5kdad

I'm a cyclist. Not what some would call an “avid” cyclist, but not a “couch potato” either. Depending on the year and events I participate in, I'll ride anywhere from 1,500-2,500 miles a year. Like most cyclists, I hear people complain about bikes on the roads, and how they impede traffic. I live in rural Arkansas, where roads often have little to no paved shoulders and are narrow with plenty of curves. Not a good situation for cycling.
Yes, cyclists have the same rights to the road as any other vehicle. But I think some common courtesy could go a long way in being less of an impediment on the roads. I observed some things this past week end that concerned me.
I was involved in helping organize an event that included a 100 mile ride. While driving between rest stops, I observed many cyclists seemingly oblivious to the traffic behind them. Riders two abreast (which is legal), while 3, 4 or more vehicles were held up behind them. At one point, I came upon 2 cyclists walking their bikes up a hill, side by side, with one in the middle of the traffic lane, making it very hard to pass. Yes, you can do that. It's legal. But is it necessary?
When I bike, I always have a mirror, and keep an eye on the traffic behind me. I ride over close to the center of the lane, for 3 reasons, #1 the road is smoother, #2 there is less trash and debris, and #3 you are more visible and traffic slows down. But once I know I'm seen, and the traffic slows, I pull to the far right, to allow the cars pass. On the occasional chance when traffic is behind me and I'm meeting traffic, I'll stop and pull to the side, to allow the vehicle to pass. A lot also depends on my speed at the time. If I'm going off a hill with pretty good speed (30-35mph for me), I'm probably not going to pull off and stop. But especially if I'm going up a hill, I'll do all I can to not slow traffic more than necessary.
Yes, I know, we do have the same rights to the roads as any vehicle. But the roads weren't made for bicycles, they were made for motor vehicles. I think we need to adapt, to not ride as if we were “king of the road”. I look at myself as more of a “guest” on the road, and do all I can to not be a traffic hazard.

baronvoncatania

I agree 100% It's one thing too stand up for your rights. But being courteous is always the way to go.

And the motorist DO notice and treat you better.

indyfabz

While I am courteous, I am unaware any instance where my being courteous has caused a motorist to, say, not drink and drive.

merlinextraligh

This is where you loose me. First, paved roads actually were made for bicycles. Before horseless carriages, bicyclists were the impetus to pave roads.

Second we are not "guests" on the road. We are a legitimate class of road users, just like motor vehicles and pedestrians. While all users should be courteous, acting like you don't have a right to be there is going to be dangerous from both an advocacy point of view, and a safety point of view.

Trying to do all you can "to not be a traffic hazard" leads to bad decisions, such as not taking the lane where taking the lane is the safer course of action; moving on and off the shoulder, rather than maintaining a consistent line.

So sure don't be a jerk, but assert your right to road, particularly when doing so makes things safer.

gregf83 

I don't really understand or believe this notion that roads were made for cars and cyclists are just guests that should always yield for cars. I would never stop to let cars go by. I can't imagine that traffic is that dense in Arkansas that cars can't wait a few seconds for a clear section to pass.

I'm all for being courteous but I don't feel the need to inconvenience myself so a driver doesn't have to alter his speed briefly or turn his steering wheel once in a while.

5kdad

Making things safer, that's what I want, but that takes cooperation. Paved roads could have been originally made for bicycles, but I doubt many tax payers would agree to that today. I'm just saying, we could be aware of traffic, and when we are being a hindrance, we should yield to traffic. Plus, there's no need to ride out in the middle of the lane, when you are holding up 3 or 4 vehicles, when you could simply move over a bit and motion them to pass. They have slowed at that point, to me it seems the right, and safe thing to do.
I often ride with another cyclist. We do ride side by side at times, but when a car approaches, we fall into single file. Not a big inconvenience for us, and allows minimal interruption to the traffic.
Traffic following us a few "seconds" to pass? Last week, there was one case where we followed 2 cyclists for well over a over a quarter mile, riding up hills in blind areas were we could not pass. We have the right, but it's sure going to irritate drivers, perhaps causing them to take stupid chances by trying to pass us.
No, there's not lot of traffic in my area, but get closer to area towns and that picks up.

gregf83 

Drivers don't need cyclists to take stupid chances. I mostly commute by bike but drive once in a while. It's busy on the way to work but every time I see a significant % of what I would class as extremely impatient drivers. They will sit on the bumper of the car in front of them and weave in and out of lanes to move up one position if more than a few car lengths of space opens up near them.

