WTF is wrong with people? 16-yo kid outside Houston tries to "roll coal" on cyclists, runs them over instead; walks free

[RPM 26682]

For everyone hating on the cyclists because they are too slow and in the way... I guess you're fine with 18 wheelers punting slower cars out of the way because they ain't got time for this shit.

[Enchubben 5600]

So I take it the cyclists not going to pay to reimburse the driver for damages to the truck?

[52-80 19377]

8 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’m pretty sure that the Roman Empire had concrete roads so that their armies could move about the empire easier. Doesn’t mean that roads are made for that purpose any longer, though they are still fit for that purpose. 

Roman roads were built to steer money to the automotive suspension industry

[G650 14453]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's basically these kinds of things right here. The 2 abreast thing is really bad on roads with heavy 2 way traffic.

Again, the law is 2 abreast.

 

And all yall need to quit arguing with Rex. The man is literally too stupid to insult

 

[Bevo 13932]

7 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

It’s not a dumb point. Roads wouldn’t be built without cars. Period.

Cyclists don’t have access to most major thoroughfares, and when they do, venturing on to them is retarded, dangerous, and incites problems. 

I know you and your ilk have an obvious sense of self-importance, but your inclusion in laws is an unnecessary evil, and really in many cases idiotic to appease a highly annoying vocal minority. 

12.4% of americans bike regularly and 100 million americans have biked at least once each year. Plus, there are 13 million motorcyles and 12 highly annoying Bird scooters. 5 scooters are in Lake Austin.

[Bevo 13932]

7 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Besides often observable blatant disregard for laws like stopping at stop signs, riding in packs instead of single file etc cyclists get rage because they create the paradigm breaking exceptions.  Dude has a 45-55 minute commute home, most of that is caused by bumper to bumper automobile traffic on the highways he takes. He accepts this, it sucks but he accepts it because it's there every day, like clockwork.  It's part of the paradigm.  But let's say on Tuesday dude is 40 minutes into his trip gets off the highway for the last leg on the side streets to the house and finds that he is being impeded by a pack of 6 cyclists on a two lane, yet busy street.  The paradigm has broken.  Yea the bumper to bumper traffic sucked, but that's every day....now I gotta spend an extra 10 minutes slow rolling at 15 mph while these folks block the whole road for their exercise when all the rest of us are just trying to get home.  Right wrong or otherwise folks will accept things that are a norm and part of their routine....not so much those that are not.   

Oh, I'm pretty sure you would be enraged by a soccer mom waiting for a red light to turn green before making her right turn or a cement truck or trash truck being in front of you for the entirety of your drive or a F350 tailgating you or weaving at 85 through traffic. Or 2 cars driving side by side on the local street 10mph under the speed limit or rubberneckers or 18 wheelers in the fast lane or traffic caused by a beater waiting to turn into an overcrowded McDonald's drive through or road construction or having your wife tell you where to turn while she drives with you on your daily commute.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Bevo

[GW Hayduke 1957]

7 hours ago, boilerhorn said:

I'll save everyone the effort and put the 7 bullets here:

1. Greener - no CO2 emissions
2. Plus no gas money
3. You get tons of exercise
4. Parking's rarely a problem
5. More social (stop riding and talk to people you pass - HUH?)
6. They are cheaper (citing the $100 mech-shit variant you buy from Target)
7. Yes to helmets, no to insurance.

Good stuff here.  

I think most of the bicycle hate isn't about cyclists following traffic laws.  The angst is because too many DT folks are fat and selfish.  They feel they have a right to drive the speed limit while smashing a BigMac into their face, so having having to drive 20 mph and be reminded of their obesity is some kind of triggered tyranny.  Dangerous stuff actually.  Too many instances of road rage, bicycle victims, and coronary disease.  Get off your fat ass people.    

