Let's talk about something highly controversial: Bicyclists!

[minuway]

We live in an area that is extremely supportive of biking - there are bike lanes everywhere and people know how to drive around bicyclists. We also have an awesome coastal trail, so there area always lots of tourists on rented bikes around, and some of them know how to ride in traffic better than others. You drive differently, but I don't think its inappropriate to expect people to slow down and be more careful. There are lots of laws regulating bicyclists here - for example you have to have a certain kinds of light and reflectors on your bike if you ride at night. My husband commutes to work on his bike nearly everyday. It saves us a lot of money on gas and he gets exercise built in to his day, but he wouldn't do it probably if the community wasn't so bike friendly.

 

I tease him that he's going to become like this: :lol:

Edited June 1, 2012 by minuway

[LucyStoner]

I'll say again, just so I hopefully don't get remembered as the angry lady running bikes off the road, that I do not drive aggressively, even when I'm trapped behind one of those cyclists who is blocking traffic flow. I don't roll down my window and scream or curse at anyone. I don't try to teach anyone a lesson. I figure time will do that for me.

 

In the end, if bicyclists want to be respected on the roads like vehicles, I think they should be willing to be subject to the same traffic laws. If they want to take up space like a car, they should be tagged and licensed, and have blinkers and lights. They should get the same traffic ticket and fine as the car who goes far under the speed limit and impedes traffic flow. I'd also add that if communities want safe bike paths and lanes, they ought to be heard by their city councils, and their wishes taken into account in future planning.

 

Kumbayah?

 

1. The bikes you are "trapped behind" is as much as part of traffic as you or that "extra wide, heavy load" slow moving truck you can't pass.

 

2. Bikes are subject to traffic laws in the jurisdictions I am aware of.

 

3. I don't know a regular cyclist who goes out in the dark without much visibility gear. That takes away the need for lights.

 

4. Bikers do not need blinkers if they use the appropriate hand signals, much the same way drivers can use hand signals if their blinker is dead. Again, I see cyclists using the hand signals (the same ones you have to know to get your driver's license) a lot. My husband and I always use them.

 

As for a license to ride a bike, I think that is absurd and costly for no real public benefit. I do think police officers should stop both cyclists and drivers who break the law.

Edited June 1, 2012 by kijipt

[Momof3littles]

1. The bikes you are "trapped behind" is as much as part of traffic as you or that "extra wide, heavy load" slow moving truck you can't pass.

 

2. Bikes are subject to traffic laws in the jurisdictions I am aware of.

 

3. I don't know regular cyclist who goes out in the dark without much visibility gear. That takes away the need for lights.

 

4. Bikers do not need blinkers if they use the appropriate hand signals, much the same way drivers can use hand signals if their blinker is dead. Again, I see cyclists using the hand signals (the same ones you have to know to get your driver's license) a lot. My and my husband always use them.

 

As for a license to ride a bike, I think that is absurd and costly for no real public benefit. I do think police officers should stop both cyclists and drivers who break the law.

:iagree:

[KatieWonderGirl]

I have no problem with cyclists in general, as long as they follow the rules of the road like everyone else. Most of the time, they do. Last night, though, my husband nearly watched three of them get taken out when they came out of a parking lot without any regard for the car coming toward them - no signaling/indication, nothing. One second they were talking and sitting still and the next minute they cut off the car in front of DH. THOSE cyclists frustrate me. By and large, though, I'm happy to let them go their merry way and wave when they come past the house or we go past them on the road (safely... and I use MY indicator to pass them, too. I'm sure there are enough cars that cut them off).

 

It does scare me when they go against the flow of traffic.

 

this is all reasonable to be frustrated about, but when cars pull out in front of people, we don't decide that people in cars all need to earn the right to respect on the road. and those bicyclists were in more danger than people in a car doing that.

 

as for going against the flow of traffic, it is dangerous and illegal everywhere i'm aware of. it is sad when i see teens doing it with no helmets. :( --katie

[LucyStoner]

Also consider that it is rare someone dies in a biking accident unless it is a car-bike accident. I am a driver and car owner. I pay all the same road taxes as drivers who claim ownership of the road due to taxes do. The gas taxes also cover the wear and tear to roads that bikes don't make at nearly the same rate. I also happen to ride a bike, usually with my kid in a big old bike trailer on roads with no sidewalks. If a driver can't see that, slow down a little and pass me where safe to do so (and the vast majority of roads DO have passing zones) without getting irked at my very existence, then they are the ones with the problem. Maybe if they biked their kids to a park and library trip regularly they would be calmer. Nearly all cyclists are also drivers or have driven at some point. I think that there would be more understanding if more car devotees would try a bike for a day.

Edited June 1, 2012 by kijipt

[LibraryLover]

I live on a road that at times resembles the Tour de France. (I love the flash and color of their helmets and spandex!) It's also a curvy road. I adjust accordingly, and drive slowly and carefully, especially on weekends. I think bikes should have more freedom and special accomodations. More people would bike and that is better than more cars.

 

I am frequently trapped by tractors that were popular in 1948. The cyclists are so much faster. ;)

 

Oh, and thank goodness for my iPhone, as I am frequently trapped on bridges letting through pleasure craft. Look, get the boat out of the harbors in the morning, bring them back at dusk. Why alllllll day long?

 

Harley Sundays are more difficult. They are so noisy. Sounds like a war zone when 300 bikers zoom by.

Edited June 1, 2012 by LibraryLover

[myfunnybunch]

I have lots of questions. :D

 

1) Do you or any other adults in your house cycle on roads with car traffic?

 

Yes. And my sister trains on rural roads for triathalons. Her teen children (not technically adults, but old enough to use bikes to get where they're going) must ride their bikes to swim practice and work because they haven't got cars.

 

2) Do you believe that bicyclists have as much right to the road as cars or other vehicles?

 

Of course. Why wouldn't they? :confused: A bycycle is a legitimate form of transportation.

