Audi drivers: usually some idiot with too much money BMW drivers: even bigger idiots with too much money and usually only one line as to why they havent bought a jaguar or lexus "they just arent well built because theyre not german" Skoda drivers: look at what you get for the money or dont care what they drive VW drivers: would have a opinion but his car broke down so he cant say it
Every 80/90s cheap car = someone that doesn't care about cars/new drivers BMW = Some of them are actually pretty bad drivers Big Station wagons (like the Fiat Marea SW, the Ford focus SW, Peugeot 406...) or cheap, unreliable, polluting hatchbacks/citycars from the 90s are associated with immigrants that often don't respect driving laws.
Poland: Fiat Punto mk1/2 - Either an absolute fan of this model, an elderly man or an 18yr old that just got their license and have bought this car from used car store or has it from their parents. They usually all respect driving law and are nice guys. VW Passat B5 - A Janusz - A man in his 40s/50s who is overly attached to money. He will buy this car because he wants his neighbor to think, that they are rich and make them jealous of their car. I didn't see a Janusz cause problems on the road. BMW E36 - An 18yr old who just got their license. They are ricers to the max, from the fake ///M stickers to spoilers like benches, they will do it all on their car. They don't respect driving law at all, they do power slides anywhere, drive through red lights and stick to the left lane, even if they are slower than the rest. Though, there are some enthusiasts of this model, that keep it in mint condition. Stay awesome, you legends!
Very common stereotype in Serbia: many drivers (especially ones who drive VAG cars) think that Italian cars are shit (especially Alfa Romeo), and also French. Alfa Romeos aren't bad cars, only most of them here are used ones. And when unskilled mechanics get thier hands dirty on Alfas, they are starting to brake a lot. Every car can be shit if you don't maintain it properly.
Own thread bump ACTIVATE! Any adult-size bicycle: "This looks like a great day to RUIN EVERYONE'S FUN! MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" There are two major stereotypes here. The first is the eco-smug new urbanist/Critical Mass rider who wants to un-invent the automobile because of emissions or "inefficiency". The other is the hardcore libertarian who at some point discovered he has the right to use conveyances other than cars on the road and apparently never bothered to think beyond that fact. The latter, when called out, will become angry and spew a bunch of philosophical gobbledygook that artfully dances around the fact that everyone else on the road wants to ram their fist down his throat. Either one is prone to being a "car guy bicyclist" which means they have some interest in cars but will side with the bikes 100% of the time when the two come into conflict. Maybe bicyclists genuinely don't understand how freakishly annoying they are to have around under any and all conditions. Maybe they just don't care. Maybe they actually enjoy backstabbing car culture and holding up traffic. Oh but I'm never in the way, I'm easy to pass, if you can't pass me you're a moron, I only take up 18 inches of the lane, oh and you still have a moral right to drive as fast as you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone yeah, as long as I treat the entire shoulder and at least a quarter of the lane itself as if it were radioactive because I have no way of knowing which blind zone you're going to be hiding in (at 30 MPH if I'm lucky and we aren't going uphill) this time, especially at night which is the exact opposite of how it should be! In either case, the result is the same. Just... if you see either one of these people, just give up on ever enjoying driving again. Like, actually sell whatever car you have and replace it with a 3-cylinder Geo Metro, except that even one of those is fast enough to be dangerous when these people (or their close cousins the hitchhiker and shoulder walker) are around. You will never get rid of them even if you do actually ban them, you will never successfully convince any to stop, and they will render every non-residential road within 50 miles of civilization (or more, if it has anything touristy about it) completely untrustworthy. I can't give up on ever enjoying driving again, and that's why it's easier to count the hours of the day when I'm not foaming-at-the-mouth angry. It's too late for me, but you can still save your own sanity... at least until the robocars take over... (If you can't tell I super don't like bicycles)
Oh yes, and here we get to the thing that no one really seems to understand: whatever their apologists may say to the contrary, bicycles are not normal traffic. They exist in this weird no-man's-land between a pedestrian and a motor vehicle, where they're just a little too fast to mix with the former but way too slow to mesh well with the latter. Of course, their defenders think it's the other way around; they work perfectly with both and anyone who thinks otherwise, whether it's a pedestrian who doesn't like getting blown off by bikes or a driver who isn't willing to stay in the center or left of their lane 24/7, is a selfish jerk for not recognizing that bicycles have first right to any place they can physically fit. Yes, please continue to tell us how drivers are the problem as you slog along at 20 MPH. Please continue to tell me I should "build my own roads" even though I'm not the one who adds danger to every crest and most corners. Please continue walking and riding on mostly-blind-completely-unlit mountain passes, freeways, 55PSL two-lanes, and any other blatantly stupid place you can imagine, while trusting that little blinky LED gizmo to tell people you're there any sooner than their own headlights will. Actually, please don't do any of those things. There are enough people doing that already. But really, I have to say, the most annoying part is the mentality. There is a certain mentality required to stride right past at least two perfectly functional automobiles and mount a bicycle instead, as someone I'm arguing with on and off elsewhere does. That mentality is, "If the infrastructure isn't built to provide space for cars and bicycles at the same time, then I'll just force my bicycle into the picture anyway and make everyone else put up with me! Nyah!" And so to your point... I'm perfectly fine accounting for other drivers. I wouldn't be constantly banging the don't-cut-the-center drum if I wasn't. The problem is, with nonmotorized traffic around, it may actually be safer to cut the center than to go anywhere near the shoulder in some situations, because you never know who might be getting their workout (or trying to thumb a ride) in the pitch blackness of 2:30 AM, and a lot of bicyclists won't even admit that it's a dumb idea to do so because then they'd be admitting that there is a time and place where bicycles don't have the highest possible priority. That's what I hate. I'm perfectly capable of driving in a way that accounts for the possible presence of nonmotorized road users, however I resent every last second of it - and moreso because I hardly used to see any, even on fairly residential roads, but now, well, not so much. (Also, what is it about bad weather that brings out the fat tire bikers? Do people actually enjoy riding through 33F wet snow?)