Inconveniencing yourself on a bike so cars don't have to slow down occasionally isn't going to improve driver behaviour.

I was riding in Spain not long ago and it was a refreshing change to NA riding. Riding up narrow winding roads and cars and trucks alike would just putter along behind until it was clear to pass, then a friendly wave as they went by. No close passes and the roads were filled with cyclists. Perhaps they're a little more laid back in Spain but it was a beautiful location to ride.

kickstart

I think it would be wonderful if all road users were cognizant that right-of-way is our obligation to others, not our possession to take.

intransit1217

IMO, mixing it up according to the moment is the best scenario. FRAP as much as is safely possible, take the lane when it's safe to do so and gives motorists more time to see you, yield or take yourself out of the equation for self preservation when necessary.

While more road using cyclists forces motorists to practice around us and become more aware, a bike will always lose in a collision with a car.

ItsJustMe

I agree and I think I'm extremely courteous.

However, I have a little bit of a problem when the old saw "roads were not built for bicycles" comes up. First, even if true, that's the fault of the engineers and politicians that specified and built roads that weren't fit for the purpose to which the public wishes to put them.

Second, in the areas where I ride, roads weren't actually built for passenger cars either. They were built for the transportation of goods to market. Mostly they get used by passenger cars, but that's not why roads were invented. Roads these days get designed with the needs of passenger cars foremost in mind, but that's because passenger car drivers are, honestly, pretty horrible and the designers have to try their utmost to keep them all from killing one another.

wphamilton

It's only common sense and courtesy to let traffic by when you have a chance. But a lot of times, the inconvenience to a driver is just in their perception, mostly imaginary.

From your description I imagine a climbing winding road with a lane too narrow to pass a bicycle without crossing over the center line. Your road could be otherwise but that's how it sounds. Is there really room there for a car to pass, with a car in the oncoming lane, and a bike on the right? If not, if the road is too narrow for two cars, a bike and three feet in between, maybe it's better for the bike to be in the lane anyway and if so, it doesn't matter if two bikes are in the lane.

It seems to me that this could be a good example of a driver feeling put out by bicycles riding two abreast, when in reality it makes no objective difference. I also slide back to single file when cars come up, but it's to manage their perceptions more than for actual courtesy or safety. The only thing that really helps them is moving over when you get to a wide spot to let people get by.

JoeyBike

I am famous for stopping and stepping off the paved road onto a soft shoulder (if there is at least a couple of feet to stand on) to let trucks go past on narrow, 2-lane, mountain roads with terrible sight lines. I can hear most trucks laboring up the hill behind me which gives me up to 30 seconds to find a safe landing spot to pull over. I also use a helmet mounted mirror to keep an eye on cars as they begin to pass. I really don't care if the miss me by inches so long as they do MISS ME and I see it coming. I tightrope the fog line. I DO NOT take a lane on twisty mountain roads in Arkansas or any other state where shotguns are displayed in the back windows of pickup trucks.

Stopping is no big deal. If I were in a rush, I would be on a motorcycle. If I were terrified of a close pass, I would hang up the bike.

AlmostTrick

I choose my routes so as to hold up motorists as little as possible. I share the lane as often as I safely can. So, after doing all this, I feel no apprehension at all about holding up motorists for a few moments when it comes to that.

Besides the occasional racer group, I almost never see cyclists acting like "King of the Road".

Instead, most cyclists do everything they possibly can to "stay out of the way" of the real Kings of the Road... cars, even when doing so puts them at greater risk of being hit.

I wish cyclists (at least here) would be more assertive in traffic. The present common behavior increases risk, and reinforces the idea that cyclists don't belong on the roads.

