As a cyclist, I hate when they do that too. I gave you a blue star for not having to start a new thread about your experience.AndesAg92 said:
Had to take a different route to work this morning. Saw a cyclist egregiously run a stop sign, almost get hit, flick off the guy and continued to hog the road.......
I can't stand these guys. It really chaps my ass.
TexasAggie81 said:
Bicyclists do not belong on major (non-neighborhood) roads period. Latest stats "In the Houston area, 19 riders died in traffic accidents during 2018. Between 2009 and 2018, there were 160 bicyclist deaths in the Houston area. Cyclist deaths increased by 46% over that period. Of the 534 cyclist deaths during this time period, 27.5% of the deaths occurred in the Houston area." Is letting them cycle on these roads worth these deaths?
txags92 said:
I really wish they would distinguish between "cyclist" (ie wearing a helmet, clothing that is bright enough to draw your eye, riding the same direction as traffic, during the daytime or riding with appropriate lighting/reflectors) and what I call "dumbass on a bike" ( ie no helmet, no lights or reflectors, riding the opposite direction of traffic, wearing dark clothes, at night, etc). I used to drive 1960 between 45 and 290 fairly regularly, and I saw a lot of dumbasses on a bike that I assumed would show up as a statistic within the next few days. There are certainly places cyclists shouldn't be riding, but the county doesn't do themselves any favors in that regard by taking roads that were suitable for cycling, and rebuilding them in ways that are not, while at the same time actively trying to force cyclists out of the parks and back onto the streets.
txags92 said:
I really wish they would distinguish between "cyclist" (ie wearing a helmet, clothing that is bright enough to draw your eye, riding the same direction as traffic, during the daytime or riding with appropriate lighting/reflectors) and what I call "dumbass on a bike" ( ie no helmet, no lights or reflectors, riding the opposite direction of traffic, wearing dark clothes, at night, etc). I used to drive 1960 between 45 and 290 fairly regularly, and I saw a lot of dumbasses on a bike that I assumed would show up as a statistic within the next few days. There are certainly places cyclists shouldn't be riding, but the county doesn't do themselves any favors in that regard by taking roads that were suitable for cycling, and rebuilding them in ways that are not, while at the same time actively trying to force cyclists out of the parks and back onto the streets.
and quit using your phone while driving tooAndesAg92 said:
Just go do it out in the country. Problem solved. Quit breaking our laws in town.
sts7049 said:and quit using your phone while driving tooAndesAg92 said:
Just go do it out in the country. Problem solved. Quit breaking our laws in town.
AndesAg92 said:sts7049 said:and quit using your phone while driving tooAndesAg92 said:
Just go do it out in the country. Problem solved. Quit breaking our laws in town.
Good argument bro. Cars are the most prominent form of transportation in Houston. The fact you think you're better than drivers is why people hate y'all.
What about the growing group of cyclists in EBikes? Should they stay on bike path going 20-28 mph past pedestrians? Ride them on the street where they're slowing traffic down and hard to pass? Or just F right off?txags92 said:
I really wish they would distinguish between "cyclist" (ie wearing a helmet, clothing that is bright enough to draw your eye, riding the same direction as traffic, during the daytime or riding with appropriate lighting/reflectors) and what I call "dumbass on a bike" ( ie no helmet, no lights or reflectors, riding the opposite direction of traffic, wearing dark clothes, at night, etc). I used to drive 1960 between 45 and 290 fairly regularly, and I saw a lot of dumbasses on a bike that I assumed would show up as a statistic within the next few days. There are certainly places cyclists shouldn't be riding, but the county doesn't do themselves any favors in that regard by taking roads that were suitable for cycling, and rebuilding them in ways that are not, while at the same time actively trying to force cyclists out of the parks and back onto the streets.