[ChickenSandwich 9986]

8 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Besides often observable blatant disregard for laws like stopping at stop signs, riding in packs instead of single file etc cyclists get rage because they create the paradigm breaking exceptions.  Dude has a 45-55 minute commute home, most of that is caused by bumper to bumper automobile traffic on the highways he takes. He accepts this, it sucks but he accepts it because it's there every day, like clockwork.  It's part of the paradigm.  But let's say on Tuesday dude is 40 minutes into his trip gets off the highway for the last leg on the side streets to the house and finds that he is being impeded by a pack of 6 cyclists on a two lane, yet busy street.  The paradigm has broken.  Yea the bumper to bumper traffic sucked, but that's every day....now I gotta spend an extra 10 minutes slow rolling at 15 mph while these folks block the whole road for their exercise when all the rest of us are just trying to get home.  Right wrong or otherwise folks will accept things that are a norm and part of their routine....not so much those that are not.   

No, no. Those cyclist are rich and have 4 cars, therefore pay more taxes. The poors like this fella need to know their place and be more respectful of the wealthy cyclist who have clearly paid for the right to exercise in traffic and the road he “enjoys” to get home. Ungrateful SOB

Edited October 1, 2021 by ChickenSandwich

[Willfully Horn 8289]

39 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

No, no. Those cyclist are rich and have 4 cars, therefore pay more taxes. The poors like this fella need to know their place and be more respectful of the wealthy cyclist who have clearly paid for the right to exercise in traffic and the road he “enjoys” to get home. Ungrateful SOB

My take is a biker is so fit, and so conscientious, they’d run their bike up who steep hills, (off road), and manage 60% of their pedal speed, and relieve dozens of commuters of the need to travel 25% of theirs. Think of the gain of productivity for the economy. A biker bikes for the greater good, after all. It’s a blessing there are no bikers who hate cars and trucks and seek to make driving as inconvenient as possible. Lord knows they could be seen as righteous whenever they can slow traffic to the speed of the pedal.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Edit

[NoRagrets 1141]

Coal rollers should be castrated as a prophylactic measure against future date rapers and child abusers. 

[RPM 26682]

CSB Time. The last time I rode a bike I was in 2000 and I got run over by a Dodge pickup while in a marked ped crossing and with the light. Asshole wanted to make a fast right on red. The only thing that saved me was that goat head hood ornament. I literally had a death grip on it.

[Surly Bevo 25785]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

Oh, I'm pretty sure you would be enraged by a soccer mom waiting for a red light to turn green before making her right turn or a cement truck or trash truck being in front of you for the entirety of your drive or a F350 tailgating you or weaving at 85 through traffic. Or 2 cars driving side by side on the local street 10mph under the speed limit or rubberneckers or 18 wheelers in the fast lane or traffic caused by a beater waiting to turn into an overcrowded McDonald's drive through or road construction or having your wife tell you where to turn while she drives with you on your daily commute.

Me personally enraged? No. Sometimes annoyed with some of those things well yea. I’m sure others could get enraged and do something stupid and dangerous in response to their anger and not saying any of that kind of action is right was just pointing out what creates the sentiment. 
 

But thanks for helping me make my point by attacking me and lumping  in bicyclists and how they break acceptable norms with soccer moms who can’t drive, needle dicks with oversized trucks they don’t need, rubberneckers etc.   

Edited October 1, 2021 by Surly Bevo

[midtown 3357]

It's like some of you woke up from a 200 year coma and all of sudden there are these things call bikes.    They aren't new nor is their shared use of roads.  As a motorist you have a legal responsibility to avoid endangering or injuring bikes, pedestrians, grandmas, and avoiding any accident even if the counter party is in the wrong.  Some of you guys just decided the law as it pertains to bikes doesn't apply to you.   Roads all over Texas have these "share the road" signs.  They are everywhere. Like many have said we are all inconvenienced every day on the roads with all kinds of things.   Slow moving vehicles, pedestrians, construction, big trucks, bikes, animals, etc.   No one on surlys job or wherever you are going to is so important that you can't take 10 seconds out of your day to legally and safely maneuver around a bike.  And it's not like this is some brand new law that all of a sudden grants bikes the use of the roads.  They been allowed to operate on roads since everyone on here has had a drivers license. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

59 minutes ago, G650 said:

Again, the law is 2 abreast.

