I am not a slow moving vehicle

[LittleBigMan]

In this case, you edited out a rather important part of my statement, which I now restore in bold: "In many jurisdictions, including Diane's CA, cyclists are not drivers of slow moving vehicles, because bicycles (legally) are not vehicles.

When a Californian is addressing another Californian on a matter of California law, what is the relevance of Maryland law?
Well, that's a good point about CA vs. MD law.

But I'd also have to question the relevance of nit-picking about the legal definition of slow-moving vehicles in CA, since Helmet Head himself has often compared his bicycle to a slow-moving vehicle in previous posts.

[Helmet Head]

LBM - There are legal contexts and layman contexts. However, sometimes there is meaning spillover from legal to layman. I just wanted to be clear that in Diane's CA legal context a bicycle is not a vehicle, and therefore is not a slow moving vehicle. But in terms of the layman spillover effect, I think it's helpful to consider, legally, in CA, we have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles, and it follows from that when we are slow moving we hav ethe same rights and resonsibilities as drivers of slow moving vehicles.

You call it nit picking. I call it a useful paradigm.

[sbhikes]

I have a nit pick with you calling it "Diane's CA". I don't own the state of California.

[sbhikes]

If busy roads with higher speeds were simply built with adequate width for safe and easy passing of slower users like cyclists, would you feel that you needed to do too much peering into your mirror and getting out of the way?

And if highway engineers designed junctions with the assumption that entrance and exit paths would encounter "mixed traffic" including lower speed vehicles, would that work?

I personally don't see why road engineers can't consider bicycles as part of a general class of slower vehicles, including electric mopeds, gas mopeds, neighborhood electric vehicles, meter-reading vehicles, horsedrawn carriages, and so forth.

Exactly. And whatever it takes to get the job done--and done right, I'm for.

[DigitalQuirk]

I think that only applies when the intent is obstruct. I know of no law that forces anyone to drive at exactly the speed limit wherever possible.

Traffic laws are absolute liability; that is, the prosecution does not need to prove intent, only that you committed the offense. Otherwise, it'd be impossible to prosecute someone who unintentionally parked in a no-parking zone, or unintentionally exceeded the speed limit.

Bicycles are slow moving vehicles on highways, and I think cyclists are wise to consider things like the reflective triangle to legitimize their use on highways where they cannot maintain even half the posted speed limit.

[HiYoSilver]

The basic problem is not legal but political. The general public needs to be educated, they don't think of bicycles as vehicles but as toys, in the same class as skate boards, human powered scooters, and big wheels.

Suggestions
1. Change grade school bike safety courses so all students, including non bike riders, learn
A- bikes belong on roads
B- by the time kids get to 8 and 9th grades, then need to move their riding from the sidewalks to the roadways

2. regular push for gov't funded subsidies of biking commuters. Gov't jump started railroads and many industries, why not kill two birds with one stone by jumpstarting bike commuting and reducing some oil consumption and medical costs subsidized by the govt.

3. reeducate baseball/softball/soccer coaches and organizations.
a. This is a sport to encourage fitness
b. unless meets are more than 10 miles away, the participants should be riding to the events and not loading their private trucks with their child and taxing to games.
[ yeah, I know an impossible dream, but what the hey]

[DigitalQuirk]

Bookish,
Who is to determine what types of vehicles will be used in the future? In the late 50's and 60's when roadways were really growing, bikes were mainly used by kids and families and very few were for commuting. Since that time, bike commuting has increased, but even so, it isn't any where near the volume of cars used for commuting. With limited tax money available, they have to use their money somewhat wisely and for the majority of people who use the roadways. I agree there should be some wider shoulders to bikes to safely use.

Perhaps bicycles ought to be licensed, and the revenue generated from licensing bicycles can be used to expand shoulders to accomodate bicycles. Otherwise, I don't know where the money would come from to undertake the widening of shoulders.

[DigitalQuirk]

The basic problem is not legal but political. The general public needs to be educated, they don't think of bicycles as vehicles but as toys, in the same class as skate boards, human powered scooters, and big wheels.

Suggestions
1. Change grade school bike safety courses so all students, including non bike riders, learn
A- bikes belong on roads
B- by the time kids get to 8 and 9th grades, then need to move their riding from the sidewalks to the roadways

2. regular push for gov't funded subsidies of biking commuters. Gov't jump started railroads and many industries, why not kill two birds with one stone by jumpstarting bike commuting and reducing some oil consumption and medical costs subsidized by the govt.

