Nick Offerman(Ron from Parks and Rec) article about cycling and the outdoors

[mstateglfr]

https://www.outsideonline.com/cultur...eau-candy-***/
Since some on here are cyclists and many on here enjoy the outdoors- hunt, canoe, hike, etc I thought it may be interesting.


I would follow Ron Swanson into battle and trust it was for a just cause!
All seriousness, that was a really interesting article and I enjoyed reading it
Offerman is a fascinating guy- married a long time, very well known actor from many tv shows and voiced movies, well known for a hobby in addition to actor, and seems to be a well reasoned person. I dont drink, but would absolutely have a beer if I got to sit with him in a group at a bar.
The quote below resonated with me.

The particular stripes of dumb in these two anecdotes strike me as having originated in the same fragile place as the urge to call a great naturalist and writer a candy-***: A place of insecurity, fear, disappointment, and pain. A place of weakness. I sense that demeaning podcast hosts and cyclist-hating drivers come from a culture of bullying and aggression, one that so often misunderstands our need for outdoor adventure. For me, getting on a bike or into a canoe, or even just taking a hike, is not something I do to impress anybody with my toughness or masculinity. Quite the opposite: it’s what I do to escape those kinds of domestic and cultural stressors, to try and approach the world with empathy despite my human propensity to cause others pain.

 

[vhdawg]

Link doesn't work because of the *** in it....to read you'll have to fix it manually.

 

[mstateglfr]

on3 strikes again.

 

[stateu1]

https://www.outsideonline.com/cultur...eau-candy-***/
Since some on here are cyclists and many on here enjoy the outdoors- hunt, canoe, hike, etc I thought it may be interesting.


I would follow Ron Swanson into battle and trust it was for a just cause!
All seriousness, that was a really interesting article and I enjoyed reading it
Offerman is a fascinating guy- married a long time, very well known actor from many tv shows and voiced movies, well known for a hobby in addition to actor, and seems to be a well reasoned person. I dont drink, but would absolutely have a beer if I got to sit with him in a group at a bar.
The quote below resonated with me.

I didn't read, but we were in Europe-France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany a couple of weeks ago, and the amount of cyclists was staggering. If people rode bikes like that around here, there would be countless deaths. Damn shame.

 

[mstateglfr]

I didn't read, but we were in Europe-France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany a couple of weeks ago, and the amount of cyclists was staggering. If people rode bikes like that around here, there would be countless deaths. Damn shame.

Its a damn shame there would be countless deaths because otherwise it would be great to have more people riding in the US?
Or its a damn shame for a different reason?

Amsterdam and similar cities are often cited as how transportation infrastructure should change in the US and while its really neat to see a different way from what we have in the US, I just dont see that as reasonable in the US. Very few US cities are as densely populated as Amsterdam and that is a crucial part of why fewer motor vehicles works over there- population density is so high. That plus its flat as can be.

A counter to your comment on the result over here being countless deaths- perhaps with more people commuting via bike in the US, there would be more learned awareness by drivers, less hostility, and a reduction in deaths per miles ridden. There is a tipping point when critical mass is reached, and perhaps society's tipping point for safer driving would come thru more alternative commuting practices.
...or maybe that is total BS and roads would be just as unsafe as they are now. I really dont know.

To your point though, the amount of cyclists in parts of Europe is staggering. Amsterdam has parking garages for bikes and built an underwater facility too. Its crazy to see so much order to the chaos.

 

[johnson86-1]

https://www.outsideonline.com/cultur...eau-candy-***/
Since some on here are cyclists and many on here enjoy the outdoors- hunt, canoe, hike, etc I thought it may be interesting.


I would follow Ron Swanson into battle and trust it was for a just cause!
All seriousness, that was a really interesting article and I enjoyed reading it
Offerman is a fascinating guy- married a long time, very well known actor from many tv shows and voiced movies, well known for a hobby in addition to actor, and seems to be a well reasoned person. I dont drink, but would absolutely have a beer if I got to sit with him in a group at a bar.
The quote below resonated with me.

I feel like the drivers hating cyclists doesn't come from insecurity or bullying or aggressiveness or whatever but from drivers having to deal with entitled cyclists. Much of US road infrastructure is just inappropriate for cyclists and automobiles to share. The roads are designed for people getting somewhere in a hurry, and when a cyclist is on there going 20 to 30 mph below the natural flow of traffic, stopping people from getting to work or other appointments timely because they want to engage in a hobby, people hate them. The fact that it may be legal for them to do so doesn't make people hate them any less.