 

And all yall need to quit arguing with Rex. The man is literally too stupid to insult

 

I know it is, and I think it's a bad law.  There are some curvy, narrow roads, around here that bikers like to ride, and the 2 abreast thing is dangerous for everyone involved. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

Good stuff here.  

I think most of the bicycle hate isn't about cyclists following traffic laws.  The angst is because too many DT folks are fat and selfish.  They feel they have a right to drive the speed limit while smashing a BigMac into their face, so having having to drive 20 mph and be reminded of their obesity is some kind of triggered tyranny.  Dangerous stuff actually.  Too many instances of road rage, bicycle victims, and coronary disease.  Get off your fat ass people.    

Yeah Big Macs, obesity, and bikes don't really correlate here.  I don;t rage on a guy on a bike because it reminds me I need to get more fitness.  I'm not envious of you sport, neither are 99.99% of the rest of us..  2 Bikes Taking up half a lane and causing traffic to back up behind them is my main gripe. That, and bikes blowing thru intersections, and where I work that's almost a daily occurrence .

 

The lengths you guys will go to to justify your hobby is funny.

[Hate 20271]

10 minutes ago, midtown said:

It's like some of you woke up from a 200 year coma and all of sudden there are these things call bikes.    They aren't new nor is their shared use of roads.  As a motorist you have a legal responsibility to avoid endangering or injuring bikes, pedestrians, grandmas, and avoiding any accident even if the counter party is in the wrong.  Some of you guys just decided the law as it pertains to bikes doesn't apply to you.   Roads all over Texas have these "share the road" signs.  They are everywhere. Like many have said we are all inconvenienced every day on the roads with all kinds of things.   Slow moving vehicles, pedestrians, construction, big trucks, bikes, animals, etc.   No one on surlys job or wherever you are going to is so important that you can't take 10 seconds out of your day to legally and safely maneuver around a bike.  And it's not like this is some brand new law that all of a sudden grants bikes the use of the roads.  They been allowed to operate on roads since everyone on here has had a drivers license. 

NO ONE IS ARGUING THE LEGALITY OF RIDING A BIKE ON A PUBLIC ROAD. STOP MAKING THIS ARGUMENT.  WHAT SOME POSTERS ARE SAYING IS THAT COMMON SENSE WOULD DICTATE THAT YOU DON'T PLAY IN TRAFFIC.

[idigTexas 2332]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah Big Macs, obesity, and bikes don't really correlate here.  I don;t rage on a guy on a bike because it reminds me I need to get more fitness.  I'm not envious of you sport, neither are 99.99% of the rest of us..  2 Bikes Taking up half a lane and causing traffic to back up behind them is my main gripe. That, and bikes blowing thru intersections, and where I work that's almost a daily occurrence .

 

The lengths you guys will go to to justify your hobby is funny.

The lengths you guys will go to to paint all cyclists with the same brush as the bad apples is not funny.  It's sad.

And it's not a hobby.  It's a lifestyle.  

[midtown 3357]

7 minutes ago, Hate said:

NO ONE IS ARGUING THE LEGALITY OF RIDING A BIKE ON A PUBLIC ROAD. STOP MAKING THIS ARGUMENT.  WHAT SOME POSTERS ARE SAYING IS THAT COMMON SENSE WOULD DICTATE THAT YOU DON'T PLAY IN TRAFFIC.

Bullshit.  Several on here are upset because I said I ride a hilly road with a complete and total usable SECOND lane for passing me and that bikes out on country roads are a problem.  It's not just about commuters.  There are many on here and in general who don't think bikes should be able to use roads because "they don't pay taxes" and "aren't registered"

Edited October 1, 2021 by midtown

[idigTexas 2332]

3 minutes ago, Hate said:

NO ONE IS ARGUING THE LEGALITY OF RIDING A BIKE ON A PUBLIC ROAD. STOP MAKING THIS ARGUMENT.  WHAT SOME POSTERS ARE SAYING IS THAT COMMON SENSE WOULD DICTATE THAT YOU DON'T PLAY IN TRAFFIC.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.  Now we understand.  Hey, everyone, riding on roads is dangerous.  We should stop doing that, okay?  