3. reeducate baseball/softball/soccer coaches and organizations.
a. This is a sport to encourage fitness
b. unless meets are more than 10 miles away, the participants should be riding to the events and not loading their private trucks with their child and taxing to games.
[ yeah, I know an impossible dream, but what the hey]

Again, requiring bicycles that are used on public roads to be licensed would legitimize them in the eyes of motorists and the general public.

[banerjek]

Garbage trucks and mail trucks here often travel at reduced speed as they stop and go short distances, but this is required for their function. People understand why they travel slowly and accept this.

Rush hour traffic also fits into this category. Yesterday, I had to drive to work. While I was in town, there was no way I was moving anywhere near the speed that I would have been had I been on my bicycle.

Bicycles slow? Gimme a break. There's nothing rare about traffic moving at a crawl. Cars hold me up more than the other way around and when they're slow, they block the road.

[sbhikes]

Perhaps there should be a law against people older than a certain age (16?) being on the sidewalk. Old enough to drive? Old enough to stay odd the sidewalk.

[bkrownd]

I have a problem with the whole slow moving vehicle concept. I am not operating a slow moving vehicle.


Slow moving is as slow moving does. If you cannot keep up with the flow of traffic you are by definition a slow moving vehicle.

[Helmet Head]

Indeed, if it is being driven slowly, even a Ferrari can be a slow moving vehicle and subject to the relevant laws.

[sbhikes]

If all the traffic was bicycles, then I would be a slow-moving vehicle. Or maybe just an average moving one.

But all the vehicles are not the same. Mine is being driven near its maximum speed, while most of the cars out there are not. Just because a Ferrari is going slow does not make it equivalent to a bicycle.

A bicycle is not equivalent to a tractor or a Ferrari. A bicycle is a bicycle.

[Helmet Head]

A tractor is not a Ferrari. Yet both are slow moving vehicles when they are moving slowly on the roadway.
Same with a bicycle.

Why do you thinking labeling a bicycle as "slow moving" some how equates it with tractor, but accept (presumably) that labeling a bullldozer slow moving does not equate it to a horse and carriage?

[bkrownd]

A bicycle is not equivalent to a tractor or a Ferrari. A bicycle is a bicycle.

A bicycle is a vehicle. Any vehicle that is moving slowly relative to the flow of traffic is a slow moving vehicle. Why do you insist on putting yourself on a pedestal above tractor and buggy drivers, as if you deserve special priveleges? Ever wonder why the public thinks cyclists are elitist snobs? Read your posts.

[Helmet Head]

Diane, when two objects share a characteristic, that does not mean that they are the same.
For example, just because we are both humans, and I'm a man, does not mean that you're a man too.
Similarly, just because tractors and bicycles can both be slow moving vehicles does not mean bicycles are tractors.

[Bekologist]

my bicycle is more of a devil sled than a tractor, but public roads and buffer zones are valuable public space and should be designed for all users to share without conflict.

well accomodated roadways with wheels on the ground striping that benefits cyclists has more actual and physical presense than methods or techniques alone will provide.

velotransit accomodations provide speed and destination appropriate positioning for all roadway users and provide for mixing when necessary. velotransit lanes demarcate the a priori default 'sweet spot' for cyclists, buffered from the door zone, edge of roadway or egresses. velotransit provides preferential lanes of travel in the presence of heavy petrol congestion, and demarcates the sweet spot on the roadway in the absense of petrol traffic.

as is the limitiations with all lanes, a cyclist should be free to modify their lane positions as their unique-in time-situations require.

[bkrownd]

velotransit lanes demarcate the a priori default 'sweet spot' for cyclists, buffered from the door zone, edge of roadway or egresses. velotransit provides preferential lanes of travel in the presence of heavy petrol congestion, and demarcates the sweet spot on the roadway in the absense of petrol traffic.


That essentially means creating a special lane with a buffer zone, which isn't going to happen in most areas. Personally I hate to think of the extra pavement area required, as well. Don't want to see more pavement. Could be a good plan for major arteries, though. What I would like to see is more police on bikes, so drivers get in the habit of treating at least a few cyclists seriously and with some respect. I think it would change some people's perception of cyclists.

[Helmet Head]

What I would like to see is more police on bikes, so drivers get in the habit of treating at least a few cyclists seriously and with some respect. I think it would change some people's perception of cyclists.
:beer:

[Serendipper]

You're slow. Get over it.

[bkrownd]

oooo! OOOO! I'm slow too! Me me me me me me me! :D

As far as I can tell, the slow moving vehicle signs are actually prohibited on bicycles in Minnesota.

