Arrogant Bicycle Douchebags

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

That's the spirit!

Well, I'd posted this picture of a big fat woman on a little tiny bike. Then I though, "You know what? That's cruel." So I would've just deleted the post. But I didnt' see a "delete" function so I just edited it to say "never mind."

Feel free to post em' if you have hot women on bikes though.

[kalm]

Well, I'd posted this picture of a big fat woman on a little tiny bike. Then I though, "You know what? That's cruel." So I would've just deleted the post. But I didnt' see a "delete" function so I just edited it to say "never mind."

Feel free to post em' if you have hot women on bikes though.

"Get on your bikes and ride"

[Pwns]

I don't mind them. Just stay the f*** out of the gutter and shoulder, please. There's nothing more nerve-racking than trying to thread the needle between traffic in the other lane and some douche on a bike who is close enough fog up my rear-view mirror with his breath when I go by. If you can afford a car, drive it.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't mind them. Just stay the f*** out of the gutter and shoulder, please. There's nothing more nerve-racking than trying to thread the needle between traffic in the other lane and some douche on a bike who is close enough fog up my rear-view mirror with his breath when I go by. If you can afford a car, drive it.

Cyclists have a right to the roads.

Also, if you pass a cyclist and he's close enough to fog up your rear-view mirror... you broke the law, not the cyclist. You're required to give 3 feet when you pass.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

My truck weighs more than the bike so I have "the right of way" its simple physics.





You guys look the other way when laws like...............illegal immigration are disregarded............so I am gonna look this one off.

I expect your full support.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

My truck weighs more than the bike so I have "the right of way" its simple physics.





You guys look the other way when laws like...............illegal immigration are disregarded............so I am gonna look this one off.

I expect your full support.

[Pwns]

I don't mind them. Just stay the f*** out of the gutter and shoulder, please. There's nothing more nerve-racking than trying to thread the needle between traffic in the other lane and some douche on a bike who is close enough fog up my rear-view mirror with his breath when I go by. If you can afford a car, drive it.

Cyclists have a right to the roads.

Also, if you pass a cyclist and he's close enough to fog up your rear-view mirror... you broke the law, not the cyclist. You're required to give 3 feet when you pass.

Actually jelly, it's only a law in 16 states and Georgia isn't one of them. I exaggerated when I said they could breathe on my mirror but they probably don't get 3 feet.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Cyclists have a right to the roads.

Also, if you pass a cyclist and he's close enough to fog up your rear-view mirror... you broke the law, not the cyclist. You're required to give 3 feet when you pass.

Actually jelly, it's only a law in 16 states and Georgia isn't one of them. I exaggerated when I said they could breathe on my mirror but they probably don't get 3 feet.

Nah, you can launch em' pretty good with no more than 1 foot of the bumper. No need to overdo it.

[SeattleGriz]

I don't mind them. Just stay the f*** out of the gutter and shoulder, please. There's nothing more nerve-racking than trying to thread the needle between traffic in the other lane and some douche on a bike who is close enough fog up my rear-view mirror with his breath when I go by. If you can afford a car, drive it.

Cyclists have a right to the roads.

Also, if you pass a cyclist and he's close enough to fog up your rear-view mirror... you broke the law, not the cyclist. You're required to give 3 feet when you pass.

I bet you are smart enough to move over as far right as safely possible though?

I ride bikes and nothing aggravates me more than the oblivious riders who think just because they are on a bike, everyone else has to watch out for them.

Now on the other hand, people in Washington are too nice. The other day I was on a ride and I was about 7 inches to the right of the white line and this lady just would not pass me. I looked back and saw she, because of me, was backing up traffic to the tune of 4 cars. I pulled over and let them go by for fear of pissing someone off who might think it was me that was the problem.

[mainejeff]

At least half of the "bicycle douchebags" are Republican voting, Lance Armstrong worshipin', LIVE STRONG bracelet wearin' effin CONK a-holes.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Fail!

Republicans can afford to buy SUVs dumbass. They work so the majority on your side can be the leeches on society that you are.

[mainejeff]

Fail!

Republicans can afford to buy SUVs dumbass. They work so the majority on your side can be the leeches on society that you are.

Double Fail on your part. These aren't the Tea Bagger CONKS that I'm talking about.......they are a CONK subset......and in some ways they are worse than the low brow SUV/F-150 worshipin' CONKS.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Real conservatives dont ride bikes unless they have engines.

You know you hippy Libs are the ones at fault quit deflecting and be proud of your losertudeiness.

[bandl]

In Virginia, it's amazing to me the amount of assholes that don't understand some bicycling laws....such as:

Bicyclists must obey all traffic signs, signals, lights, and markings; this includes Stop Signs

Bicyclists must ride with the flow of traffic on the right side of the highway.

A person riding a bicycle shall not travel between two lanes of traffic moving in the same direction, except where one lane is a separate turn lane or a mandatory turn lane.

Bicyclists cannot ride more than two or more abreast on highways. When riding two abreast, bicyclists cannot impede the movement of traffic, need to move into single file when being overtaken from the rear. On a laned roadway, bicyclists shall ride in a single lane.

Bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks unless prohibited by local ordinance or traffic control devices. While on sidewalks and shared use paths, bicyclists must always yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before passing a pedestrian.

Bicyclists pulling onto a sidewalk or highway from a driveway must yield the right of way to pedestrians or vehicles already on the sidewalk or highway.

