Jul 13 2005

Murder ‘em, it’s okay…

Posted at 8:30 am under Rants

Every once in awhile you read something so damned stupid you have to wonder what the idiot who wrote it was thinking. Well… I think I found the piece that takes the cake (and frankly the person who wrote it should probably put the cake down while he’s at it)…

I’m sure I’m going to take some heat for the post but I think its time someone finally said it.

Oh great, a disclaimer right off the bat. I guess the stupid title, “Cyclists are elitist assholes and deserve to be run off the road” wasn’t enough of a warning. I would say if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen, but something tells me that any advice about getting out of a kitchen wouldn’t be heeded.

Bicyclists are a road hazard and when they’re inevitably hit and killed it should be no one’s fault but their own.

Surely he’s kidding. Surely the fine person writing this fine piece of trash can’t really mean that, right?

Here in Vermont, many of the popular cycling routes have “bike lanes” for cyclists. For the most part they’re wide, kept clean and in good condition. However these egomaniac turds in their sleek racing outfits never use them. Instead they must travel in the right of way, slowing traffic and causing dangerous conditions not only to themselves but to everyone else on the road.

“Bike lanes” existing are not an automatic requirement to use them. In fact, the laws of the State of Vermont don’t even require cyclists to be in them. In fact, according to Vermont cycling law, our idiotic “they’re a danger” friend ignores the following facts:

1. Cyclists are not required to ride so far to the right that they are difficult to see.
2. Cyclists are not required to ride so far to the right that their path might be obscured by shadows that might make it difficult to determine where the edge of the road is.
3. Cyclists are not required to ride in a bike lane that is not well-maintained.

Part 3 might escape our intrepid writer because he probably has never ridden a bike on a hill anywhere in his state, so we’ll let part three go. The Green Mountain Bike Club has an excellent line in a guide they have out to encourage drivers and cyclists to share the road, a concept obviously lost on our little friend.

The cyclist who “claims the lane” may know the road better than you, or may be more aware of oncoming traffic. For the safety of all parties concerned, you should not try and pass.

Or in other words, as you’re sitting in your car, instead of being an impatient prick, turn up your Britney Spears CD, crank the A/C a bit, and shut your gaping pie hole if you don’t like a cyclist in front of you on the road. They probably do know the road better than you do, because a cyclist can see things and be affected by things that you in your 2,000 pound steel cage probably can’t.

Yesterday I’ve seen[sic] a line of these sterile pricks peddling away in the right of way, yet, there is a new unobstructed bike lane alongside this very road and these morons are just too cool for school to use it. Meanwhile motorists are nervously passing them and crossing the double lines in the process. Two head-on collisions were nearly avoided. One car went off the road and spun around, only by luck it didn’t hit anything. But these self-centered assholes still couldn’t be bothered to go over to the bike lane.

It’s possible the bike lane isn’t as well-maintained as you think. In fact, in New York City, Transportation Alternatives just completed a study detailing the fact that many bike lanes in New York City (a major metropolitan government of a state a size that Vermont cannot even comprehend) are not well-maintained. They’re blocked by parked cars, have pot holes, steel gratings, sewers in the middle of them, steel plates covering road construction, and so on. Someone who rides those lanes would know that. Someone who just lugs his ass around in a car probably wouldn’t.

Head on collisions are not an issue for a cautious motorist. A cautious motorist wouldn’t try to pass in a situation where they might hit another car head on. A cautious motorist, in this situation, should never be in a situation where they “almost” hit another car, because they wouldn’t try to pass in the first place. Why did the car go off the road? That isn’t the cyclist’s fault, that’s bad judgment on the driver’s part.

This wasn’t the first time I’ve witnessed something like this. Actually I can’t ever recall seeing cyclists using the bike lanes and thereby avoiding causing mayhem on the road.

Seems like the only ones causing mayhem are the drivers who couldn’t dare wait to pass until it’s safe.

So, if they’re never used why does the State need to build the bike lanes?

Never is one of those loaded words in this case. Unless our outraged protagonist actually sat on a bike once and rode one along with the “sterile pricks” he derides, I seriously doubt he knows what percentage of cyclists use those lanes. Oh, and while we’re on the topic of his use of the words “sterile pricks,” being grossly obese is also a factor in impotency. Maybe our protagonist should put down the bowling ball and do some real exercise lest he become what he mocks.

Why should anyone care when these selfish idiots are hit and killed?

Selfish idiots, huh? How about the guys who were so self-interested that they almost caused car collisions just because they couldn’t wait behind a cyclist? Honestly, I couldn’t care less what people think of cyclists, but this is the kind of crap I have to put up with when I’m out on my bike. People who think we deserve to die because we dare sully their car space. That’s all well and good, and if it makes our pudgy protagonist feel better to callously talk about the need for people to die simply because they inconvenience his runs to the local fast food joint, so be it.