Most places outside of reasonably dense cities, it'd be more functional for cyclists and pedestrians to share the sidewalk than cyclists to share the road.

Now our hatred of roller bladers, that is a deep seated anger not related to any action on their part. Maybe that comes from a culture of bullying and aggression.**

 

[CochiseCowbell]

This feels apropos.

 

[stateu1]

Its a damn shame there would be countless deaths because otherwise it would be great to have more people riding in the US?
Or its a damn shame for a different reason?

Amsterdam and similar cities are often cited as how transportation infrastructure should change in the US and while its really neat to see a different way from what we have in the US, I just dont see that as reasonable in the US. Very few US cities are as densely populated as Amsterdam and that is a crucial part of why fewer motor vehicles works over there- population density is so high. That plus its flat as can be.

A counter to your comment on the result over here being countless deaths- perhaps with more people commuting via bike in the US, there would be more learned awareness by drivers, less hostility, and a reduction in deaths per miles ridden. There is a tipping point when critical mass is reached, and perhaps society's tipping point for safer driving would come thru more alternative commuting practices.
...or maybe that is total BS and roads would be just as unsafe as they are now. I really dont know.

To your point though, the amount of cyclists in parts of Europe is staggering. Amsterdam has parking garages for bikes and built an underwater facility too. Its crazy to see so much order to the chaos.

It's a damn shame that we as Americans have to fear for our lives whilst riding a bike. Tour guide said there were more bikes than people in Amsterdam.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

Guess you're sharing this in hopes we'll be inspired to start riding our bikes more so we can protect your and Greta's precious environment.
Go ahead and share the electric-cars-lead-to-greater-happiness article next, Wavy Gravy.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Its a damn shame there would be countless deaths because otherwise it would be great to have more people riding in the US?
Or its a damn shame for a different reason?

Amsterdam and similar cities are often cited as how transportation infrastructure should change in the US and while its really neat to see a different way from what we have in the US, I just dont see that as reasonable in the US. Very few US cities are as densely populated as Amsterdam and that is a crucial part of why fewer motor vehicles works over there- population density is so high. That plus its flat as can be.

A counter to your comment on the result over here being countless deaths- perhaps with more people commuting via bike in the US, there would be more learned awareness by drivers, less hostility, and a reduction in deaths per miles ridden. There is a tipping point when critical mass is reached, and perhaps society's tipping point for safer driving would come thru more alternative commuting practices.
...or maybe that is total BS and roads would be just as unsafe as they are now. I really dont know.

To your point though, the amount of cyclists in parts of Europe is staggering. Amsterdam has parking garages for bikes and built an underwater facility too. Its crazy to see so much order to the chaos.

I’ve seen that parking garage in person. It’s something to behold. Cyclists in Amsterdam also get hit by cars regularly. Usually, at low speeds that don’t result in deaths. If I lived close enough to work, like most in Amsterdam, and the temps weren’t what they are here, I’d ride a bike to work.

 

[mstateglfr]

I feel like the drivers hating cyclists doesn't come from insecurity or bullying or aggressiveness or whatever but from drivers having to deal with entitled cyclists. Much of US road infrastructure is just inappropriate for cyclists and automobiles to share. The roads are designed for people getting somewhere in a hurry, and when a cyclist is on there going 20 to 30 mph below the natural flow of traffic, stopping people from getting to work or other appointments timely because they want to engage in a hobby, people hate them. The fact that it may be legal for them to do so doesn't make people hate them any less.

Most places outside of reasonably dense cities, it'd be more functional for cyclists and pedestrians to share the sidewalk than cyclists to share the road.

Now our hatred of roller bladers, that is a deep seated anger not related to any action on their part. Maybe that comes from a culture of bullying and aggression.**

A hearty nod of approval for that last comment.


As for cycling, I really didnt intend for this thread to be a cyclists vs cagers debate as I thought the article would speak to multiple people here who have full time jobs but still try to get out into nature, etc etc.

With that said, it appears to be a bit of a cyclists vs cagers discussion now. Metro roads that I ride are either 1 lane 2 way and relatively quiet or 2 lane 2 way so there is a lane for vehicles to use and easily pass me. If someone has ever been late to an appt due to me riding, it because I delayed them 3 seconds. That is not an exaggeration.