 

3) Are there many ADULTS riding bikes recreationally where you live? Do you have bike lanes?

 

YES. Our town is very bike friendly. People are encouraged to ride bikes, our town has bike lanes and separate bike paths throughout the city. It's not just for recreation. many people ride bikes as their main form of around-town transportation, at least in good weather. And some in all weather.

 

4) How do you feel about cyclists riding on two-lane, rural roads and slowing down traffic? Should this be legal?

 

It's not the bicyclist's fault that there is no other provision for bicycles.

 

5)What about on multi-lane highways with no designated bike lanes? Should they be allowed to ride in the emergency lane or in the slow lane?

 

Ditto. Though most cyclists I see ride on the shoulder unless there isn't one.

 

6) Have you ever noticed (as I have :tongue_smilie:) that the most annoying cyclists tend to be riding high-end bikes and wearing super high-tech helmets and clothing? It's never the obviously poor guy riding his kid's bike because his car is broken down or his license got suspended, LOL.

 

Gee, how do you feel about this issue? ;) But really, these are the people who want/need long distances at higher speeds than one can get on a city bike lane. Maybe they're training for racing. Maybe they're riding for health. maybe they have high-tech gear because they cycle to work every day and it's cheaper than buying a commute car. We don't really get to decide for whom it is necessary to be riding and for whom it is not. My dear friend's husband, who is by your definition an "annoying cyclist," reversed his beginning diabetes by becoming an avid cyclist and runner. The same for my stepdaughter's uncles, who saw their father slowly die from diabetes and became avid cyclists in order to keep themselves healthy and avoid the same.

 

I see my own bias too, I guess. Not only do I have friends who benefit directly from rural cycling, I live in a community in which cycling is normal. It would be unusual to drive on a rural road on a decent day without seeing a cyclist, or several. Most people we know, people who drive these roads regularly, just see it as a part of life, and are supportive/respectful of the cyclists.

 

 

 

:)

Edited June 1, 2012 by myfunnybunch

[LaxMom]

1. The bikes you are "trapped behind" is as much as part of traffic as you or that "extra wide, heavy load" slow moving truck you can't pass.

 

2. Bikes are subject to traffic laws in the jurisdictions I am aware of.

 

3. I don't know a regular cyclist who goes out in the dark without much visibility gear. That takes away the need for lights.

 

4. Bikers do not need blinkers if they use the appropriate hand signals, much the same way drivers can use hand signals if their blinker is dead. Again, I see cyclists using the hand signals (the same ones you have to know to get your driver's license) a lot. My husband and I always use them.

 

As for a license to ride a bike, I think that is absurd and costly for no real public benefit. I do think police officers should stop both cyclists and drivers who break the law.

I agree and will add that the hand signals we use are the same ones that were used in other road transportation, before the enclosed automobile. Because it is not the best solution in that type of transport.

 

I will also add that impeding the flow of traffic only applies - as far as I know - at highway speeds. Bicycles are prohibited from highways here*, so that's a non-issue.

 

*There are occasions that there are organized, permitted rides on US Rt 50, that go over the Bay Bridge, etc. In those cases, on stretches where there is not a parallel business route to divert to, one lane (or one span of the bridge) is closed for a period of time to accommodate the obviously slower-moving traffic.

[ravinlunachick]

Numerous children die in bathtub drownings each year. Do you call tubs "pools of death?"

 

Katie, I don't know why it's difficult for you to appreciate that roads are different in various regions of the country. There are too many 45-55mph, two lane, hilly, mostly double-yellow line roads around here to count. They tend to eventually get to 6-7 lane divided highways. I drive on several of them every day. It's great that there are communities where cycling is encouraged and common. Really. That is not the case everywhere, though. Just this weekend, we visited a National Forest. It was jam-packed, with traffic backed up for miles waiting to exit the park. As we waited in line, we were surprised to see very little oncoming traffic. After several minutes, we discovered the reason. There were probably 50 cars, all stuck behind one guy on a bike. He was riding right up the middle of the lane, at a very casual, slow speed, showing no concern or care for all the traffic behind him. The road was 2 (narrow) lanes. There was no room for anyone to pass him, and he never got over off the road, despite passing several smooth, wide places to do so. That road went on like that for over 5 miles before there was a turnoff. I have no idea if the honking eventually got to him through his headphones, and he pulled over, or if he selfishly continued, because he figured he had just as much right as all those cars to the road. I do know that he was causing traffic to back up into the highway, through the red light, which was dangerous.

 

That's the sort of behavior I see from cyclists around here, and what prompted me to think about this issue.

 

I'm not saying cyclists deserve to be run down, but I do think they ought to exhibit more caution and sense than what I commonly see. Of course, the same could be said of drivers as well! ;)

[LucyStoner]

That would be a great idea... if we had shoulders (or even space to go... our roads end in a drop off into a ditch. Seriously... our roads aren't extremely safe for cars (quite a few accidents because of that drop off and over-correcting). Add bikes and it's a mess.

 

Then the blame is misplaced. If your roads are so badly and cheaply constructed that they are unsafe for you and bicyclists, then your beef needs to be with department of transportation or highways in your area. Not cyclists. You pay taxes and they should be able to make the roads safe. We have tons of curvy rural roads with hills in my state and I have never seen a road such that I would be unable to pass safely in 5 minutes tops, even when I hit a big old group of people training for a long race (like the Seattle to Portland ride.) There is usually at least some shoulder (even if not a lot) and quite often even on 2 lane roads there are periodic passing lanes where there are long stretches of double yellow lines. There are also often turnouts for slow vehicles to pull into to allow the people behind them to pass. There are any myriad of ways, many pretty low cost (like turnouts) that would make the situation safer. I appreciate that the roads are different in different places but what I don't accept is that badly designed roads are the fault of the people on bikes. They are the fault of car centric road planners not using the design techniques that are readily available to them.

Edited June 1, 2012 by kijipt

[NASDAQ]

1) Do you or any other adults in your house cycle on roads with car traffic?