[ChickenSandwich 9986]

4 minutes ago, midtown said:

Bullshit.  Several on here are upset because I said I ride a hilly road with a complete and total usable SECOND lane for passing me and that bikes out on country roads are a problem.  It's not just about commuters

Check your privilege 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

What the cyclists in the OP were doing is fine, it’s a 4 lane road.   Dangerous, yes as evidenced by what happened.  It’s legal. I’m an extremely tolerant person, nowadays.   But I still think people riding on a two-lane road with no shoulder (fitzhugh/101) where there is no passing for 8 miles, is stupid. People who bike that are like the unvaccinated.  FAFO.  

[Hate 20271]

5 minutes ago, idigTexas said:

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.  Now we understand.  Hey, everyone, riding on roads is dangerous.  We should stop doing that, okay?  

[GW Hayduke 1957]

15 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah Big Macs, obesity, and bikes don't really correlate here.  I don;t rage on a guy on a bike because it reminds me I need to get more fitness.  I'm not envious of you sport, neither are 99.99% of the rest of us..  2 Bikes Taking up half a lane and causing traffic to back up behind them is my main gripe. That, and bikes blowing thru intersections, and where I work that's almost a daily occurrence .

 

The lengths you guys will go to to justify your hobby is funny.

Yeah, your main gripe is selfishness.  It definitely isn't your obesity.  

The reason two cyclists take up an entire lane, the reason one cyclist takes up an entire lane, is because that is the law and that is the safest method of travel.  When there isn't a bike lane or a safe shoulder, a cyclist should take up an entire lane.   It is unsafe for a cyclist and an automobile to use/share the same lane.  It is the law that the automobile change lanes to move around the cyclist. A cyclists not taking the entire lane is inviting a vehicle into his lane and is inviting danger.

The reality is a lot of our roads have shoulders and an increasing number of them are getting bike lanes. Cyclists do not typically need to use vehicle lanes on those corridors; however, they do need to merge to the left to make turns at intersections, etc. on those type of corridors.  The reality is that on 4 lane corridors without a bike lane or safe shoulder, a cyclist is entitled to and should for his own preservation take up an entire lane, forcing vehicles to move into the middle lane to pass. Not all vehicle drivers are ignorant to that fact, but those on the DT board should get on board with this.  Cyclists shouldn't typically be on high speed corridors with only two lanes and no shoulders.  Cyclists should be on and take up the entire lane on lower speed two lane corridors with no shoulders.  

 

[idigTexas 2332]

5 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

What the cyclists in the OP were doing is fine, it’s a 4 lane road.   Dangerous, yes as evidenced by what happened.  It’s legal. I’m an extremely tolerant person, nowadays.   But I still think people riding on a two-lane road with no shoulder (fitzhugh/101) where there is no passing for 8 miles, is stupid. People who bike that are like the unvaccinated.  FAFO.  

Fitzhugh is one of the most prized roads to ride in that part of town.  Unfortunately, it has become more heavily traveled.  When I was still riding it had already become a "Sunday mornings only" ride for me.  More and more favorite routes are sadly ending up that way.  Austin isn't the sleepy little college town it once was.  This has pushed many group rides further into the countryside, where you mostly find two-lane roads with no shoulders, but with far less traffic.  As the population continues to boom, "countryside" is disappearing as well, and the rural roads that haven't been improved get more traffic.  Cyclists still ride these roads because it is what they know, but it is definitely getting more dangerous, and finding alternative routes is a challenge.    

[Tylerocks 2603]

25 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

What the cyclists in the OP were doing is fine, it’s a 4 lane road.   Dangerous, yes as evidenced by what happened.  It’s legal. I’m an extremely tolerant person, nowadays.   But I still think people riding on a two-lane road with no shoulder (fitzhugh/101) where there is no passing for 8 miles, is stupid. People who bike that are like the unvaccinated.  FAFO.  

