Advocacy & Safety - Should he have moved over?

Okay so heres a question ive got for you guys. The other day i was driving down a fairly narrow 2 lane road with a speed limit of 35 and there was a cyclist doing about 15 mph riding as far as he could to the right. Even though he was all the way over there wasnt enough room for cars to pass and there was heavy traffic going both ways. He caused a backup of probably30-40 cars waiting for the oncoming lane to become free so they could pass. There was also a pretty empty sidewalk 2 feet to his right. What is the right thing to do in this situaton and should people be mad if he doesnt move over?

30 or 40 cars were backed up on a narrow 2 laner by a lone cyclist?

Hmmm... assuming that hyperbole hasn't infested this thread, this cyclist would have taken a "safety" break and let the angry convoy pass.

No it was literally 40 cars. The reason being there was a constant flow of traffic going the other way which allowed for nearly NO cars to pass him. The road has very heavy traffic and is probably too small for the amount of people that travel it. The reason being it runs straight east to west all the way across the county. There are a number of roads like this but they are all 4+ lanes.

There are a number of roads like this but they are all 4+ lanes.

Gee... ya think the freakin cagers would get a clue...

Well there are alot of things on said road and the need to travel down it is understandable. No real way to just take another road. Im just saying the other roads have no traffic problems because theyre big

Well if what you say is true, then yes, he should have taken a breather and let the "train" pass.
I've seen street sweepers and farm tractors do it, so why not the cyclist showing a lil' "Share the Road" reciprocation?

he can be on the road just as much as the cars. He isnt legally obligated to pull over and let them pass, but it would be nice.

He isnt legally obligated to pull over and let them pass, but it would be nice.

I am not so sure on that... while most "speeding tickets" are given based on sombody going too fast, it is very much possible to get one for going too slow. If your causing an obstruction to traffic as a normal driver (not a mail truck, street sweeper ect) you can get pulled over and ticketed for it.

I would assume a person on a bicycle could as well if they were indeed impeeding traffic flow.

he can be on the road just as much as the cars. He isnt legally obligated to pull over and let them pass, but it would be nice.
In California, if you ahve more than 5 cars (I think) with no passing lane you are required to pull over and let them pass as soon as its safe.
Being that bikes are subject to the same rules, he should ahve pulled over, assuming the law is the same.

He should have been about 3 more feet to the left. For a line of cars like that following, yeah, he maybe could have pulled over and let them by, but how often would a line of more than 5 accumulate on this road? If I had to stop every five minutes in this situation, I wouldn't. They're just stuck.

If the drivers have a problem with it then they need to lobby to get the road widened and shoulders paved, at tax payer expense.

Okay so heres a question ive got for you guys. The other day i was driving down a fairly narrow 2 lane road with a speed limit of 35 and there was a cyclist doing about 15 mph riding as far as he could to the right. Even though he was all the way over there wasnt enough room for cars to pass and there was heavy traffic going both ways. He caused a backup of probably30-40 cars waiting for the oncoming lane to become free so they could pass. There was also a pretty empty sidewalk 2 feet to his right. What is the right thing to do in this situaton and should people be mad if he doesnt move over?


As already mentioned he has the same right to the road as cars and riding on the sidewalk is illegal in most places. But common courtesy and safety would suggest taking a break and letting some traffic pass. When traffic gets bunched up behind you it is only a matter of time before a motorist is going to do something stupid and likely endanger you and everyone else on the road.

In California, if you ahve more than 5 cars (I think) with no passing lane you are required to pull over and let them pass as soon as its safe.
Being that bikes are subject to the same rules, he should ahve pulled over, assuming the law is the same.

nm+ is correct. The cyclist should have pulled over.

Riding on the sidewalk is legal here. And if he had pulled over and let the cars pass and then kept on. A backup of cars would have accumulated fairly quickly.

One of the reasons i was wondering (melon) is because every time a car did manage to get around him. They drove around him very angrily like he was totally breaking the law. Alot of them were swerving fast and close un purpose yelling and screaming. He just kept on like he was all by himself.

In California, if you ahve more than 5 cars (I think) with no passing lane you are required to pull over and let them pass as soon as its safe.
Being that bikes are subject to the same rules, he should ahve pulled over, assuming the law is the same.

Of course once he pulled over... with the traffic that seems to be indicated here... what were his chances of ever finding a gap and getting back in?

Would there have been a gap at the end of the 40 car train?

a sticky wicket. The social contract indicates a cyclist would yield as opposed to strict legal interpretation of roadway use. sounds very lame. those types of riding conditions suck.