The speed limit is just that- the limit. It isnt called the speed minimum, so if you come upon something moving under the limit, you wait to pass it safely- bus, mail truck, bike, hazmat vehicle at RRX, tractor, etc. This comes into play on rural roads especially since it isnt uncommon to slow down for any of those things.
Auto lobby did a number on Americans 100 years ago with propaganda ads and while that really changed how many in society view anything that may slow them down by seconds during a drive, reality is that slower moving options mentioned above are allowed.
Its just a matter of perspective. You used the term 'entitled' as a pejorative when it really is just an accurate view of the issue- cyclists are entitled to road use. You(and/or others) are angry that they do what they are allowed to do. Instead, why not accept that they are doing what they are allowed to do? Seems like a you problem more than a them problem.

As for the claim that it is more functional for cyclists to share the sidewalk with people walking and running, that is bonkers. A sidewalk is one of the least safe places for a cyclist- it isnt safe to ride a sidewalk at 20mph with cars backing up out of driveways, having to cross sidestreets and navigate cars on those side streets wanting to turn and pulled out too far, blind hedges, walkers, dogs, runners, etc.

Lastly, you mention they are engaging in a hobby and that somehow makes it unacceptable/unjustifiable. So are you OK with those who cycle for transportation? That is what so many in Europe do and that is the context for the post that you responded to- the pictures I posted earlier are of parking garages for bikes because those are for transportation and not a hobby. Does that make a difference to you or are you just cranky about any bike legally using a road regardless of reason?

To be clear, I hold no anger towards vehicles and use 'cagers' in a joking manner. I drive most every day and love my car.

 

[vhdawg]

I feel like the drivers hating cyclists doesn't come from insecurity or bullying or aggressiveness or whatever but from drivers having to deal with entitled cyclists. Much of US road infrastructure is just inappropriate for cyclists and automobiles to share. The roads are designed for people getting somewhere in a hurry, and when a cyclist is on there going 20 to 30 mph below the natural flow of traffic, stopping people from getting to work or other appointments timely because they want to engage in a hobby, people hate them. The fact that it may be legal for them to do so doesn't make people hate them any less.

Like when they do it on the Natchez Trace Parkway in Ridgeland when there's literally a bicycle path right over there through the trees.

 

[mstateglfr]

Guess you're sharing this in hopes we'll be inspired to start riding our bikes more so we can protect your and Greta's precious environment.
Go ahead and share the electric-cars-lead-to-greater-happiness article next, Wavy Gravy.

I shared it because I thought the article's point might resonate with others. The point was not 'ride a bike more' and if you think it is, then you really missed the point. Offerman was discussing why he participates in outdoor activities- as a way to escape the expectation of toughness and masculinity that exists in our every day lives.
If you dislike that approach, ok cool. It doesnt need to be for everyone.

For me, getting on a bike or into a canoe, or even just taking a hike, is not something I do to impress anybody with my toughness or masculinity. Quite the opposite: it’s what I do to escape those kinds of domestic and cultural stressors, to try and approach the world with empathy despite my human propensity to cause others pain.

As for your comment about Greta and the environment, damn you arent even aiming at the target you missed by so much. I drive all over the place. I do ride my bike for some errands too, but I drive a lot. I will put 15,000mi on my car this year and it is a gas engine.

Do you want to try to force commentary on trans youth into this discussion too? I figure it makes as much sense as the rest of your post, so why not?

 

[mstateglfr]

Like when they do it on the Natchez Trace Parkway in Ridgeland when there's literally a bicycle path right over there through the trees.

Oh interesting, I didnt realize any of the Trace had a path next to it. I see that 10mi of the 44mi route has a neighboring path as it rolls thru the Jackson metro.

Looks like the path just ends in a clearing by some woods and is disconnected from the road. Is that real? Seems pretty absurd. Traveling north, you cross over the road, go into the grass, head over the drainage ditch, navigate thru the tall grasses, go past the trees, wiggle around the construction barrier, and finally hop on the trail.
If this is still the case, I hope it will soon change and a trailhead or at least end point at the road will be created.

 

[57stratdawg]

Offerman’s Woodshop is a solid place if you’re looking for a gift idea. I have one of their cutting boards:

Offerman Woodshop - Handmade Products & Custom Fine Furniture

Founded by Nick Offerman, we are a Los Angeles based woodworking collective specialising in Custom Fine Furniture, Live-Edge Slabs, Canoes and bespoke projects.

offermanwoodshop.com

 

[johnson86-1]

With that said, it appears to be a bit of a cyclists vs cagers discussion now. Metro roads that I ride are either 1 lane 2 way and relatively quiet or 2 lane 2 way so there is a lane for vehicles to use and easily pass me. If someone has ever been late to an appt due to me riding, it because I delayed them 3 seconds. That is not an exaggeration.