This happened because of one dipshit driver.

I'm sure the group of cyclists were passed by hundreds of cars without incident.  The danger came when that dipshit kid decided to fuck with them.  If the kid keeps driving, there is no story.  The danger was 100% brought on by the driver.

[BabaYaga 15632]

20 minutes ago, Tylerocks said:

This happened because of one dipshit driver.

I'm sure the group of cyclists were passed by hundreds of cars without incident.  The danger came when that dipshit kid decided to fuck with them.  If the kid keeps driving, there is no story.  The danger was 100% brought on by the driver.

You new around here?  We have to make sweeping generalizations about entire segments of the population and anecdotal attributions.  Come on man.  This is Surly.  Nobosy tap dances on a fucking pin head like us.  

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

52 minutes ago, idigTexas said:

The lengths you guys will go to to paint all cyclists with the same brush as the bad apples is not funny.  It's sad.

And it's not a hobby.  It's a lifestyle.  

Your lifestyle shouldn’t impact my life and and vice versa of course.
 

I don’t Lump all bike riders in with the same crowd there are plenty of bikers the follow  the rules Of the road are I used to ride a bike a lot, stayed out the way didn’t get in peoples way followed the rules of the road.

surly is all about exaggeration hyperbole pushing people‘s buttons at times  so I’m not lumping every biker in with the assholes just like I’m not lumping every bad driver in with good drivers

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

35 minutes ago, Tylerocks said:

This happened because of one dipshit driver.

I'm sure the group of cyclists were passed by hundreds of cars without incident.  The danger came when that dipshit kid decided to fuck with them.  If the kid keeps driving, there is no story.  The danger was 100% brought on by the driver.

FWIW I have no problem with the the guys riding on a four lane, and the kid should get the book slammed on him.   99% of us are in agreement on this.  

[Capt. Squints 176]

6 hours ago, RPM said:

For everyone hating on the cyclists because they are too slow and in the way... I guess you're fine with 18 wheelers punting slower cars out of the way because they ain't got time for this shit.

Why can't we hate both?

[MissingInActionToo 1]

On 9/28/2021 at 1:55 PM, MissingInAction said:

Was it one of those 1.5 lane County roads? If so then I've wanted to do the same damn thing to a bunch of bikers

 

Fuck yeah, bro!  Bikers suck!  I'm so sick of seeing those ghey dudes blocking traffic wearing spandex and shit.

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by MissingInActionToo

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

50 minutes ago, idigTexas said:

Fitzhugh is one of the most prized roads to ride in that part of town.  Unfortunately, it has become more heavily traveled.  When I was still riding it had already become a "Sunday mornings only" ride for me.  More and more favorite routes are sadly ending up that way.  Austin isn't the sleepy little college town it once was.  This has pushed many group rides further into the countryside, where you mostly find two-lane roads with no shoulders, but with far less traffic.  As the population continues to boom, "countryside" is disappearing as well, and the rural roads that haven't been improved get more traffic.  Cyclists still ride these roads because it is what they know, but it is definitely getting more dangerous, and finding alternative routes is a challenge.    

It’s a beating in a car, what with all the breweries, distilleries and wineries, let alone immamacs house.  I can’t imagine what possesses people to want to bike it these days.  I commuted that way for over 10 years, couldn’t do it now.  

[F250 29209]

This thread is ages like a fine wine.

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 minutes ago, F250 said:

This thread is ages like a fine wine.

 

 

More like a hoppy beer left open in 100 degree temps....

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

Yeah, your main gripe is selfishness. 

This is…perfect. 
 

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

Cyclists shouldn't typically be on high speed corridors with only two lanes and no shoulders. 

Yet they constantly are, and are 75% of what people are complaining about. As noted several times, it’s the delta in speed that is the issue.  People would be bitching just as much if it were assholes imitating Tiger Woods while driving their golf carts on these roads. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 22328]

14 hours ago, midtown said:

As has been mentioned. Roads were created long before the car. They were created to allow moving vehicles to move about more efficiently.

