or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Things That Are Bothering You, Got You All Hibbeldy-Jibbeldy, or just downright pissed, RIGHT NOW!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Things That Are Bothering You, Got You All Hibbeldy-Jibbeldy, or just downright pissed, RIGHT NOW! - Page 5071

post #76051 of 85685
Not a water bottle, Reggs needs a frame pump fatally shoved up his arse.
post #76052 of 85685
I think I've shared the story here, from when I was heavily into road cycling about 20 years ago, and a dweeb in a Miata actually clipped part of the group I was riding with? He did not even slow down but was caught down the block at the red light. An ex-Green Beret in our cycling group barreled up to his car, got off his bike, and lifted him clean out of the Miata.

It's the only time I've ever seen a man actually piss himself.
post #76053 of 85685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I think I've shared the story here, from when I was heavily into road cycling about 20 years ago, and a dweeb in a Miata actually clipped part of the group I was riding with? He did not even slow down but was caught down the block at the red light. An ex-Green Beret in our cycling group barreled up to his car, got off his bike, and lifted him clean out of the Miata.

It's the only time I've ever seen a man actually piss himself.

Yea I was Into road cycling like 8 years ago and am more on the Fabian cancellara kind of build. I see why people complain about cyclists in cities because for the most part they suck and bike shares make things worse. But in the burbs if you have an issue with most cyclist you need to relax and just go in the other lane to drive around them. Most don't intentionally ride in the middle of the lane. Maybe the road is slick and it's dangerous for both the cyclist and driver if they ride on the lines.
post #76054 of 85685
They complain about having to wait a few seconds to get around the cyclists...but then the cyclists catch up to them at the next light. Unless you just missed the light by a second, this means the cyclists didn't even cost you any time. You would have been there at the same time either way.

Dunno if I agree about the cyclists in the cities and the bike shares (although there are some fucking idiot tourists riding around on the bike shares). Those people are going to be there no matter what. I have a bike share membership that I very frequently use to make trips that would be inconvenient on public transit. If I weren't on the bike, I probably would be in an Uber. More cars on the road make things worse than a single bike (especially in a city with lots of bike lanes). Same goes for the non-share bikes...some of my bosses commute by bike from the suburbs on some days. Every time they do that, they are one less car on the stop-and-go expressway, one less car trying to gridlock the downtown streets, one less car trying to park. And lots of their ride is on bike trails or lanes (so they aren't even inconveniencing impatient assholes the whole time).

Besides, in the city, I can mostly ride faster than traffic, so I am not getting in anyone's way.

But its cool. Just leave them for dead if you hit one (which is clearly *their fault* not yours, even though you are coming from behind). It's ok because you are a tough guy and could beat their ass (because that's a relevant fact right)?
post #76055 of 85685
Edit: On second thought, the joke might be missed and add to the already-boiling rage in this thread.
post #76056 of 85685
Most places, there's nowhere to bike except in the road. So people aren't really complaining about "bikes in the road," they're complaining about people biking in general. Usually they're the same people who would scream and shout about spending money on dedicated bike lanes/paths too.


I get being mildly annoyed by having to slow down and pass a bike, but come on, it's a trivial thing. This seething hatred many motorists have for bicyclists is weird.



Only time I get annoyed at cyclists is when you get these peloton sized groups out on the roads. Come on folks, this isn't the Tour, you can't ride ten wide on a public road and entirely block traffic from passing.
post #76057 of 85685
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Edit: On second thought, the joke might be missed and add to the already-boiling rage in this thread.

Usually a safe bet!

Cyclist can be just like e-cig people but many drivers also have an irrational hate of cyclists. The thing to remember is a human body loses the argument with a car every time. It's something both sides of this issue should keep in mind when deciding how to act while driving/cycling.
post #76058 of 85685
I think both sides of the bike-car debate tend to fall prey to the availability heuristic, but I will say that it's usually the cyclists who fall back on the, "I can do this assholish thing because it's legal" argument, and I find that obnoxious. I don't care if state law says you can ride two wide, or whatever, if you block traffic just because the law says you can, you're a dick.

That said, I really have no problem with upgrading and adapting the infrastructure to make it so everyone can use the roads, but I'm not going to support spending money on it until cyclists start paying some sort of registration-fee equivalent. I pay tag fees and gas taxes so that I can use the road. If cyclists really want to be on a level playing field, they can start contributing, too. Until then, you're second-class.
post #76059 of 85685
i agree with most of what you said, but i dont know about this unless you pay taxes and fees for the infrastructure you use you're a second class citizen. do pedestrians have lesser rights at not just sidewalks but also crossings because they dont pay taxes and fees specifically for that infrastructure?
post #76060 of 85685
I didn't say second-class citizen. Not trying to be pedantic, but that's bundled with meanings I didn't intend.