 

No. My mother was a traffic court lawyer.

 

2) Do you believe that bicyclists have as much right to the road as cars or other vehicles?

 

Nope.

 

3) Are there many ADULTS riding bikes recreationally where you live? Do you have bike lanes?

 

Probably as many as in any North American city. We have bike lanes but they are barely used.

 

4) How do you feel about cyclists riding on two-lane, rural roads and slowing down traffic? Should this be legal?

 

Nope.

 

5)What about on multi-lane highways with no designated bike lanes? Should they be allowed to ride in the emergency lane or in the slow lane?

 

Can't they ride on the side?

 

6) Have you ever noticed (as I have :tongue_smilie:) that the most annoying cyclists tend to be riding high-end bikes and wearing super high-tech helmets and clothing? It's never the obviously poor guy riding his kid's bike because his car is broken down or his license got suspended, LOL.

 

No. I am equally annoyed by a wide variety of cyclists.

 

I think in general a system where people have no training and no accountability is not going to lead to good road behaviour for, at the very least, a significant minority of people.

[Hannah C.]

Around here, there are NO bike lanes. None whatsoever. Bicycling on the roads is uncommon, but I see them occasionally - most frequently on one of our few two-lane roads with no shoulder to speak of and a couple of places with very little ground between the road and a drop-off (next to a creek). I get nervous when I have to pass them, but they're always over on the right and the road isn't very busy so it isn't an issue. I do think it should be legal. I've had bigger issues with pedestrians jaywalking, and as a pedestrian I've had issues with cars not paying attention to crosswalks.

 

Cyclists have to follow the rules of the road - they ride with traffic, they cannot ride on sidewalks, they should use hand signals. I do not think they are allowed on highways, but I'm not sure. If they are, it's certainly dangerous. Someone I knew in high school passed away within the past year after being hit by a vehicle on the freeway while riding her bike. :(

 

I do not cycle and I wouldn't want to ride a bike on the roads around here. I wouldn't feel safe.

[Butter]

Those are recreational and fitness folks doing a group activity hitting a great route for a long ride. Most of the cycling that I see on a day to day basis is Mr. Office Worker and Ms. Banker and Mr. Car Mechanic getting to and from work. (yeah, my car mechanic rides a bike to and from work - LOVE IT!)

 

As I said that is *definitely* not the bikers around here. Almost all of them are recreational and fitness. I detailed in another post just why biking to work is not practical around here. Even those that work in our community don't, likely because it would not be possible to get to their places of work completely on a bicycle (as I said, I've never seen a biker on most of the roads around here and I doubt they are allowed due to safety).

[LucyStoner]

That road went on like that for over 5 miles before there was a turnoff. I have no idea if the honking eventually got to him through his headphones, and he pulled over, or if he selfishly continued, because he figured he had just as much right as all those cars to the road.

 

5 miles without a turnoff or passing is not really all that much time, is it? I do agree it should be sooner and that any vehicle (bike, car or pogo stick) needs to pull off to allow cars behind to pass. Here the law is that you MUST pull over if 5 or more cars are piling up behind you.

 

Also, people riding with headphones is wicked dangerous and stupid. Cyclists need to be able to hear road noises, like horns and back up beepers and sirens just like any other vehicle. If there is not a law, then there should be one. I don't know many people dumb enough to ride with headphones on both ears like that. Giving up the radio is one of the sacrifices of being on a bike rather than in a car.

[Butter]

Then the blame is misplaced. If your roads are so badly and cheaply constructed that they are unsafe for you and bicyclists, then your beef needs to be with department of transportation or highways in your area. Not cyclists.

 

What blame? I'm not blaming cyclists for the bad roads. We place that blame firmly with our county commissioners who totally suck. We complain regularly. Especially after the bus crashed up the road from us when she went off the edge and was thrown across the road (this was a very experienced driver... thank goodness the bus was empty at the time). And after I stood in front of my house next to a car with a woman pinned inside who looked like she was dying and was definitely going into shock waiting for the ambulance to arrive. The policemen said she never knew what hit her. She was going just under the speed limit (it increases just prior to our house so she was speeding up at the time of the crash). The big sewer truck went off the edge and over-corrected and was thrown across the road into the woman and her baby. He was also an experienced driver just like the school bus driver. The police said our road is nothing but an accident waiting to happen. There've been other accidents. But we are in the outlying part of the "city" where I live and so they don't much care. So the problem I have is that packs of bikers (because it's *always* packs of bikers here - I have *never* seen a single biker on our roads - those that are not in packs go to the next county where there are excellent bike paths all over the place but those don't work so well for the packs) ride on these roads that are dangerous enough for cars only. Add bikes to the mix and it becomes extremely dangerous. Not dangerous for the cars (unless you are stupid enough to try to pass where it's not safe). Dangerous for the bikers. Going 45 mph (the speed limit) around a curve up a hill and coming up on a biker pack is not uncommon. That could be deadly to a biker.

[LucyStoner]

What blame?

 

Maybe I used the wrong word. Perhaps agitation, anger, frustration. The general blame/word of choice that leads some drivers to become immediately and quite irrationally upset and agitated with any need to slow down or share the road at the very sight of someone on a bike regardless of if the bike is actually a problem. The sense that bikes should not be entitled to use the same roads is a reflection of this blame/word of choice.

[Butter]

Maybe I used the wrong word. Perhaps agitation, anger, frustration. The general blame/word of choice that leads some drivers to become immediately and quite irrationally upset and agitated with any need to slow down or share the road at the very sight of someone on a bike regardless of if the bike is actually a problem. The sense that bikes should not be entitled to use the same roads is a reflection of this blame/word of choice.