Feel free to drive your horse and buggy down interstate 10 and let me know how it works out

[midtown 3357]

1 minute ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Feel free to drive your horse and buggy down interstate 10 and let me know how it works out

Interstates have minimum speeds so that would be illegal

[phdhorn 6225]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yet they constantly are, and are 75% of what people are complaining about. As noted several times, it’s the delta in speed that is the issue.  

This is the key.  I posted the law a few pages back, which clearly states that unless the cyclists can keep up "reasonable and normal" speed with the rest of traffic, they're not allowed to ride 2 abreast, and must get to the very right side (or very left is ok if there is > 1 one-way lane) and allow vehicles to pass, and those vehicles aren't required to change lanes.  They're not entitled to an entire lane unless the road is very narrow (about < 14 ft.).

The law is quite clear that bikes are allowed to share the road with motor vehicles, but not equally in most cases, unless they can keep up speed at all times with the normal flow of traffic.  Check back to my post or look up TTC Sec. 551.103, esp. (a) and (c).

[GW Hayduke 1957]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

This is…perfect. 
 

Yet they constantly are, and are 75% of what people are complaining about. As noted several times, it’s the delta in speed that is the issue.  People would be bitching just as much if it were assholes imitating Tiger Woods while driving their golf carts on these roads. 

The triggered angst against cyclists here is blaming them for "not following the rules or disregarding traffic laws" although very few here know the actual rules or laws or blaming them for "taking up an entire lane and causing inconvenience."

The DT heads here are triggered about bikes taking up an entire lane irrespective of number of lanes.  See the comments throughout this thread.  The DT head, the subject of this thread that tried to roll coal, was triggered on a 4 lane facility.  He was likely triggered out of selfishness driven by ignorance, which is also reflected throughout this thread.

It is true there are some very low income folks that don't have access to a vehicle and are forced to ride on a high speed corridor with only 2 lanes and no shoulders.  That really sucks for that person.  They should probably just walk.  It is not a common occurrence though.

Roadies that train with mileage and commuters that use bikes for transit to/from work do not frequent those type of facilities, except in very limited rare cases.  The reason they don't frequent those corridors is that they are dangerous, but when they do ride those dangerous corridors it is for limited stretches and to get to safer corridors. Either way, the law still allows them to use those facilities, and that triggered angst against those limited number of riders is driven by selfishness.  

[Bevo 13932]

2 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Me personally enraged? No. Sometimes annoyed with some of those things well yea. I’m sure others could get enraged and do something stupid and dangerous in response to their anger and not saying any of that kind of action is right was just pointing out what creates the sentiment. 
 

But thanks for helping me make my point by attacking me and lumping  in bicyclists and how they break acceptable norms with soccer moms who can’t drive, needle dicks with oversized trucks they don’t need, rubberneckers etc.   

Attack. Come on. That is Surly talk for best buds.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

20 minutes ago, midtown said:

Interstates have minimum speeds so that would be illegal

Just admit that you inconvenience a huge part of society because you’re a dick, and we can live with that. You’re still a dick.   

[GW Hayduke 1957]

5 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

The law is quite clear that bikes are allowed to share the road with motor vehicles, but not equally in most cases, unless they can keep up speed at all times with the normal flow of traffic.  Check back to my post or look up TTC Sec. 551.103, esp. (a) and (c).

I don't think the law implies that at all.  There is no obligation to travel the same speed as a vehicle, except when riding two abreast.  A cyclist traveling slower than the vehicles still obtains full right of a lane.  A rider can't take up an inside lane unless passing or making a left hand movement.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;

(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;

(3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or

(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:

(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or

(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I don't think the law implies that at all.  There is no obligation to travel the same speed as a vehicle, except when riding two abreast.  A cyclist traveling slower than the vehicles still obtains full right of a lane.  A rider can't take up an inside lane unless passing or making a left hand movement.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;

(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;

(3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or

(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:

(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or

(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

Don’t be an asshole, just because you are allowed to.  Unwritten law.   