[Bekologist]

just because you or other critics don't like velotransit accomodations isn't a compelling enough reason to fail to design public space for all users, bkbrown. but fighting try, buddy.

in addition to the above mentioned advantages, velotransit in a community encourages destination positioning by bicyclists and drivers' recognition of bicyclists in destination positions, even on roadways velotransit accomodations are absent.

Velotransit encourages more cyclists to try vehicular cycling, increases quality of life and property values, and provides for greater visibility of cyclists in a community.

just because a certain, very small segment of bicyclists chestbeat and testosteronize their pledge they are tough enough and strong enough to never actually need a painted stripe on the road to help them out is not a compelling enough reason to illegitimize velotransit.

Heck, i've read in A&S some of the rightous critics think over %99 percent of bicyclists are riding incorrectly anyways, maybe some roadway stripes that benefit bicyclists would be a good thing.

[bkrownd]

You're presuming what I like and don't like. The only thing I don't like is more pavement. It would require widening roads. However, the US isn't going to entirely redesign its cities for this kind of thing anyway. Some major arteries could receive such improvements, though.

Imagine if the motorways were behind the buildings, and the bike and pedestrian space was at the front. :D

[sbhikes]

For one thing, tractors and buggies just go along the side of the roadway and they are there temporarily or for commercial purposes (we don't have Amish people here so I have no idea what they are like).

Farm equipment operators and slow-moving Ferarris don't pull over for every faster vehicle behind them. But some people around here would have cyclists ride along pulling over for every faster vehicle behind them.

I believe that since we are simply single-occupant human powered vehicles going at proper speed that we should not have to drive that way. We should be able to drive along like other vehicles, looking forward.

Now, as far as the whole bike lanes = more concrete fallacy. What equals more concrete are more people in cars. Get people off their asses and out of their cars and we won't need so much concrete.

[velonomad]

I think there may be a middle ground here:

http://www.precisiontractors.com/34380.jpg

Sorry There is currently no recumbent model available, but the single speed freaks will be happy

[LittleBigMan]

Traffic laws are absolute liability; that is, the prosecution does not need to prove intent, only that you committed the offense.
There are traffic laws which, by definition, specifically involve intent. Aggressive driving, for example:

(Georgia Code)

40-6-397.
(a) A person commits the offense of aggressive driving when he or she operates any motor vehicle with the intent to annoy, harass, molest, intimidate, injure, or obstruct another person, including without limitation violating Code Section 40-6-42, 40-6-48, 40-6-49, 40-6-123, 40-6-184, 40-6-312, or 40-6-390 with such intent.
(b) Any person convicted of aggressive driving shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

Speed limits represent maximum speed, not minimum speed, with the exception of highway minimums, which is 40 mph. where I live. Obstructing traffic is possible, both in a car and on a bike, given certain conditions, but the only Georgia law that mentions obstructing traffic for a car travelling less than the posted limit is when the car is in the left lane.

Cyclists are expected to get out of the way of faster moving traffic only when the cyclist holds up traffic for an unreasonable amount of time. It just never happens to me. I never have gotten a ticket, or even a warning, for riding smack in the center of the right lane on my bike for about 7 miles of my commute, even though I see an average of 5 police cruisers an hour from several different jursidictions. The key is that there is always plenty of room to pass me in the next lane.

I am a courteous cyclist, and in the afternoon when it gets very busy, I stay aware of the traffic situation behind me and work to keep it flowing when appropriate.

[Helmet Head]

Farm equipment operators and slow-moving Ferarris don't pull over for every faster vehicle behind them. But some people around here would have cyclists ride along pulling over for every faster vehicle behind them.

I don't think anyone has said that cyclists should pull over for every faster vehicle behind them.

Thanks to this thread, I did come to one important realization, however. This is a difference between a vehicle designed to be operated at below a certain relatively low speed (e.g. 25 mph), and a vehicle that just happens to be moving slow relative to other traffic, yet I think we've been using the term "slow moving vehicle" for both meanings interchangably, not only in this thread, but in all S&A threads. What doesn't help is that the law uses both terms for both meanings as well.

Slow-Moving Vehicle Emblem

24615. It is unlawful to operate upon a public highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles, which is designed to be and is operated at a speed of 25 miles per hour or less, unless the rearmost vehicle displays a "slow-moving vehicle emblem, ..."

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24615.htm

Since most bicycles are designed to be operated at speeds considerably higher than 25 mph (I've hit 55 on mine :D), in this sense Diane is right: a bicycle is not a slow moving vehicle in the sense that bulldozers, golf carts and tractors are.