 

I don't mind slowing down behind a biker. Sure, it's annoying, but I don't like driving anyway so driving slow doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that the packs around here are always two across and don't make any attempt to move over or anything. Even when a passing lane appears they don't make any attempt to move over. I *never* pass another car on a two-lane road because I'm not comfortable doing it. When the bikers are taking up the whole lane you have to pass them as if they are a car. If they would get single file and move to the right then passing them wouldn't involve going completely into the other lane. So, yeah, that annoys me since it would seem like common courtesy to make it easier for a car to pass. I mean, the Amish buggies in the next county get over as much as they can so people can pass, why can't the bikes (that are even smaller than the buggies). But they don't. Ever. When I come up on a pack of bikers it makes me nervous because a friend's dad (who used to ride miles and miles a day because it helped clear his head after a long day of work so he was a good, experienced biker) died last summer in a bike accident. A bike-bike accident. No cars involved. In fact, where he was biking was in a place where cars aren't allowed. Only bike and foot traffic. I worry that one of these times someone's going to get flattened when a car comes upon them at full speed from a blind area and I don't want to be the one to cause it. It's not that they should not be entitled to use the same roads. It's that they aren't really *safe* on the roads here. They are driving here to ride on our roads anyway. Seems it would make way more sense to drive another 5 miles to a very long biking/walking path where they'd be much safer (but many refuse because it's pretty much flat and they want the hills and curves up here - the very things that make these roads not safe for them).

[KatieWonderGirl]

 

Katie, I don't know why it's difficult for you to appreciate that roads are different in various regions of the country. There are too many 45-55mph, two lane, hilly, mostly double-yellow line roads around here to count. They tend to eventually get to 6-7 lane divided highways. I drive on several of them every day. It's great that there are communities where cycling is encouraged and common.

 

 

that's a rude assumption. i do appreciate that. i have lived (and biked) in rural America on just the kind of roads you are talking about, as well as in cities (both bike friendly and unfriendly.

 

the issue isn't that i don't understand what the roads are like where you are, the issue is that i think your attitude is rude and ones like it directly contribute to a lack of respect, safety, and infrastructure for people who ride bikes, many of whom are children or parents of children.

 

--katie

[KatieWonderGirl]

There were probably 50 cars, all stuck behind one guy on a bike. He was riding right up the middle of the lane, at a very casual, slow speed, showing no concern or care for all the traffic behind him. The road was 2 (narrow) lanes. There was no room for anyone to pass him, and he never got over off the road, despite passing several smooth, wide places to do so. That road went on like that for over 5 miles before there was a turnoff.

 

i don't know how you go from this to saying that bicyclists haven't earned the right to be respected on the road. that would be like me saying that since some drivers drive drunk, all drivers have not earned their place on public roads. you are taking some peoples' behavior and tarring the reputations of a group of people who are actually more vulnerable than you. i'm sure most bicylists would love some investment in seperated bike infrastructure that goes somewhere.

 

--katie

[KatieWonderGirl]

Then the blame is misplaced. If your roads are so badly and cheaply constructed that they are unsafe for you and bicyclists, then your beef needs to be with department of transportation or highways in your area. Not cyclists. You pay taxes and they should be able to make the roads safe. We have tons of curvy rural roads with hills in my state and I have never seen a road such that I would be unable to pass safely in 5 minutes tops, even when I hit a big old group of people training for a long race (like the Seattle to Portland ride.) There is usually at least some shoulder (even if not a lot) and quite often even on 2 lane roads there are periodic passing lanes where there are long stretches of double yellow lines. There are also often turnouts for slow vehicles to pull into to allow the people behind them to pass. There are any myriad of ways, many pretty low cost (like turnouts) that would make the situation safer. I appreciate that the roads are different in different places but what I don't accept is that badly designed roads are the fault of the people on bikes. They are the fault of car centric road planners not using the design techniques that are readily available to them.

 

 

:iagree: :cheers2:

[pbb119]

Where I live, there are not many cyclists.

 

I do not think cyclists should have all of the same rights. I think they should have some limitations and yield more to traffic.

 

My parents live in a mountainous area, 2 lane roads all the way up the mountain to where they live. Cyclists are there all the time training on the roads and they back traffic up **horrendously**. I look in my rear view mirror and see a sea of cars, all of doing 10 mph for miles and miles and miles. Sometimes getting off the mountain while these guys are training can take an extra 30 minutes or more! I do not think cyclists should be allowed to train during rush hours!!!! I think there should be designated hours that cyclists can drive on 2 lane roads where there is no designated bicycle lane.

 

Bicycles are not cars and they really do not belong on the road w/vehicles that can do 6 or 7 times their speed! It is dangerous! And cars should not have to drive 10 or 15 mph for miles on end while the cyclists does not yield. It is just dangerous for everyone involved.

[annandatje]

I have lots of questions. :D

 

1) Do you or any other adults in your house cycle on roads with car traffic? Yes.

 

2) Do you believe that bicyclists have as much right to the road as cars or other vehicles? Yes, with the exception of expressways where bicyclists generally are prohibited.

 

3) Are there many ADULTS riding bikes recreationally where you live? Yes. Do you have bike lanes? Not in our area but an adjacent neighborhood has bike lane down its main drag. Our city has a greenline trail from burb to downtown for cyclists but it goes through deeply wooded areas and problematic areas, and it is not patrolled. Thus, for safety purposes, I would only ride the greenline with other cyclists.

 

4) How do you feel about cyclists riding on two-lane, rural roads and slowing down traffic? Meh. It's one of those things in life that we deal with in our area. A cycling club rides two or three abreast along curvy two lane road in our area oftentimes at dusk when it is especially hazardous. It is a minor nuisance but not illegal, nor do I think it should be illegal. We also have a mentally retarded man who rides throughout our area; unfortunately he does not understand rules of road, so we have strongly reinforced fact that our teen and young adult drivers should be particularly careful and actively watch for people on bicycles and motorcycles and pedestrains. Should this be legal? Yes.

 

5)What about on multi-lane highways with no designated bike lanes? In our area, it is legal. Should they be allowed to ride in the emergency lane or in the slow lane? Yes as long as it is not against law in their area.