That's possibly true depending on where you ride, but a cyclist riding on a 45 mph, 4-lane highway that is operating anywhere near capacity is causing way more than a 3 second delay. It's basically a moving lane closure and creates a bottleneck where the biker is that backs up a long way.

The speed limit is just that- the limit. It isnt called the speed minimum, so if you come upon something moving under the limit, you wait to pass it safely- bus, mail truck, bike, hazmat vehicle at RRX, tractor, etc. This comes into play on rural roads especially since it isnt uncommon to slow down for any of those things.

Going 5mph below a speed limit is not a problem. 20 mph below is a safety hazard. Doesn't mean you don't have safety hazards sometimes. But you want there to be a good reason.

Auto lobby did a number on Americans 100 years ago with propaganda ads and while that really changed how many in society view anything that may slow them down by seconds during a drive, reality is that slower moving options mentioned above are allowed.

The auto lobby didn't do a number on people. They're just able to perceive reality. Most road infrastructure was built for vehicles. Geography wise, the vast majority of the US developed around automobiles. They didn't need to be told this by anybody.

Its just a matter of perspective. You used the term 'entitled' as a pejorative when it really is just an accurate view of the issue- cyclists are entitled to road use. You(and/or others) are angry that they do what they are allowed to do. Instead, why not accept that they are doing what they are allowed to do? Seems like a you problem more than a them problem.

It's an *** hole problem. Lots of things are legal that are dangerous and inconsiderate. If you are stopped in the middle of the road, and somebody hits you from behind, legally it's their fault. But what kind of *** hole wouldn't do what they can to get out of the road?

As for the claim that it is more functional for cyclists to share the sidewalk with people walking and running, that is bonkers. A sidewalk is one of the least safe places for a cyclist- it isnt safe to ride a sidewalk at 20mph with cars backing up out of driveways, having to cross sidestreets and navigate cars on those side streets wanting to turn and pulled out too far, blind hedges, walkers, dogs, runners, etc.

This is a good example of how the car v. bike discussion is very dependent on the type of road and it's hard not to talk past each other without getting into details. I had said it makes sense to share the path with pedestrians outside of reaosnably dense cities, and obviously that's not detailed enough.

If you're in a residential area with a lot of walkers, dogs, runners, etc, then even if you're outside of a dense city, that's not a good place for a biker to be on a sidewalk. But in my experience if you're talking about an area like that, you're pretty likely to be talking about a road where bikers can come close to keeping up with the flow of traffic. If there is a lot of foot traffic next to a road where a bike can't keep up with the flow of traffic, there is usually a pretty good buffer except on bridges. And you usually don't have a lot of driveways or even sidestreets on those roads. I would suggest the answer in those places is a dedicated bike lane that is not just a sliver of an existing car lane, although again, that can be a challenge at bridges.

Lastly, you mention they are engaging in a hobby and that somehow makes it unacceptable/unjustifiable. So are you OK with those who cycle for transportation?

That is what so many in Europe do and that is the context for the post that you responded to- the pictures I posted earlier are of parking garages for bikes because those are for transportation and not a hobby. Does that make a difference to you or are you just cranky about any bike legally using a road regardless of reason?

Absolutely it matters to me. Again, it's pretty dependent on the details though. A cyclist riding 15-20 mph on a 55mph 2-lane highway in the delta isn't really a problem. You want to do that as a hobby, knock yourself out. A cyclist riding 15-20 mph on a 45mph 2-lane highway in the hills (which really ends up working out to 10mph or slower on the uphill parts) is putting himself and others at an unreasonable risk of harm. Don't do that as a hobby. I'd say don't do it as a commute either if it's a lifestyle choice. I'd like to commute by bike to work. Would be nice to start and end the day with a bike ride and it'd be a very manageable one. But I'd have about a mile where it'd be dangerous and would slow down drivers and make it slightly more dangerous for them also and there's just no way to avoid that. So I don't commute by bike because there just hasn't been infrastructure put in for it.

Where I live most bike commutes would be like that. Plenty of areas where biking would be very doable and safe. But all divided up by stretches where they need a separate bike path and there just isn't room to put them withoutu some very expensive right of way acquisition. If they had planned to be bike friendly from the beginning, it'd be much better now and the area would be much more desirable. Trying to do it after the fact is expensive and nobody wants to put the resources into it. I think part of the problem is that doing it halfway doesn't help. If they would do it all over the place at once, it'd immediately be a nice bikeable area, but it'd be too expensive to be politically palatable. But trying to do bit by bit doesn't really accomplish much. So if they tried to bite off a manageable chunk, they'd still have what looks like an expensive project for the scope and it wouldn't really accomplish anything.