Well, you can see the opinions here. Cyclists are supposed to ride on the sidewalk (where it is illegal in many municipalities); on the "bike path" in the park (where the county has set ridiculously low speed limits to protect pedestrians on the "BIKE path"); on the shoulder (which the county has systematically eliminated when "improving" roads for the last 25 years, over the objections of cyclists' public comments to TXDOT), or out in the country (where all the residents want the cyclists to stay in the city). Basically as a cyclist, you are not supposed to ride your bike anywhere that anybody else wants to use the road or the BIKE path for other uses. hthdrumboy said:What about the growing group of cyclists in EBikes? Should they stay on bike path going 20-28 mph past pedestrians? Ride them on the street where they're slowing traffic down and hard to pass? Or just F right off?txags92 said:
I really wish they would distinguish between "cyclist" (ie wearing a helmet, clothing that is bright enough to draw your eye, riding the same direction as traffic, during the daytime or riding with appropriate lighting/reflectors) and what I call "dumbass on a bike" ( ie no helmet, no lights or reflectors, riding the opposite direction of traffic, wearing dark clothes, at night, etc). I used to drive 1960 between 45 and 290 fairly regularly, and I saw a lot of dumbasses on a bike that I assumed would show up as a statistic within the next few days. There are certainly places cyclists shouldn't be riding, but the county doesn't do themselves any favors in that regard by taking roads that were suitable for cycling, and rebuilding them in ways that are not, while at the same time actively trying to force cyclists out of the parks and back onto the streets.
txags92 said:Well, you can see the opinions here. Cyclists are supposed to ride on the sidewalk (where it is illegal in many municipalities); on the "bike path" in the park (where the county has set ridiculously low speed limits to protect pedestrians on the "BIKE path"); on the shoulder (which the county has systematically eliminated when "improving" roads for the last 25 years, over the objections of cyclists' public comments to TXDOT), or out in the country (where all the residents want the cyclists to stay in the city). Basically as a cyclist, you are not supposed to ride your bike anywhere that anybody else wants to use the road or the BIKE path for other uses. hthdrumboy said:What about the growing group of cyclists in EBikes? Should they stay on bike path going 20-28 mph past pedestrians? Ride them on the street where they're slowing traffic down and hard to pass? Or just F right off?txags92 said:
I really wish they would distinguish between "cyclist" (ie wearing a helmet, clothing that is bright enough to draw your eye, riding the same direction as traffic, during the daytime or riding with appropriate lighting/reflectors) and what I call "dumbass on a bike" ( ie no helmet, no lights or reflectors, riding the opposite direction of traffic, wearing dark clothes, at night, etc). I used to drive 1960 between 45 and 290 fairly regularly, and I saw a lot of dumbasses on a bike that I assumed would show up as a statistic within the next few days. There are certainly places cyclists shouldn't be riding, but the county doesn't do themselves any favors in that regard by taking roads that were suitable for cycling, and rebuilding them in ways that are not, while at the same time actively trying to force cyclists out of the parks and back onto the streets.
txags92 said:Well, you can see the opinions here. Cyclists are supposed to ride on the sidewalk (where it is illegal in many municipalities); on the "bike path" in the park (where the county has set ridiculously low speed limits to protect pedestrians on the "BIKE path"); on the shoulder (which the county has systematically eliminated when "improving" roads for the last 25 years, over the objections of cyclists' public comments to TXDOT), or out in the country (where all the residents want the cyclists to stay in the city). Basically as a cyclist, you are not supposed to ride your bike anywhere that anybody else wants to use the road or the BIKE path for other uses. hthdrumboy said:What about the growing group of cyclists in EBikes? Should they stay on bike path going 20-28 mph past pedestrians? Ride them on the street where they're slowing traffic down and hard to pass? Or just F right off?txags92 said:
I really wish they would distinguish between "cyclist" (ie wearing a helmet, clothing that is bright enough to draw your eye, riding the same direction as traffic, during the daytime or riding with appropriate lighting/reflectors) and what I call "dumbass on a bike" ( ie no helmet, no lights or reflectors, riding the opposite direction of traffic, wearing dark clothes, at night, etc). I used to drive 1960 between 45 and 290 fairly regularly, and I saw a lot of dumbasses on a bike that I assumed would show up as a statistic within the next few days. There are certainly places cyclists shouldn't be riding, but the county doesn't do themselves any favors in that regard by taking roads that were suitable for cycling, and rebuilding them in ways that are not, while at the same time actively trying to force cyclists out of the parks and back onto the streets.