[phdhorn 6225]

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I don't think the law implies that at all.  There is no obligation to travel the same speed as a vehicle, except when riding two abreast.  A cyclist traveling slower than the vehicles still obtains full right of a lane.  A rider can't take up an inside lane unless passing or making a left hand movement.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

 

This is pretty clear. That's the rule, not the exceptions which you included, and it applies to all cyclists, tandem or not ("a person" is singular).  Rule (4) only applies to narrow roads, and there are a lot of them where cyclists ride but in general the great majority of roads with vehicular traffic aren't those.  This is definitely the law.

A cyclist cannot ride two abreast, nor in the middle of a lane (even if solo), unless they can ride at the normal speed of traffic, with those exceptions in the code.

Edited October 1, 2021 by phdhorn

[midtown 3357]

Just admit that you inconvenience a huge part of society because you’re a dick, and we can live with that. You’re still a dick.   

I'm a dick because I know that interstates have minimum speeds and therefore are off limits to bikes?

[GW Hayduke 1957]

Just now, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Don’t be an asshole, just because you are allowed to.  Unwritten law.   

It isn't about being an asshole. It is about traveling safely on a corridor.  In most cases it is entirely unsafe for both a cyclist and an automobile/truck to share the same 10-14 foot wide lane.  That is just a fact and reality.  A cyclist that does not ride the middle of a lane invites a truck/car to ride in the lane, invites an unsafe condition. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

1 minute ago, midtown said:

14 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Just admit that you inconvenience a huge part of society because you’re a dick, and we can live with that. You’re still a dick.   

I'm a dick because I know that interstates have minimum speeds and therefore are off limits to bikes?

Meh I wasn’t trying to pick on you in particular.  Sorry for the collateral damage. I was just saying there are times and places for things, and some people don’t choose wisely. 

[GW Hayduke 1957]

3 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

This is pretty clear. That's the rule, not the exceptions which you included, and it applies to all cyclists, tandem or not.  Rule (4) only applies to narrow roads, and there are a lot of them where cyclists ride but in general the great majority of roads with vehicular traffic aren't those.

A cyclist cannot ride two abreast, nor in the middle of a lane, unless they can ride at the normal speed of traffic, with those exceptions in the code.

Yeah, and those exceptions give a rider the right to an entire lane, to ride in the middle of it, when the lane of any width is "too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side" even when going slower than traffic.  In virtually all situations, a 14' wide lane (which is the widest lane TxDOT builds) is too narrow for both a bike and car to travel side by side in the same lane.   

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

Yeah, and those exceptions give a rider the right to an entire lane, to ride in the middle of it, when the lane of any width is "too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side" even when going slower than traffic.  In virtually all situations, a 14' wide lane (which is the widest lane TxDOT builds) is too narrow for both a bike and car to travel side by side in the same lane.   

Ya know farm equipment will take up a lane, and will pull over to allow vehicles to pass... Bikers say fuck you I'm just gonna hold your ass up so I can live my lifestyle.  THAT is the gripe. Bikes slow normal traffic to a crawl in too many cases and it causes potentially dangerous situation for oncoming traffic as vehicles have too swing wide left to pass them.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

3 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Yeah, and those exceptions give a rider the right to an entire lane, to ride in the middle of it, when the lane of any width is "too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side" even when going slower than traffic.  In virtually all situations, a 14' wide lane (which is the widest lane TxDOT builds) is too narrow for both a bike and car to travel side by side in the same lane.   

 

[52-80 19377]

All of these things can be simultaneously true:

1. Gov needs need better dictate and signal where bikes aren't allowed.

2. Bikers should not be riding on 290 Business. 

3. Bikers riding on 290 Business on a Saturday morning was absolutely not a nuisance to motorists. 

4. Unless there is an extremely broad and clean shoulder, the safest and best compromise for motorists and riders is for rider 1/3rd into the lane: more visible, discourages squeezing/buzzing, but allows an easy pass.