 

[mstateglfr]

The auto lobby didn't do a number on people. They're just able to perceive reality. Most road infrastructure was built for vehicles. Geography wise, the vast majority of the US developed around automobiles. They didn't need to be told this by anybody.

I deleted almost all that you typed, but I read it and do appreciate the discussion even if we disagree. I chuckled when you used the a-hole example of someone standing in the road too.

This comment above though, yeah gonna disagree with it. The auto lobby worked hard to turn roads from areas where all can walk/bike/donkey/drive into areas for cars only. And they got really close, but not quite 100% there.
They absolutely ran a psychological campaign and slowly convinced the public to accept roads in the manner which the auto industry wanted roads to be.

Auto drivers were initially viewed as selfish and dangerous. In the early 20s, car sales actually declined(after years of growth) and public opinion was strongly negative when it came to if cars belongs on roads where people conducted business, commuted, transported goods, etc.
You can claim the auto industry simply perceived reality, but that is a grossly misinterpreted version of history.

Jaywalking was pushed hard by the auto industry and newspapers, which took a large amount of advertising money from...the auto industry. Cartoons were drawn in daily papers depicting ignorant and uncultured people jaywalking. Clowns were hired to mockingly depict how people had used streets for all of time prior to the car. Groups convinced Boy Scout troops to stand at corners and hand out little cards declaring people guilty of jaywalking.
It was a wholly successful campaign and a total 180 in perception was achieved. The pedestrian was now seen as being responsible if they were harmed by the automobile instead of the other way around.

Auto groups succeeded in redefining who owned the streets and how streets were used. They did it because they wanted to make money, not because it was actually the better way for society to utilize streets. They managed to change the view so that people were the problem.

 

[johnson86-1]

I deleted almost all that you typed, but I read it and do appreciate the discussion even if we disagree. I chuckled when you used the a-hole example of someone standing in the road too.

This comment above though, yeah gonna disagree with it. The auto lobby worked hard to turn roads from areas where all can walk/bike/donkey/drive into areas for cars only. And they got really close, but not quite 100% there.
They absolutely ran a psychological campaign and slowly convinced the public to accept roads in the manner which the auto industry wanted roads to be.

Auto drivers were initially viewed as selfish and dangerous. In the early 20s, car sales actually declined(after years of growth) and public opinion was strongly negative when it came to if cars belongs on roads where people conducted business, commuted, transported goods, etc.
You can claim the auto industry simply perceived reality, but that is a grossly misinterpreted version of history.

Jaywalking was pushed hard by the auto industry and newspapers, which took a large amount of advertising money from...the auto industry. Cartoons were drawn in daily papers depicting ignorant and uncultured people jaywalking. Clowns were hired to mockingly depict how people had used streets for all of time prior to the car. Groups convinced Boy Scout troops to stand at corners and hand out little cards declaring people guilty of jaywalking.
It was a wholly successful campaign and a total 180 in perception was achieved. The pedestrian was now seen as being responsible if they were harmed by the automobile instead of the other way around.

Auto groups succeeded in redefining who owned the streets and how streets were used. They did it because they wanted to make money, not because it was actually the better way for society to utilize streets. They managed to change the view so that people were the problem.

I thought the US was just a victim of circumstance, with a combination of factors such as (1) having a lot of development after the introduction of the car (conta to much of western europe), (2) being sparsely populated, (3) the interstate act and (4) being rich enough to have mass adoption of cars, and that explained why we generally don't have infrastructure that is functional for bikes and why drivers view the road as made for them. But I had never heard of most of this so maybe it was more by design than I knew.

 

[vhdawg]

Oh interesting, I didnt realize any of the Trace had a path next to it. I see that 10mi of the 44mi route has a neighboring path as it rolls thru the Jackson metro.

Looks like the path just ends in a clearing by some woods and is disconnected from the road. Is that real? Seems pretty absurd. Traveling north, you cross over the road, go into the grass, head over the drainage ditch, navigate thru the tall grasses, go past the trees, wiggle around the construction barrier, and finally hop on the trail.
If this is still the case, I hope it will soon change and a trailhead or at least end point at the road will be created.