Even though he was all the way over there wasnt enough room for cars to pass and there was heavy traffic going both ways. He caused a backup of probably30-40 cars waiting for the oncoming lane to become free so they could pass.
I would have, and Georgia law says I should in this case.

Most of the time, I don't obstruct traffic flow. Usually when cars start to back up behind me it's because someone is too timid to pass. After I wave them ahead, the backup usually disappears.

Well, I wouldn't have ridden on that road in the first place. Doesn't sound very safe.
However, the cyclist is legally entitled to ride there (with a few exceptions).
Pulling over to let traffic by would have been the nice thing to do but is generally not required.
Personally, I try to not create traffic backups in a car, truck, RV, U-Haul(that one is hard), or on a bike.

Interesting. There are very few roads in my city that have the combination of only two narrow lanes, sidewalk, and heavy traffic capable of moving substantially faster than a cyclist when conditions are congested. Any two of the three, yes, but not all three in the same place. The only one I know of might get 5-7 cars backed up at worst; the cars get backed up for left-turning cars on that road more often than for cyclists. Perhaps the left-turning drivers should wait on the sidewalk for traffic to clear.

If I am riding through a narrow road and more than a few cars back up for more than 20 seconds or so, and the lane in front of me becomes empty of cars for a very long gap, I will pull off momentarily when I see a good spot to do so. But if doing so will cost me more time than it saves for everybody else, I won't bother.

I dislike riding on roads where there is a combination of heavy traffic, high speeds, and just two narrow lanes. This happens on some of our rural-design state highways here, especially just outside the cities. By contrast, the more urban-design streets either have light traffic or multiple lanes in the same direction. I never have to pull over on the urban streets.

One of the reasons i was wondering (melon) is because every time a car did manage to get around him. They drove around him very angrily like he was totally breaking the law. Alot of them were swerving fast and close un purpose yelling and screaming. He just kept on like he was all by himself.

Many, many, cool points to him. Whoever he is.:)

That's the best anybody can do given the situation.

I was biking on a narrow, one-way parkway around one of the famous Minneapolis lakes (Lake Harriet, for those of you who know the area) earlier this week, and wound up following a string of three cars -- who were traveling very slowly because two cyclists were riding side by side at the head of the line. The road is not too narrow for cars to pass if cyclists stay a little bit to the right, especially since it's a one-way road. But this pair seemed to have no qualms about occupying the whole lane. This went on for a couple of miles, until the cyclists turned on a side street. We had kind of a funny little parade going on: the pair of cyclists leading, three cars, me, and two more cars behind me (they had room to pass, but presumably decided it wasn't worth it).

Should they have moved over? The road around the lake is not exactly an express route to anywhere, and traffic is often slow or backed up even when there aren't any cyclists. But it would have been relatively easy for them to move to the right rather than occupying the whole lane side by side.

I'm still trying to understand this. According to the OP, the cyclist was already riding as far to the right on the road as possible. So how is he going to get off the road to let traffic pass? The OP mentioned that there's a sidewalk about two feet to the right, but in order to get to it, wouldn't the cyclist have to make a complete stop and then carry the bike over to the sidewalk?

I was biking on a narrow, one-way parkway around one of the famous Minneapolis lakes (Lake Harriet, for those of you who know the area) earlier this week, and wound up following a string of three cars -- who were traveling very slowly because two cyclists were riding side by side at the head of the line. The road is not too narrow for cars to pass if cyclists stay a little bit to the right, especially since it's a one-way road. But this pair seemed to have no qualms about occupying the whole lane. This went on for a couple of miles, until the cyclists turned on a side street. We had kind of a funny little parade going on: the pair of cyclists leading, three cars, me, and two more cars behind me (they had room to pass, but presumably decided it wasn't worth it).

Should they have moved over? The road around the lake is not exactly an express route to anywhere, and traffic is often slow or backed up even when there aren't any cyclists. But it would have been relatively easy for them to move to the right rather than occupying the whole lane side by side.

Not sure I understand. A one-way road comprised of only one, single lane? In this case, yeah, they could have gone single file and scootched over to allow a half-dozen cars to pass, then gone back to what they were doing. But then again, how wide was the lane? If too narrow to pass a single cyclist safely, then two abreast doesn't matter.

The laws for slow moving vehicles usually says the drivers have to pull over to allow traffic to pass, but this doesnt apply to bicycles. Laws applicable to cyclists describe them as operators not drivers.

The laws for slow moving vehicles usually says the drivers have to pull over to allow traffic to pass, but this doesnt apply to bicycles. Laws applicable to cyclists describe them as operators not drivers.

