I am not a slow moving vehicle

[DigitalQuirk]

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

They're a little difficult to see below the hoodline of a Ford Explorer or Hemi RAM. ;)

[sgtsmile]

A tractor is not a Ferrari.

But sometimes a tractor is a Lamborghini....

see link....


http://www.samedeutz-fahr.com/lamborghini/

Enjoy! :D

[sgtsmile]

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.


Heh, you need a bigger hill!

I have cracked 74 kmph downhill on the mtn bike, and used to routinely rip down hydro cuts at about 35 to 40 kmph. (5 long spin classes a week for 6 months helped with that....) Years ago on the old road bike I broke 90kmph on a biggish hill we have near here. Good for a giggle.

The other day, on my cyclocross bike, i yanked another biker up a hill (he was tucked in nicely) over 1.5km long at about 42kmph and then he, the smart ass, swung out and blew me away (we linked up later and had a giggle about how each of us was not really planning a hammer ride but both had a lot of fun with the impromptu push - heck, I pushed hard enough to almost puke. It was great....) And the next day, I got dusted by someone cruising at about 45 to 50 kmph on a tri-bike, in a vicious crosswind - I know that cause I paced him for about 200 m and said stuff that! Not today.

I say this NOT to brag (cause I am no where near as fast as the local race group is, not by a long shot) but to point out the simple fact that bike speeds vary depending on the rider, the bike being used, the PURPOSE of the ride (commutes tend to be slower, people training for races tend to be faster, etc), and, no kidding, the mood of the rider and energy levels that day and the weather and the wind etc etc etc. Lumping bikes into one restricted catagory based on speed does not work.

[sgtsmile]

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.


Many bikes cannot. But for for rest, there is the Tour de France..... (sorry, NOTHING personal, I am in a silly mood tonight...)

[sbhikes]

Sorry, but I go UP the hills. Almost none of them are long and straight enough to get going very fast. I also seem to have a head wind both ways on my route this time of year.

No, recumbents are not fast. Some are, but most are not. And like anything else, it really depends on the engine.

[Bruce Rosar]

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...A riding buddy of mine has a bike that's almost identical to the ones raced by Lance's team in the Tour de France (http://www.letour.fr/2005/TDF/LIVE/us/2100/) (the paint job is different). Lance's average speed over the 3,607 km (2,241 mile) course last year was 41.654 km/h (25+ mph) (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=45315).

[I-Like-To-Bike]

A riding buddy of mine has a bike that's almost identical to the ones raced by Lance's team in the Tour de France (http://www.letour.fr/2005/TDF/LIVE/us/2100/) (the paint job is different). Lance's average speed over the 3,607 km (2,241 mile) course last year was 41.654 km/h (25+ mph) (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=45315).
And today is the Indianapolis 500. And at NASCAR and the Formula 1 tracks the "cars" go Real Fast. Is that relevant to driving a car on the highway at safe speeds within the capability of the typical driver? What DO you smoke, Mr. Rosar?

[sgtsmile]

And today is the Indianapolis 500. And at NASCAR and the Formula 1 tracks the "cars" go Real Fast. Is that relevant to driving a car on the highway at safe speeds within the capability of the typical driver? What DO you smoke, Mr. Rosar?

He is smoking nothing. The question was about bike design, not rider ability. ANY decent road bike is designed to cruise at speeds that the average cyclist will only hit on down hills. Before attacking, try reading :p

[Bekologist]

the potential breakneck speeds acheivable on a bicycle are not relevant to bikes as transportation versus what an average cyclist does on level ground, as far as roadway warrants are concerned.

sure, bikes can roll fast, but the pedalling bit is what usually makes them work. pedalled on level ground is the defining and limiting factor that should be considered when looking at bikes as transportation, not the maximum downhill speeds attainable by fearless bikers.

In addition to my bike, maybe i need a fairing if i'm one of the %99 percent of the bicyclists out there mr head accuses of riding incorrectly? kick my max speed up a bit? I've personally done over 50 MPH on a fully loaded touring bike as well as my road bikes; NEXT, THE INTERSTATE LANES ARE WITHIN MY GRASP! ~

Even on hills around Seattle where some of the balls out cyclists do 30-35 in the city, there are many bikers riding the brakes and doing about half that.

