Pet Peeves Among the Pedals

Not about pedestrians, not about motorists, just about our fellow cyclists. We are all so different that stuff is bound to frustrate when we approach riding in such different ways, explain to those we think are less experienced, etc. Ok, tell us your stories, tell us your pet peeves, we're all friends! 

I'll start out with a pet peeve of mine... The cyclist that blows past me so close to me I felt the wind of their SWOOOOOSH as they fly past me but they say nothing to warn me. We're in tight quarters in the bike lane. Buy a bell and/or tell me you are there! 

p.s. sure, your pet peeve may be the forum post that's been done before but I kinda feel like this tucks into other topics so this time I'm giving the pedal pet peeve front and center.

Views: 8420

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gary Elfring on June 29, 2017 at 2:37pm

While I always avoid the pedestrians and don't block the crosswalks, I do often pull forward of the crosswalk. Why? Many stops have traffic sensors embedded in the roadway. They do NOT see bikes. If I'm right over the sensor, it's not aware of the car behind me and thus isn't working as it should.

Permalink Reply by Michael J Blane on June 30, 2017 at 6:33am

I concur.

Permalink Reply by Juan 2-3 or more mi. on June 29, 2017 at 5:42am

Chainlinkers that need to find something wrong with every single post I may put up :D

Permalink Reply by BikeScnhook on June 29, 2017 at 7:50am

This reply offends me!!!!

<eg>

Permalink Reply by BikeScnhook on June 29, 2017 at 8:01am

Heh. My handle sez it all. :)  Kind of like, for me, the biking equivalent of using "it's" instead of "its." Just really, really angers me. Just freakin' stop at the stop sign. It's not that hard. Especially the little ones that are specifically made for cyclists!! (cf. Clybourn and the Glenwood Greenway) If for no other reason, it's because it gives all of us a bad name: next time you see an online article that involves cyclists (like, say, a Tribune article on Facebook or something), read the comments and drink a shot every time someone comments about the stop sign thing. You'll die of alcohol poisoning. Basically, do NOT give the anti-bike people more ammunition against us.

Now...I just want to preface my next comment with this: it personally doesn't bother me if you choose to not wear a helmet while riding your bike. Hey, if you want to risk a nasty spill and having your brains splatter all over the pavement, be my guest, just so long as I don't have to pay more city taxes to make up for the costs of picking up your splattered brains. But...what does bug me to no end: someone on a bike with a helmet...but the helmet IS NOT ATTACHED TO THE RIDER'S HEAD. Really?? What is the point?!?!

Permalink Reply by Jacob Wilson on June 29, 2017 at 9:24am

Man, I suggest you do some soul searching and try to come to terms with the fact cyclists will never treat stop signs like motorists, nor should they. Otherwise you're just gonna give yourself grey hairs.

Traffic devices are 100% there for automobiles because they're dangerous weapons that travel at high speeds. Ever notice how there are no traffic signals on the LFP, 606, NBT, etc other than where they intersect with automobiles? It's because for bikes and pedestrians yielding is sufficient. 

I'm not advocating blowing through stop signs and you should always yield the right of way to pedestrians and vehicles who arrive before you but I'm not going to double my effort ever block by coming to a complete stop to appease some wrongheaded, suburban right winger in the Tribune comments section. 

It's a lost cause dude. The Iowa stop is the way of the future.

Permalink Reply by Argonne69 on June 29, 2017 at 9:27am

Amen. Isn't it Idaho stop? A little common sense goes a long way.

Let's not forget that a significant percentage of stop signs shouldn't be there in the first place, and could be easily replaced by yield signs with little change in safety.

Permalink Reply by Jacob Wilson on June 29, 2017 at 10:18am

Haha Iowa/Idaho, potato/potato...

Permalink Reply by BikeScnhook on June 29, 2017 at 9:31am

Well, this ain't the future; it's the present.

Anyhoo...traffic devices are 100% there for automobiles? Someone didn't tell the Secretary of State. Top of page 4 here:

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd...

Permalink Reply by Jacob Wilson on June 29, 2017 at 10:13am

Marijuana is also illegal because of unjust historical consequences. Doesn't mean I'm not gonna smoke it. 

There are also tons of rules of the road that were basically written by the auto lobby to encourage the mode of transport that they sold. Not to mention the actual enforcement of the current laws is incredibly auto centric and motorists routinely execute cyclists and receive little more than a slap on the wrist. 

Blindly obeying written law historically would have meant: Respecting property rights of slave owners, reporting suspected communists, joining the US military to kill innocent civilians half way around the world, I could go on all day, heck, right now technically the feds under Trump would love to come and deport thousands of hard working Chicago families under immigration laws that no doubt appear in some PDF somewhere. 

 

Permalink Reply by BikeScnhook on June 29, 2017 at 10:16am

Glad we're comparing apples to apples then. Thank you for clarifying.

Permalink Reply by Jacob Wilson on June 29, 2017 at 10:23am

I'm not sure you realize the significance of the effects of auto centric planning and laws as they pertain to society. 

Automobiles being the dominant mode of transport in the US kills thousands every year due to health, pollution and crashes. The fact that the laws discourage other modes of transport is why this is the way it is. 

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service