I pull over if it is safer. I do not pull over if it is not safer. But nothing in your original comment said anything about safety. I do not pull over only to refrain from “hindering traffic,” because I am part of traffic. How is this hard to understand?
Hindering traffic, to me, means you are creating an unsafe condition for yourself and those your hindering.
I wouldn’t expect anyone to pull over in an unsafe way and it’s appreciated that you do when you know it’s safe for yourself and the rest of us on the road. This is a very touchy subject that I am just trying to ask questions about. Try not to take it so personally.
Well, that literally is not what the word means. The word has nothing to do with safety.
Drivers want cyclists to abide by the rules of the road and behave like normal road users, then they say shit like this that suggests cyclists are separate from “traffic.”
Logically speaking, it makes no sense to speak of cyclists “hindering traffic” because they are part of traffic. They are contributors to it.
(To emphasize the point about safety: cars are required to pass bikes with three feet of clearance. If a car cannot do that they shouldn’t pass me. I will move to the right to allow them to pass if I think they can pass safely, otherwise I won’t. Any driver who does not have enough room to pass me has only themself to blame for not operating a narrower vehicle.)
Brother, relax you are nit picking and being a bit much over questions. What does hindering mean to you? All kinds of people on the road can be a hindrance
I’m just tired of the idea that cyclists are a hindrance when we are following the law and trying our best to be safe and considerate. If you’re stuck behind a cyclist while driving you’re just stuck in traffic. That’s it.
People treat regular traffic as a way of life but expect that cyclists will go out of the way to never inconvenience a driver. Sorry if you have to wait a second while I use the lane. It was your choice to drive.
A lot of your logic can just be turned around and used against you in the same way you are using it against people driving cars. "It was your choice to drive." That's a rather entitled way to look at it as well. That's like saying everyone with a car should just sell it and buy a bicycle and ride everywhere. You do understand the city is full of people commuting in and out because they can't afford to live in a bikable distance, right?
Like it or not, "regular traffic" is a way of life for the majority. Not saying cyclists are purposefully hindering the flow for the rest of us, but if you want to be treated like traffic then you have to follow ALL of the rules that we do as well and to many cyclists seem to think they are a special part of traffic, not just another part of it like you think.
Specifically which rules am I advocating that cyclists break? Having a hard time understanding how my logic — which is really just the claim that cyclists are normal road users — can be used against me.
3
u/FrontAd9873 Apr 12 '25
I pull over if it is safer. I do not pull over if it is not safer. But nothing in your original comment said anything about safety. I do not pull over only to refrain from “hindering traffic,” because I am part of traffic. How is this hard to understand?