Recently they have planted some stakes with flags starting from the end of that run going maybe a mile or two further, at least getting close to Hwy 49 (they go down into the woods in spots, which you could see a little bit before everything sprouted in spring). I can only assume this is part of extending that trail toward Clinton. I know the Trace bridge over Pinehaven has a separated bicycle lane, but nothing connected to it.

Officially you can hop on the trail at the reservoir overlook and hop back on the Trace at the trailhead just west of Highland Colony Blvd. There's a couple other places further west where it wouldn't be too hard to get back on the Trace, and honestly at the end it's not that far off the road, but clearly there's a plan there.

The biggest issue with cyclists through that area is them staying on the Trace between Old Canton Road and I-55 during morning and afternoon rush hours when that section of the Trace is super busy. They can snarl up traffic something fierce during that time.

 

[elvis76]

Cannot remember the exact source but an extensive study was done in a metro area and found that those evil cyclists were delaying those most amazing drivers by no more than 40 seconds. I have been hit by a driver (from behind on an open road in broad daylight), had numerous things thrown at me and heard loudly from motorists with a very limited vocabulary (see rule 17) and none of that was ever in a place where I was even slightly holding up traffic. Most of the problem is not with your average commuter, it is with drivers who are pissed off at the world, in a hurry to get to their first (or 5th) beer and could not care less about the risk they put cyclists in. The same driver would likely not have an issue if a tractor was holding them up for a much longer time. Are there some a-hole cyclists out there? Sure but they are a very small minority. Are there a-hole drivers out there? Sure, again in the minority but the difference is that one can very easily injure or kill the "other", while the "other" is exercising their legal right of commuting or exercising, and regardless of some else's personal opinion.

 

[MagnoliaHunter]

A hearty nod of approval for that last comment.


As for cycling, I really didnt intend for this thread to be a cyclists vs cagers debate as I thought the article would speak to multiple people here who have full time jobs but still try to get out into nature, etc etc.

With that said, it appears to be a bit of a cyclists vs cagers discussion now. Metro roads that I ride are either 1 lane 2 way and relatively quiet or 2 lane 2 way so there is a lane for vehicles to use and easily pass me. If someone has ever been late to an appt due to me riding, it because I delayed them 3 seconds. That is not an exaggeration.

The speed limit is just that- the limit. It isnt called the speed minimum, so if you come upon something moving under the limit, you wait to pass it safely- bus, mail truck, bike, hazmat vehicle at RRX, tractor, etc. This comes into play on rural roads especially since it isnt uncommon to slow down for any of those things.
Auto lobby did a number on Americans 100 years ago with propaganda ads and while that really changed how many in society view anything that may slow them down by seconds during a drive, reality is that slower moving options mentioned above are allowed.
Its just a matter of perspective. You used the term 'entitled' as a pejorative when it really is just an accurate view of the issue- cyclists are entitled to road use. You(and/or others) are angry that they do what they are allowed to do. Instead, why not accept that they are doing what they are allowed to do? Seems like a you problem more than a them problem.

As for the claim that it is more functional for cyclists to share the sidewalk with people walking and running, that is bonkers. A sidewalk is one of the least safe places for a cyclist- it isnt safe to ride a sidewalk at 20mph with cars backing up out of driveways, having to cross sidestreets and navigate cars on those side streets wanting to turn and pulled out too far, blind hedges, walkers, dogs, runners, etc.

Lastly, you mention they are engaging in a hobby and that somehow makes it unacceptable/unjustifiable. So are you OK with those who cycle for transportation? That is what so many in Europe do and that is the context for the post that you responded to- the pictures I posted earlier are of parking garages for bikes because those are for transportation and not a hobby. Does that make a difference to you or are you just cranky about any bike legally using a road regardless of reason?

To be clear, I hold no anger towards vehicles and use 'cagers' in a joking manner. I drive most every day and love my car.

What about the dickheads that ride down Highway 80 in Brandon at 5-6 pm every freaking day? Just to be a dickhead.

 

[retire the banner]

It’s a shame that Nick Offerman is a complete 180 from Ron Swanson. An absolute soy boy - right up mstateglfr’s alley

 

[mstateglfr]

What about the dickheads that ride down Highway 80 in Brandon at 5-6 pm every freaking day? Just to be a dickhead.

What about them?

 

[mstateglfr]

It’s a shame that Nick Offerman is a complete 180 from Ron Swanson. An absolute soy boy - right up mstateglfr’s alley

Interesting takeaway. We welcome all views here, so thank you for sharing.