 

6) Have you ever noticed (as I have :tongue_smilie:) that the most annoying cyclists tend to be riding high-end bikes and wearing super high-tech helmets and clothing? It's never the obviously poor guy riding his kid's bike because his car is broken down or his license got suspended, LOL. It is a small irritant that the cycling club ride two or three abreast, so it is very difficult to pass them on the curvy hilly two lane rural road. A few years ago I actually did change my route to a few places because of the cyclists. Honestly I have never paid any attention to the type of clothing worn by bikers. The mentally retarded man rides more dangerously than the cycling club and makes obscene gestures to motorists to boot, but I overlook it and just assume it has to do with subpar upbringing or environment. [/QUOTE]

 

See blue text above.

Edited June 1, 2012 by annandatje

[ravinlunachick]

I couldn't quote this earlier, as my tablet is disagreeable to long quotes within a post.

 

 

 

<snip>

 

i refuse to kumbayah with you while you are making unfair requirements of people on bikes before they deserve your full respect on the road (your words). you clearly know that there are situations where someone on a bike cannot go as fast as drivers tend to go. and there are a lot more people on bikes in most areas than driving tractors, and it is safer for people in tractors to pull over to allow passing.

 

and really when you are forced to drive at the speed of a bicycle you are much safer, since the extent of injuries you will receive should wreck in that moment rather than when you are going quadruple the speed (around 13 vs. apparently 50+, although i wonder how often you are really driving that fast on roads that legally accommodate bikes).

 

--katie

 

I disagree that my desired requirements are unfair. Roads are primarily created for motorized vehicles (subdivision/neighborhood streets notwithstanding). It's not unreasonable to say that someone needs to be able to swim before jumping in the deep end of a pool. Anyone using the road needs to be able to move in such a way that the overall traffic flow is not impeded. Given that in my experience, cyclists often impede the flow of traffic, I don't find my opinion unfair at all. Walking and jogging are also valid forms of transportation. Should it be acceptable for a person to walk or jog down a road, refusing to move over, so that cars are backed up behind her? I don't think so. One rarely sees that, though, unless the person is intoxicated or in a parking lot. Wonder why?

 

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about tractors.

 

The bolded part of your last sentence is what made me think that perhaps you did not appreciate regional differences. Most of my driving is done on roads where the speed limit is 45-55mph. I'm not sure why you would question that. :confused: Is it so hard to believe that such places are common?

 

I also don't think I'm being rude, although I'll admit my comment about the gamer husband was a wee bit snarky. That comment (by another poster) rubbed me the wrong way. I've come to appreciate this board, in that it's a rare place on the internet where you can have such variation in experience and opinion and still maintain civil discussions. I appreciate reading others' POV, and I'd hope that I'm sharing my own in a polite way.

[ravinlunachick]

Where I live, there are not many cyclists.

 

I do not think cyclists should have all of the same rights. I think they should have some limitations and yield more to traffic.

 

My parents live in a mountainous area, 2 lane roads all the way up the mountain to where they live. Cyclists are there all the time training on the roads and they back traffic up **horrendously**. I look in my rear view mirror and see a sea of cars, all of doing 10 mph for miles and miles and miles. Sometimes getting off the mountain while these guys are training can take an extra 30 minutes or more! I do not think cyclists should be allowed to train during rush hours!!!! I think there should be designated hours that cyclists can drive on 2 lane roads where there is no designated bicycle lane.

 

Bicycles are not cars and they really do not belong on the road w/vehicles that can do 6 or 7 times their speed! It is dangerous! And cars should not have to drive 10 or 15 mph for miles on end while the cyclists does not yield. It is just dangerous for everyone involved.

 

 

 

Wow. You just channeled my dh! That last paragraph is almost word for word what he said this weekend after we saw the guy in the National Forest. :lol:

[KatieWonderGirl]

Anyone using the road needs to be able to move in such a way that the overall traffic flow is not impeded.

 

 

but why do you get to decide that? Legally bicycles are vehicles and not pedestrians and there are already laws that apply to people riding them. People are ticketed while riding bikes in Oregon, for instance. I'm wondering why you, as someone who doesn't bike, get to decide how people NEED to be able to move in order to use the road, especially when there is already legislation on this issue.

 

am i missing some portion of the country of which you are a monarch?

 

--Katie

[KatieWonderGirl]

The bolded part of your last sentence is what made me think that perhaps you did not appreciate regional differences. Most of my driving is done on roads where the speed limit is 45-55mph. I'm not sure why you would question that. :confused: Is it so hard to believe that such places are common?

 

 

i don't question that there are roads like this, but i question the safety of driving those speeds on the roads you specifically complained about (narrow, windy, blind curves, little to no shoulder, etc.). i lived somewhere with the sorts of roads you are describing (in Northern California) and no one i knew drove fast on the sections that were as you described. when we would let someone pass and they were driving that fast on a section like that we all thought they were being reckless.

 

if the roads are straighter or wider, sure, i would drive that fast safely. i did, and there were bicyclists on those roads very frequently. (sometimes i was one of them)

 

--katie

[Momof3littles]

but why do you get to decide that? Legally bicycles are vehicles and not pedestrians and there are already laws that apply to people riding them. People are ticketed while riding bikes in Oregon, for instance. I'm wondering why you, as someone who doesn't bike, get to decide how people NEED to be able to move in order to use the road, especially when there is already legislation on this issue.

 

 

Agree! We already have laws in most states that address bicycling.

 

Again, I had a high school running coach who was a serious competitive cyclist and a driver ed teacher. She beat into our heads that bicycles are *part* of the transportation system. Just like pedestrians are part of it. Bicycles are legally vehicles.

 

As a one time pretty serious runner (not so much anymore!), I had more than my fair share of run ins with people cussing me out for being on the road, or close calls with drivers, or people who ran me off the road. It is one of the things that makes me nervous a bit when DH cycles, TBH, because it is easier to get off the road without a serious accident when on foot vs. a bike. People simply don't like sharing the road with anyone, it seems. But it is the law, and their obligation.