This varies from state to state, or in your case, between nations. In North Carolina, there is no legal requirement that any slow vehicle leave the roadway to allow traffic to pass. Other states do have such a requirement. The only requirement in NC is that slow traffic use the right lane, or if no lanes are striped, operate as far right on the roadway as practicable.

North Carolina has an "impeding traffic" law that prohibits traveling much slower than the normal speed of traffic, but this only applies if the vehicle is (a) motorized AND (b) capable of traveling at the normal speed, AND (c) traveling at the normal speed is safe to do given the conditions existing and the driver's destination. Since bicycles are not motorized vehicles, they are automatically exempt, as are farm tractors that have limted speeds.

The laws for slow moving vehicles usually says the drivers have to pull over to allow traffic to pass, but this doesnt apply to bicycles. Laws applicable to cyclists describe them as operators not drivers.
In California, since cyclists have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, they aren't exempt from the requirement to pull off the road if five or more cars are waiting behind on a two lane road. But a cyclist only has to pull over if there's a turnout or other safe place to pull over. In this case, I'm not sure if he can safely get off the road, since the sidewalk is two feet away and there could be a curb. Not sure about Florida law.

Interesting. There are very few roads in my city that have the combination of only two narrow lanes, sidewalk, and heavy traffic capable of moving substantially faster than a cyclist when conditions are congested. Any two of the three, yes, but not all three in the same place. The only one I know of might get 5-7 cars backed up at worst; the cars get backed up for left-turning cars on that road more often than for cyclists. Perhaps the left-turning drivers should wait on the sidewalk for traffic to clear.


Your city sounds exactly like my city. There is very little opportunity for a cyclist to genuinely inconvenience a motorist, and travel by bicycle is normally faster than by automobile. That doesn't stop motorists from getting upset though.

In California, if you ahve more than 5 cars (I think) with no passing lane you are required to pull over and let them pass as soon as its safe.
Being that bikes are subject to the same rules, he should ahve pulled over, assuming the law is the same.

I actually think it is less than that. By the letter of the law however the cyclist only has to pull over when safe. That means pulling in to a turnout or over to the right into an open section of parking lane, neither of which seem to exist here.

IF there were occasional driveways or other chances to get out of the way without having to stop and get off the bike (while still in the road) I probably would in this situation. I would also push to over 15, perhaps even push enough that a pulling over for a rest would seem nice.

I'm not sure, it may just be my imagination and in this case it would only apply to the first few cars. But it has seemed to me that in situations where I am 'holding up traffic' that drivers are much more understanding if I at least look like I'm going as fast as I can.

The piece we're missing is, how long is this section of road. If its short (quarter mile), then the biker is probably doing the most practical thing. If its long, he should pull over or (since its legal there) hop on the sidewalk for awhile.

The fact that people in cars rage doesn't mean they know anything about the legality of the situation. If that was true, we would have the most law-abiding automobile citzenry on earth :)

this road goes on like this for 5 or so miles. aftre that it widens up a bit and would allow for passing.

And yes MarkS thats my whole question. Even if he were being totally right in the eyes of the law is it still wrong to hold up a line of cars like that? I mean laws are laws but ill be honest. i really thought he should have moved over to the mostly empty sidewalk and let the cars pass.

(note: Sidewalk riding is totally legal and common here)

And yes MarkS thats my whole question. Even if he were being totally right in the eyes of the law is it still wrong to hold up a line of cars like that? I mean laws are laws but ill be honest. i really thought he should have moved over to the mostly empty sidewalk and let the cars pass.

(note: Sidewalk riding is totally legal and common here)

When considering issues of courtesy beyond the law, I try to imagine what I would do if all the other people around me were friends of mine. The answer is that I would cooperate such that our net delay was reduced, while not delaying myself to an unreasonable degree. It's kind of like opening the door for your friends - you like doing it to be nice, but if there is a really long line of people coming in, they understand that at some point you want and deserve to walk through yourself.

In the case of the narrow road with the sidewalk, I would probably pull into a driveway at some point, but I wouldn't ride on the sidewalk. I would rather wait a bit for traffic to disperse than ride on the sidewalk, regardless of who's watching.

I am not so sure on that... while most "speeding tickets" are given based on sombody going too fast, it is very much possible to get one for going too slow. If your causing an obstruction to traffic as a normal driver (not a mail truck, street sweeper ect) you can get pulled over and ticketed for it.

I would assume a person on a bicycle could as well if they were indeed impeeding traffic flow.

Only if there is a minimum posted speed limit. Otherwise I do not think you can get a ticket for going to slow.