I’m a driver. I’m also a cyclist. I pay my car registration. I pay sales tax, and all kinds of other taxes including the tax on registering my car, my income tax, and on and on and on. Doing that entitles me to be on the road just like you. Only difference is, when there’s a traffic jam, I’m passing overweight out of shape bowlers and other sterile pricks like you as you eat your Wendy’s big double.

Source: Usrbingeek

9 Responses to “Murder ‘em, it’s okay…”

  1. pam Says:

    Vinny,
    I am a bike bitcher. I am also a lapsed bike rider. I need to get my ass in gear. That said..The author above sounds idiotic. I have a problem when a cyclist choses to ride on the road, rather than the bike path that I just funded. If there are no paths, which I am well aware that there are many areas that don’t have them, than a driver needs to observe the laws of driving. Last time I checked, cyclists have the right to be on the road. At least in MI:smile:

  2. Vinny Says:

    I can tolerate all levels of bike bitching because I do my share of car bitching too.

    What I cannot tolerate is the outright advocacy of violence against cyclists and the assertion that any accident they get into is their fault. I’ve seen my share of cyclist harassment at the hands of people like our pudgy protagonist here, and when you’re in a car and I’m on a bike you win by default.

    Paths are not always the best option. For example, some paths are so far to the right that they actually are more dangerous than riding on the road. Also, the condition of the paths is often known by the cyclists riding in the road (which it isn’t to the car drivers who have never been on them).

    Finally, most paths have speed limits on them. In NYC, for example, many of the paths have 10 mph speed limits. Frankly, I ride my bike at around 15-20 and the slow moving 10 mph folks (not their fault, they’re just following the rules) are an accident waiting to happen. Someone who’s riding a bike in full gear isn’t going to be riding on a path at 10mph and run a risk of rolling on some kid in training wheels with mommy walking next to her.

    Paths are fine, but the right not to use them is important also.

  3. pam Says:

    What I cannot tolerate is the outright advocacy of violence against cyclists and the assertion that any accident they get into is their fault.

    Vinny consider the intelligence of the person advocating such a thing. The sad thing is, these people see nothing wrong with such a stupid statement.

  4. nathalie Says:

    this person is an obvious idiot (at least on this issue, as I haven’t read anything else from them). I’ve known too many bicyclists who have been hit by idiotic drivers (one co-worker was killed in a head-on during his lunch break ride), so I always give them plenty of space. they are so commonplace here in the SF Bay Area– they’re just a fact of life. what I DO bitch about, however, are cyclists who don’t ride single-file. that drives me batty!

  5. Chuck Says:

    What kind of bike paths are we talking about here? A path that parallels the road? Around here (upstate NY) we have another name for those: the shoulder.

    Personally, I strongly disagree with the law’s provision that bicycles are vehicles and must travel on the same side as automobile traffic. Because of the lower speed and higher mobility of a bicycle, I think it should be treated as a pedestrian. As such, riding against traffic, a cyclist has a better chance of seeing what’s coming at him/her and avoiding it.

    But that’s just me, I suppose.

    -cjb-

  6. Vinny Says:

    Riding against traffic, from experience, is unbelievably dangerous and, on a bike, incredibly tricky.

  7. bsti Says:

    I’m a bike-bitcher but I never advocate violence for anything that can be solved by other means. I also car-bitch. I am an angry driver, to be sure. Here in Portland, the bicyclists are reckless, hardly signalling turns and interweaving through traffic. There is a road to the park we always go to; I have to drive under 10 MPH the whole way because the bicyclists ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD and won’t move to the side. Ever. It’s a freaking street, with a sidewalk. I’m all for bike-riding; I’m not all for taking 20 minutes to get to a park that is 5 minutes away. Also, I don’t eat fast food. Ever.

  8. duchess Says:

    Vinny’s letter is one asshole responding to another asshole. Which is appropriate because the whole problem is assholes. Asshole drivers, assholes cyclists. I support cyclists generally … until I see assholes cyclists who bitch and moan about how their rights aren’t respected and act all superior about how they are being environmentally correct and how much healthier their mode of transport is (Vinny’s crazy rant about fat people–some of whom walk and/or cycle all the time and never eat junk food, such as myself–was nearly as vile as the original poster’s attitudes about cyclists) … and who then turn around and disrespect, endanger, and wrecklessly disregard pedestrians, on sidewalks, in cross walks, etc. Assholes are assholes however many wheels are under them.

  9. Vinny Says:

    Or however many comments they leave.

Leave a comment