[Helmet Head]

the potential breakneck speeds acheivable on a bicycle are not relevant to bikes as transportation versus what an average cyclist does on level ground, as far as roadway warrants are concerned.
Yes, but the achievable speeds are relevant when discussing whether bike design prevents cyclists from ever traveling more than 25 mph, which is a factor that is required to designate it as a "slow moving vehicle", at least in CA. Since discussing that was the context in which this point was brought up, it is relevant.


Even on hills around Seattle where some of the balls out cyclists do 30-35 in the city, there are many bikers riding the brakes and doing about half that.
You can use the brakes on a Bugatti Veyron (top speed 250 mph) to stop it. 0 mph. That doesn't mean it should be designated as a slow moving vehicle. :rolleyes:

[Bekologist]

comparing a Bugatti to a bicycle or a tractor, that's all you, head.

[DigitalQuirk]

Heh, you need a bigger hill!

I have cracked 74 kmph downhill on the mtn bike, and used to routinely rip down hydro cuts at about 35 to 40 kmph. (5 long spin classes a week for 6 months helped with that....) Years ago on the old road bike I broke 90kmph on a biggish hill we have near here. Good for a giggle.


My car will hit 210 km/h (130 MPH) before the governor kicks in and cuts off the fuel supply; there are some cars on the road today that can exceed that speed. However, the vast majority of economy cars and trucks on the road today can't do much better than 145 km/h (90 MPH) on anything but a downhill, and those are usually governed at 100-110 MPH in case the driver does encounter such a hill. Thus, it would be ludicrous for me to use my car as an example of what most vehicles are capable of. The average cyclist does not go to 5 long spin classes a week for 6 months. There is also the fact that you're stating some of your best downhill bomb speeds as if they are indicitive of what you and your bike ought to be capable of when riding along an average highway. My car can easily maintain a cruising speed of 105 km/h going up a hill or down; with a headwind or a tailwind. That is half of the maximum speed it is capable of. I seriously doubt you could maintain half of your best speed on your mountain bike (37 km/h) going up that exact same hill you attained 74 km/h on going down; even a quarter of that would be a challenge for even the best cyclist. Going back up that hill, you would definitely be a slow moving vehicle; no ifs, ands, or buts.

A riding buddy of mine has a bike that's almost identical to the ones raced by Lance's team in the Tour de France (the paint job is different). Lance's average speed over the 3,607 km (2,241 mile) course last year was 41.654 km/h (25+ mph).

Barely over 25 MPH, and we're also talking about a bike that most cyclists don't ride. Most motorists don't drive Corvettes and Vipers either.

Yes, but the achievable speeds are relevant when discussing whether bike design prevents cyclists from ever traveling more than 25 mph, which is a factor that is required to designate it as a "slow moving vehicle", at least in CA. Since discussing that was the context in which this point was brought up, it is relevant.

However, a tractor could exceed 25 MPH given the right conditions. One could design and build a custom tractor that could hit 70 MPH on a downhill bomb if the driver went into an aero tuck. The simple fact of the matter is, the majority of cyclists AND the majority of tractors usually don't exceed 25 MPH, which is why both ought to be designated as slow moving vehicles if they are to be used on a public road. Plain and simple.

[sgtsmile]

There is also the fact that you're stating some of your best downhill bomb speeds as if they are indicitive of what you and your bike ought to be capable of when riding along an average highway. My car can easily maintain a cruising speed of 105 km/h going up a hill or down; with a headwind or a tailwind. That is half of the maximum speed it is capable of. I seriously doubt you could maintain half of your best speed on your mountain bike (37 km/h) going up that exact same hill you attained 74 km/h on going down; even a quarter of that would be a challenge for even the best cyclist. Going back up that hill, you would definitely be a slow moving vehicle; no ifs, ands, or buts.


Ok, a few things here.

I take exception to your first sentence in this reply I quoted above. If you recall, it was in response to this, and I quote directly, that I wrote it: "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." Your words I seem to recall.

When I stated my best downhill bomb speed, I was merely copying what you did and quipping that you need a better hill. If you think that I seriously intended someone reading that to believe that I could sustain that on a regular highway, you think more highly of me that I do.

On an average road ride, my average speed is in the high twenties low thirties for most of the ride (that is in kmph) if I am solo riding. I have sustained averages of over 45kmph for short bursts (up to about 10 km) up and down hills when the ride is going well and I am trying to catch someone. Those rides are not the norm or I would be racing.

I never once claimed that a hill I could hit 74kmph on a downhill on would be one I could go up at 37kmph. You did that for me. Stop putting words in my mouth now. (for the record, that hill has been climbed by my at about 20kmph - considering it is gravel and rutted, that is not too bad.)