That is great news. It was ridiculous to put the low speed limits out there to begin with, and then to charge such an exorbitant fine for it relative to other driving offenses (with no option to take defensive driving as can be done with nearly all other moving violations) was the cherry on top of all the stupid.rilloaggie said:txags92 said:Well, you can see the opinions here. Cyclists are supposed to ride on the sidewalk (where it is illegal in many municipalities); on the "bike path" in the park (where the county has set ridiculously low speed limits to protect pedestrians on the "BIKE path"); on the shoulder (which the county has systematically eliminated when "improving" roads for the last 25 years, over the objections of cyclists' public comments to TXDOT), or out in the country (where all the residents want the cyclists to stay in the city). Basically as a cyclist, you are not supposed to ride your bike anywhere that anybody else wants to use the road or the BIKE path for other uses. hthdrumboy said:What about the growing group of cyclists in EBikes? Should they stay on bike path going 20-28 mph past pedestrians? Ride them on the street where they're slowing traffic down and hard to pass? Or just F right off?txags92 said:
I really wish they would distinguish between "cyclist" (ie wearing a helmet, clothing that is bright enough to draw your eye, riding the same direction as traffic, during the daytime or riding with appropriate lighting/reflectors) and what I call "dumbass on a bike" ( ie no helmet, no lights or reflectors, riding the opposite direction of traffic, wearing dark clothes, at night, etc). I used to drive 1960 between 45 and 290 fairly regularly, and I saw a lot of dumbasses on a bike that I assumed would show up as a statistic within the next few days. There are certainly places cyclists shouldn't be riding, but the county doesn't do themselves any favors in that regard by taking roads that were suitable for cycling, and rebuilding them in ways that are not, while at the same time actively trying to force cyclists out of the parks and back onto the streets.
Don't know if you noticed but they've quietly updated the signage at Hershey park. No more 10mph speed limit posted that I saw from kirkwood to dairy ashford.
https://imgur.com/a/o0UHwGa
Especially when 90+% of the time it's the pedestrians at fault. I was running in memorial park Saturday evening when I was passing two girls who were walking. I went to their left, giving them about 4' as I was passing them. I was almost even to them when one girl lifted her phone and made a hard and immediate left running right into me. She apologized and said she wanted to take a picture of the moon.txags92 said:That is great news. It was ridiculous to put the low speed limits out there to begin with, and then to charge such an exorbitant fine for it relative to other driving offenses (with no option to take defensive driving as can be done with nearly all other moving violations) was the cherry on top of all the stupid.rilloaggie said:txags92 said:Well, you can see the opinions here. Cyclists are supposed to ride on the sidewalk (where it is illegal in many municipalities); on the "bike path" in the park (where the county has set ridiculously low speed limits to protect pedestrians on the "BIKE path"); on the shoulder (which the county has systematically eliminated when "improving" roads for the last 25 years, over the objections of cyclists' public comments to TXDOT), or out in the country (where all the residents want the cyclists to stay in the city). Basically as a cyclist, you are not supposed to ride your bike anywhere that anybody else wants to use the road or the BIKE path for other uses. hthdrumboy said:What about the growing group of cyclists in EBikes? Should they stay on bike path going 20-28 mph past pedestrians? Ride them on the street where they're slowing traffic down and hard to pass? Or just F right off?txags92 said:
I really wish they would distinguish between "cyclist" (ie wearing a helmet, clothing that is bright enough to draw your eye, riding the same direction as traffic, during the daytime or riding with appropriate lighting/reflectors) and what I call "dumbass on a bike" ( ie no helmet, no lights or reflectors, riding the opposite direction of traffic, wearing dark clothes, at night, etc). I used to drive 1960 between 45 and 290 fairly regularly, and I saw a lot of dumbasses on a bike that I assumed would show up as a statistic within the next few days. There are certainly places cyclists shouldn't be riding, but the county doesn't do themselves any favors in that regard by taking roads that were suitable for cycling, and rebuilding them in ways that are not, while at the same time actively trying to force cyclists out of the parks and back onto the streets.