And yes MarkS thats my whole question. Even if he were being totally right in the eyes of the law is it still wrong to hold up a line of cars like that? I mean laws are laws but ill be honest. i really thought he should have moved over to the mostly empty sidewalk and let the cars pass.

(note: Sidewalk riding is totally legal and common here)
The cyclist should do what is safest and doesn't significantly compromise their practicality/efficiency. The cyclist in question clearly seemed comfortable doing this and given the 'social pressure' of riding on such a road I would bet this cyclist has considered their options and made the choice to ride where they did based on a variety of factors that even a cyclist in a car may not notice.

It is possible a cyclist could ride on the sidewalk, but in my case it would need to be basically unused by pedestrians, intersectionless (not even driveways) for long (1mi+ stretches) have ramped access to/from roadway and adequate roadway space and sightlines for the transistion point to/from roadway to sidewalk.

If the traffic density is as high as described, it would make no sense to temporarily leave roadway as then one could not easily re-enter and when one did they would very quickly have a long line again. So the sidewalk for extended length is the only alternative to delaying motorist for a 5mi stretch - is it a viable option for me? To answer that I'd have to see the road/traffic/sidewalk in question.

Al

i should take a photo :P Mabye i will on my way home from work. But noisebeam you hit the nail on the head. Pulling over would only alieviate the traffic until he got back on the road and then it would pile right back up.

The sidwalk is pretty unused but there is a driveway every 20 feet. Houses right off the street. If i were in his position i would have gotten on the sidewalk and rode slowly as a pedestrian to be safe.

In terms of pulling over only where it's safe, I think that is a non-issue for a cyclist. For a car, sure, they need a driveway or lay-bye or wide shoulder, but a cyclist can pull over to the curb or road edge and stop or dismount almost anywhere. The only situation I can think of where a cyclist should not pull over to let traffic by is where there is little or no shoulder, and a deep ditch or steep slope beside the road.

i The sidwalk is pretty unused but there is a driveway every 20 feet. Houses right off the street. If i were in his position i would have gotten on the sidewalk and rode slowly as a pedestrian to be safe.
I would without question ride on the street. Sidewalks with driveways like this (density) have more than just cars entering & leaving, there are homeowners around the driveway area, pets, stuff left on sidewalk, kids, etc.

Also how does one move over onto sidewalk? Is there no curb?

Al

..but a cyclist can pull over to the curb or road edge and stop or dismount almost anywhere. The only situation I can think of where a cyclist should not pull over to let traffic by is where there is little or no shoulder, and a deep ditch or steep slope beside the road.
But on this narrow road, if there is not enough space to move right to let faster vehicles safely pass there can't be enough space to move over and fully stop. I'd still want 3ft. passing room (actually more) if I was stationairy on side of road.

Al

Only if there is a minimum posted speed limit. Otherwise I do not think you can get a ticket for going to slow.

In some states, where minimum speed limits are posted on roads that are not freeways, the law for minimum posted speed limits is written such that it exempts drivers of non-motorized vehicles and vehicles that are slow by design. This is true in North Carolina, where I live. Minimum speed limit signs are extremely rare on non-freeway roads here anyway.

North Carolina has a different law prohibiting bicycles from fully controlled access freeways, but makes exceptions for that where required for access over important bridges and such.

We have streets in this city which are designated "half streets." These result when a developer has only built out on one side of a 4 or 5 lane right of way. Remaining lanes will be built once another development is started on the opposite side. In reality what occurs is traffic occupies two opposing lanes except where development has already occured on both sides. So as one proceeds down a long road they are alternately being squeezed into two narrow lanes or released onto a boulevard of four lanes and a center turn lane, only once again to be squeezed into two lanes. Of course, the more the development, the greater the traffic wnd the more dramatic the accordian effect. As a cyclist, it is a constant challenge to alternate safely between taking a lane, staying right, yielding when required and just keeping track of traffic.

This is (part of) the problem with America today: nobody is courteous anymore. The cyclist was kind of an a** by not moving over to the sidewalk so all the cars were delayed. The cars were a**es as well by passing too close, shouting and I'm sure giving the old 1-finger salute. Each party believes the other is at fault and is an a** rather than give the other party some common courtesy.

For those without a clear mental picture. This is basically how it was.
http://i4.tinypic.com/102tbp2.jpg

This is (part of) the problem with America today: nobody is courteous anymore. The cyclist was kind of an a** by not moving over to the sidewalk so all the cars were delayed. The cars were a**es as well by passing too close, shouting and I'm sure giving the old 1-finger salute. Each party believes the other is at fault and is an a** rather than give the other party some common courtesy.