 

Are there bad apples out there who don't follow the rules of the road as cyclists? Yes, but painting all cyclists with the same brush is unfair. Lots of people unsafely operate vehicles and we aren't going to ban all vehicles.

 

I posted up thread that I live in an area where most of the roads people ride are windy, double yellow lines, plenty of hills, etc. That is the way it is. There aren't bike lanes, and the bigger roads are heavily traveled and busy. In all my years of driving, I can't think of a time I had to wait more than 3-5 mins at the absolute max to safely pass cyclists. Is it sometimes a tad annoying to wait? Yes! (and my DH is a pretty serious cyclist). But that's my problem IMO, and I deal with it. In the grand scheme of things it isn't a big deal IMO. I realize some of you are saying you have had other experiences where it takes a long time to pass, but statistically, how common do you think that really is? It is worth banning all cyclists from non bike path roadways other than certain hours because a very small handful of people have had experiences where cyclists have caused serious traffic backups? I just don't think that scenario is so common that we need to make it illegal to ride a bike on windy country roads.

[sparkygirl]

Well sure, my DH will drive to a friend's house and they'll start off from there because it is already a half hour drive. Or people meet up for group rides, etc. But for regular day to day, I don't think most cyclists *drive* somewhere to bike. And they certainly shouldn't be obligated to. And *having* to drive somewhere to cycle every time you want to cycle seems to defeat some of the environmental benefits. Some people like riding in groups because they have greater visibility and they feel safer that way. Or they just want or need training partners. But most people IME do not drive somewhere to hop on their bike every time they want to cycle. They often start out from their home base.

 

FWIW: I *Have* to drive in order to ride my bike and I am a road biker. From my home to a nice trail to ride is accessible only from the Interstate. So yes from my house I have to drive half a mile up an on ramp to the park and ride where I can then unload my bike and ride the rail. If I do not drive to the trailhead then I would be riding on an interstate with is against the law.

[Butter]

i don't question that there are roads like this, but i question the safety of driving those speeds on the roads you specifically complained about (narrow, windy, blind curves, little to no shoulder, etc.). i lived somewhere with the sorts of roads you are describing (in Northern California) and no one i knew drove fast on the sections that were as you described. when we would let someone pass and they were driving that fast on a section like that we all thought they were being reckless.

 

Most people here drive *faster* than the 45 limit. I've often got several cars piled up behind me because I drive as close to the speed limit as possible and no more than 5 mph over. Maybe east coasters are just crazy. It's certainly a possibility (and having been one my whole life I just wouldn't know if I was I suppose) :tongue_smilie: In fact, when the police got there for that terrible accident in front of my house, the first thing they did was look at her speedometer. That's when I learned that when a crash happens the speedometer stops at the speed they were going at the moment of impact. They said there were no tire marks at all on her side and she was still perfectly in her lane. And she was going about 43mph (in a 45 just a few yards after the speed increases to 45). That told them she was definitely not speeding when the accident happened and had never seen it coming. Anyway, the police said they were surprised because most of the cars that go through that area are going 10-15 mph over the speed limit.

[Momof3littles]

FWIW: I *Have* to drive in order to ride my bike and I am a road biker. From my home to a nice trail to ride is accessible only from the Interstate. So yes from my house I have to drive half a mile up an on ramp to the park and ride where I can then unload my bike and ride the rail. If I do not drive to the trailhead then I would be riding on an interstate with is against the law.

That stinks.

 

I guess I'm just getting at the point that most cyclists I know ride from their homes (in my area) which means they are pretty much destined to be on a combination of roads, none of which have bike lanes. They'll encounter busier, more heavily traveled roads, and windy, double yellow line country roads if they ride for any distance at all. I live in an outer suburb of a major city, so not exactly in the sticks, but the roads in this area tend to be windy, hilly, no passing 2 lane roads if they aren't super busy and heavily traveled. It seems like cyclists can't win. People are ticked if they are on heavily traveled roadways, and people are ticked when they are on windy country roads. Where I live, that's pretty much the norm, and I don't leave out in the middle of nowhere. I just happen to live in a place with no real extensive greenbelt system and pretty much zero bike paths. DH will ride to places like lakes, state parks, etc. where there are more cyclists and roads that are great for cycling, but he still has to get there, kwim? Driving everywhere to bike simply isn't practical for most people (not that I think you are saying that at all sparkygirl).

[Aura]

I don't have a problem with bicyclists in general. I don't have a problem with cyclists riding on the roads, but it is obvious that there are some pretty boneheaded cyclists out there (yes, just like drivers) and that in some areas, the boneheaded ones are the majority, not the minority.

 

They behave that way because they can get away with it. People should fuss about their actions and insist that their local police put a stop to the behavior that is dangerous and egregiously disruptive to the traffic flow.

 

I bet these boneheads wouldn't be so quick to back up traffic for 5 miles or pull in front of oncoming traffic if they are held responsibile for their own actions, and risk having to pay fines or having their bikes impounded. As a driver, I face legal consequences for my actions, and I do find it annoying that cyclists seem to be given a "free pass" on theirs.

 

FTR, dh & I are talking about letting ds15 ride his bike to work. I seriously don't have a problem w/ cyclists.

 

BUT, I also witness a pack of boneheads nearly every Wed. evening that do some pretty stupid things. This is a pack of almost 20 cyclists, all bunched together taking the full width of the lane, not riding in a line.

 

One guy almost got creamed when, on a divided, four-lane major highway, he pulled out in front of a tractor trailer. :blink: Seriously, the truck was going at least 60 mph and there was NO WAY the trucker could stop. He got missed by mere inches. His friends were either well across, or they stopped. I have no idea what possessed him to play chicken with a tractor trailer.

