What is some of your Pet Peeve's

[lilranch2001]

I figured that would set off someone like you….

 

[BravoXray]

I would like to add follow road rules!

Last weekend a “herd” of tandem bikes rode through the village I live outside of, I stood out in front of the post office, as they rode up, I was getting ready to cross the street, and they all blew right through the 4 way stop

These were adults , 30/40 years old, all dressed in their effeminate bicycle gear…..

I almost hit a guy on a bike at a four way stop that has signs clearly indicating that bike traffic must also stop. I stopped and started moving and he blew through the stop sign without even slowing down.
Of course I have video of a Sheriff's car doing the same thing.
I guess stopping is optional for bicyclists and cops, more like just a suggestion.

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

How about emergency personnel flying with lights & sireens you see pulling into a restaurant to eat!

 

[MossRoad]

Interesting study....

Bicyclist 'Stop-As-Yield' Laws and Safety Fact Sheet | NHTSA

www.nhtsa.gov

 

[WinterDeere]

I stood out in front of the post office, as they rode up, I was getting ready to cross the street, and they all blew right through the 4 way stop

They get irritated and shake their fists at cars, reminding us they have a right to travel the roads, but then ignore every traffic sign and signal.

In PA, at least in the past, if there was an accident between a bicyclist and a motor vehicle, the traffic incident report would be filled out just the same as if it were two motor vehicles, and determination of fault treated the same. The car will be "vehicle A", and the bicycle will simply be "vehicle B", or vice versa.

 

[drssg]

Interesting study....

Bicyclist 'Stop-As-Yield' Laws and Safety Fact Sheet | NHTSA

www.nhtsa.gov

Weird. I didn't see much of a justification in the "study" for why allowing bicycles to treat stop signs as yield signs improves safety. It sure seems counter-intuitive to me. Highlighting a correlation that supports the idea doesn't mean that they understand the underlying cause for the data results.

 

[MossRoad]

Weird. I didn't see much of a justification in the "study" for why allowing bicycles to treat stop signs as yield signs improves safety. It sure seems counter-intuitive to me. Highlighting a correlation that supports the idea doesn't mean that they understand the underlying cause for the data results.

Sure it seems counterintuitive. Just like the zipper merge. There are people here on TBN that will purposely block other people from passing them to get up to the merge point ahead of them 'just because'. (real reason: they are furious), and regardless of the changing laws in their state, they've always done it that way, so something new can't be better.

Don't ask about roundabouts.

 

[WinterDeere]

Where's the part of the study where motorists get so fed up with men in tights needlessly impeding their progress, that they just mow them down out of frustration?

 

[MossRoad]

Weird. I didn't see much of a justification in the "study" for why allowing bicycles to treat stop signs as yield signs improves safety. It sure seems counter-intuitive to me. Highlighting a correlation that supports the idea doesn't mean that they understand the underlying cause for the data results.

The gist of it is that bicyclists (and motorists) are more careful at red lights VS green lights. Since the light is red, bicyclists in those states have to treat it as a yield, meaning they have to yield to the right of way (be prepared to stop if necessary), or proceed if they won't interrupt the flow of traffic. Accident rates went down in those states.

 

[MossRoad]

Where's the part of the study where motorists get so fed up with men in tights needlessly impeding their progress, that they just mow them down out of frustration?

https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/sociopathy/traits-of-a-high-functioning-sociopath/

 

[WinterDeere]

https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/sociopathy/traits-of-a-high-functioning-sociopath/

Not all cyclists are sociopaths, but the ones who ride two-wide while needlessly blocking the flow of vehicle traffic might be candidates for evaluation. That's too common around here, and we have no bike paths or bike lanes on most of our roads.

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

Years ago I had a severe bike accident, no helmet, guy whipped right in front of me going into driveway. I slammed brakes...head catapulted into asphalt. At the ER, wasn't expected to live.
Since I didn't actually hit guy's truck, he wasn't charged!

 

[MossRoad]

Not all cyclists are sociopaths, but the ones who ride two-wide while needlessly blocking the flow of vehicle traffic might be candidates for evaluation. That's too common around here, and we have no bike paths or bike lanes on most of our roads.

I was referring to the motorists...

 

[drssg]

The gist of it is that bicyclists (and motorists) are more careful at red lights VS green lights. Since the light is red, bicyclists in those states have to treat it as a yield, meaning they have to yield to the right of way (be prepared to stop if necessary), or proceed if they won't interrupt the flow of traffic. Accident rates went down in those states.

That explanation doesn't make any sense to me. IMO, the article is biased in favor of encouraging bicycle traffic in big cities.

From the document, "Stopping discourages bicycling, substantially increasing time, energy expenditure, discomfort, risk of collisions, and risk for strain and overuse injuries." This is all about why bicyclists don't like to stop, and there isn't an ounce of justification for why stopping at a stop sign increases the risk of collisions.

FWIW, bicyclists are not one of my pet peeves, and I get more peeved when people show a disregard for their safety and don't allow enough clearance when passing. I just find this article to be a bunch of double-speak.

 

[MossRoad]

Years ago I had a severe bike accident, no helmet, guy whipped right in front of me going into driveway. I slammed brakes...head catapulted into asphalt. At the ER, wasn't expected to live.
Since I didn't actually hit guy's truck, he wasn't charged!

Glad you lived.

Yeah, close don't count. Similar to if someone stops short in front of you, you slam your brakes, the guy behind you slams into your rear, and it's his fault, not the guy that caused it. That's the way it is. Might change with dashcam/go pro evidence becoming more prominent.