However, when I have written in the past about slow moving vehicles, I had in mind a broader meaning, the one used by 21656:


Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm

Therefore, any time you are "proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic" you are subject to 21656, regardless of whether you are riding a bike, or driving a tractor, Vespa or Ferrari.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I think there may be a middle ground here:

http://www.precisiontractors.com/34380.jpg

Sorry There is currently no recumbent model available, but the single speed freaks will be happy
Fixed gear fans, too

[sggoodri]

Again, requiring bicycles that are used on public roads to be licensed would legitimize them in the eyes of motorists and the general public.

Would it not be preferable to instead promote adoption of the idea that bicyclists' use of public roads is a right by virtue of their being members of the public?

Licensing and registration are warranted only where the degree of danger the vehicle presents to the rest of the public is great enough. We could debate whether that's the case for cyclists, but let's not for now.

Travel, by itself, is a fundamental right, not something to be regulated by government out of course. Only to the degree that the government needs to protect safety or raise money to pay for roads - promoting the ability to travel - should the government regulate the mechanisms of our travel. And then, enforcement of the regulation is justifiable only for the purpose of ensuring public safety or raising money. If the public approves of a law that requires that a person pay a particular fee or obtain a particular license, then that law should be enforced. But never, ever, should we accept the idea that not being required to pay a fee or obtain a license implies reduced legitimacy.

[catatonic]

For one thing, tractors and buggies just go along the side of the roadway and they are there temporarily or for commercial purposes (we don't have Amish people here so I have no idea what they are like).

Farm equipment operators and slow-moving Ferarris don't pull over for every faster vehicle behind them. But some people around here would have cyclists ride along pulling over for every faster vehicle behind them.

I believe that since we are simply single-occupant human powered vehicles going at proper speed that we should not have to drive that way. We should be able to drive along like other vehicles, looking forward.

Now, as far as the whole bike lanes = more concrete fallacy. What equals more concrete are more people in cars. Get people off their asses and out of their cars and we won't need so much concrete.


That's the difference...I grew up around Amish....actually in one of the towns I lived in, there was an Amish family about 3 miles up the road. They try to ride on the side of the road, since they really don't like the idea of paving roads, but in some areas, like the road I lived on, there was no edge to operate on...so they were in the road, taking a lane.

Now...this is where it gets fun....in some jurisdictions, the Amish had to use lights on their buggies. This is inherently wrong and evil to them, but they did comply since it was the law....in those areas you often find a few lights operating off of a large battery of some sort.

At the end of the day, they are trying their best to get around without obstructing traffic, and do recognize their rights as vehicles. Heck, I even seen a buggy sitting at a stop light in town. That was pretty cool.

And as an offtopic....Amish baked goods are sooo freaking good....best bread I ever had :)

[Keith99]

Many freeways have a minimum speed limit...but that really isn't applicable in the context of bicycles.
I agree there needs to be intent to obstruct - or the capacity to match the normal flow of traffic, which a bicycle does not have in some cases.


There DOES NOT need to be intent to obstruct traffic to get a TICKET for such actions. Now if we are talking about more drastic legal action then intent MAY become an issue, but only may. Cars driven too slow on the freeway by old farts get ticketed all the time simply for going too slow and disrupting the flow of traffic. But applying this back to cyclists, I have never heard of this ticket happening when the slow driver is in the right hand lane of the freeway. In that case unless they are going painfully slowly and there is no alternative route they are within the bounds of what the law requires.

[cerewa]

What I would like to see is more police on bikes, so drivers get in the habit of treating at least a few cyclists seriously and with some respect. I think it would change some people's perception of cyclists.

I generally agree. But in the philadelphia area, as far as I know, "neighborhood safety officers" (seen as police by a lot of the public) and police who are on bikes usually use the sidewalk. They tend to go at a running pace, and stop frequently, so it makes sense to me that they would use the sidewalk but it does sort of give the wrong impression.

Mine ((Diane's bike)) is being driven near its maximum speed, while most of the cars out there are not.

Most of the vehicles I've seen with with SMV triangles were construction vehicles of some sort and were going near their maximum speed too.

Gov't jump started railroads and many industries, why not kill two birds with one stone by jumpstarting bike commuting and reducing some oil consumption and medical costs subsidized by the govt. (... so subsidize bikes)

In a lot of europe they tax gas enough to encourage significant numbers of people to use bikes and public transit. It's easy to enforce a gas tax and hard to enforce a subsidy of bicycle use since it's hard to track how much people are using bicycles.