Don't know if you noticed but they've quietly updated the signage at Hershey park. No more 10mph speed limit posted that I saw from kirkwood to dairy ashford.
https://imgur.com/a/o0UHwGa
htxag09 said:Especially when 90+% of the time it's the pedestrians at fault. I was running in memorial park Saturday evening when I was passing two girls who were walking. I went to their left, giving them about 4' as I was passing them. I was almost even to them when one girl lifted her phone and made a hard and immediate left running right into me. She apologized and said she wanted to take a picture of the moon.txags92 said:That is great news. It was ridiculous to put the low speed limits out there to begin with, and then to charge such an exorbitant fine for it relative to other driving offenses (with no option to take defensive driving as can be done with nearly all other moving violations) was the cherry on top of all the stupid.rilloaggie said:txags92 said:Well, you can see the opinions here. Cyclists are supposed to ride on the sidewalk (where it is illegal in many municipalities); on the "bike path" in the park (where the county has set ridiculously low speed limits to protect pedestrians on the "BIKE path"); on the shoulder (which the county has systematically eliminated when "improving" roads for the last 25 years, over the objections of cyclists' public comments to TXDOT), or out in the country (where all the residents want the cyclists to stay in the city). Basically as a cyclist, you are not supposed to ride your bike anywhere that anybody else wants to use the road or the BIKE path for other uses. hthdrumboy said:What about the growing group of cyclists in EBikes? Should they stay on bike path going 20-28 mph past pedestrians? Ride them on the street where they're slowing traffic down and hard to pass? Or just F right off?txags92 said:
I really wish they would distinguish between "cyclist" (ie wearing a helmet, clothing that is bright enough to draw your eye, riding the same direction as traffic, during the daytime or riding with appropriate lighting/reflectors) and what I call "dumbass on a bike" ( ie no helmet, no lights or reflectors, riding the opposite direction of traffic, wearing dark clothes, at night, etc). I used to drive 1960 between 45 and 290 fairly regularly, and I saw a lot of dumbasses on a bike that I assumed would show up as a statistic within the next few days. There are certainly places cyclists shouldn't be riding, but the county doesn't do themselves any favors in that regard by taking roads that were suitable for cycling, and rebuilding them in ways that are not, while at the same time actively trying to force cyclists out of the parks and back onto the streets.
Don't know if you noticed but they've quietly updated the signage at Hershey park. No more 10mph speed limit posted that I saw from kirkwood to dairy ashford.
https://imgur.com/a/o0UHwGa
rilloaggie said:txags92 said:Well, you can see the opinions here. Cyclists are supposed to ride on the sidewalk (where it is illegal in many municipalities); on the "bike path" in the park (where the county has set ridiculously low speed limits to protect pedestrians on the "BIKE path"); on the shoulder (which the county has systematically eliminated when "improving" roads for the last 25 years, over the objections of cyclists' public comments to TXDOT), or out in the country (where all the residents want the cyclists to stay in the city). Basically as a cyclist, you are not supposed to ride your bike anywhere that anybody else wants to use the road or the BIKE path for other uses. hthdrumboy said:What about the growing group of cyclists in EBikes? Should they stay on bike path going 20-28 mph past pedestrians? Ride them on the street where they're slowing traffic down and hard to pass? Or just F right off?txags92 said:
I really wish they would distinguish between "cyclist" (ie wearing a helmet, clothing that is bright enough to draw your eye, riding the same direction as traffic, during the daytime or riding with appropriate lighting/reflectors) and what I call "dumbass on a bike" ( ie no helmet, no lights or reflectors, riding the opposite direction of traffic, wearing dark clothes, at night, etc). I used to drive 1960 between 45 and 290 fairly regularly, and I saw a lot of dumbasses on a bike that I assumed would show up as a statistic within the next few days. There are certainly places cyclists shouldn't be riding, but the county doesn't do themselves any favors in that regard by taking roads that were suitable for cycling, and rebuilding them in ways that are not, while at the same time actively trying to force cyclists out of the parks and back onto the streets.