Had it happen to me in a work truck. Guy behind me got his bumper hooked over my trailer hitch when I had to stop suddenly for someone cutting in front of me. Minor damage to both vehicles, but neither of us were going anywhere. He started yelling at me for hitting my brakes. I just sat there taking it until the cops showed up. Had to be on best behavior in company truck with big logo on side.

Cop blamed him. He was not happy.

 

[drssg]

Not all cyclists are sociopaths, but the ones who ride two-wide while needlessly blocking the flow of vehicle traffic might be candidates for evaluation. That's too common around here, and we have no bike paths or bike lanes on most of our roads.

This happens to be one of my peeves. If it bothers you that the bicyclists are riding two-wide, that means that there must be oncoming traffic or a lack of visibility that is preventing you from passing in the oncoming lane. That means that you must want to pass the bicycles in the same lane. Unless you have very nice and wide roads, that isn't safe, IMO.

Bicyclists refer to this act as "taking the lane." It is designed to prevent impatient motorists from unsafe passing.

 

[MossRoad]

That explanation doesn't make any sense to me. IMO, the article is biased in favor of encouraging bicycle traffic in big cities.

From the document, "Stopping discourages bicycling, substantially increasing time, energy expenditure, discomfort, risk of collisions, and risk for strain and overuse injuries." This is all about why bicyclists don't like to stop, and there isn't an ounce of justification for why stopping at a stop sign increases the risk of collisions.

FWIW, bicyclists are not one of my pet peeves, and I get more peeved when people show a disregard for their safety and don't allow enough clearance when passing. I just find this article to be a bunch of double-speak.

It's the law in at least 8 states. Counterintuitive, I agree. But the numbers don't lie. (by the way, I'm not a big fan of bicycles on busy roads. Been stuck behind individual and large groups many times when they are not obeying the state laws. grrr!)

Similar to roundabouts. People seem to hate them. They'd rather sit at a 4-way stop and take turns for 2-3 minutes VS letting the traffic flow more naturally and everyone gets through a lot faster.

Why do they hate it? Because everyone has to take a turn at a 4-way VS letting groups of cars get ahead of me. I was here first, yet those guys get to go ahead of me? GRRRR!!!! %(%^(%$($#!!!!!!

No one wants to cooperate. They want everyone to share their perceived misery of having to wait. If I have to wait, you should too, even if it means all of use get delayed longer VS all of us getting through faster.

 

[Mike1955]

people on here that start threads and never do a search first.

Yea it erks me on here when I do my best to help someone and get ignored

 

[WinterDeere]

I was referring to the motorists...

I know, I was just messing with you. But I do think there's a level of sociopathy among cyclists who knowingly impede vehicle traffic, or choose to ride on roads that are known to be particularly dangerous or difficult for motorists and cyclists to share. We do have roads with shoulders or bike paths, and even hundreds of miles of local railroad bed converted to cycling paths, connecting many of our towns and cities. Most cyclists use them (heck, I cycle on them myself at least once per week), but there's always a few who choose to do otherwise, despite knowing the trouble it causes for drivers just trying to get through their daily commute. They are unnecessarily choosing to create a dangerous situation for others, which is sociopathic.

This happens to be one of my peeves. If it bothers you that the bicyclists are riding two-wide, that means that there must be oncoming traffic or a lack of visibility that is preventing you from passing in the oncoming lane. That means that you must want to pass the bicycles in the same lane. Unless you have very nice and wide roads, that isn't safe, IMO.

Bicyclists refer to this act as "taking the lane." It is designed to prevent impatient motorists from unsafe passing.

This is going to be hard for those from states with better roads to even understand, but the hilly parts of PA are made of tens of thousands of winding farm roads, that are now heavily trafficked, but never upgraded. No shoulder, two lanes of varying width and sometimes barely wide enough for two trucks to pass, and rarely a straight section of road more than a few hundred yards long. The result is that on many of the roads I drive on a daily basis, there is simply no safe way to pass cyclists riding two-wide, as there are no safe passing zones. Your choices are very often between "unsafe passing" or staying behind them as they climb a hill at 1 mph, or sometimes for a several miles of mixed terrain, until you reach the next straight stretch of road that permits safe passing in the opposing lane.

When riders fall into single file, I don't pass them close, I still give them a wide berth. But I do it with the knowledge that any surprise appearing around the next blind spot ahead can still be safely passed by all of us, even if some puckering is involved. When they're two wide, there's just no chance for that.

If a vehicle has to go into the opposing lane to pass some cyclists "taking the lane", and the next hump or bend in the road reveals an oncoming truck, the result is nearly always going to be some dead cyclists. Those cyclists may have been "right", but it doesn't matter, if they're dead. Few drivers are going to drive into oncoming traffic with some softer targets to their right.

 

[jjeff]

Interesting perspectives and points however I'm peeved when there's a mostly unused paved bike lane 10' off the shoulder and I'm pulling a trailer that's 8'6" wide on a 45-55 mph hilly winding county road. Not only is it annoying and time consuming but it's dangerous and I'm always triple checking my mirrors before taking a right hand turn. If they were in the bike paths instead of riding with traffic I hope they would yield to the intersection of turning vehicles as around me theres actual small stop signs on the bike paths when they cross a road intersection. I wonder how many amateur bicycle enthusiasts are defensive enough to even look for turn signals of vehicles turning and anticipate what's going on, and how many vehicle drivers are defensive enough to notice the bikes riding on there passenger side when making a turn? I ride my bicycle on the bike path when available cause I'm a tiny fraction of the weight of a car or truck.