Every bicycle ridden between sunset and sunrise must have at least one white headlamp with the light being visible at least 500 feet to the front.

Some localities require that you give some sort of audible warning whenever you pass another cyclist or pedestrian, at all times.

And as motorists, we are only required to give 2 feet to the left of a cyclist.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

My biggest gripe about cyclists is when they hit my passengers side mirror. The replacement cost $600 and then the asshole had the audacity to stop traffic on the Orange Street bridge just because of some very minor scrapes and cuts.


The best part of the whole deal is that I know who the guy is, he works at the hospital in Missoula and attends many parties at my friends house. I never hear a word of what the guys is trying to say, my inner monologue is always "your talking to me and have no idea I clipped you a few years back" "idiot" "your commie lib ass deserved it for voting for Obama" etc.


I love that.

[mainejeff]

Real conservatives dont ride bikes unless they have engines.

You know you hippy Libs are the ones at fault quit deflecting and be proud of your losertudeiness.

Too bad that you can't face reality.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I face it daily on my Triumph Sprint RS 955

[JohnStOnge]

Bicyclists must ride with the flow of traffic on the right side of the highway.

I've always thought that one is counter productive. I think it increases the odds of accidents. I think bicyclists tend to try to keep track of what's behind them when they're riding with the flow so they'll know when they can "relax" in terms os sticking close to the side and when they have to "tighten up" because a car is getting close. I think that causes them to look over their shoulder. I think that, in turn, causes them to swerve some. Some are worse than others. I just think it'd be a lot safer for them to ride against the flow of traffic so they can see what's coming at all times. I mean, they're going to be getting passed either way. So if they're going 5 mph and cars are going 35 they relative motion is 30 if they're going with the flow and 40 if they're going against it. I just don't see how making them go with the flow so they can't see what's coming without having to turn their heads and look over their shoulders makes things safer. I guess we could say they all have to have mirrors. But I still think it'd be safer just to be able to keep your eyes on the traffic going by you and the approaching vehicles while looking basically straight ahead.

[grizzaholic]

I am scared of bicycles and so should you.

[bandl]

Bicyclists must ride with the flow of traffic on the right side of the highway.

I've always thought that one is counter productive. I think it increases the odds of accidents. I think bicyclists tend to try to keep track of what's behind them when they're riding with the flow so they'll know when they can "relax" in terms os sticking close to the side and when they have to "tighten up" because a car is getting close. I think that causes them to look over their shoulder. I think that, in turn, causes them to swerve some. Some are worse than others. I just think it'd be a lot safer for them to ride against the flow of traffic so they can see what's coming at all times. I mean, they're going to be getting passed either way. So if they're going 5 mph and cars are going 35 they relative motion is 30 if they're going with the flow and 40 if they're going against it. I just don't see how making them go with the flow so they can't see what's coming without having to turn their heads and look over their shoulders makes things safer. I guess we could say they all have to have mirrors. But I still think it'd be safer just to be able to keep your eyes on the traffic going by you and the approaching vehicles while looking basically straight ahead.

So how would they turn at a traffic light?

[Skjellyfetti]

Not to mention the fact that cars wouldn't be looking for traffic coming in the opposite direction.

On a one way street with traffic moving left to right... a car pulling out into traffic could look left for traffic not see anyone... pull out... and fuck up a cyclist riding against traffic.

[JohnStOnge]

Not to mention the fact that cars wouldn't be looking for traffic coming in the opposite direction.

On a one way street with traffic moving left to right... a car pulling out into traffic could look left for traffic not see anyone... pull out... and **** up a cyclist riding against traffic.

There is something to that but, on balance, I think there would be less risk if they were allowed to ride against traffic on the side if they want to. They are, with very rare exception, very slow moving vehicles relative to traffic flow. And the rare exceptions are just slow moving vehicles rather than VERY slow moving vehicles. To me it makes no sense to insist that they travel only with the flow of traffic and can't travel opposite. They are not motor vehicles and they are very small.

It's be interesting to see if anybody has statistics on how often bicyclists are hit because they don't see what's coming behind them or swerve in some because they turn to look over their left shoulder when riding with the flow of traffic vs. how often they are hit because of situations like you describe.

[JohnStOnge]

[/quote]So how would they turn at a traffic light?[/quote]

If they were turning left it would be a lot easier than it would be if they were riding with the flow of traffic. If they were turning right it'd be similar to turning left if they were riding with the flow of traffic. Just let them rid on whichever side they feel safest riding on. Then they can adjust to situations as they arise.

[bandl]

[/quote]So how would they turn at a traffic light?[/quote]

If they were turning left it would be a lot easier than it would be if they were riding with the flow of traffic. If they were turning right it'd be similar to turning left if they were riding with the flow of traffic. Just let them rid on whichever side they feel safest riding on. Then they can adjust to situations as they arise.

You're just an idiot.

[JayJ79]

So if they're going 5 mph and cars are going 35 they relative motion is 30 if they're going with the flow and 40 if they're going against it. I just don't see how making them go with the flow so they can't see what's coming without having to turn their heads and look over their shoulders makes things safer. I guess we could say they all have to have mirrors. But I still think it'd be safer just to be able to keep your eyes on the traffic going by you and the approaching vehicles while looking basically straight ahead.

who the F rides their bike at 5 mph? Hell, I WALK faster than that most times. 10-15 mph would be more accurate for an average. Of course, it'll be slower at times (such as when going up a hill), but can often be quite a bit faster as well.