And I quote again: "The average cyclist does not go to 5 long spin classes a week for 6 months."

Good for the average cyclist. It was not the average cyclist you were taking a cheap pot shot at, but me.

All of this is irrelevant anyways.

My whole initial post was in response to the assertion that bikes are not designed for those kinds of speeds. THAT is an utter load of crap. Some bikes are not, that is true. But many bikes that the readers of this and other forums ride ARE capable of being ridden at high speeds (even if many cannot or will not do so). Whether a person can or will move a bike that fast is not the issue, the issue the ridciulous assertion that they cannot be riden thus.

[DigitalQuirk]

Ok, a few things here.


This thread is about whether or not a cyclist is a slow-moving vehicle. I simply brought up counter-points to yours and further illustrated why bicyclists should be considered slow moving vehicles. It would seem that you lost touch with the central focus to this discussion.

[sgtsmile]

This thread is about whether or not a cyclist is a slow-moving vehicle. I simply brought up counter-points to yours and further illustrated why bicyclists should be considered slow moving vehicles. It would seem that you lost touch with the central focus to this discussion.

Bikes are not slow moving vehicles. On this I agree completely with HH. All I was responding to were questionable statements about bike design.

For the record, in Ontario:
Slow moving vehicles

(2) The following are slow moving vehicles:

1. Farm tractors and self-propelled implements of husbandry.

2. Vehicles (other than bicycles, motor assisted bicycles and disabled motor vehicles in tow) that are not capable of attaining and sustaining a speed greater than 40 kilometres per hour on level ground when operated on a highway. 1994, c. 28, s. 1.

Bicycles are not slow moving vehicles under law, and under many real world conditions, where I come from.

[Bruce Rosar]

Going back up that hill, you would definitely be a slow moving vehicle... Some heavy motor vehicles are also slow under some conditions normally encountered. For example, I once stopped at a stop light behind a fully loaded cement delivery truck on a flat section of my old commute route. That truck was so slow to accelerate that I passed it and made the next light before it turned red (that truck didn't get there in time).

Barely over 25 MPH... But over. If 25 isn't good enough, the Battle Mountain speed trap data (http://wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2005/results.htm) shows bicyclists traveling over 45 mph on level ground.

...and we're also talking about a bike that most cyclists don't ride. We're also talking about a cyclist that most bikes will never be ridden by. The point is that a bike can be ridden at 25+ MPH over 2,200+ miles while climbing 105,000+ vertical feet. The bike isn't the limiting factor; the limiting factors are the individual rider and the environment at that time and place.

One could design and build a custom tractor...Now we're talking about a vehicle that no farmer has. Tractors are considerably slower than most road cyclists on level ground, and get dropped like a hot potato on downhills.

... cyclists... usually don't exceed 25 MPH... Around here, cyclists usually exceed 25 MPH without even pedaling (while they're going down the hills) :D

[Helmet Head]

However, a tractor could exceed 25 MPH given the right conditions.
No, the design would have to change. A bicycle can exceed 25 mph without changing the design.

One could design and build a custom tractor that could hit 70 MPH on a downhill bomb if the driver went into an aero tuck.
If a particular tractor was so modified, then it would not be designed as a slow moving vehicle either. Like a bicycle.

The point is that you don't need to customize a bicycle to make it exceed 25 mph, but you do have to customize a slow moving vehicle to make it exceed it 25 mph (or it wouldn't be a slow moving vehicle).


The simple fact of the matter is, the majority of cyclists AND the majority of tractors usually don't exceed 25 MPH, which is why both ought to be designated as slow moving vehicles if they are to be used on a public road. Plain and simple.
That's a separate but albeit related issue. Like I've said before, a tractor is always a designated slow moving vehicle (unless it's customized to be able to exceed 25). A person operating a bicycle on the other hand is only subject to slow moving vehicle laws when it is being operated slower than other traffic at that time and place.

[Bekologist]

i was stuck behind a guy driving a slow moving front end loader as i bicycled down a street by the railroad yard. He then totally stopped in the middle of the lane. As i passed on his left, i saw he was on his cell phone, totally distracted from the task at hand.

i saw two drivers doing the same thing this morning, totally stopped in the lane of traffic and blocking, just talking on their cellphones...

bikes move slow. 15 miles per average slow on level ground as far as commuters or roadway warrants are concerned. should they be permanetly 'classified' as slow moving vehicles, probably not. is the reality of bicycles being slow moving realtive to motorized traffic mostly true? yes.

can bikes move fast downhill? yes. Can bikes bypass traffic congestion in a velotransit lane? yes. do all these add up to anything? probably.

