Why the hate for Cyclists?

[Ingomike]

View attachment 343099

What do we know for certain from this photo? Is the cyclist on an interstate not for cyclists? Does the right line go where the cyclist needs to go? We know a little of nothing for certain from this pic.

 

[jamil]

No, I resent those that suggest taking cyclists rights away, those that designate them second class users, say they should get out of their way, and slur cyclists as playing in the road.

Well. You prove my point. You imagine that you’re in a group where your rights are being taken away. Motor vehicles don’t really have a right to drive on roads. Motor vehicle drivers need a permission slip to drive. And when they drive, the vehicles must be registered. If you had an equal *right* to the road, you’d have to do the same.

I think if driving is a privilege, something we’re permitted to do, it’s not actually a right. But that’s a matter of semantics for another discussion. And what it is for bicycles, it’s better described as an accommodation. Roads were built for motor vehicles. But bicycles may use those roads. And because of the accommodations, new roads get bike friendly grates where needed.

 

[jamil]

You don’t get how your posts are indicative of “suggest taking cyclists rights away, those that designate them second class users, say they should get out of their way,“. Wow!

A ton of posts that cyclists don’t pay taxes for roads, roads are not designed for bikes, but you don’t get why cyclists can see you are not for protecting their rights…

Oh no. I think that was me who called you second class road users. But it’s you who imagines your rights are being taken away. I think cyclists should yield right of way to motor vehicles when driving on roads. It’s safer.

 

[chipbennett]

Oh no. I think that was me who called you second class road users. But it’s you who imagines your rights are being taken away. I think cyclists should yield right of way to motor vehicles when driving on roads. It’s safer.

Especially when I explicitly stated, "I don't view bicyclists as second-class."

But, he's arguing with the voices in his head that he has ascribed to me.

 

[jamil]

Sure they are. Bless your little heart.

View attachment 343136

The bicycles are by toys in every Walmart I’ve ever been in. And the vehicle in the picture is not capable of registering for road use.

 

[jamil]

Especially when I explicitly stated, "I don't view bicyclists as second-class."

But, he's arguing with the voices in his head that he has ascribed to me.

Lol. I am quite pleased with my ability to say something that he ascribes to you!

 

[chipbennett]

I think if driving is a privilege, something we’re permitted to do, it’s not actually a right. But that’s a matter of semantics for another discussion. And what it is for bicycles, it’s better described as an accommodation. Roads were built for motor vehicles. But bicycles may use those roads. And because of the accommodations, new roads get bike friendly grates where needed.

This is the point that he just refuses to concede - perhaps is incapable of doing so. The logical conclusion of of stating "roads were built for motor vehicles" (and/or "roads were paid for by motor vehicles") is that "yet, because bicycles may also use the roads, bicycles must be accommodated."

But, because he refuses to concede the underlying points, he similarly can't arrive at the same, logical conclusion and therefore creates all manner of straw men to come to absurd conclusions (that conveniently victimize him as a bicyclist and demonize us as motor vehicle drivers).

It's a form of cognitive dissonance.

 

[jamil]

What do we know for certain from this photo?

We know that there are two cyclists in the photo. One is more likely than the other to be a moron.

Is the cyclist on an interstate not for cyclists?

Not an interstate. Looks like a stop light ahead that applies to the traffic bound in that direction on that road.

Does the right line go where the cyclist needs to go?

Who knows where he needs to go. Is he joy riding? Is he on his way to his mistress’s place?

We know a little of nothing for certain from this pic.

Except that at least one rider is a moron.

 

[printcraft]

What do we know for certain from this photo? Is the cyclist on an interstate not for cyclists? Does the right line go where the cyclist needs to go? We know a little of nothing for certain from this pic.

"ASK! And Ye Shall Receive!! Blessed be printcraft, for he is good." - princraft 3:28

https://dialogdesign.ca/news-events/groat-road-bridges-open-to-traffic/

The City of Edmonton’s summer construction season wraps up this week, and Groat Road Bridges is one of the major projects that caps off the season with an exciting milestone. The road is open to two lanes of traffic in both directions, and a wider shared use path is also ready for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

[jamil]

So. At least one is a moron.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So. At least one is a moron.

Is it okay if we hate that one?

 

[LeftyGunner]

The bicycles are by toys in every Walmart I’ve ever been in. And the vehicle in the picture is not capable of registering for road use.

American roads exist primarily to serve the needs of commerce. One of the most fun roads I ever rode runs through the mountains in north georgia…the only reason it exists was to access the marble there.

Anything being used for recreation is a toy.

My motorcycles were toys, but I stopped playing with them in traffic because, well…I guess I have already made that point and I really shouldn’t get Mike worked up so close to supper.

 

[printcraft]

Is it okay if we hate that one?

 

[Ingomike]

Newer technology would certainly add comfort. Anyone that thinks different is in your words in this thread, is an ignorant idiot.

I said: “Those that call bicycles toys are just ignorant idiots”, do not see the word comfort in there at all.

 

[klausm]

Yep, he should not do that. Did you get damage?

not enough to sue for, and he left in a hurry

 

[Ingomike]

Well. You prove my point. You imagine that you’re in a group where your rights are being taken away. Motor vehicles don’t really have a right to drive on roads. Motor vehicle drivers need a permission slip to drive. And when they drive, the vehicles must be registered. If you had an equal *right* to the road, you’d have to do the same.

I think if driving is a privilege, something we’re permitted to do, it’s not actually a right. But that’s a matter of semantics for another discussion. And what it is for bicycles, it’s better described as an accommodation. Roads were built for motor vehicles. But bicycles may use those roads. And because of the accommodations, new roads get bike friendly grates where needed.

You are correct that we all have been wording it incorrectly, it is a privilege, as the courts have said. That said the rules of use have nothing to do with the privileges of each user. However all users have full access to their privileges subject to their specific limitations in the law. I don’t have to imagine, this thread is full of those that want to take or reduce the privileges of cyclists, including you.

 

[Ingomike]

not enough to sue for, and he left in a hurry

That is wrong, it should have been made right if it was the cyclist fault.

 

[Ingomike]

"ASK! And Ye Shall Receive!! Blessed be printcraft, for he is good." - princraft 3:28

https://dialogdesign.ca/news-events/groat-road-bridges-open-to-traffic/

I have no idea why he is riding there, just don’t know the area.

 

[printcraft]

I have no idea why he is riding there, just don’t know the area.

 

[Creedmoor]

I said: “Those that call bicycles toys are just ignorant idiots”, do not see the word comfort in there at all.

Oh, I got it now, because new technology in the bicycle world has nothing to do with the humans comfort in mind. But yet new technology everywhere else it does.