We don't, and shouldn't, have a pure fee-for-service setup with our government. Indeed, we don't even have that with roads, which are built with money that comes from more sources than just gas taxes or registration fees. However, with very, very few exceptions, the norm is for vehicles driven on the roads to pay for at least part of the cost of those roads with what amounts to usage fees. The exceptions to this tend to be conveyances that infrequently use the roads and that don't require special concessions like extra lanes (think farm tractors briefly on the road moving between fields). I think bikes historically qualified as an exception, but as cycling becomes more pervasive and cyclists demand more infrastructure, they really ought to be contributing.

I acknowledge that there are implementation problems - little Timmy shouldn't have to pony up to ride around the neighborhood - but there are ways we could work around that while still making cyclists' pay-in more equitable.

The pedestrian example doesn't really hold up here because they're not vehicles and don't use the road other than crossings. There's also no real, widespread precedent for usage-based taxation of sidewalks.
post #76061 of 85685
I hate all you succubi. Leaching off others to pay three times as much as it would for a private organization to do a better job. You people deserve what you get. Shitty roads and no accountability.
post #76062 of 85685
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I didn't say second-class citizen. Not trying to be pedantic, but that's bundled with meanings I didn't intend.

We don't, and shouldn't, have a pure fee-for-service setup with our government. Indeed, we don't even have that with roads, which are built with money that comes from more sources than just gas taxes or registration fees. However, with very, very few exceptions, the norm is for vehicles driven on the roads to pay for at least part of the cost of those roads with what amounts to usage fees. The exceptions to this tend to be conveyances that infrequently use the roads and that don't require special concessions like extra lanes (think farm tractors briefly on the road moving between fields). I think bikes historically qualified as an exception, but as cycling becomes more pervasive and cyclists demand more infrastructure, they really ought to be contributing.

I acknowledge that there are implementation problems - little Timmy shouldn't have to pony up to ride around the neighborhood - but there are ways we could work around that while still making cyclists' pay-in more equitable.

The pedestrian example doesn't really hold up here because they're not vehicles and don't use the road other than crossings. There's also no real, widespread precedent for usage-based taxation of sidewalks.

I dont really want to get into a nitty gritty argument about word choice and the aptitude of an analogy among other minor things (especially with you cuz you're smarter and more stubborn than me)

But I'm curious what you think about electric vehicles and whether they should be taxed to make up for lost gas taxes seeing that you prefer public infrastructure to be paid for on a usage basis
post #76063 of 85685
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I think both sides of the bike-car debate tend to fall prey to the availability heuristic, but I will say that it's usually the cyclists who fall back on the, "I can do this assholish thing because it's legal" argument, and I find that obnoxious. I don't care if state law says you can ride two wide, or whatever, if you block traffic just because the law says you can, you're a dick.

That said, I really have no problem with upgrading and adapting the infrastructure to make it so everyone can use the roads, but I'm not going to support spending money on it until cyclists start paying some sort of registration-fee equivalent. I pay tag fees and gas taxes so that I can use the road. If cyclists really want to be on a level playing field, they can start contributing, too. Until then, you're second-class.

My biggest problem with cyclists is I often see them not following the rules of the road. I see them blow right through red lights and four way stops on a regular basis. That being said, I don't really have a problem moving around them when they are biking. Take your eyes off your phone and look at the road more than 15' in front of you.
post #76064 of 85685
The problem with the bike tax argument is that a lot of the taxes on cars are meant to cover wear and tear on the roads. Wear and tear is an exponential function (or maybe cubic, I don't know..) with regards to weight and bikes lead to essentially zero wear and tear. If that bike trip is instead of a car trip, it is actually avoiding wear and tear.

And its not like bikers don't pay taxes. Most of them still own cars and pay all of the relevant car taxes (or they take public transit/uber/taxi and pay the taxes through their fares). They paid sales tax on the bike. They pay local income taxes or property taxes.

And what would you propose as a bike tax? Do 4 year old kids have to pay it? Does it get paid on only new bikes or do we have to start tracking used bike sales? I can't imagine any number that would both be reasonable and actually generate any meaningful amount of revenue. People aren't going to pay $200 a year so they can have a $100 bike in their garage that they ride to the grocery store once a month. But if you only charge them $5 a year, the overhead in the system isn't going to be worth it.
post #76065 of 85685
I think I drank too much coffee and water this morning.

Went to take a shit, which traditionally begins with a relieving of the bladder, and by the time I was done, I had to pee again.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Things That Are Bothering You, Got You All Hibbeldy-Jibbeldy, or just downright pissed, RIGHT NOW!