5kdad

My thoughts exactly. Also amazes me how many cyclists ride without a mirror. Mine attaches to my glasses. I'd feel safer riding without my helmet, than without my mirror! I was riding last summer, had just come off a big hill, seen a this big 18 wheeler coming up behind me. He wasn't slowing. He wasn't pulling over. I was over in the middle of the lane. Kept an eye on him, and finally realized, it was time to hit the ditch! He passed without giving me an inch! I noticed a vehicle we were meeting, had slowed and pulled over, to give him room to pass. After the truck passed, the on-coming vehicle drove down to where I was and asked, "Are you ok?" I assured him I was. Then he replied, "That wasn't very nice of him, was it?"

Cyclosaurus

Funny, why is it so strange to ask if it's necessary to drivers frantically get around a few cyclists in the road to arrive at their destination 45 seconds later? Your whole premise is flawed, because it assumes that it's more reasonable for cyclists to voluntarily surrender their legal right rather than for drivers to obey the law.

Interesting. You say you are "concerned" because the cyclists you observed made a different choice about how to handle a specific situation. Yet you also admit that their behavior was perfectly legal, and that you may make similar choices (i.e., not clearing off the road) if you feel the situation warrants it. So basically because all other cyclists don't do exactly what you do, then they are a "problem". Since you freely admit you don't always get out of the way, couldn't somebody who does always move over for traffic say that you are part of the problem? I usually don't take the lane. Yet I don't reflexively bash people who take the lane more often than me as needlessly pissing off drivers, or people who take it less than me as unsafe fools or wimps.

No. Just no. This is not supported by history, or the law. It's just a rationalization for being OK with reckless and oblivious driving.

Funny how occasionally asserting your legal right to use the road in the same manner as a driver constitutes having "king of the road" mentality. Most of the anger from drivers comes from indignance that cyclists expect equality, not elevated status. The problem is that drivers have king status and, like any privileged group, are not about to give it up in the name of equality without protest.

That's your choice, but don't put anyone else down for not following your capitulation. I look at myself as a full citizen on the road, with rights and responsibilities the same as other road users. And the subtext to your "traffic hazard" statement is that somehow cyclists make drivers do bad things. Drivers often make bad choices around cyclists because of irrational impulses and worldviews. The fault falls squarely on the person...you know, the one with free will of their own...who chooses to do something hazardous.

It does take cooperation. I just didn't think cooperation was making excuses for bad drivers.

And surprises of surprises, you sneaked in the "my car taxes paid for this road so I own it" defense. This has been debunked so many times but it never goes away. Most cyclists drive so they pay their share. Bicycles essentially cause zero damage to roads (due to a fourth-power relationship between weight and road impact). Most of the money for roads is not paid for by vehicle-related taxes, so ALL taxpayers, not just drivers, fund most of the roads. And lastly, and most importantly, in a society where we have shared public infrastructure, the right to use that infrastructure is not related to how much you contribute to its construction or upkeep. If you went to a public park in another town and someone told you that you had to surrender your seat on the bench because they were a resident and actually paid for it, how would you feel about that? Would that be just in your mind?

When I drive, I find other drivers to be the biggest hindrance to me getting where I'm going. Should they yield to me? What makes a driver's desire to get somewhere as fast as possible override the legal responsibility to safely share the road with slower vehicles and more vulnerable users?

Then go ahead and do that. But keep your comments about how others who make a different choice are somehow out of line to yourself. I could make the argument that you, as a cyclist, should not travel on any road where there is the potential of holding up traffic for even a moment. After all, you never know what a temporarily delayed motorist might do. That staying off those roads is, in your own words, "the right, and safe thing to do." Would you dismiss me as unreasonable or absolutist? And someone else could go even farther, and say you should only ride on dedicated bike paths and transport your bike by car to get to those facilities. Maybe that's the right and safe thing to do. If you're not willing to take your own reasoning to it's logical (and ridiculous) conclusion, why do you disparage those who simply don't quite as far as you? Why so self-righteous about your own particular choices?