In the U.S., I think it would be a terrible move politically if bike advocates were to associate their advocacy with raising taxes, but asking for a subsidy for a "good thing" in this country is fair game.

So, what I think bicycle advocates should ask for is a law that raises gas taxes and lowers income taxes, and call it a special tax break for users of environmentally friendly transportation. Even single-occupant car users who reduce their mileage will benefit a little... as they should.

[Bekologist]

Thanks to this thread, I did come to one important realization, however. This is a difference between a vehicle designed to be operated at below a certain relatively low speed (e.g. 25 mph), and a vehicle that just happens to be moving slow relative to other traffic.

Since most bicycles are designed to be operated at speeds considerably higher than 25 mph...


but not practical of operating at more than 25 miles an hour on level ground except by a very select few cyclists. pretending that the capability of breakneck speeds on a bike on a downhill are indicative of vehicular parity is incredibly dishonest. The average commuter is probably 15 MPH. so, lets look at slow moving from a aggreate of 15 MPH, MAX.

A bike is a slow moving mode of locomotion, as far as roadway warrants are considered. wether it is classed as a pedestrian, farm implement, or a devil sled is up to the local laws and regs.

[patc]

Would it not be preferable to instead promote adoption of the idea that bicyclists' use of public roads is a right by virtue of their being members of the public?

I don't get this idea of using the roads as a right, is this an American thing? The last idea I would want to promote is that using the roads is a right! It should be a privilege, one quickly and completely revoked for irresponsible behaviour.

(Admittedly there are many levels of rights, so it depends what definition you are using.)


Licensing and registration are warranted only where the degree of danger the vehicle presents to the rest of the public is great enough. We could debate whether that's the case for cyclists, but let's not for now.

It has been debated here before. I support of partial licensing myself.


Travel, by itself, is a fundamental right, not something to be regulated by government out of course. Only to the degree that the government needs to protect safety or raise money to pay for roads - promoting the ability to travel - should the government regulate the mechanisms of our travel.

"Travel", "travel by road", and "travel by operating a vehicle on the road" are three different concepts. I think governments can and should (and do) regulate "travel by operating a vehicle on the road" to ensure reasonable safety for all.

I have three means of local travel and four means of long distance travel. Even if my ability to operate a vehicle on the roads was removed, I could still travel (if not as conveniently).

I think promoting the idea that cyclists have a right to the roads because we all have a "right to the roads" is a step in the wrong direction, it just justifies the claims of every driver out there who has claimed a right to the road after drunk driving, or running down a cyclist, etc. Instead we need to promote to every road user - from pedestrians to cyclists and motorists - that road use is only permitted under certain defined laws, that breaking those laws endangers the safety of yourself and others, and that breaking those laws can and should result in sever penalties include loss of road privileges. Enough of this rights nonsense, we have people claiming everything is their "right" now. Sure, there are a few fundamental human rights, but most of what people cry about as "rights" are just the privileges they now feel entitled to, regardless of irresponsible behaviour.

[Helmet Head]

Thanks to this thread, I did come to one important realization, however. This is a difference between a vehicle designed to be operated at below a certain relatively low speed (e.g. 25 mph), and a vehicle that just happens to be moving slow relative to other traffic.

Since most bicycles are designed to be operated at speeds considerably higher than 25 mph...

but not practical of operating at more than 25 miles an hour on level ground except by a very select few cyclists. pretending that the capability of breakneck speeds on a bike on a downhill are indicative of vehicular parity is incredibly dishonest. The average commuter is probably 15 MPH. so, lets look at slow moving from a aggreate of 15 MPH, MAX.

A bike is a slow moving mode of locomotion, as far as roadway warrants are considered. wether it is classed as a pedestrian, farm implement, or a devil sled is up to the local laws and regs.
The lack of clarity in your thinking is alarming, Beck, but explains much, like your irrational and emotional attachment to bike lanes.

That it is impractical for most of us to operate a bicycle at more than 25 mph on level ground is irrelevant to the fact unlike some other vehicles that are designated as members of "slow moving vehicle" class, there is nothing inherent about a bicycle that makes it contrary to its design to operate it at speeds above 25 mph. This is why the bicycle does not fit in the class of "slow moving vehicle" (but tractors, bulldozers, golf carts, etc. do).

The more general definition of the term "slow moving vehicle", which applies to any vehicle moving slower than traffic, does of course apply to bicycles, but only when moving slower than traffic.