Don't know if you noticed but they've quietly updated the signage at Hershey park. No more 10mph speed limit posted that I saw from kirkwood to dairy ashford.
https://imgur.com/a/o0UHwGa
htxag09 said:
I was running so no huge deal. Just annoying. But I've had similar happen while cycling. Was just a point of how completely oblivious most pedestrians are to their surroundings.
See, this is where I think the County was EXTREMELY short sighted and actually shot themselves in the foot. They HAD a good network of roads out on the west side of town where people were fine riding their bikes. But under Steve Raddack's leadership, every time one of those roads was going to be "improved", and cyclists put in comments to TXDOT about cycling users needing to be accounted for in the design, Raddack's office instead pointed to all of the "bike paths" they had built in the park and their belief that cyclists didn't belong on the road. So the roads were built in ways that had no room for cyclists...not even a paved shoulder. But at the same time, the "bike paths" became more and more crowded and the county's language started referring to them as "multi-use paths" and eventually "pedestrian trails" or sidewalks. Walkers and joggers were prioritized over cyclists, and that is how we got to where we are now. If we had just added paved shoulders or real bike lanes to those roads in the first place, the incremental cost would have been much more reasonable and manageable. But now, trying to add such an accommodation within and/or around existing infrastructure is a much more expensive proposition.chimpanzee said:
Serious cycling as a hobby doesn't really fit into a crowded city. You're too fast for the sidewalks and too slow for the streets. The infrastructure can be built to accommodate you, but there are not nearly enough people interested in it to pay for the bike lanes/paths, it has to come from someone else that isn't going to benefit.
If the bike path network were fantastically planned, it would be really expensive and would get about three cars out of everyone else's way in this swamp city full of people that would only voluntarily raise their heart rate to run to a free cheeseburger.
I'd like it too, I used to be a pretty serious cyclist, I just think the numbers are vanishingly small in a city like Houston. I could be wrong, just my increasingly jaundiced view of my fellow Houstonians shining through.txags92 said:
And you are wrong about how much use a system would get...I would ride my bike to work down in westchase in a heartbeat if I could do so safely and get a shower once I got to the office, and I know quite a few others who would do the same. I am not some lefty dreamer who believes it would make a meaningful impact on traffic...it won't. But it would get more use than you think.
It only became a problem when Steve Raddack slapped 10 mph speed limits on the entire Terry Hershey and George Bush park trail systems on the west side and had his constables start writing tickets to cyclists that were more expensive than driving 60 through a school zone and could not be removed via defensive driving. Their justification was that cyclists were endangering pedestrians on the "bike path" by riding too fast. Sounds like maybe that has finally been reversed, but we will see.AndesAg92 said:
I put on my fairy little shorts with a butt pad last weekend and very much enjoyed a quick 11 mile ride. The park trail I rode was not super slammed. I don't get the *****ing about trail capacity etc. no need to be on inner loop streets
htxag09 said:
11 miles is one thing. But when you're doing substantially more it'd be nice to have options. I basically just do 100 miles on the picnic loop because it's the best option. Talk about boring as hell. Also, every Saturday isn't the same. Last Saturday the trails I ride weren't crowded at all. Do it again this Saturday, when the weather is actually nice, and get back to us.