You don't cause drivers to take stupid chances. They have freedom of action, and that includes not doing dangerous things. This is like saying the cause of domestic abuse is wives irritating their husbands.

digger

I pull over for large trucks as well, in addition to pickups pulling large trailers.

I do not pull over when 2 vehicles (the one behind and the one oncoming) are about to pass abreast of me. The one approaching from the rear is required to wait until it is safe to pass. Having said that, I will slow down, stop pedalling and shoulder check to let the overtaking car know that I am aware of him/her. This slowing down/stop pedaling allows them to either pass ahead of me or behind me...hopefully.

I generally ride centre to 0.5 metres from fog line. If centre, I move right to facilitate an overtaking vehicle to pass.

Leebo

Umm, bikes are traffic. Try some pedaling in MA, it would be an eye opener.

Chris516

1. The bicycle came before the automobile

2. A motorist can pass a cyclist. Just as they can pass any motorist. But, If a cyclist is in front of a motorist. The motorist behaves as if the world is coming to an end, or they are going to spontaneously combust.

3. Riding AFRAP is the worst thing a cyclist can do. It is an open invitation to getting 'buzzed' by a motorist.

Cyclosaurus

I keep trying to prove this wrong (and failing). I usually keep in the right tire track. Then as an experiment in traffic, I'll move right. Immediately I'll start getting buzzed. It's really remarkable how automatic the response is. I'm convinced that drivers are functioning on near-autopilot. They see the space, they take it. Leaving that much room is like putting a big green light in front of them.

Chris516

That is why I am such a proponent of 'taking the lane'. If the motorist is not on auto-pilot. They are on auto-ignorance. Except, They don't treat a horse-n-carriage, like a cyclist. Because they don't want to spook the horse. But, A motorist passing a cyclist without making a close pass. Might as well, be akin to wanting to be on death row in a Super Max. prison, like in Florence, Colorado. Taking the lane, doesn't stop the motorist from passing. It just means that the motorist has to pay more attention when passing a cyclist.

B. Carfree

On a few hundred consecutive rides, I decided to count up the seconds that I was delayed by motorists and compare that to the seconds that motorists were delayed by me. Guess which was the larger number, by an order of magnitude?

Somehow, it never occurred to me that everyone else should get the eff off the road for my convenience. Not surprisingly, I don't intend to get off the road simply because the road design means that overtaking motorists have to wait a bit to get by.

kickstart

Few cyclists and motorcyclist dismiss the importance of lane position, but most also recognize its limitations, understanding the difference between not inviting issues, and provoking them by not exercising discretion.

GP

Do you always take the lane?

B. Carfree

If one is to allow crazy people to insist that your mere presence is a provocation, then you're not exercising discretion. You're ceding your rights. That's fine for you or anyone else to do, but hardly something to advocate. If such behavior is normalized, then it's a small step to removing all us "provocations" from the road entirely.

Chris516

Yes. A perfect example of why, happened yesterday. A relative was driving me back from the dentist in Baltimore. The relative in question, will be 75 this year. They were diagnosed with Fuchs Dystrophy several years ago. They have had one cornea transplant surgery so far, and needs the one more. We were back in the county I live in. When we came upon a construction zone. Concrete dividers had been placed in the middle of the road where the double-yellow line would have been. The double-yellow line had been repainted to account for the construction zone. Since one side of the road was sharing both directions of traffic. While construction crews, worked on the other side.

Keep in mind, I don't drive.

The relative crossed the repainted double-yellow line, almost colliding with an oncoming vehicle. They did not take notice, until I yelled at them. I almost jerked the steering wheel. But decided against it. Their excuse was, they thought they were in the travel lane.

If I had been riding through the construction zone, from the opposite direction, and I saw them coming at me like that. I would have let them crash into the concrete barrier. So as, not to become roadkill on account of their inattentiveness.

Before that even happened on the way into Baltimore. They almost hit a paraplegic in a wheelchair who was crossing at the crosswalk. Their excuse was, "He was too low"!!!!! I had to yell at them, then too.