 

This same pack also had a couple of guys that WE nearly flattened because, going around a hairpin turn, they were all bunched up in the on-coming lane, except for the 2 guys who decided that it was better to ride in OUR LANE instead of dropping back or moving to the front. I believe only divine intervention kept that from becoming a major disaster. Those guys were directly in the path of our 12 passenger van. There was no where for us to go. And the only place they had to go was into their own pack, they nearly caused a pile-up of their own group, which would have meant that some would likely spill into our lane (they were practically in it, anyway) and we would not have been able to help running over whatever/whoever was in the road. :001_unsure:

[KatieWonderGirl]

Most people here drive *faster* than the 45 limit. I've often got several cars piled up behind me because I drive as close to the speed limit as possible and no more than 5 mph over. Maybe east coasters are just crazy. It's certainly a possibility (and having been one my whole life I just wouldn't know if I was I suppose) :tongue_smilie: In fact, when the police got there for that terrible accident in front of my house, the first thing they did was look at her speedometer. That's when I learned that when a crash happens the speedometer stops at the speed they were going at the moment of impact. They said there were no tire marks at all on her side and she was still perfectly in her lane. And she was going about 43mph (in a 45 just a few yards after the speed increases to 45). That told them she was definitely not speeding when the accident happened and had never seen it coming. Anyway, the police said they were surprised because most of the cars that go through that area are going 10-15 mph over the speed limit.

 

wow, most people drive that much over? makes you wonder if we should ban all cars. :tongue_smilie: :001_smile:

 

i had no idea about the speedometer freezing in the case of an impact... i wonder if that is in all cars or just newer ones? that is such a good idea!

--katie

[Butter]

i actually am not mad or wanting a fight. but the closest you will get me to backing off on this issue of wanting to ban bikes/kick bikes to the shoulder where they are more likely to be struck/etc.

 

Is anyone actually saying that?

[Momof3littles]

Is anyone actually saying that?

I think there were some posts indicating people should only be able to ride their bikes during certain hours, that cyclists should need turn signals (lights, not hand signals), that cyclists shouldn't be able to ride on certain roads with no shoulder (but are legal for them to ride on currently).

 

Some people also assume because there is a bike path the cyclist should *have* to ride there, which isn't always as simple or easy or safe as it seems at face value.

[black_midori]

nm :)

[Butter]

wow, most people drive that much over? makes you wonder if we should ban all cars. :tongue_smilie: :001_smile:

 

i had no idea about the speedometer freezing in the case of an impact... i wonder if that is in all cars or just newer ones? that is such a good idea!

--katie

 

Yes. And I think they are crazy. It makes it that much more dangerous/crazy for the bikers to choose to bike here instead of a few miles away on really nice bike trails.

 

Her car wasn't very new and the police immediately looked at that as part of the accident reconstruction and explained why and what they were seeing to everyone who had tried to render aid to the woman and baby. They didn't act as if it was unusual. It made perfect sense and made it easier to understand how they estimate the speed of a person before impact (what the speedometer is at + tire mark length).

[annandatje]

I have lots of questions. :D

 

.....

 

4) How do you feel about cyclists riding on two-lane, rural roads and slowing down traffic? Should this be legal?

 

5)What about on multi-lane highways with no designated bike lanes? Should they be allowed to ride in the emergency lane or in the slow lane?

....

 

 

It does appear that original poster is asking if bikes should be banned from two lane rural roads where they slow traffic and from slow lane and emergency lanes of multi lane highways.

[Butter]

I think there were some posts indicating people should only be able to ride their bikes during certain hours, that cyclists should need turn signals (lights, not hand signals), that cyclists shouldn't be able to ride on certain roads with no shoulder (but are legal for them to ride on currently).

 

But, see, that doesn't sound like forcing them to ride ON the shoulder to me. No shoulder is a safety issue for allowing people to pass. It's also a safety issue if someone going full speed comes up a blind spot and encounters a biker. No shoulder means there's potential that neither the car nor the biker can move out of the lane to avoid a collision.

[Butter]

BUT, I also witness a pack of boneheads nearly every Wed. evening that do some pretty stupid things. This is a pack of almost 20 cyclists, all bunched together taking the full width of the lane, not riding in a line.

 

Are you my neighbor? No, must not be since it's not Wednesday evenings here, but, yeah, they sound just like the pack riders we've got around here. I think what bugs me the most is the bunched up riding across the lane (and I've seen a time or two where a person or two will ride in the opposite lane for who knows what reason). Scary.

[Momof3littles]

But, see, that doesn't sound like forcing them to ride ON the shoulder to me. No shoulder is a safety issue for allowing people to pass. It's also a safety issue if someone going full speed comes up a blind spot and encounters a biker. No shoulder means there's potential that neither the car nor the biker can move out of the lane to avoid a collision.

Where I live, most of the back roads (which is pretty much anything not super heavily traveled, and those roads have their own concerns and challenges) have no shoulder at all. Just a line on the edge (sometimes not even that!), sometimes with bits of asphalt breaking off and crumbling (unsafe to be at the very very edge). The "shoulder" is usually gravel, which isn't something safe for a cyclist to just hop on over to in most cases. Again, I don't live in the sticks. It is like this where I live an hour from a major eastern US city (I'm in a mid to outer burb) and where I grew up which is more rural. It was also the case in the last state I lived in (suburb of college town, fairly rural, 40 mins from another fairly large city). Many, many, many people in the US live in places where that's the case I think. How can we have them not use those roads? I mean, as a runner it was really tough at times too...can't run on the (gravel) shoulder continuously...I guess IMO it comes back to the motor vehicle driver needing to be ready to encounter cyclists, runners, deer, tractors, the cows that cross on the road from one field to another on the road where I grew up. Is it ideal to have no shoulder? No, it isn't, but it isn't fair to ban part of the transportation system, which are what bikes are.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Momof3littles

[Butter]

Where I live, most of the back roads (which is pretty much anything not super heavily traveled, and those roads have their own concerns and challenges) have no shoulder at all. Just a line on the edge (sometimes not even that!), sometimes with bits of asphalt breaking off and crumbling (unsafe to be at the very very edge). The "shoulder" is usually gravel, which isn't something safe for a cyclist to just hop on over to in most cases. Again, I don't live in the sticks. It is like this where I live an hour from a major eastern US city (I'm in a mid to outer burb) and where I grew up which is more rural. It was also the case in the last state I lived in (suburb of college town, fairly rural, 40 mins from another fairly large city). Many, many, many people in the US live in places where that's the case I think. How can we have them not use those roads? I mean, as a runner it was really tough at times too...can't run on the (gravel) shoulder continuously...I guess IMO it comes back to the motor vehicle driver needing to be ready to encounter cyclists, runners, deer, tractors, the cows that cross on the road from one field to another on the road where I grew up. Is it ideal to have no shoulder? No, it isn't, but it isn't fair to ban part of the transportation system, which are what bikes are.