The distinction is critical. A bulldozer is a designated slow moving vehicle permanently. A bicycle is a slow moving vehicle if and only if it is moving slower than traffic.

In other words, when everyone is stopped at an intersection, a bulldozer is still a slow moving vehicle (because it always is), but a bicycle is not (because it is not moving slower than other traffic at that time).

[DigitalQuirk]

There are traffic laws which, by definition, specifically involve intent. Aggressive driving, for example:


Aggressive driving may possibly be the only driving offense where intent would need to be proven, but only because of the nature of the offence.


Since most bicycles are designed to be operated at speeds considerably higher than 25 mph (I've hit 55 on mine


I have a spedometer on my Raleigh Tarantula mountain bike, and I think I managed to top that out at 45 km/h on a downhill with a backwind. Best average speed was around 25 km/h. This translates to 28 and 15.5 MPH respectively. I'm positive that I could attain a higher average and top end speed on my Miele road bike, though I doubt very much that I would average much more than 25 MPH (40 km/h) - 20 km/h would be more realistic, and seeing anything much over 35 MPH would be a very rare occurance.


Would it not be preferable to instead promote adoption of the idea that bicyclists' use of public roads is a right by virtue of their being members of the public?

Licensing and registration are warranted only where the degree of danger the vehicle presents to the rest of the public is great enough. We could debate whether that's the case for cyclists, but let's not for now.


Actually, licensing and registration are warranted when revenue is needed to pay for roads. Such revenue could be used to expand the shoulders on roads for bike use, while at the same time legitimizing the use of bicycles on highways as a valid mode of transport. Using your argument as simply being a member of the public, one could then conclude that the riding of a lawn mower or ATV vehicle on public roads should also be acceptable. Or even a skateboard.

[chipcom]

Cars driven too slow on the freeway by old farts get ticketed all the time simply for going too slow and disrupting the flow of traffic.

Don't you think 'all the time' is a bit of an overstatement? 'Once in a great while' would be more accurate, at least everywhere that I've lived over the last 30 years or so.

[Helmet Head]

Since most bicycles are designed to be operated at speeds considerably higher than 25 mph (I've hit 55 on mine

I have a spedometer on my Raleigh Tarantula mountain bike, and I think I managed to top that out at 45 km/h on a downhill with a backwind. Best average speed was around 25 km/h. This translates to 28 and 15.5 MPH respectively. I'm positive that I could attain a higher average and top end speed on my Miele road bike, though I doubt very much that I would average much more than 25 MPH (40 km/h) - 20 km/h would be more realistic, and seeing anything much over 35 MPH would be a very rare occurance.

Average speeds are irrelevant. There are a lot of steep hills in and around San Diego. I hit 35-45 mph regularly. Upper 40s and above 50 is rarer, but happens. The point is, the bicycle design makes it capable of being operated at speeds much higher than 25. That means a bicycle is not a designated slow moving vehicle as are all the bulldozers, tractors, and golf carts which are designed to NEVER be operated faster than 25 mph (for most the upper limit is lower than 25).

[sbhikes]

I don't think it's very safe to operate a bicycle over about 30 mph. Even at 25 that is fast enough to get yourself killed should a technical failure or some other non-collision accident happen.

I think the bicycle is normally ridden at about 15mph give or take. That is certainly faster than my average, and probably faster than the overall average, but it's a pretty close guess.

Since that's about as fast as you can reasonably expect most of them to go, I think that the roadway system out to be usable for vehicles that go that speed. Or at least the roadway accommodations should degrade gracefully and not leave those users in a lurch.

In other words, I'm trying to think about this as how you think about designing a web site according to usability, accessibility and standards compliance. Everyone should visit the same web site, but depending upon the platform you are using to visit it, it may work differently. But it should all function and work for everyone. A well designed web site is not broken for people on platform A or B, or low vision or blind people, or people using a phone or PDA, or a text-only browser. The same web site should be usable to all.

I think the roads should be usable for all. Thinking of bicyclists as slow-moving vehicles (e.g. equal to golf carts) is sort of equivalent to putting a big "Works best in Inernet Explorer at 1024x768 resolution" out there and us with our Safari browsers on 800x600 resolution just meekly accepting that we can't use the site.

"Our web logs indicate that most of our visitors use IE, so that is the only audience we need to worry about." is much the same as saying "Well, most of the people out there are driving cars, so automobile traffic is all we have to design for." Forgetting of course that if you design for only one audience that is the only audience you will get.

