclists are granted the same right and responsibility to use such lanes, as they are in most states. You would have a point if you are talking about a bike on an interstate highway as that is not allowed. But you are not.
that’s why I said your words implied that. But, fair enough I need to go on a ride so let’s cut to the chase. You said cyclists don’t belong on the road and it’s up to them (not the car drivers) to avoid getting hit. So if they do get hit IYO what is it? What word (if not justifiable) would you like to use? Would “okay” be better?
If a cyclist gets hit, it's a bad thing. That's why they should stay in the lane created for them bc it decreases the likelihood they get hit by a car.
for the sake of time and argument let’s say we agree that they should. But, the question is what if they don’t. What then?
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/316.2065 (5)(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride in the lane marked for bicycle use or, if no lane is marked for bicycle use, as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations: 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid any condition or potential conflict, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, turn lane, or substandard-width lane, which makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge or within a bicycle lane. For the purposes of this subsection, a “substandard-width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
funny how you didn’t highlight “bicyclists have the same rights to the roadways” which completely makes your argument moot.
Yes, they can use the road... in their lane. It clearly says that. It's right there in black and white.
Just because they put a sign adjacent to the street gutter does not mean it is actually a bike lane. That is an afterthought. It is not designed with the safety of the cyclist in mind. It is a more hazardous place to ride than anywhere else. For multiple reasons, most of them centered around motorists not giving adequate space to pass due to the “bike lane.” 1. cyclists frequently encounter cross winds: having a car pull right up along side you while you have your entire body and bike leaned into the wind to prevent from blowing over is a sketchy looking thing. The immediate reduction of wind pressure can easily result in the rider instantly swerving into the “car lane.” That could result in the rider wrecking, the rider being ran over, or the car veering into oncoming traffic to avoid a collision with the bike. 2. motorists “thinking” bikes have their own lane leads them to pass too close without giving any additional berth to the “bike lane.” That ofter results in side mirrors clipping the rider. 3. There is a deteriorating concrete expansion joint running the length of the “bike lane.” How do I know it is deteriorating? Because that is what they do, by design. And then get repaired. That will grab a tire and send the rider over the handlebars in an instant. 4. I can go on and on with road debris, animals, etc but I do not think it will help. So the short answer is, you have a “bike lane” because your neighborhood developer thought it would be a great way to appear attractive to the community without spending any additional money except for a little for paint and for some signs to indicate the road gutter is now a “bike lane.”
it also says they can leave that side for the reasons a.tramp mentioned. Moreover, it says if the cyclists isn’t traveling at close to the same speed it has to stay there. On streets it isn’t hard for a cyclist to travel at the speed of traffic.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid any condition or potential conflict, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, turn lane, or substandard-width lane, which makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge or within a bicycle lane. For the purposes of this subsection, a “substandard-width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
I read. If there's something in the lane, you can go around it and get back in your lane. "I don't like riding there" isn't reasonable.
keep reading, the part about a substandard width lane. That is a lane that is too small to accommodate a bike and an auto abreast of each other. Your 5’ wide “bike lane” is fucked right out of the gate.
Neither I nor a.tramp think that’s a “five foot lane” it looks like the gutter path or whatever it’s called.