[bmclaughlin807]

Personally, I feel that the reflective slow-moving vehicle triangle legitimizes the use of bicycles as a means of transportation on public roads originally designed for motor vehicles in the eyes of the motoring public.

This is an excerpt from Minnesota law, but there are probably similar items in other states:

Subd. 2. Prohibition on use. The use of this emblem
is restricted to the slow-moving vehicles specified in
subdivision 1 and its use on any other type of vehicle or
stationary object on the highway is prohibited.


Therefore: If your vehicle (a bicycle, in this case) is not listed (it's not) ... it's ILLEGAL to use the sign!

Interestingly, horse-drawn vehicles ARE listed, while bicycles are NOT.

[Bekologist]

ask yourself the next time you ride, EVERY time a car passes you by,

"am i slow moving compared to the majority of the roadway users, irrespective of the legal definition?"

[sgtsmile]

ask yourself the next time you ride, EVERY time a car passes you by,

"am i slow moving compared to the majority of the roadway users, irrespective of the legal definition?"

Of course, in a practical sense, yes. However, I believe the laws are usually written the way they are because cyclists are expected to act as "regular" vehicles do, rather than as vehicles that are intended for shorter on road use.

[Bekologist]

That's very presumptous of you, sgtsmile. Bikes are considered 'regular' road users?

Hardly.

Again, irrespective of the legal definition or your personal notions, the pragmatic views of bikes in traffic.

[noisebeam]

ask yourself the next time you ride, EVERY time a car passes you by,

"am i slow moving compared to the majority of the roadway users, irrespective of the legal definition?"
If I asked myself this when I (rarely) drive my motor vehicle always at posted speed limits, the answer would be 'yes'.
Al

[chipcom]

What DO you smoke, Mr. Rosar?

More importantly, why ain't you sharing it with the rest of us! :D

[I-Like-To-Bike]

More importantly, why ain't you sharing it with the rest of us! :D
Yeah! You share your smoke induced bicycling legal theories. Why not the whole enchilada?

[billh]

We are slower but we are not slow-moving vehicles. We are operating our vehicles at their intended speed at or near the maximum speed and on the surfaces for which they were designed to be used (not on the factory floor or on the farm), and for the same purposes as all other faster consumer-use vehicles. So we ought to be entitled to the same considerations.

We should not be "tolerated" like tobacco trucks. We should not have to pull over for everyone who is faster. Our needs should not be at the bottom of the pile, or ignored altogether, when roads are built. I make a hell of a lot of money and have no write-offs so I deserve my tax money going where it helps me. And I deserve a subsidy as well, while I'm at it. Somebody should give me tax credits for the pollutants I'm not spewing.

If believe cyclists should be accomodated on public roads, but I'm not sure what that has to do with not wanting to be designated "slow-moving vehicles". Just to play devils advocate, if you want roads designed with bicycles in mind, then what is stopping farmers from wanting roads designed for combine harvesters, motorcyclists wanting roads designed for them, etc. Sure, we pay taxes, but so does everyone else, well except for the CEO's, but that is another story. Being labeled a "slow moving vehicle" doesn't hinder my ability to use the road. Changing the label to "human powered vehicle" doesn't help my ability to use the road. What DOES help by ability? Well, I guess the same old, same old, more education of the motoring public and better designed roads. I think that legal decision above summed up the relevant points, we ARE traffic, whether you want to call it slow-moving or not.

My point in emphasizing the "slow-moving" aspect in previous threads is that we do NOT have the same legal rights as motorized traffic to the road. Motor vehicles do not have to ride to the right when "practicable", in general. This is to counter the extreme advocates who imply otherwise.

[Blackberry]

A spontaneous thread-inspired haiku:

I watch the sun float
over the sleeping hill
cycling slowly through the mist

[DigitalQuirk]

Now we're talking about a vehicle that no farmer has. Tractors are considerably slower than most road cyclists on level ground, and get dropped like a hot potato on downhills.


I assure you, one could easily exceed 25 MPH on a tractor given that one accelerates to the crest of a sufficiently steep hill at top speed and then put the tractor into neutral; there is nothing on the tractor to prevent it from exceeding 25 MPH by the time it hits the bottom of the hill. However, the majority of farmers use the engine for braking for reasons of safety.