You see this situation all the time out in the sprawl. Those huge long ramp-like lanes, lanes too narrow to be shared safely or comfortably, bike lanes that just disappear into intersections that cannot be safely negotiated by bicycle by the average person, or bad bike lanes that don't work at all.

I just mean to say with all this that we cannot be complacent and allow bad road design to happen without standing up for our needs. I don't care if you prefer bike lanes or wide outside lanes or what, but to simply say "well, we accept we are lesser users of the system (because we're so slow) so we'll just make do with something that doesn't really work very well" is not good bike advocacy. A tractor can do this because he won't be on the road for very long. But I use the roads every day.

[chipcom]

Average speeds are irrelevant. There are a lot of steep hills in and around San Diego. I hit 35-45 mph regularly. Upper 40s and above 50 is rarer, but happens. The point is, the bicycle design makes it capable of being operated at speeds much higher than 25. That means a bicycle is not a designated slow moving vehicle as are all the bulldozers, tractors, and golf carts which are designed to NEVER be operated faster than 25 mph (for most the upper limit is lower than 25).

All hail Super Serge, masterba...err...biker

[I-Like-To-Bike]

There are a lot of steep hills in and around San Diego. I hit 35-45 mph regularly. Upper 40s and above 50 is rarer, but happens. The point is...
Uh Huh; Yup All hail Super Serge, Master of Bike Safety and Advocate of same. Chipcom, you had it right the first time; what a http://deephousepage.com/smilies/jerkit5.gif

[genec]

Actually Serge is right... now all he has to do is just arrange it so it is downhill on both legs of my commute so I can always do 35-45MPH...

Opps, so much for the reality of geography and physics...

[Helmet Head]

Since that's about as fast as you can reasonably expect most of them to go, I think that the roadway system out to be usable for vehicles that go that speed. Or at least the roadway accommodations should degrade gracefully and not leave those users in a lurch.
Diane, the non-freeway roadway system IS designed to be used by all kinds of vehicles, including those that cannot go any faster than 10-15 mph (like a bulldozer, tractor, horse and buggy, and most cyclists). Don't let the fact that most vehicles happen to be driven faster than that much of time fool you into thinking otherwise.


I think the roads should be usable for all.
What makes you think they aren't usable for all? The fact that some people choose not to learn how to use them safely does not mean they are not usable.


Thinking of bicyclists as slow-moving vehicles (e.g. equal to golf carts) is sort of equivalent to putting a big "Works best in Inernet Explorer at 1024x768 resolution" out there and us with our Safari browsers on 800x600 resolution just meekly accepting that we can't use the site.
Your analogy applies only to freeways. "Safaris" (bikes) can be ridden on all the non-freeway roads, as long as the operator bothers to learn how to operate Safaris."


Forgetting of course that if you design for only one audience that is the only audience you will get.
If you believe the roads are not designed for all types of vehicles, including bikes and other slow moving vehicles, but just for cars, it's no wonder you're uncomfortable cycling on them without facilities. But that's a problem with your beliefs, not the road design, which works great for cycling, if you bother to learn how to do it.


You see this situation all the time out in the sprawl. Those huge long ramp-like lanes, lanes too narrow to be shared safely or comfortably, bike lanes that just disappear into intersections that cannot be safely negotiated by bicycle by the average person, or bad bike lanes that don't work at all.
In traffic cycling courses anyone can learn how to operate his or her bicycle safely, effectively and comfortably on all kinds of roads, including those with "long ramp-like lanes, lanes too narrow to be shared, etc." Can they all be navigated safely by the untrained average person on a bicycle? No, but again, that's a problem with the average person choosing not to learn how to do it, not a problem inherent with the design, since any average person with the training can do it safely, effectively and comfortably.

An expectation that roadways should be designed so that cycling in traffic is as simple and mindless as walking on a sidewalk is unrealistic and impractical.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

In traffic cycling courses anyone can learn how to operate his or her bicycle safely, effectively and comfortably on all kinds of roads, including those with "long ramp-like lanes, lanes too narrow to be shared, etc." Can they all be navigated safely by the untrained average person on a bicycle? No, but again, that's a problem with the average person choosing not to learn how to do it, not a problem inherent with the design, since any average person with the training can do it safely, effectively and comfortably.
You've got to do a lot better than just making wild donkey claims about the "effectiveness" of your favorite traffic cycling "training" course having the slightest effect on so-called "untrained average person". Show some evidence, other than your own gullibility, of your "traffic cycling course's" effectivness in altering a single f-ing metric of safety, comfort or satisfaction for any population of cyclists, let alone any previously "untrained average person".