 

I would consider gravel a shoulder because if there's a gravel space next to the road that's what we call it. We have a ditch (which I have seen one cyclist fall into once... didn't look pleasant and the rest of his pack couldn't stop because there was nowhere for them to go and they couldn't just stop in the middle of the road). Next to the ditch is generally trees. We're definitely not sticks either. It's the next county over that is the sticks and they have a really nice bike path :lol:

[sparkygirl]

That stinks.

 

I guess I'm just getting at the point that most cyclists I know ride from their homes (in my area) which means they are pretty much destined to be on a combination of roads, none of which have bike lanes. They'll encounter busier, more heavily traveled roads, and windy, double yellow line country roads if they ride for any distance at all. I live in an outer suburb of a major city, so not exactly in the sticks, but the roads in this area tend to be windy, hilly, no passing 2 lane roads if they aren't super busy and heavily traveled. It seems like cyclists can't win. People are ticked if they are on heavily traveled roadways, and people are ticked when they are on windy country roads. Where I live, that's pretty much the norm, and I don't leave out in the middle of nowhere. I just happen to live in a place with no real extensive greenbelt system and pretty much zero bike paths. DH will ride to places like lakes, state parks, etc. where there are more cyclists and roads that are great for cycling, but he still has to get there, kwim? Driving everywhere to bike simply isn't practical for most people (not that I think you are saying that at all sparkygirl).

 

My county thankfully is starting a bicycle improvement plan and one of the improvements is alternate access to the 22 mile greenway trail. Which then would eliminate my having to drive half a mile to then ride my bike 44 miles.

[nmoira]

Are you my neighbor? No, must not be since it's not Wednesday evenings here, but, yeah, they sound just like the pack riders we've got around here. I think what bugs me the most is the bunched up riding across the lane (and I've seen a time or two where a person or two will ride in the opposite lane for who knows what reason). Scary.

 

We have zoobombers. It's such an institution, the Mayor attended the last pile dedication (there was a bit of backstory regarding the pile, but I'll spare you the details).

 

 

Here's a short BBC bit on Zoobombing. The production value is a bit better than the YouTube clips.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15591350

Edited June 1, 2012 by nmoira
wrong picture

[Tress]

Highly controversial.....bicyclists ..... :smilielol5:.

 

ETA: after reading most of the thread: wow, bicycling apparently *is* controversial :001_huh:. Even after years on American message boards, I keep getting amazed :lol:.

[LucyStoner]

Page 20? Time for some levity. :)

 

[Butter]

:lol::smilielol5::lol:

[Tarreymere]

Dh rides to work on a bicycle every day on rural roads then in small town traffic. I often use a bicycle to get to the grocery store or to the library. We don't ride because it is a fun option, we ride because there is no public transportation and because we either do not have a car, our car is in the shop, or we can't afford to put gas in our car and it is certainly better to bike than to walk.

 

There are no bicycle lanes on the side of the roads. I wish there were. There is no shoulder on our rural roads. Rather than pay to make the roads safer lets just make a law that poor folk have to walk instead of ride a bike. Or will you next advocate for a law that we not be allowed to walk on the rural two lane roads?

 

If there were laws to restrict biking so that the relatively well-off weren't inconvenienced by our lower income existence you can bet we would be very politically active in protest. This is clearly a class issue as well as a convenience issue, OP, and of course the WTM response is the bicycle equivalent of 'Let them eat cake'. Yeah, I should not be allowed to ride on the rural two lane roads on my bicycle, so I will just hop into my non-existent or non-operable vehicle instead or maybe take that non-existent public transportation.

 

Yet again the majority on WTM shows it's true colors. Surely no one bikes in the USA, unless it is recreationally, according to the Hive. Thanks OP.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Rainefox

[LG Gone Wild]

Page 20? Time for some levity. :)

 

 

:cheers2:

[Mommy22alyns]

Highly controversial.....bicyclists ..... :smilielol5:.

 

ETA: after reading most of the thread: wow, bicycling apparently *is* controversial :001_huh:. Even after years on American message boards, I keep getting amazed :lol:.

 

 

Yeah... me too. A similarly innocuous thread on another board I visit got not only closed, but PARKED. Really people? :001_huh:

[Mrs Mungo]

Yet again the majority on WTM shows it's true colors. Surely no one bikes in the USA, unless it is recreationally, according to the Hive. Thanks OP.

 

A majority of people on TWTM board have not posted to this thread. Therefore, it proves nothing about this board or its "true colors."

 

I know tons of people who bike (mainly because we know tons of people who do triathlons). We have lived places where it is safe and there are great bike lanes. We have lived in places where it seemed rather unsafe due to crazy drivers. In Hawaii there were a lot of bike lanes, but we *personally* knew 5 people who got hit by cars while biking. This is partly because Hawaii has a lot of bad drivers.

 

The fact is, it is legal to bike on the road in many places that lack bike lanes. You have some choices:

 

1. Go to city council meetings and urge them to create bike lanes.

2. Go to city council meetings and urge them to make it illegal.

3. Raise awareness about biking in your area.

 

Complaining here about something that is perfectly legal because you find it annoying? That is bound to annoy some people. Making BROAD assumptions that don't apply everywhere? Such as-biking is always dangerous? That *always* annoys people.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Mrs Mungo