May as well throw the develper or city in the a**pile for designing a road so narrow and expecting all that traffic to use it.

Would be willing to be that the a**hole drivers are using that road as a shortcut to get around some other road... so that makes them double a**es.

May as well throw the develper or city in the a**pile for designing a road so narrow and expecting all that traffic to use it.

Seeing the diagram of the road and the traffic level portrayed, something is clearly off.
Residential roads (35mph, continuous driveway) are never intended for bumper to bumper fast traffic.
It is odd it is so narrow with driveways and no on street parking. How do drivers leave their driveways if traffic is so dense and fast? How do kids play? Surely the neighbors can't be happy with the situation.

I think Gene is on to something, perhaps this road is being used to bypass an overcrowded transport road.

Al

I was biking on a narrow, one-way parkway around one of the famous Minneapolis lakes (Lake Harriet, for those of you who know the area) earlier this week, and wound up following a string of three cars -- who were traveling very slowly because two cyclists were riding side by side at the head of the line. The road is not too narrow for cars to pass if cyclists stay a little bit to the right, especially since it's a one-way road. But this pair seemed to have no qualms about occupying the whole lane. This went on for a couple of miles, until the cyclists turned on a side street. We had kind of a funny little parade going on: the pair of cyclists leading, three cars, me, and two more cars behind me (they had room to pass, but presumably decided it wasn't worth it).

Should they have moved over? The road around the lake is not exactly an express route to anywhere, and traffic is often slow or backed up even when there aren't any cyclists. But it would have been relatively easy for them to move to the right rather than occupying the whole lane side by side.
Maybe a touch overstated? The perimeter of the lake is only 2.7 miles.

genec i think your being unfair to the people using that road. Its not a shortcut or anything like that. Its a road that has houses and shopping centers that people need to get to. All the roads traveling east to west with no interruptions such as this one have alot of cars on them. But this one is probably the most crowded because of its size. depending on where you are going you drive down whichever one is closeset to your destination north to south. there are also alot of side streets that go into neighborhoods. Thats why people drive down it not because its a shortcut for ******* drivers. Trust me if they could take one of the 4+ lane roads without it being out of there way they would.

People that are leaving there driveways have to wait for a break in traffic which happens every so often. It was happening when the guy was riding but not fast enough for cars to get past him and there not to be a huge backup. This was also around peak traffic time and at other times its not so bad.

But i would never live on the road because its a pain in the ass to get out like youre saying. people wishing to leave there driveways sit and wait for an opportunity to back out and then do it.

The problem with this road is it was built before the 60's when south florida wasnt crowded. There is no room for expansion, and the road is a direct route east to west.

and in this part of town there is no on street parking. Its kind of a residential neighborhood with houses not a city.

...Its not a shortcut or anything like that. Its a road that has houses and shopping centers that people need to get to. All the roads traveling east to west with no interruptions such as this one have alot of cars on them.
If the road is as busy as you say, then it it not only being used for local (i.e. residents of houses, access to shopping) traffic. It is being used as an E-W corridor for folks who don't live in the area.
How fast do vehicles move when it is this busy? Is traffic moving at 35mph on such a narrow street with so many driveways and possibilities for turning vehicles?

Al

Its nearly always going 35-40mph. There are alot of houses but there arent alot of people leaving the houses. If anyone does leave the house they have to wait for an open spot. Same with side streets. If anyone is at a stop sign they have to sit there (for sometimes 5+ minutes) and wait for a chance to go. Yes some if not alot of the traffic is from people using it to travel east to west. But similar roads are out of the way in alot of situations and it would make no sense for them to go out of there way to take it. If a vehicle does turn down a side road or a driveway they barely slow down when doing so (Which is dangerous for sidewals riders further complicating the situation)

Seeing the diagram of the road and the traffic level portrayed, something is clearly off.
Residential roads (35mph, continuous driveway) are never intended for bumper to bumper fast traffic.
It is odd it is so narrow with driveways and no on street parking. How do drivers leave their driveways if traffic is so dense and fast? How do kids play? Surely the neighbors can't be happy with the situation.

I think Gene is on to something, perhaps this road is being used to bypass an overcrowded transport road.

Al


You guys gotta come back east sometime...most of the rodes I ride are narrow, two-lane, no shoulder, no sidewalk, speed limits of 30-55mph, traffic at 40-60mph, very congested at rush hour. These areas are the bedroom communities for the metro area, essentially rural and never designed to handle the traffic they now see.