Save your goof ball sales pitch for the dumb clucks who take you seriously.

[sbhikes]

Look there are low vision people whose method of using web pages is to select all, paste into Word and then change the font size to some enormous amount just so they can read it. You can say that this works, but does it work well? Not really. It's a hack.

A lot of your methods, Serge, are hacks as well. Steely-eyed gazes. Alpha dog mentality. Riding down the center so as to enforce certain behavior, peering constantly in your mirror, then darting quickly out of the way. These are hacks. No other drivers operating their vehicles at the normal speed they were made to work at have to peer nervously in the mirror in order to not hold up the other users. They don't have their special use lanes disappear for no reason. They don't have to visit web sites to ask for advice on how to use the roads as is.

Face it. The user interface of our road system by and large sucks. It's ugly, it's congested, it makes cycling prohibitive for all but the most hardy (45 mph, yeah right), and not even drivers are happy with it.

I just want to offer up that things could be better somehow. And possibly they could be better if we didn't just cringe away into the background with our apologetic slow-moving vehicle monicker, and our sorry little excuses for the poor design of roads (oh, it would cost too much and we aren't worth it and we can just be tougher and go faster and take more classes.) I'm not satisfied with that.

[Helmet Head]

Do you guys not have hills? I easily get to 35 mph on my mtn bike with knobbies just coasting. In a tuck on my road bike and I'm into the 40s. Super Serge? Hardly!


A lot of your methods, Serge, are hacks as well. Steely-eyed gazes. Alpha dog mentality. Riding down the center so as to enforce certain behavior, peering constantly in your mirror, then darting quickly out of the way. These are hacks.

If they are "hacks", Diane, then they teach similar hacks in defensive driving and motorcycle schools. The fact that you don't recognize these techniques as normal behavior in traffic and only refer to them with ridicule says much more about you then their applicability.


They don't have to visit web sites to ask for advice on how to use the roads as is.
That's because from bulldozer drivers to motorcyclists to truck drivers, they all receive special training for their types of vehicles. Cyclists? Nope. Just learn to ride a bike in the playground and off you go. No wonder you're intimidated. With all due respect, you probably don't know what you're doing in traffic, so it feels out of place for you, like you don't belong, like it's designed for somebody else. What you can't seem to get your mind around is the fact that all these issues are internal to your brain, and that's where the solutions lie, not outside of you.


it makes cycling prohibitive for all but the most hardy (45 mph, yeah right)
First of all, hitting anything close to 45 mph is not anywhere close to required to operate safely and comfortably in traffic. 10-12 mph on the flats is all that is required, if that. Second, hitting 45 mph has nothing to do with being hardy, and everything to do with coasting down a steep hill in a tuck on a bike with low rolling resistance. I can't believe how hung up you guys are on this.


I'm not satisfied with that.
I wonder if that's because you haven't given training a fair shake. Have you had any training? Have you read any books? What's next? No one should have to go to med school before they can perform surgery? :rolleyes:

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I wonder if that's because you haven't given training a fair shake. Have you had any training? Have you read any books? What's next? No one should have to go to med school before they can perform surgery? :rolleyes:
Enough of the BS about cyclist "training!" How 'bout some facts! What training? What training effectiveness? Sez who? You? You have been typing through your rear end forever about the effectivess of Forester brand training or some other magical training potion without ever providing a clue to how you determined this so-called effectiveness.

[DigitalQuirk]

Average speeds are irrelevant. There are a lot of steep hills in and around San Diego. I hit 35-45 mph regularly. Upper 40s and above 50 is rarer, but happens. The point is, the bicycle design makes it capable of being operated at speeds much higher than 25. That means a bicycle is not a designated slow moving vehicle as are all the bulldozers, tractors, and golf carts which are designed to NEVER be operated faster than 25 mph (for most the upper limit is lower than 25).

Average speed is very relevant, as it takes into account both uphills and downhills; headwinds as well as tailwinds. The fact that you can exceed 25 MPH doesn't necessarily mean your bike was designed to sustain that type of speed over an extended period of time; in much the same line, a tractor can easily exceed 25 MPH given sufficient downhill grade in neutral with a good run prior to cresting the hill. Just because you can doesn't mean it's wise to do so.

[bkrownd]

catfight! rrrrreeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

[bkrownd]

Face it. The user interface of our road system by and large sucks. It's ugly, it's congested, it makes cycling prohibitive for all but the most hardy (45 mph, yeah right), and not even drivers are happy with it.


I thought those recumbents were supposed to be super-fast.