Legally, though, bicycles are treated the same way as drivers. They don’t count as pedestrians. At least where I’m from.
Yeah, well, so are motorhomes and no one likes them either. The difference being that motorhomes only hold you up instead of turning crests and corners into dice rolls. And are also a lot easier to see at a distance, especially at night.
I was told to walk against traffic, riding against it is definitely a bad idea. If you think you have it bad try avoiding them in an 8ft + wide semi truck. Really most of the roads around here don't have very many bicyclists because we have so many dedicated paths/trails. There are a lot that are for some reason drawn to "Bottle Bay" road though, which is about the most dangerous road to bicycle on as it's extremely windy and barely wide enough for two cars. What annoys me more though is all of the self righteous pedestrians and bicyclists who think they're pedestrians in our tourist trap of a town. Downtown is a zoo in the summer and I hate it.
In my opinion, bicycles should have to follow all laws, including being able to do at least the speed limit to be allowed on the road. They restrict the flow of traffic. The worst are the ones who ride right in the middle of the lane, and don’t even attempt to move over and let cars pass. Especially when they are in groups.
Ew, gross. See, that's the other thing... you can carp all you want about how the road isn't a racetrack and bicycles are regular traffic and blah blah blah blah blah (at this point I feel it would be pertinent to mention that I ultra hate sanctioned racing right now for many reasons which I will happily list if asked), but that's not going to help you when you come up against someone who barely fits on the road as it is... or maybe even a ridiculously wide load taking up the entire road surface and then some. Another trucker who has been a part of my elsewhere arguments confirms that a close call with such a load is very effective at permanently scaring bicyclists away from a given road. I know it would me. This is where I tell you about That One Guy who rejects the idea of dedicated bicycle facilities out of hand because he thinks they're a concession to safety moms and bad drivers, and who basically won't accept any solution that doesn't involve ruining great roads, either with ultra-wide shoulders or with himself taking up just enough of the road to be really freaking obnoxious. That's who I'm arguing with. Even besides that guy, though, there are a few other problems... 1. The NMT path falls apart because the geniuses who designed it forgot to make sure it wouldn't be underwater or nearly so through the winter and most of spring. 2. Someone is walking close to the road because they want someone to pick them up... 3. Or they just don't want to walk off to the side for some reason... 4. Or they're part of a herd of teenage girls walking multiple-abreast down the shoulder with their arms flapping over the shoulder line. Check what else is in the area. I've got a mountain road known as Hatcher Pass - a mountain road, singular - in my area which is just the best to drive on, except for the fact that the hikers, bicyclists, and other recreational non-drivers also love it. Extremely curvy, lanes are wide enough I guess except for that one blind hairpin, shoulder width is variable but is probably less than a foot in some places, grades are some of the steepest I've ever seen, it's technically paved but the surface is lumpy and cracked beyond belief. The problem is, while it feels secluded due to being in a park where no one can build, it's about 10-12 miles from the center of Wasilla and only about 2 miles if that from the edge of Wasilla's inexplicably massive (bedroom community) suburban sprawl, plus it connects to several trails and recreational-gold-panning areas, plus it leads to an abandoned mine which the state now runs as a tourist trap, all of which puts it right in target range for the kind of people who think that bicycling is actually fun or that asphalt is a good surface for hiking on. And now someone is going to build a stupid ski resort partway up because obviously that will make the situation so much better. If you want to have even a chance of escaping the nonmotorized plague, you have to go way out past Sutton and Chickaloon to the road the hardhats are going to start ruining next year. All others are full of houses now, including the one which was, once upon a time, the local Miata club's favorite. I must admit that I've not had so much trouble with bicyclists in the city, however other people certainly have and a bicyclist like you describe recently ate a windshield in Anchorage. He was riding the wrong way down a dark, icy road with (probably) no personal illumination, and blowing signals to boot. The impression I get, reading other people's accounts, is that a lot of urban bicyclists still have the mentality of a kid playing around the neighborhood on a BMX, except they forgot the part where their mother told them to get out of the way when an adult came through. Or maybe they just think their +2 Armor of Political Correctness translates into actual physical protection, and so now everyone else has an extra unpredictable hazard to deal with. A lot of the libertarians would disagree with you simply because they don't think numbers on a sign carry moral weight one way or the other. I do, however, think they make a pretty decent guide for how fast it's alright to expect people to be going under normal conditions. That's the other thing a lot of bicyclists don't get - even if a bicycle is technically a vehicle, it is 100% not my fault that you deliberately chose a vehicle that has to dawdle down the edge of the road because it can't keep up with traffic. But what about the people who can't drive for some reason Well, if those were the only people who walked or rode bikes, there probably wouldn't be that much of a problem. If you didn't have a choice, I suppose that's another thing, though I'd still prefer having dedicated bikeways so I don't have to worry about where you might be hiding. Even the hardcore libertarian bicyclist I've been arguing with doesn't like these people. Group riding is an annoyance exponent.
What does someone's political stance have to do with any of this? Bottom line is, don't be a dick when you're riding your bike, and don't be a dick to people who ride bikes, and everything will be fine.
1993 Pontiac Sunbird: Conspiracy theorist who believes electric cars and bicycles cause mental disabilities.
